A valiant effort to elevate the tone.

[Octavian]

Has anyone read Marcel Proust? I must admit that I haven’t but I once picked up 'Remembrance of Times Past' in the book shop.
It seemed quite heavy, both literally and metaphorically.

Octavian

“Encase your majestic tree of manhood in the sublimely soft wondrous wet hallowed depths of my body,” she implored.

“Oh,” he replied, “You mean you wanna fuck!”

 

[oggbashan]

Yes ... but

I read all his works in French while I had to stay at school after finishing my final exams.

It helped my French but bored me stiff. I can sell you some of his works in French or English. They make good door stops.

Og

 

[Gabriel_Lee]

Marcel Proust

No, I haven't. It sounds like he writes big books and is probably dead. I applaude the attempt to elevate the tone, though. I think this is just a bit too far above where my head can comfortably be.

Can we start with someone who writes small books?

 

[Guest]

a short Russian novel

No, it's not an oxymoron. "First Love" is a favorite by a favorite author, Ivan Turgenev (perhaps more known for "Fathers and Sons"). It's really a novella, about 100 pp and is like a long poem. It tells just what the title implies and has a female protagonist nearly as substantive as Anna Karenina (another fave book I reread regularly) only presented with thousands less words. Here's a little excerpt, spoken by the narrator about his obsession as a teen for a mysterious woman--

[The] image of Zinaida still hovered triumphant over my soul, though even this image seemed more tranquil. ... and I as I fell asleep, in parting for the last time clung to it, in trusting adoration.

Oh, gentle feelings, soft sounds, the goodness and the gradual stilling of a soul that has been moved; the melting happiness of the first tender, touching joys of love--where are you? Where are you?

This book contains some of the most evocative and beautifully erotic moments one could ever hope to aspire to write.

p.s. Proust does too but you must work to get to them.

 

[oggbashan]

Re: a short Russian novel

p.s. Proust does too but you must work to get to them.

But like popular extracts from Opera, bits of Proust are diminished by being cut from their context. Proust needs to be read in full, as Opera should be experienced in full and preferably live.

Og

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: a short Russian novel

But like popular extracts from Opera, bits of Proust are diminished by being cut from their context. Proust needs to be read in full, as Opera should be experienced in full and preferably live.

Of course, that is what I meant. Reading Proust is work, but worth the effort.

 

[oggbashan]

Translation

I don't know about the Russian novelists, but no translation of Proust really has the same feel.

I think that it is better, if you can, to read a work of literature in the original language.

There are some brilliant translations but even the best are an amalgam of the translator's brilliance and the original author's intention.

Maurois' translation of Hamlet is an example. It is wonderful French but it isn't Shakespeare's Hamlet. It is close, very close, but not quite the real thing.

Which leads to another point. How much of what the author intended us to appreciate do we actually understand? For example Spenser's Fairie Queen needs a very full knowledge of the classics and an understanding of the context of the times in which he was living. That makes Spenser less accessible than Shakespeare or even Chaucer. Those two wrote for all time, not for a small elite group at a particular period in history.

Og

 

[Guest]

elevators

Geezelaweeze, Ogg, you're going to elevate this thread off the charts.

Though I did mean to cite Sir Isaiah Berlin as the translator of the quote above (Penguin classic ed.)

FYI, I have a prof. friend who has translated 12th Night into ASL (Amer. Sign Language) for the Deaf. Not many realize it is a real language, not just hand signals. TN worked very well given its refs. to hands as signifiers in Sh're's time.

Enough about the classics.

A very popular author of the moment(s) is Jasper Fforde. He has two books out featuring a literary detective named Thursday Next. They're very fun reading for anyone literarily minded. Lots of lit. jokes, great imagination. In the first, "The Eyre Affair", Jane Eyre gets kidnapped out of her text and TN solves the caper.

Octavian: I hoped you were serious about starting this thread. Come back and talk. Ogg is boggling my mind to bits.

Perdita

 

[oggbashan]

Re: elevators

Ogg is boggling my mind to bits.

Perdita

This thread did ask for an elevated tone.

If that's what this board wants, that I can do.

Doggerel about garderobes can be done as well. You might find literary references hiding in the heap if you dig far enough.

Renaissance people unite!

Og

 

[Alex De Kok]

I can't remember who it was, but didn't someone - I won't say necessarily famous, but certainly in the public eye - say that he learned Russian in order to read War and Peace as originally written, only to find it even more boring than in English?

I can't comment. I don't speak Russian and War and Peace is only one of the millions of books I haven't read.

Alex

 

[KillerMuffin]

I've heard the name, but I can't associate him with anything. I don't guess that I've ever read him.

 

[Guest]

AdK:

I work at a university and have heard countless students say any number of great writers are boring. I love two of Tolstoy's books but have not managed to get into W&P.

I studied Russian once to read the poetry but only managed very short ones on my own.

FYI, my Russ. prof. once spoke of Dostoevsky as a very bad writer, technically (in the orig. Russian) and aurally. She liked his work but found it difficult on her lit. ears, said he wrote like a clumsy contruction worker; unlike Tolstoy whose writing (in Russ.) was like 'reading' a symphony. That's just her opinion (she was a native Russkaya), I never got to that level of reading her language.

 

[Octavian]

Classic Literature

I would not say that I am widely read but I have got through War and Peace, Anna Karenina and some of Dostoevsky but only in translation. Likewise with Emil Zola and Victor Hugo.
I felt I ought to read them simply because they were regarded as classics. I am glad that I did but I am not sure I would re-read many of them again.

I feel the same about most of Charles Dickens although I have read 'A Tale of Two Cities' three times.
I will definitely re-read 'Barchester Towers' by Anthony Trollope, not because of the story but solely because of his command of the English language. He was a master, if ever there was one.

The reference to Proust was not spurious. I had considered reading 'In Rembrance of Times Past' but its sheer length deterred me. It seems I might have made the right decision.

Octavian

 

[jfinn]

I've read Rememberance of Times Past. It made my eyes tired. I felt like it had to be read fast, the way French is supposed to be spoken. Thought it was fun and gossipy, but I didn't feel any need to read anything more of his.

War and Peace is actually a favorite, though I admit I cheated by first seeing the movie (the Russian version, not Hollywood's mess) so I could familiarize myself with the characters. It's probably the only Russian novel I've ever truely enjoyed. Maybe because most of what I've stumbled across is so depressing you end up wanting to open a vein.

I've read a lot of the classics though not, I'm ashamed to admit, lately. Most of my reading was done when I was young and intense and uncomfortable with the idea of reading something for pure enjoyment. Now that's about all I do.

But I do love Dickens, Austin and F. Scot Fitgerald. Also Candide is a book I've read more than once and nobody has ever made me laugh as hard as James Thurber.

If you're talking about national sensibilities in writing, I think the writers of India appeal to me most (cinema too). Vickram Seth's A Suitable Boy for one and Arundati Roy's The God of Small Things is simply awe inspiring. There is a joy to the writing of both of these and most of the lit out of that country that really appeals to me.

I don't read or speak any foreign language (not because of lack of desire, I just have no talent for languages-- seven years of French and three of Latin taught me that if nothing else) so I'm stuck reading everything in English.

Jayne

 

[Guest]

spuriosity

Hi Octavian. I'd say that's wide reading, esp. A Tale 3x (perhaps that's depth reading).

You are the first person who's made Trollope appealing. Perhaps I'll put him on my list of 'the next 100 books to read'.

Except for Proust (and I've only read half a volume) I can't think of any French writer that's ever appealed to me. In English it's the Celts I like best (OW, Joyce, Beckett, etc.); then there are the Russians (very similar soul-wise to the Celts), lots of Latin/South American authors, and some Italians. I rarely read U.S. writers except for a few poets. Most U.S. popular stuff is so overrated; I wont' name names (I'm not that dumb).

anon, Perdita

 

[hiddenself]

Original text

Wasn't it in the Renaissance when you weren't considered a scholar if you couldn't read the masters in the original (Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, whatever)?

Yes, most literary works lose something in the translation. But who can read Greek tragedies in the original? Or Shakespeare, for that matter? Even if you make an attempt to learn a foreign language, you're probably not likely to achieve the level of proficiency that will let you fully appreciate the original text. So, we're stuck with translations, I'm afraid.

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Original text

Wasn't it in the Renaissance when you weren't considered a scholar if you couldn't read the masters in the original (Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, whatever)?

Yes, most literary works lose something in the translation. But who can read Greek tragedies in the original? Or Shakespeare, for that matter? Even if you make an attempt to learn a foreign language, you're probably not likely to achieve the level of proficiency that will let you fully appreciate the original text. So, we're stuck with translations, I'm afraid.

Shakespeare should be easy because so much of what he wrote is still quoted every day. Chaucer is rather more difficult unless you have heard a recording of his work first. Said aloud, Chaucer's English is understandable. Maybe I ought to try a short reading now I've got a working microphone.

When I was at school too many years ago we were taught to read and write a foreign language and understand its literature and culture. What we were NOT taught was how to speak it, particularly not how to do normal things like buy a ticket, make a phone call, ask directions. We could discuss Racine, Moliere, Sartre and Voltaire in French but ask "Which way to the train station?" - never.

I'm sure Svenskaflicka could manage most European classics in their originals. Any others?

Og

 

[Guest]

Sh're

I had a great Shakespeare prof., a renowned scholar w/many published books, who began our class saying, "All you need to read Shakespeare is to be a human being; I'll help you with the odd words."

She was right. There are many good editions of the plays with helpful notes and 'translations' and explanations of the language. I love the histories as much as the tragedies and comedies, and the so-called problem plays; and all because of the depths to which one is taken in exploring what it is to be a person in this world. Plus there's the sheer beauty of the structure and magic of just how Sh're put things in verse or sentence.

My prof.'s husband was as renowned a medievalist and made Chaucer available to thousands. Some readings are easier than others but you always know when you're reading something rich.

 

[oggbashan]

Chaucer - aloud

I've tried a short recording.

Now the experts can throw brickbats but its an attempt.

Og

 

[pop_54]

OK

I'm not a great reader of anything much these days, living and working in the real world of engineering and running one's own business for a living doesn't leave much time for such pleasures.
Also wife and family to support and keep amused takes up a huge chunk of the remaining time.

I barely have time to finish the newspaper some days let alone a classical publication, and I don't think any serious book or publication can be read, appreciated, or even understood by quickly scanning the pages a couple at a time over a long period.

I used to enjoy reading quite a bit however when I did have the time and inclination, and I too greatly enjoyed reading Dickens.
I also had a few stabs at Chaucer, well 100 yr old translations of it, and found it very entertaining not just a classical read for the sake of classical reading, I could appreciate the humour of the guy as well as the way it was written.

I've never read Shakespear other than a few brief half hearted attempts for the want of something better to do, not that I don't appreciate the guy or his works, brilliant stuff, but never had the inclination when the time was available.

I agree with the point that most writings can only be fully appreciated in the language in which they were originally composed and written.
You need to think and visualise in the language concerned not just understand the words or it just doesn't work right.

I too agree with Ogg about learning another language, most schools sit you down with text books and point at things on a board, you wind up reading writing large amounts of foreign stuff without really understanding much of it.
Our 12 yr old daughter can write quite a bit of German and French already and she can point out and describe inanimate objects in learning books, but could she ask a German the time of day and understand the answer? No!!
No substitute for listening to and speaking a language, that's how I learned English as a babe.

My biggest hinderance to being a widly read intellectual type is the fact that I suffered badly with undiagnosed dyslexia as a young kid.
Not undiagnosed because some doctor failed to spot it, but in the English school system of the 1950's any kid who couldn't read or write properly was classified as an idiot and made to sit at the back of the room out of the lessons basically. No one actually bothered to try to find out why the kid had problems.

Oh sorry darlings not an opera fan either, well apart from light opera, Gilbert and Sullivan, bloody brilliant stuff.
Worked with the Bridgette Doyley Carte company years ago on stage electrics.

pops angle on it all

 

[gauchecritic]

I think I probably agree about the translation thing, especially any European languages into English if only because the very structure of the language has necessarily to be altered. Svenska, I would imagine, is one of the very few people on Lit. who can answer that question.

However, I would also venture that the same is probably true about English classics. Shakfberd et al, wrote in a 'foreign language' and have to be translated into the modern idiom.

I really really don't want to start any kind of religious thing here but it's interesting to note that no one has mentioned the Bible, surely the most translated book in the universe. The King James version was translated from German? which was translated from who knows how many other translations before the English even had a formalised written language. Correct me if I'm wrong (please) the King James version of the Bible was commissioned because the extant version of the time wasn't to his (or someone's) liking.

Anyhoo, Shakespere (it's almost impossible to misspell his name by the way) Shaksper I like. Yes, he was a writer of rich and resonant verse, but I personally don't believe that he consciously put everything into it that your classics professor says he did.

Not that it matters. As long as you write in your exam questions what they want to hear who cares.

Gauche

 

[jfinn]

Re: Re: Original text

Shakespeare should be easy because so much of what he wrote is still quoted every day. Chaucer is rather more difficult unless you have heard a recording of his work first.
Og

I'm one of those people that prefer their Shakespeare on a stage to between the pages of a book. Much easier to understand that way and since that was the medium it was written for, I believe you can get a truer picture.

I took a Chaucer class in college. There were five of us. Our professor was a lovely man, Scottish. He would hold class at his house and his wife would give us triffle and sherry. I think I learned more in that class than in any other I took. He felt like you do Og and would often read aloud when he felt it was important that we understand that passage completely.

When I was a teen, I spent a little time in London and while there I saw a play on the West End that was a musical version of Canterbury Tales. It was a lot of fun and while it wasn't exactly accurate, it did make me curious about the book itself. I've told other people about this play, but I've never found anyone else who saw it. I know it didn't make it to this side of the Atlantic, but I wonder if some of you in England might remember it?

Jayne

 

[openthighs_sarah]

Re: Sh're

There are many good editions of the plays with helpful notes and 'translations' and explanations of the language.

This made me think of something. It may be off topic just a bit, but I'll try to pull things back on course by the end.

I've always loved fairy tales, and recently I was looking for a comprehensive collection of the Grimm stories -- not just the popular ones, but all of them. I came across what looked like a complete set, and the blurbs on the back praised the translator/editor for his wonderful work in making the stories compelling and accessible to "modern readers."

And I thought, "Huh."

I opened the book at random and started reading... and it took no more than a few sentences before I closed the book in disappointment and put it back on the shelf.

My experience with these stories has always been with older, very traditional translations, and I realized as I read this "modern" version that it was the language itself which had always touched me -- and this person had stripped the stories of all their magic, for me. The cadences were all different, and the stories suddenly seemed smaller, more childish, even crude. It may be that what I loved about them (and still love) was only an accident of translation in the first place - but so be it.

I'm the same way with Shakespeare. I appreciate the abundance of explanatory material available, but it's in the words themselves that I find beauty. Not to discount the value of structure and plot, but language will always be what moves me. But having said that, I'll admit that I didn't really enjoy Shakespeare until I was in my late twenties -- all I knew of him was what I'd read in school, and all the countless adaptions that we encounter (knowingly or not) as part of Western culture. It's always interesting and instructional to go back to the source, though -- to read Darwin, for example, instead of reading about him -- and when I finally found Shakespeare, I was amazed.

Then again, I still can't read James Joyce. I get a headache whenever I open Finnegan's Wake, and it only gets worse when someone tells me how important the book is. Maybe when I'm 70 or 80, I'll discover Joyce.

That's it. Hopefully I didn't drift too far off-topic. (What was the topic, again? Oh - Proust. Never read him.)

 

[oggbashan]

I really really don't want to start any kind of religious thing here but it's interesting to note that no one has mentioned the Bible, surely the most translated book in the universe. The King James version was translated from German? which was translated from who knows how many other translations before the English even had a formalised written language. Correct me if I'm wrong (please) the King James version of the Bible was commissioned because the extant version of the time wasn't to his (or someone's) liking.

The King James version was based on Tyndale's. The language is wonderful and it is a shame in a literary sense that it has been "updated". I was brought up to read the King James Bible aloud. It has influenced so many writers in English. It has been said that it was the only good result ever from a committee. Perhaps they were inspired.

I had to read passages in school assemblies. You soon learn how with your mates ready to take the piss if you stumble over words. Similarly The Koran is read aloud by all Muslims. They all learn to understand literary Arabic because they hear it so frequently. Every book of quotations has a large section from the Bible. The next largest is usually Shakespeare.

Anyhoo, Shakespere (it's almost impossible to misspell his name by the way) Shaksper I like. Yes, he was a writer of rich and resonant verse, but I personally don't believe that he consciously put everything into it that your classics professor says he did.
Gauche

A Science fiction writer (I think Asimov or Poul Anderson) wrote a short story in which Shakespeare was brought to the 20th century. Then he enrolled in a class on Shakespeare and flunked it, saying "They'd have wrung Noah's flood from a damp dishcloth!"

Og

 

[oggbashan]

A La Carte

[Oh sorry darlings not an opera fan either, well apart from light opera, Gilbert and Sullivan, bloody brilliant stuff.
Worked with the Bridgette Doyley Carte company years ago on stage electrics.

pops angle on it all [/B]

I like Gilbert and Sullivan as well. I sing too much of it in the bath.

My contact was the D'Oyley Carte company was much more fleeting. I was a civilian on board one of HM's ships as a guest of the wardroom. My turn to pay for the evening's drinks came on the night when the wardroom had invited the ladies' chorus from the touring company.

Who says sailors are stupid?

The drinks were duty free (really duty free not the prices charged by airports and ferries). That made beer much more expensive than short drinks. My bill for the whole evening and all the ladies' drinks came to two pounds ten shillings. A pink gin cost two and a half old pennies (about one penny now). So I paid for about 250 drinks.

Then the ship's officers taught me to play draw poker. After six weeks on board my bill for drinks, food, accommodation and poker was minus ten shillings (including the drinks for the ladies chorus). It must have been beginner's luck. HM's Government was paying me about nineteen shillings a day allowance for being at sea so I wrote the wardroom a cheque for that times the number of days I had been on board. That caused problems with the ship's accounts so I had to rewrite the cheque as a donation to the "Sports Fund".

I enjoyed the company of D'Oyley Carte's ladies but at the time I was worried that I was paying the bill. I have never had such a cheap party.

My colleague's turn came when the ship was at sea. His evening's bill was four shillings so he and I cooked an Indian Curry for the wardroom to make up the shortfall. Cooking at sea in a Force 8 is ... interesting.

Og