[Pookie]

Sorry - I read this as BOOTS in translation. That sounded like a cool thread. I really should go to bed.

[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i think you're doing ok...


well the thing is that their identity is not EXCLUSIVE. they have a referent. just like the description of a delicious food can make your mouth water, even though you can't eat the description. here it's language refering to language, and therefore there is something edible that remains.

a great chinese food in new york might not be the same as a restaurant in hong kong, but you are eating chinese food after all-- in translation. you could argue "no, it's american, chinese-inspired food". sure, whatever...


yes, it's mutated no dobut, but you make it as if "deconstructed" was the sole thing one could do to a book. there are layers and layers of pleasure hidden, and some books survive it better than others. if your book is very close to its verbal structures (like joyce), the book is untranslatable. and yet i once met a chinese translator of joyce. he gave a lovely talk & explained his strategies. i don't want to sound like too much of an existentialist here but these heroic futile struggles can be a great source of meaning, much like in "the myth of sysyphus" by camus-- it's not putting the rock on top of the hill, it's the struggle that counts.

you know, as a bilingual creature i'm much more aware of the limitations of translation than a single-language person would be. there are so many untranslatable expressions i deal with every day, in both languages. i've even taught translation in college-- i'm very well aware of the limitations.

HOWEVER, or maybe *because of it*, i also know that translation can be a glorious thing. it doesn't 'rob" the author identity-- it preserves it the best it can for those who can't have it otherwise.


i worked on a translation of eliot's four quartets with a professor of mine-- a poet actually, not a real "academic". we went over and over and over it, never exhausting the possiblities, exploring multiple meanings, etc., and having to sacrifice many things-- but also preserving others. the fucker is the possessor of a poetic sense and ultimately that is what counts-- it's his poetic sense, "channeling" eliot if you will.


of course i agree with that, that is however rather obvious. where i differ with you is in my orientation towards it-- i don't see translation as a total tragedy; on the contrary, i see it as a heroic quest-- doomed from the start, yet beautiful and worthy of admiration. i read books in the original whenever i can-- i've learned french also because of this, and i can manage a little portuguese and perhaps (perhaps!) some italian. but i cannot know every language and therefore i'm eternally grateful to those who've given me the gift of countless books i would not have been able to ever access otherwise.



i think there are many levels in a text, some of which survive translation better than others, and all can be a justification for a good discussion. the quality of the discussion however will depend on the participants rather than the subject at hand.

Again, I'm really not refuting any of these points. To reiterate, I'm not denying that translations can possess their own literary 'beauty,' if you will. Nor am I asserting that deconstruction is the only worthwhile undertaking; I'm saying that such an undertaking is impossible given the altered state of the text. It's my personal assertion of why I would not particularly want to 'academically' discuss a translated novel.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

HOWEVER, or maybe *because of it*, i also know that translation can be a glorious thing. it doesn't 'rob" the author identity-- it preserves it the best it can for those who can't have it otherwise.

I would argue that such 'identity' as we speak of ceases to exist once it has passed through a detached medium. Preservation to the best of ability does not equate reproduction, and therefore, any result is skewed, whether you perceive said result to be glorious or inferior.

Can a translation be eloquent, stimulating, enriched, even to the point that it surpasses the initial work? Of course. IS it the original? No.

My point is illustrated rather well by the very issue you undertake with the inferiority of the Barnes & Noble translation (which I agree, is utterly painful). While both the B&N and Guerney translations refer to the same text, they differ drastically from one another, which serves to highlight the malleability of language that is inevitable in translation.

Again, I repeat, since it doesn't seem to be getting through - there are 'good' translations, but both the good and the bad are by nature mutations of the original WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

while all-inclusiveness is not possible in the context of this gogol reading, there is still the possibility of a very enjoyable exchange-- there is much that survives in translation and therefore it must be devoured. much more enjoyably so if in good company. if you're chicken, then simply run; but i dare you to read the translation and still make the best possible discussion.

'Chicken' of? I won't even dignify that with a response.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

oh, well, yes, not that. but again the poetry of a sentence is not ALL you can find in books. there are so many levels i would get tired of enumerating. by the way, characters can be a pretty interesting thing in a novel-- they are in many ways what is central to a novel and set it apart from other forms. i'm sure you have the intellectual resources to live up to other challenges as well-- don't sell yourself short; just try.

I have certainly never undermined the value of characterization in a novel; it is certainly the meat of some of the best writing in existence.

And thanks for your vote of confidence on my intellect; surely I will succumb to dreams of the provincial more easily with your buoying words of encouragement.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i'm sure he would love to if he could get under the tractor seat and wasn't possibly dead.

seriously, i hope you are not intellectualizing procrastination or making a baroque version of sour grapes, or looking for an excuse to avoid the pressures of a real-time discussion (hah hah-- yes im taunting). you're stuck with a dog, that barnes and noble thing. it's fucking horrible. get the right damn book. deconstruction or not, that guerney book is funny and delicious. D-E-L-I-C-I-O-U-S. like, hm, ersatz spring rolls.

Hmmm, an intellectual circle-jerk with patronizing pedants? Gee, I may not be able to keep pace. I do hope I preserved my dignity by throwing up this facade of a debate.

Treated like a stamp collection, where quantity and appearance are priority, the notion of 'intellect' becomes obsolete.

In short, over-inflated academics can suck a saggy tit.

[Glice]

FFfffffPPPPPPpppp.... and, silently, she passes through asif untowards, with lexical dissension towards, back un-wards, un-words, like somewhow circumventing, circumnavigating; I, of course, may only admit of (to) the passing sins of reminiscence, coruscating, or better PIII(ey, ey, ey).

Better still, we have only but borrowed sense, unless of course thine clarion claims 'dominion' somehow, somewhat do cling mollusc-like atop the bestial heathen sovereignty, or better, the boorish pissing of a master...

What, then? Do we hereby fall, asif atop some blighted skipper, suiter, sailer, soldier? where, then... fhe ftheckucking ofth fthe fthoreaerms...

CYnts. Fycks. Only squeamish, only squealing of, towards, this... pissant... fucking squealing withortowards whenceforth WHAT... but then... But THEN...

[!@#$%!]

ow, truncky, i think i may have angered you-- if so i apologize.

 

[truncated]

I'm more angered by Glice's post - it seems like it might be dirty, but the reading of it is too taxing to be worthwhile.

As for you, !@#$%!, nay, not angry in the least. I will, however, have to respectfully decline your outreach efforts to the academically needy. I believe I may be able to lift my own spoon.

[Glice]

Sorry. Summary was I concur with trunky-wunky.

[!@#$%!]

ah it was never about academics-- i find academic discussions utterly boring in fact-- hence i jumped the ship in gradschool-- all egghead theories with no love. all talk and *cough cough* no show.

but incandescent intellects are another matter. hm, that thump in the brain, that tingle in the middle of the back that nabokov loved-- literature is art, not taxidermy. what i've been calling for all along-- in spite of limitations-- is not stamp collecting, nor dissection of specimens, but the passionate enjoyment of a book. simply that. and the sharing of that experience with -- some people around here? it's already been fun once, though a bit chaotic. i would not call any of them-- pedantic academics! it was more of a barroom discussion... a shared joy, no more, no less.

was that hard to follow?

sorry you won't read or join the group. we'll miss the brilliant rhethoric of your avoiding tactics.

---

let's do this, if you're not chicken: you pick the next book. name your poison.

[porkmarras]

This thread is run by homosexuals.

[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ah it was never about academics-- i find academic discussions utterly boring in fact-- hence i jumped the ship in gradschool-- all egghead theories with no love. all talk and *cough cough* no show.

but incandescent intellects are another matter. hm, that thump in the brain, that tingle in the middle of the back that nabokov loved-- literature is art, not taxidermy. what i've been calling for all along-- in spite of limitations-- is not stamp collecting, nor dissection of specimens, but the passionate enjoyment of a book. simply that. and the sharing of that experience with -- some people around here? it's already been fun once, though a bit chaotic. i would not call any of them-- pedantic academics! it was more of a barroom discussion... a shared joy, no more, no less.

was that hard to follow?

sorry you won't read or join the group. we'll miss the brilliant rhethoric of your avoiding tactics.

---

let's do this, if you're not chicken: you pick the next book. name your poison.

Your condescension aside, I plan to participate in the discussions; just not with this particular book.

And surely the next book will be chosen fairly, as before, by a vote.

Anyway, it seems as though the original issue of debate has been lost somewhere. The question is not whether a translation has merits, but whether it can be APPROACHED in the same way as the original. You wanna argue with me on that?

Bring it, bitch.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by truncated

Your condescension aside, I plan to participate in the discussions; just not with this particular book.

And surely the next book will be chosen fairly, as before, by a vote.

Anyway, it seems as though the original issue of debate has been lost somewhere. The question is not whether a translation has merits, but whether it can be APPROACHED in the same way as the original. You wanna argue with me on that?

Bring it, bitch.

ha ha ha, ok, maybe im an arrogant bastard, but i think treating you with condescension would be like playing with gasoline and matches.

however, i will not kiss your virtual ass just because you write pretty.

the question of whether a translation can be approached in the same way as the original requires no debate. of course it can't. we can run circles around it but basically we agree original and translation are not the same thing. that's so obvious, arguing about it would be besides the point.

the question as i see it is if a translation can be approached joyfully, and if it can deliver some of the rewards of the original text-- some-- and my answer is yes i said yes i will yes .

now that is something that we can discuss-- how much, how little of the original remains in translation, and how, and why, and what are the limits. it's not a black and white question. just like the translation is NOT the original, it is not TOTALLY NOT either-- something remains, but what?

that which remains i think you called it something like worthless bastardization; i prefer to call it the translated version, and embrace it with all its flaws (of course there are translations and translations, many wonderful, many puke-worthy).

you can't deny you yourself owe much to translation, as anybody who's ever become a well-read person. can you name how many authors that are important to you you've "met" only in translation? i could do a long list but i invite you to do that instead. you'd be surprised. without this heroic effort (again) we'd be stuck in our own little cultural ghettos.

anyway, i love to argue, but to fight is silly. let's refine our ideas instead of our variations on the putdown? (i can't help to be a little mocking however-- don't take it wrong-- it's a mode of playfulness i can't avoid-- i can never be totally serious-- yuck!).

[atari 2600]

Where was that penguin-as-chicken last seen?

I could use the reward money.

well, yeah

the one I have is the George Reavey translation.

Cover:

 

(it sure wasn't easy to find that cover hehe)
It's the 1966 Airmont mass-marketed paperback. To its credit though, the Reavey translation was also adopted for the Norton Critical Edition which has an introduction by George Gibian. Gibian also introduces the Jesse Coulson translation of Crime & Punishment for the Norton Critical Edition which is the one that I prefer above all others.

[truncated]

For an intelligent guy, !@#$%!...

I'll say this once more. I'm not asserting that translations are worthless, can't be well-written, or aren't in some way representative of the original.

I'm simply saying that, from a 'deconstructionist' point of view, if you will, they can't be approached in the same way. That because of such technicalities as syntax, diction, textual literary devices, colloquialisms, etc., a translation will inevitably compromise the 'voice' of the original.

I'm not criticizing the reading of Gogol for the book club (not yet anyhow; though I will say I'm still waiting to be impressed by Dead Souls, poor translation or not). I'm merely saying that, because of the way I approach a novel, it wouldn't be my first choice for a book club discussion.

[!@#$%!]

truncky truncky my friend... yes of course we can't we can't yes the voice gets compromised.

but let's explore together instead (shall we?) what can get preserved. deconstruction is not the non-plus-ultra of reading (i as a matter of fact detest derrida, but that's a separate matter). if you want to discuss translation theory i'd be happy to do that.

from the gogol translation, i can admire the biting judgemental descriptions, the way the plot is slowly constructed, and the narrative tension developed, the exploration of russian characters and situations, the social commentary and the way the characters interact with each other according to their social strata; the poetic images that survive the translation; the careful planting of themes and the return to them throughout the book; the self-consciousness of the narrative, in which the writer steps every now and then to address the reader; i could go on and on but i hadn't "prepared" for such a list; i actually haven't even yet read some portions carefully (i was curiously gulping down some chapters and hoping to reread later).

anyway, i'm here to seek out ideas, truth, clarity... i detest the group-therapy approach of college classes where everyone gets a pat in the back just for having an opinion. i like to debate fiercely-- and if i come across as condescending (which is possible) please then also consider that if i thought poorly of you or your intellect i would not waste a minute or an ounce of energy attempting to refute your points-- or to clarify any path for this discussion.

i like your internet persona very much, but i simply won't agree with you just to please you. on the contrary, i think i owe you, out of respect, the honesty of my disagreements. but you are free to interpret that any way you want-- that's besides my control anyway, isn't it?

[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

anyway, i'm here to seek out ideas, truth, clarity... i detest the group-therapy approach of college classes where everyone gets a pat in the back just for having an opinion. i like to debate fiercely-- and if i come across as condescending (which is possible) please then also consider that if i thought poorly of you or your intellect i would not waste a minute or an ounce of energy attempting to refute your points-- or to clarify any path for this discussion.

Your opinion of my intellect is of no consequence. I do not purport to be some kind of erudite scholar. I am well aware of my limitations.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i like your internet persona very much, but i simply won't agree with you just to please you. on the contrary, i think i owe you, out of respect, the honesty of my disagreements. but you are free to interpret that any way you want-- that's besides my control anyway, isn't it?

While I'm certainly a fan of cracking the whip, I by no means crave your alignment with my ideas. It's unfortunate, as dissenters will surely be eliminated during my global takeover, but it's only natural.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by truncated

Your opinion of my intellect is of no consequence. I do not purport to be some kind of erudite scholar. I am well aware of my limitations.

bah, truncky, you're no erudite scholar but you are one of the most interesting people around here, and it would be silly to deny that. erudite scholars bore me anyway.

Originally Posted by truncated

While I'm certainly a fan of cracking the whip, I by no means crave your alignment with my ideas. It's unfortunate, as dissenters will surely be eliminated during my global takeover, but it's only natural.

oh, then i'll be the leader of the resistance.

 

he he. i love to google pictures.