Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t agree with the Twitter thread, but I do think there are fair criticisms to be made of Wilson’s translation, one of which is that she stretches the meaning of the Greek – up to and including just ignoring certain lines – in order to present a particular view of Odysseus. Richard Whitaker‘s review (published in Acta Classica 63 (2020), pp. 1-15) is quite good on this (as well as on other problems with Wilson’s…
There's fair criticism to be made of most translations. The fallacy begins when one assumes that there is some kind of perfect ideal translation that exists somewhere, that translations can be compared to. Translation, especially literary translation, always involves some amount of arbitrary, artistic parti pris. Wilson's translation involves a lot of formal (preservation of the number of lines, iambic pentameter) an…
>> The two great novelties of Wilson’s Odyssey are the way she represents a group of characters that we might term ‘underdogs’ – notably the Cyclops, and the suitors and their allies – in a sympathetic light,6 while representing Odysseus as, on balance, reprehensible. The big problem, however, with Wilson’s heterodox approach to the characters of the Odyssey is that she can sustain it only by distorting and misrepresenting what the Greek text says.
"Distorting and misrepresenting" an original text to make it sound like its author was saying what the translator wishes to say is not the result of a trade-off like the one you describe and there's no excuse to be found in the absence of a "perfect translation", when nobody ever claimed that absence is a surprise.