|
Edith? Gross, man.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Edith had a hard life. No reason for ruining her and Stoner's daughter's tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
The Sellout has won the Booker if anyone's interested e: bloody Yanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:The Sellout has won the Booker if anyone's interested Nice! I'm reading Beatty's first book The White Boy Shuffle, right now and its pretty good. I'll have to check out this book, will be interesting to see how he's developed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
homemaster's out thirty bucks
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Cool. I still have His Bloody Project, All that Man Is and Do Not Say We Have Nothing to read through but The Sellout was my favorite as of yet. I'm surprised it won though, I think Eileen was better written.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:Someone tell me what the best Don Quixote translation is. Old lyle posts in the ew book thread told me that the smollet translation from like 1755 is good and has cool footnotes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
I'm just going to learn Spanish
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Harold Bloom rates the Edith Grossman version if that swings it for you
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:I'm just going to learn Spanish My wife did that - it is old timey Spanish and quite difficult or else I might try it myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
From what I understand, the main text isn't too different from modern Spanish, closer than say Shakespeare is to modern English, but Don Quixote speaks in a weird old timey affected way because of how his brain got broken by chivalry books, which is cool and also makes me want a translation that captures some of that element which I'm not sure many do? Probably just going to go Bloom approved, the man has mostly good opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
The thing is though that when you're translating a 16th century book, you can't really use a modern register for the narrative, so you have limited options for the even more antiquated register; making Don Quixote talk like Chaucer would be too farcical. IIRC Rutherford mostly used labyrinthine word salad for Quixote's soliloquies. I read a good article comparing the translations, but I can't for the life of me find it now. I thought it was in the New Yorker but maybe not. I would definitely recommend Nabokov's lectures on the novel, I think they were pretty illuminating. Also, part I is A Bad Book for the most part (only the beginning really works) and while part II is fine, I'd still say I mostly learned to be suspicious of non-Hispanohablante fans of Cervantes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:while part II is fine, I'd still say I mostly learned to be suspicious of non-Hispanohablante fans of Cervantes. Part 2 is a masterpiece of meta-fiction centuries before the concept even existed I've always theorized the reason everyone remembers Don Quixote attacking the windmill is because its on page 60 and most people never got any further
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I've always theorized the reason everyone remembers Don Quixote attacking the windmill is because its on page 60 and most people never got any further stunning and original theory
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Officer Sandvich posted:stunning and original theory Thanks, I will accept either an MLA citation or direct link when you use it in your own discussions
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Part 2 is a masterpiece of meta-fiction centuries before the concept even existed I don't know about that, but certainly Cervantes allowed himself to write a more measured and thoughtful book after part I.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:I don't know about that, but certainly Cervantes allowed himself to write a more measured and thoughtful book after part I. Its about Don Quijote returning to the road because he was disdainful of the misconceptions about himself that were produced by part 1 and being toyed with by people who read the first book and wanted to see the famous Don Quijote make a fool of himself like in the book they read
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
I know what it's about. And it's very easy to recognise the metafiction narrative, because that's basically a children's TV trope by now. But the weird fractal love stories of the first part already point towards that, and I think thematically the idea that Quixote can only be "defeated" within his romance is the key. The metafiction is an extension of that, partially necessitated by Avellaneda's part II.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Actually Don, Quijote numero uno is, good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
I mean, I also prefer the second book, but saying the first part is bad is just ridiculous. Even the meta-narrative or w/e is already there, but largely told thru all those interspersed stories, in which ppl pretend they're somebody else and get hailed as heroes (even if they gently caress up) the likes of which have disappeared from the face of the earth, while don Quixote just gets laughed at for doing the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Hi literature thread. I finished Faust part one (Kaufmann translation) last night. Some parts were a little hard to follow due to me probably being a big moron who doesn't really read fiction in any form, but I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
What prose version of the Odyssey should I get?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
The Rieu translation of the Iliad is really easy to read, I'm sure it's the same for his Odyssey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
THE PWNER posted:What prose version of the Odyssey should I get? why would you get a prose version of the Odyssey
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:why would you get a prose version of the Odyssey
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Because he doesn't want to read a verse version, obv.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:why would you get a prose version of the Odyssey
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:Because he doesn't want to read a verse version, obv. thats dumb tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:thats dumb tho Why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:Why? The narrative of the Odyssey is inseparable from the structure in which it was written. We are already getting a watered down version of the poem just by virtue of having it translated into English, removing even the pretense of the poetic structure of the work basically annihilates the Odyssey as a work of literature. Might as just watch the Wishbone version at that point. Its like a prose version of The Divine Comedy. Even if the translation loses the rhyming scheme of the Dantean tercet, having the poem still translated in verse at least allows you to appreciate the synthesis of form and content that Dante was famous for. A prose version is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
I feel like a prose translation of the Odyssey would be better than the Wishbone adaptation, personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:I feel like a prose translation of the Odyssey would be better than the Wishbone adaptation, personally. It might be better but it also wouldn't be the Odyssey You cannot change the genre of a work and still consider it the same work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
A verse translation of the Odyssey isn't the Odyssey either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:A verse translation of the Odyssey isn't the Odyssey either. It's the closest that can be reasonably obtained by most people. There is a difference between making sacrifices due to the practicality of trying to read the original work and simply avoiding the best possible alternative. There are practical reasons to read a work in translation as an approximation of the original work, but there aren't any practical reasons to read a work transferred into a different genre as an approximation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:It's the closest that can be reasonably obtained by most people. There is a difference between making sacrifices due to the practicality of trying to read the original work and simply avoiding the best possible alternative. Prose and verse aren't genres. The practical reason to read a prose translation of the Odyssey is because it's enjoyable, and perhaps may be more enjoyable to some than a verse translation. The I Read the Odyssey committee should only award trophies to those who read the original Greek.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:Prose and verse aren't genres. Alright if we're gonna get ENG101 about it, you cannot change the literary form of a text and still consider it the same work either quote:The practical reason to read a prose translation of the Odyssey is because it's enjoyable, and perhaps may be more enjoyable to some than a verse translation. I would not consider personal enjoyment to be the highest factor for considering what form to read a classic work in. If I like to read wikipedia summaries more than the text itself I would not consider the summary more meritorious because I enjoyed it more. If a work in a singular form has tremendous historical value there is a point to trying to get the most essential version of the form available. The Odyssey is not important because of the story. The Odyssey is important because of the craft of the telling. If you are not getting even an attempt at recreating that experience there's not much point in reading it. If you want to read a enjoyable prose story about the myth of Odysseus just go find that, not the Odyssey. quote:The I Read the Odyssey committee should only award trophies to those who read the original Greek. Its not about having bragging points about reading the "real" Odyssey, its about the fact that a large part of the point of the Odyssey is that its in verse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:Prose and verse aren't genres. c'mon man you don't seriously believe nothing of value is lost when you mangle the odyssey from verse into prose e: also this Mel Mudkiper posted:I would not consider personal enjoyment to be the highest factor for considering what form to read a classic work in. If I like to read wikipedia summaries more than the text itself I would not consider the summary more meritorious because I enjoyed it more. If a work in a singular form has tremendous historical value there is a point to trying to get the most essential version of the form available. chernobyl kinsman fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Cloks posted:I'm surprised it won though, I think Eileen was better written. Agreed. But Eileen was also a one read wonder. That said, The Sellout won as an ideological choice, not because it's the best written or most interesting book. And yeah I'm out of pocket 20 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Alright if we're gonna get ENG101 about it, you cannot change the literary form of a text and still consider it the same work either And no translation can be considered "the same work" as the original. quote:I would not consider personal enjoyment to be the highest factor for considering what form to read a classic work in. What is it, then? quote:If I like to read wikipedia summaries more than the text itself I would not consider the summary more meritorious because I enjoyed it more. If a work in a singular form has tremendous historical value there is a point to trying to get the most essential version of the form available. Let's not pretend a Wikipedia summary is anything resembling a translation of a book. quote:The Odyssey is not important because of the story. The Odyssey is important because of the craft of the telling. If you are not getting even an attempt at recreating that experience there's not much point in reading it. If you want to read a enjoyable prose story about the myth of Odysseus just go find that, not the Odyssey. And just how is a prose translation of the Odyssey not exactly an enjoyable prose story about the myth of Odysseus? quote:Its not about having bragging points about reading the "real" Odyssey, its about the fact that a large part of the point of the Odyssey is that its in verse. But that's obviously not the point of a prose translation of the Odyssey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
bllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:31
|
|
