Why ‘The Odyssey’ Still Enchants Us. Plus . . . 51%

By The Free Press21%

7/11/2026, 10:01:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 24% saturation with 231 hits. Analysis detected 1,573 faulty-reasoning hits from 961 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.2% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,040 of 20,495 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

Welcome back to The Weekend Press ! 
Today, “Little House on the Prairie” passes the test of time with flying colors. 
Suzy Weiss calls Taylor Swift’s wedding “psychotic.” 
Two drinks with Joe Allen, messiah of the anti-AI MAGA-ites. 
And much more! 
But first: What kind of story can still unite the world? 
There was once a time when we all watched the same shows, read the same books, experienced the same stories. 
No longer. 
We live in an age of great abundance—it would take about four years of continuous viewing to watch everything on Netflix—and it’s left the culture fragmented. 
But this summer, one of the world’s ultimate stories—one that launched a thousand adaptations, translations, tributes; one that’s been on curricula for centuries; one you’ll know even if you never read it—is coming to a theater near you. 
Christopher Nolan’s star-studded take on The Odyssey is out Friday. 
And when we were talking about who we wanted to write about this wildly ambitious, culturally unifying blockbuster, one name was top of the list. 
Daniel Mendelsohn started teaching undergraduate seminars on The Odyssey in 2011 at Bard College, where his 81-year-old father decided to attend his course. 
Six years later, he published a memoir about the experience of reading the epic with a father whose interpretation was constantly at odds with his own. 
Then, last year, he released a translation of his own, to great acclaim. 
He, too, can’t get this story out of his head. 
And we’re delighted to have him in our pages to explain why this story has endured for millennia. 
In his piece, he argues that we all see ourselves in its complicated, cunning hero—described, in the epic’s first line, by a word notoriously hard to translate: polytropos . 
Roughly: “Having many turns.” 
“Who among us does not dream of travel, exposure to new places and ideas,” writes Daniel, “while simultaneously craving the stability that comes with having a home and security?” 
Whereas the conflicts of The Iliad feel foreign—with its brutally violent heroes and gods watching war as we now watch the World Cup—we see in Odysseus the great, eternal, and internal battles of being human. 
And once you’ve read Daniel’s essay, you’ll see why he’s the perfect protagonist for one of our greatest living moviemakers.  The Editors 
Second Thought 
Taylor Swift has confirmed absolutely nothing about her wedding, except that it happened. 
But when you invite more than 1,000 people, details are going to get leaked—and Suzy Weiss pounced on them in the latest episode of Second Thought . 
There was a raffle? 
One of the prizes was a Chevrolet? 
They invited the British TV chef Jamie Oliver? 
Why? 
Along with her co-host Dan Ahdoot , Suzy unpacks it all. 
They also discussed the Korean company bringing your dead relatives back to life, and Team USA’s exit from the World Cup, which Suzy doesn’t care for anyway: “The fields are too big and the people are too small.” 
Don’t miss this hilarious episode. 
You can watch it below or listen wherever you get your podcasts; and for more Suzy, don’t miss her newsletter . 
Knock Knock, It’s Cupid! 
A new batch of ads from single Free Press ers is live on our site! 
Click here to meet a cradle Catholic in Brooklyn, a pop culture savant in Manhattan, or an “accidental professional fundraiser” who likes the outside part of Oreos. 
Your special someone could be just one email away! 
If you’d like to take a chance at Free Press love, write a paragraph that defines you, including your age, where you live, and what you’re looking for, and send it over to Cupid@TheFP.com. 
We’ve published a lot of stories worth catching up on this week, including Kat Rosenfield ’s moving report on the death doula industry and River Page ’s wry observations from an anti-tech conference in Brooklyn. 
Also, Arthur Brooks raised his eyebrows at reports of a Taylor Swift prenup . . . 
How should you spend the rest of your weekend? 
We asked our community manager Ryan Engelhardt for her recommendations . . . 
🍦 Make . . . 
Popsicles. 
Simple, timeless, underrated. 
Who doesn’t love a cold Popsicle on a hot summer day? 
Just grab your favorite juice, pour it into a Popsicle mold, freeze, and voilà. 
If you’re feeling adventurous, mix a few juices together and throw in some fresh fruit. 
If you need a mold, here’s my favorite on Amazon . 
Let’s bring back the lost art of the homemade Popsicle. 
🎵 Listen . . . to “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones . 
I’ll forever think this is one of the coolest and most mysterious songs ever written. 
On the surface, it’s an irresistible groove. 
But listen closely and you’ll hear a story about history, human nature, and the darkness ordinary people are capable of. 
The line “I shouted out who killed the Kennedys? 
/ When after all, it was you and me” is pure genius. 
📖 Read . . . the Free Press Forum . 
The Forum has quickly become one of my favorite corners of the internet. 
Join thousands of other Free Press ers to dig deeper into articles, share ideas, and discover wisdom and unexpected reasons to smile. 
Don’t know where to begin? 
Start by introducing yourself , then add your own recommendations here . 
Last but not least: While we wait for Taylor Swift’s wedding photos, behold the fans who were having a party of their own outside the arena. 
(Sara Konradi for The Washington Post via Getty Images) 
That’s all, folks! 
Have a great weekend. 
The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.0%The Free Press: 2.0%The FP: 6.1%Confirmation Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.3%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%The Free Press: 1.9%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 7.2%The Free Press: 0.6%The FP: 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 1.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.8%The FP: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%The Free Press: 5.9%The FP: 10.1%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.5%The Free Press: 0.2%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%The Free Press: 0.8%The FP: 1.1%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 1.1%The Free Press: 0.7%The FP: 1.4%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 8.6%The Free Press: 6.2%The FP: 10.9%Negativity Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.6%The FP: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.3%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.2%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%The Free Press: 0.7%The FP: 1.7%In-Group Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%The Free Press: 2.1%The FP: 2.0%Halo Effect18.9%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%The Free Press: 1.9%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 4.5%The Free Press: 0.4%The FP: 1.2%Primacy Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 1.0%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.2%The FP: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.7%The Free Press: 1.8%The FP: 3.1%Appeal to Authority2.7%This article: 1.1%The Free Press: 1.0%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma1.1%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.2%The FP: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.3%The Free Press: 3.4%The FP: 8.8%Hasty Generalization9.3%This article: 1.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring1.0%This article: 2.3%The Free Press: 0.5%The FP: 1.3%Bandwagon2.3%This article: 15.0%The Free Press: 3.0%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion15.0%This article: 2.4%The Free Press: 0.7%The FP: 1.6%Begging the Question2.4%This article: 5.5%The Free Press: 1.0%The FP: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.4%The Free Press: 1.4%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal2.4%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.3%The FP: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%The Free Press: 1.9%The FP: 2.3%Unattributed Quote4.4%This article: 0.7%The Free Press: 0.9%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.7%This article: 8.2%The Free Press: 8.0%The FP: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice8.2%This article: 7.8%The Free Press: 1.6%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination7.8%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 0.1%The FP: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Free Press: 1.0%The FP: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 24.0%The Free Press: 4.6%The FP: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…24.0%

961 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers8.8%attributed speech876writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSuzy Weiss • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Mendelsohn • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageThe Editors • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSara Konradi • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageThe Free Press • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Editors

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words27% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+93.6 ptsWriter: 6.4%The Editors: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -24.4 ptsWriter: 24.4%The Editors: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%The Editors: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%The Editors: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.