Are there any good translations of Chinese Poetry?
Are there any good translations of Chinese Poetry?
The issue isn't whether or not he accomplished anything but the logic of coming up with a list of works to read. The most obvious reason for doing so is that one can't read everything.Originally Posted by JCamilo
But the formation of a canon that attempts to encompass various cultures is supposed to be "mass generalization."
None. He fails, he reckonized it. Inside academy, his reputation wasnt helped much. Anyone could see it was a work of mass generalization of a specialist. For the generation of new readers? They still reading the same works that he attacks, his influence on them seems small and it must piss off that one like Stephenie Meyer was able to give Wuthering Height a burst whie his recent crusade certainly didnt caused much impact. No academic needs to be told about Shakespeare after all. And in most of the case, his message to the average reader was seem as pure snoberry.
About readers still going through the same works that he attacks, that's doesn't anything about his list. What it does say is the ability of readers to be swayed easily by marketing. As for Meyer referring to _Wuthering Heights_, that actually leads credence to Bloom, not the opposite. The same goes for celebrities like Oprah recommending Tolstoy.
In which case, the argument that he is a snob is valid. How else would someone who has read little of what Bloom recommends react?
But not everyone can try all of the food in all restaurants for one reason or another. That's why we have restaurant critics. The same goes for literature critics.
For the canon itself? Nothing. He caused some discussion about it, not with the list which pretty much diverged from the books discussion. But then again, discussing the canon is not that useful. Discussing authors yes, but not the canon. It is like defending a restaurant because its menu and not because the food itself.
The problem is that one cannot know everything about the contents of a museum unless one refers to readings about their contents and guides.
As tour guide, the museum guide? It would mean nothing if there wasnt the museum, the works which are seem. How loving the works because the guide and not because the works itself?
The issue, then, isn't that tour guides would be useless without museums but the other way round.
All lists are artificial, and even choices people make based on marketing are the same. And like marketing, critics can make mistakes.
His list is artificial, non sense. Browning, Lewis Carroll and Conan Doyle are all in the same section. How does the reading of the monologue poetry of Browing, the fantasy of Carroll and the detective stories of Doyle appeal to the same average reader? It does not at all. It is like a tourism guide that takes you at sametime to ice skating and swim in the ocean. As if both appeal to all. Even the classic section. It opens with GIlgamesh and Book of Dead? What the narrative of Gilgamesh and a book about rituals of burial have in commun? And worst, Gilgamesh is not even a book, but several fragments more or less up together in different editions. Yes, in his guide he does not pinpoint to editons of books that existed or are even avaliable. So, if I read the Gilgamesh section in Britania Encyclopedia I have just followed Bloom guide.
The fact that you disagree with the presence of _Gilgamesh_ and _The Book of the Dead_ shows that you are, like Bloom, a critic. Thus, why do you believe that the function of coming up with a list of canonical works is irrelevant when you implicitly do the same, i.e., exclude _Gilgamesh_, etc?
Finally, if you're saying that reading, say, the GBWW is similar to following Bloom, then doesn't that show the sensibility in what Bloom did and not, as you insist, the opposite?
Certainly not, especially when one won't have the time to read all of Keats' works. But are you saying that Bloom's list isn't worth noting because he didn't specify which works by Keats to read? If so, then why not add to his list by choosing such works?
Serious, when you want to guide people to read Keats, you tell him to read all that Keats wrote? His complete works? Or Yeats? Or Shakespeare. Sure, lets read Pericles, right?
Probably, which is why I always look at different lists and anthologies. In any case, even those other lists may have flaws. The same goes for anything recommended through heavy marketing.
And this because Bloom himself didnt read his entire list, so he just misses badly places like South America. It is like "Hey, in South America you visit Buenos aires and Brazil, you visit Just Rio de Janeiro!" It is just a bad guide. A failure that Bloom himself regrets.
I think that advice is irrelevant because it's possible most people do that. Very likely, what they read is what is heavily marketed and also sufficiently short, with stories that are easy to follow, clear-cut characters, and a satisfying ending.
In which case, for most people, what Bloom recommends would not even be standard or limiting but the opposite.
It's even worse for more who won't even read as much and just, say, watch film or TV versions.
It is not logical to give someone a list of works and then say it is not a good guide, as you cannt read everything, so you would have to produce another list, narrowing it, and go on, in some short of modern version of Zeno Paradox, when you cut in half something infinite task, hoping to accomply it in finite time.
No, the formation of a list that pretends to represent the canon is a mass generalization. And it fails.But the formation of a canon that attempts to encompass various cultures is supposed to be "mass generalization."
The Canon itself is neither a mass generalization or even someone you can define.
About readers still going through the same works that he attacks, that's doesn't anything about his list. What it does say is the ability of readers to be swayed easily by marketing. As for Meyer referring to _Wuthering Heights_, that actually leads credence to Bloom, not the opposite. The same goes for celebrities like Oprah recommending Tolstoy.
No sense. It is bloom ironic failure. He combats Meyer (and a few others) because they take away the reading of canonical books (or good books) and Meyer's book (not even her personal merit, but the merit of how market explores the public meyer gathered) give a boost of new readers of a classical book, promoting the re-edition of Wuthering heights, etc. Meanwhile, Bloom book had no effect on market, didnt provoked a boost of new editions of anyone, didnt moved readers to a new layer of reading (even because the public of Bloom is already formed by readers with some experience which will not have any trouble to guide themselves on a library) and what remains is his list, that some people may indulge (and quickly dismiss) the idea of following it as a guide. But any day that you start with the Book of Dead and jump to Gilgamesh, you are lost.
I do not think it is a problem being a snob, per si. Does not affect me, I am a snob. We are all snobs. But ssshhh, dont advertise. The problem is that Bloom sounds like a snob and do not conect with the new readers, the exactly public he in fact wanted to change. And because the commerical nature of "The Western Canon" (book) he moved away even from his previous academic public, people already confortable with the notion of classical books, more interessed in theorical discussion and able to produce their own reading options.In which case, the argument that he is a snob is valid. How else would someone who has read little of what Bloom recommends react?
Yes, and see, Restaurant critics talk about the dishes, not the list of dishes. Critical work is basically good when they can analyse works that are not exactly unknow and find something new. A List becasically is a repetition of titles, no critical work. I am not against the Bloom's essays (not specifically, he has some good essays, not exceptional) but just like him, the object of listing.But not everyone can try all of the food in all restaurants for one reason or another. That's why we have restaurant critics. The same goes for literature critics.
Let's say if Lawpark decides to read Bloom's chapters is Western Canon he may hear about Fernando Pessoa and be interessed, because Lawpark may be interessed on Whitman, maybe Neruda... maybe in latin-languages, all informations that are not in the list. But if he see Pessoa name in a list, mixed with all rest there, what is to spark his interest? The collector interest to fill the list?
No doubt. So, there is much to read it. The guide in the museum is just a how to walk here, not how to love art. Specially because art works themselves are better suited to express this than a guide.The problem is that one cannot know everything about the contents of a museum unless one refers to readings about their contents and guides.
What? Museum Guide would not be useless without the museums? That is why when they change the exposition inside the museum they just change the guide? I am very sure, Museums predates their guiding tour guides and many will still working if the guides are vanished from the face of earth. While a guiding tour to a Museum that does not exist is useful for what?The issue, then, isn't that tour guides would be useless without museums but the other way round.
All lists are artificial, and even choices people make based on marketing are the same. And like marketing, critics can make mistakes.
The fact that you disagree with the presence of _Gilgamesh_ and _The Book of the Dead_ shows that you are, like Bloom, a critic. Thus, why do you believe that the function of coming up with a list of canonical works is irrelevant when you implicitly do the same, i.e., exclude _Gilgamesh_, etc?
You are mistaking: I am not against critics and I am not against the inclusion of those two works. In fact, I have editions of both, so if I made a list of my books they would be there. My point is how mislead is a list - a supposed guide - can be putting two works completelly different as if they have similarities. You know, one of the reasons we cann't read everything is simple because we do not like everything. We have the tendency to search for similarities, you have done it before "Oh, you liked Conan Doyle? Try Dorothy Sayers or Agatha Christie" and this is more true in inexperient readers (those whould benefict from a guide). And bloom list, just lump together different works (which is a bummer, you know, you expect to read an epic narrative and get some afterlife manual) without giving any information about it, to really guide you.
And then, the same way we cann't read everything, bloom didnt and he cann't give any information about it. And you end with the only option: blindly follow the list, trying to read part of everything, or just dismiss it and search for yourself more information based on your experience.
There is no sensiblity. It was more an mnemonic exercise for him in that list. A sensible list would reckon differences, would demand more studies, etc. Bloom was in fact careless in his list. I expect, the museum guide to be much better.Finally, if you're saying that reading, say, the GBWW is similar to following Bloom, then doesn't that show the sensibility in what Bloom did and not, as you insist, the opposite?
That is obviously the only option. But by them, someone may have stuck on Hyperion and think "Wow, this poem sucks and it is big. I saw that movie with the pretty girl, there was pretty poems there, none sucked as this one" and goodbye, Keats.Certainly not, especially when one won't have the time to read all of Keats' works. But are you saying that Bloom's list isn't worth noting because he didn't specify which works by Keats to read? If so, then why not add to his list by choosing such works?
Anyways, I am just pointing Bloom wasnt even careful to really guide you - twhich would be point which works are better for a start... Keats is just an example, he fills with complete works everywhere, do not indicate good translations, etc.
But it seems to me that you have already information to guide yourself to the point you can pick flaws in lists and expand your information beyond it. This is not a guide to someone who is just giving his first kicks in the ball.Probably, which is why I always look at different lists and anthologies. In any case, even those other lists may have flaws. The same goes for anything recommended through heavy marketing.
Now I finally understand J's point better ... J is not against all lists (which I took as J's position up till just now), but against a list without any guidance.
I tried to be "guided" by Bloom in Shakespeare ... but unfortunately I still feel what he wrote is just hyper-exageration.
J - you know of any good "guides" of Romance (French, Spanish, Italian, Portugues) literature? Seems like you are the expert in the area.
Yes, in the end, a good list, would not look like one and more like the chat we have here...
I am not an expert, but there is lineage that is good Eco (I like the selection of essays on About Literature) --> Italo Calvino ---> Borges. In the end, from Borges you will get a great vision on spanish literature. Portuguese sadly is not well guided, at all. Very ignored outside portuguese speakers. French is soo popular and prolific that is a bigger swamp. It is probally the most complex of all european traditions. It depends much on who do you like in French universe...
TU FU is among the greatest poets of any canon, eastern or otherwise.
Thanks!
I beg to differ ... I think he is very "divisive" in a way - there are just quite some people who are taught to like him but really couldn't. Especially vs. Li Bai and Wang Wei ...
An east meets west canon: Or is it west meets east:
The Royal Chronicles of the Incas by Garcilaso de la Vega (la Inca). The author, the son of an Inca princess and a Spanish conquistador, should not be confused with the Spanish poet Garcilaso de la Vega.
Li Bai and Wang Wei are fantastic as well, Tu Fu just happens to be my favorite. There isn't a single writer, eastern or otherwise, to whom the phrase ". . .some people who are taught to like him but really couldn't" does not apply.
Still, with poetry I find I turn more to specific poems than poets as the best moments, for instance, something like this works wonderfully regardless of the rather insignificance of the author's total oeuvre.
新裂齐纨素，皎洁如霜雪。
裁作合欢扇，团圆似明月。
出入君怀袖，动摇微风发；
常恐秋节至，凉飚夺炎热；
The poem resonates, and that is how Chinese poetry works in general, and anthologies work in general - most poets write only a handful of excellent works, and the rest is usually discarded. To say Du Fu is the best or something is irrelevant - you mean about 20-30 or so poems of Du Fu, with the best being about 5-10. The same with any major poet.
Last edited by JBI; 09-05-2011 at 03:22 PM.
I never said, nor meant to imply, that he was the best, rather just that he was one of my favorites and certainly a worthy candidate for canonical status. I agree completely with your comment about individual poems, but I found it easier and perhaps more efficient to contribute to the thread with one great poet that was yet to be mentioned.
True, true, though he was mentioned several times on this thread.
- I don't recognize the poem you quote - it reads a little artificial ...d probably uses too many words to my taste. Who was the author?
- Agreed that even among the Tang poets, there are folks like 王之涣 with two poems, and 王昌龄 who probably are not that prolific, yet has some really good works comparable wtih any top poets.
Reply With Quote
