Mel Mudkiper posted:

So what are thoughts about the guy claiming to have unmasked Ferrante?

Frankly I think its vaguely misogynistic and pointless as an endeavor and an insult to literature as an art form

ulvir posted:

I agree that was a pretty terrible thing to do when the author themself said "leave me be", but how is it misogynistic?

Mr. Squishy posted:

"Nevermind your stated wishes I, a man, wants to know." You might say he'd probably run an expose if a male author happened to be a secretive recluse but how come nobody's busted up the cabal of people working under the "Thomas Pyncheon" pen name? Case closed.

ulvir posted:

I agree that was a pretty terrible thing to do when the author themself said "leave me be", but how is it misogynistic?

Mr. Squishy posted:

"Nevermind your stated wishes I, a man, wants to know." You might say he'd probably run an expose if a male author happened to be a secretive recluse but how come nobody's busted up the cabal of people working under the "Thomas Pyncheon" pen name? Case closed.

Abalieno posted:

Huh? Is Thomas Pynchon a pseudonym? I always thought he's a reclusive, not that he hides behind a false identity. I thought there were also a number of journalists who successfully found him and got to meet him.

In the case of Ferrante, I do not approve the episode but, first it's a pseudonym. So you don't even know in principle if it's a woman or a guy.

On the larger issue I think that using a pseudonym obtains the exact opposite effect: you create curiosity toward the identity. It becomes a puzzle to crack and eventually you can expect someone will. I'm not saying that I approve the action, just that you have to expect it. It's like Spiderman and John Jonah Jameson. You empathize with Spiderman, but a JJ Jameson is going to eventually happen.

That said, I'm baffled at the reactions. If it was revealed that Ferrante was in fact Donald Trump then the revelation itself would be meaningful. Because revealing an identity is always meaningful when the person is a public one. But in this case the "Elena Ferrante" is as much as anonymous as the name revealed. No one has heard that name before. For 99% of the population these are equally anonymous names and knowing a "true" one adds or removes exactly nothing. It's just names.

So what I'm saying is that for the readers absolutely nothing changes (unless you're her neighbor). And if you read Ferrante's motivations for going anonymous it seems the majority of it was because this "literary" purpose, so the readers.

It might change instead for her personally, because people who bump into her or actively seek her will bother her about it. But this is kind of the price of notoriety, of being known, taking money from it. It happens at all levels and all professions, and regardless of genre. She can legitimately try to stay anonymous, and someone who exposes her is an idiot, but you eventually have to deal with this. It happens to lots of people, not just to her. She used this for a specific purpose and it worked for long enough to have made it worthwhile.

ZombieLenin posted:

Mr. Squishy posted:

"Nevermind your stated wishes I, a man, wants to know." You might say he'd probably run an expose if a male author happened to be a secretive recluse but how come nobody's busted up the cabal of people working under the "Thomas Pyncheon" pen name? Case closed.

ZombieLenin posted:

Nanomashoes posted:

I mean, there's that picture of Pynchon picking his son up from school, so people dug into a male recluse too.

ZombieLenin posted:

I still call shinagins on all recommendations for books not originally written in English. There are two exceptions to this: 1. if your recommendation is aimed at people who speak, or at least read, the original language the book was published in; OR 2. the original author of the work did his or her own translation into English.

This is so we can get our academic douchebaggary correct, because as you should know reading a novel in a language other than the one that it was originally written in is not acceptable. I mean, good luck getting your PhD in French literature if you refuse to learn how to speak and read French.

PS. the answer to "why" this is the case is because other languages do not work the same way as English. It is not like you can replace every word with it's "corresponding " (if there is such a thing at all) English word and be able to read the book. Essentially, when a book is translated, the translator has to interpret the "meaning" of what's being said, and then to the best of his or her ability, figure out a way to say the same thing in English--as close to the original text as possible.

So, in a sense, every translation is someone's interpretation of a novel, that imprecisely communicates the translator's version of what the author originally intended. It's like a game of telephone, and you are reading Translator X's version of Voltaire, not Voltaire.

This is pretty standard practice in the academy for any sort of literary analysis (or philosophical analysis). In a pinch, translations are okay for undergrad classes, or for graduate classes where the students are not specializing in a particular field; however, at the graduate level this is always communicated to you as the "best translation currently available," according of course to the professor (we've just added another layer of "interpretation")

It's also important to note that works of genre fiction, even terrible genre fiction, are "legitimate works of art." They are even be taught and critically analyzed at universities.

And yes, all of my posts on this form are about fantasy novels. I will out myself now and say I've got my PhD (Political Theory) and have written many things that involve critical analysis of literature; however, when I go home at night I read and talk about what I actually enjoy reading--fantasy and science fiction. Some of which is pulpy and terrible, and some of which is extremely loving smart and important--just like any "category" of literature. This includes the bullshit everyone is talking about here, which is only bullshit in as much as its making some people have a hardon over the fact they read "real" literature.

News flash: in the end you're bragging about how your consumer choices make you "superior" to those "retards" who make other consumer choices. Both sides lose on that regard.

ZombieLenin posted:

I still call shinagins on all recommendations for books not originally written in English. There are two exceptions to this: 1. if your recommendation is aimed at people who speak, or at least read, the original language the book was published in; OR 2. the original author of the work did his or her own translation into English.

This is so we can get our academic douchebaggary correct, because as you should know reading a novel in a language other than the one that it was originally written in is not acceptable. I mean, good luck getting your PhD in French literature if you refuse to learn how to speak and read French.

PS. the answer to "why" this is the case is because other languages do not work the same way as English. It is not like you can replace every word with it's "corresponding " (if there is such a thing at all) English word and be able to read the book. Essentially, when a book is translated, the translator has to interpret the "meaning" of what's being said, and then to the best of his or her ability, figure out a way to say the same thing in English--as close to the original text as possible.

So, in a sense, every translation is someone's interpretation of a novel, that imprecisely communicates the translator's version of what the author originally intended. It's like a game of telephone, and you are reading Translator X's version of Voltaire, not Voltaire.

This is pretty standard practice in the academy for any sort of literary analysis (or philosophical analysis). In a pinch, translations are okay for undergrad classes, or for graduate classes where the students are not specializing in a particular field; however, at the graduate level this is always communicated to you as the "best translation currently available," according of course to the professor (we've just added another layer of "interpretation")

It's also important to note that works of genre fiction, even terrible genre fiction, are "legitimate works of art." They are even be taught and critically analyzed at universities.

And yes, all of my posts on this form are about fantasy novels. I will out myself now and say I've got my PhD (Political Theory) and have written many things that involve critical analysis of literature; however, when I go home at night I read and talk about what I actually enjoy reading--fantasy and science fiction. Some of which is pulpy and terrible, and some of which is extremely loving smart and important--just like any "category" of literature. This includes the bullshit everyone is talking about here, which is only bullshit in as much as its making some people have a hardon over the fact they read "real" literature.

News flash: in the end you're bragging about how your consumer choices make you "superior" to those "retards" who make other consumer choices. Both sides lose on that regard.

ZombieLenin posted:

It's like a game of telephone, and you are reading Translator X's version of Voltaire, not Voltaire.

ZombieLenin posted:

To read literature correctly, you cannot rely on translations. Therefore, I call shenanigans on all recommendations in this thread for literature not originally written in the English language. Unless, of course, you are recommending things written in non-English languages to people who already speak (or can at least read) them.

If we are going to do pretentious academic douchebaggary we have to do it right.


Edit

P.S. "Genre" fiction is literature and indistinguishable from the category "real loving works of art." This is the case no matter how many self-deprecating quotes from authors you dig up.

ZombieLenin posted:

I still call shinagins on all recommendations for books not originally written in English. There are two exceptions to this: 1. if your recommendation is aimed at people who speak, or at least read, the original language the book was published in; OR 2. the original author of the work did his or her own translation into English.

This is so we can get our academic douchebaggary correct, because as you should know reading a novel in a language other than the one that it was originally written in is not acceptable. I mean, good luck getting your PhD in French literature if you refuse to learn how to speak and read French.

PS. the answer to "why" this is the case is because other languages do not work the same way as English. It is not like you can replace every word with it's "corresponding " (if there is such a thing at all) English word and be able to read the book. Essentially, when a book is translated, the translator has to interpret the "meaning" of what's being said, and then to the best of his or her ability, figure out a way to say the same thing in English--as close to the original text as possible.

So, in a sense, every translation is someone's interpretation of a novel, that imprecisely communicates the translator's version of what the author originally intended. It's like a game of telephone, and you are reading Translator X's version of Voltaire, not Voltaire.

This is pretty standard practice in the academy for any sort of literary analysis (or philosophical analysis). In a pinch, translations are okay for undergrad classes, or for graduate classes where the students are not specializing in a particular field; however, at the graduate level this is always communicated to you as the "best translation currently available," according of course to the professor (we've just added another layer of "interpretation")

It's also important to note that works of genre fiction, even terrible genre fiction, are "legitimate works of art." They are even be taught and critically analyzed at universities.

And yes, all of my posts on this form are about fantasy novels. I will out myself now and say I've got my PhD (Political Theory) and have written many things that involve critical analysis of literature; however, when I go home at night I read and talk about what I actually enjoy reading--fantasy and science fiction. Some of which is pulpy and terrible, and some of which is extremely loving smart and important--just like any "category" of literature. This includes the bullshit everyone is talking about here, which is only bullshit in as much as its making some people have a hardon over the fact they read "real" literature.

News flash: in the end you're bragging about how your consumer choices make you "superior" to those "retards" who make other consumer choices. Both sides lose on that regard.

ZombieLenin posted:

News flash: in the end you're bragging about how your consumer choices make you "superior" to those "retards" who make other consumer choices. Both sides lose on that regard.

ZombieLenin posted:

shinagins

douchebaggary

They are even be taught