Quote:
Originally Posted by
kiki1982
As I said with Homer and the like, Shakespeare is also from the times before copyright, as such there is indeed no clear text per se. Though, that does not at all apply to later works.
Because? I wish to find a single theory of literature that stabilishes this differencial reggarding authoral rights and literature and also a single one that deniies the proccess of copy and adaptations that exists and existed since ever. It is a completely misconception that it does not apply and I cann't see how you insist to argue about it considering the enormous production of children versions of classics that modify the original of any work that they are legallly free to do so. And underground production never stopped it, I know for example, popular versions of latter work, who do not pay authoral rights (Just because they have a marginal production anyways) and also, if adaptation to another mediuns (comic books, movies) clearly show the work is not static.
Quote:
The fairy tales have indeed several versions, even across Europe. That does not mean that 'the Grimms' Red Riding Hood' is changed often. The concept, yes, their re-telling of it, no. That was it, they recorded them from all over the country. Their edition of 1857 of which I have a reprint, lists the fairy tale as out of the vicinity of Main and has two versions, one with the wolf and the hunter and one where the wolf drowns in a trough with water outside because of the grandmother. They also link it with a Swedish one where a young woman is eaten by a wolf and only her bloody arm is found by her lover who heard her cry from an oak tree. In various oral versions, it would appear, does the wolf die. It would surprise me if the Grimms actually put on a certain end just to make it a moral tale, as they were zealous in trying to find genuine tales, not for their own honour and glory, like Perrault who was operating in a much earlier time.
It is a commn knowledge that both Perrault (who did not seek face, he hide his name under his son name) and Grimmn claimed to use the most faithful version possible of their tales and that both have changed it to be used with their objectives (In the Grimms was an pedagogical project to produce texts for the german youth and children to be taught in school) and many researches consider Perrault version not less modificated but also that Grimm's have used previous texts (Such as Perrault himself, Strapparola, Basile, etc) to his texts, not to mention tales which the origem of the text is actually the Perrault original who became oral due his fame. Not that they were lying or not honest, but the defition and conditions for a work of such nature has changed much. Today it would not be acceptable to do as the Grimms, who mixed the tales from a similar "character" and sometimes even when the character was not the same, but the story much similar, they organized a version of it.
Quote:
That is no argument for the changing of more modern texts though, because in both cases we are speaking of texts which were either orally passed on or printed in the time before real copyright.
I already gave examples of post-copyright texts you just claimed "they should not exist."You can not say why. You just is against it. But you cann't say why a law who protect texts for only 100 years does have more saying than a 2000 years "natural" process, considering the history of literature has thousands of works where this process happens. Hans Christian Andersen is now public domain, this means 2 years ago, his text could not be changed and now they can?? This makes no sense, it is the same text.
Quote:
I agree that translations can do something with a work, but it is never the aim of a translator nowadays to simplify or make something better, I would hope. And then there is always the freedom of leaving certain words a 'realia' in the text.
Considering how we can find translations with a considerable difference of size, it is obvious that translators have a great attempt to make something better. Like Ezra Pound suggests, some translations are even superior to the original. I would go and point the english story of classical translations (Homer, Virgil, the Bible) to point that translators are actually "creators".
One of the richest story of all literature is the story of the translations of 1001 Nights, which if filled with interferences, modifications and much more, to the point that the tale more indentified to the nights, Alladin is not actually an arabian invention but an european XVIII century invention.
And before you go about the oral tradition or copy-rights, we have a interesting story of translation of The Raven, each version from great names (Baudelaire, Mallarme, Machado de Assis, Fernando Pessoa) has modified the rhytim or the metric system of the poem, some like Mallarme, clearly in dialogue with Baudelaire version. Not to mention the bird has changed, from a Raven to a Crow to statisfy a rythimic matter.
And to add a final tale of Ernesto Sabato, who once found a Orlando copy and read, finding several hyperbolic interventions which are not Woolf style and guessed was Borges the translator, modfying the original and years late found this to be true.
Quote:
As to abridged versions, they should not exist and I would say I haven't really come across them in great numbers until I started reading in English. That could be perception though.
They are an old tradition, published in big number. In almost all countries. For example, Lamb's Shakespeare for kids is a small genre classic of english literature and in many aspects a huge responsable for the Shakespeare familiarity.
But I have more questions: Who are you and which basis you say something that exists for centuries and is done by several individuals should not exist?
And since they do exist, what will you say? Earth is flat? They just prove that the "after copyright" argument is false. So why insist on it?
Quote:
Pardon? So we should all agree to change a work when it doesn't suit us?
Oui, like Proust said the writer starts when the reader finished and wants to modify what he read. Of course, slightly different things, but they mean the same: literature does not have beneficy from static texts. They need mobility, agility, creation. Fasten the web under I can guess which one reason and you are acting against literary process and not for it.
Quote:
I refer to professor Harris-Parry for her argument that actually the whole point of Huckleberry Finn is passed by because of 'slave'.
I like the professor because in no momment she went for the untouchable text, she talked about the class interation and how futile seems those changes. Anyways, I would point that the whole point of Huck is lost already, after all those people changing it read it with the word N and did not got this "whole point". Changing to slave does not grant it is recovered or lost at all.
Plus it is clearly ironic. Calling people slaves is offensive. Not nice at all. And anyone could point, now all "Nigger" in a old book is or was a slave, so the word change is more comic.
Quote:
One can interpret, yes, but not, never, impose a certain interpretation on someone or something, especially not whe the person is reading something for the first time.
I had no idea the first or second a twenty or watever time do any difference, but You insist to impose the interpretation that you want. And by day, it is not given by the word N. People from other countries do not read it with N word and apparently they get Twain quite fine. The very argument the presence of this word is necessary for a correct interpretation of the text is falacious.
Quote:
One can put forward a certain interpretation in an essay, but not change the text so it will only reflect that.
That is an insult to all art. One does not paint over a painting either. Probably the last time that was done was in the 19th century, I thought. In the Sixtine Chapel I think.
Lots of people paint over other painting yet, obviously reduced because the material price is not the same as the past, but people still do it. And some do it like a certain Dali who added a certain moustache and changed completely the interpretations of the painting.
Quote:
They are definitely dealing with an old problem. They still have a trauma, otherwise they would not fuss over a stupid word. There is no problem, in connection with the holocaust, to write particular names in your book that refer to Jews (I just can't recall any right now, apart from 'Jude', which is not really that bad, though it may do in the right scene). Why is it in America when it refers to a slave of black descent?
The actual problem is more to do with the fact the black population is more intergrated to the society, less margialized and they have to deal with it. The Majority of americans have no more problem with slavery, simple because they are ok people with ok ideas and are more worried with the politically correct.
Now about jews, they obviously cut down many references. Like the South Park episode where they joke it is finnally nice to laugh about the holocaust, which obviously suggest there is something that protect the holacaust to be mocked while other tragedies is not (And mocked in the perfect healthy sense, since dealing with horrors with humor is part of human nature). I would suggest you to see accross the world the history of censorship in the world to see neither the black question is a big concern in the world as there is a considerable less effort towards many others aspects. And in German, if I am not mistaken, the printing of Mein Kampf is not allowed, which suggest they "deal" with this by not printing it?
Quote:
My point is not that people who haven't read Twain are ignorant, nor that people who have to read a version are ignorant, my point is that editing his work is another symptom of wanting to conceal that fase of history and actively try to make American youth ignorant (which they are already trying, apparently, by banning it altogether).
Which leads to the questions reggarding to the objective of literature in classroom. It is to teach history? Or to enjoy art?
Plus, those aspects are still taught in history class, so how they are making this more ignorant?
Quote:
No, it is not the same as holocaust denial, that is much worse as there were so many people who perished (although, I would wonder how many slaves actually saw the light and died as well because of the bad treatment they received), but the problem is the same, and much bigger. Where there are a few negatonists which are sometimes punished or fined for their actions, or at least reprimanded, there are many more people in America who would like to forget the 'slave'-thing.
Holocaust denial is much worst than changing the N word to Slave, which by the way is a curious arguments towards America attempt to forgot the Slave-thing.
Quote:
I mean, calling them an 'ensalved person' to make sure that everyone knows they were actually humans... That says more about the speaker than about the slaves. I mean, they were there in the Greek and Roman times, in Russia up until more or less 1917, in Europe in the middle ages, the Celts and Germanic tribes also had them I believe. So actually Ameria was better off because they got rid of 'slaves' much earlier than Russia. Why is it such a problem then? The Russians don'r seem to have a major issue.
Does them? They lived under a dictatorial regim for 70 years, perhaps they have other concerns than "Oops, we had slaves"?
Quote:
Literature is art and art is an expression of current culture.
Apparently the current culture is thinking to change the text.
Quote:
The pictures painters paint reflect the style and society they moved in. So does literature. So, yes history classes can supply youngsters with context, but literature can do that in another way, by applying that context. If one reads, one both applies one's history classes and learns about one's history classes. A history class is only an analysis of the situation, a snap-shot. A book is more in detail, and as such I would argue, more important to get a good picture of history than a history class which can only focus on certain things.
Mark Twain certainly does not help people to understand history more than the the history teaching itself. The person who has no notion of it, do not get even what is the fuzz about N word even. And Twain is far from a truthworth source, considering his humor and pleasure to confund people.
Quote:
One can learn about the French Revolution, but it is only as one reads books written at the time that one realises what impact those changes had on people.
Really? Because reading Ovid and Virgil will teach more about the roman empire than Gibbon???
Quote:
Take for example Doctor Zhivago. Everyone knows how communism worked (everything nationalised), but here is this figure who suddenly loses his comfortable life because of communism. Now that is the other side which we did not learn about. Even the mere mention 'people's estates were confistcated' cannot express the sorrow and powerlessness that that figure feels in that book.
Which could be applied to several non communist regims. Sorry, I never read Doc Z or watched the movie, but I do know that Communist regim confiscated proprieties.
Quote:
So young people in America can learn about slavery (if they do at all), but they cannot picture adequately the strange (un)equality in their heads without a good story. They will not understand the ambiguity of rich men making children with their slaves and some slaves actually loving their masters (as in Mr Jefferson and his children). Films about it, books about it may help to gain an insight. Not allowing that is making people ignorant.
Actually, Poeple are reading Twain. Calling him a Slave wont make people do not "learn" about slavery at all.
