It was a lovely evening, or, since that is pretentious, a good one.
Victor LaValle has a sense of proportion and is modest and aware. I was impressed.
The discrepancies in the Kafka translations that jumped out at me both had to do with gender: first, the now "hot babes" tending to the artist, and then the use of "mansplaining." I would be surprised if there were an equivalent term in 1924. Mansplaining definitely seemed to capture the entirety of what followed, but it is an instance of introducing a "tell" and not just letting the "show" operate. Maybe that principle does a writer more harm than good, I don't know. I also felt that, while "mansplaining" was funny, it was distracting, because it just did not seem "1924" to me. The flexible approach to the translation almost could have used a preface explaining the style of it beforehand, so it wouldn't be distracting (not that this was more than one instance).
I am struck between the parallels between philosophies of translating and philosophies of reading the constitution. Do you do it literally, or capture the underlying meanings, applied to the present day?
I feel that the word "hunger" could be extracted without losing much meaning. The things he said applied to all artists, not just hunger artists (you do it for the thing itself, yet chafe at non-recognition, etc.) But, oddly, the connection to athletics is also strong, and so I love that you incorporated that into "Tastemakers." The parallel connections are only odd in that few people think of art and athletics as similar, but they would probably are, if they connect to a third thing.
In my running days, I would try not to let on that I was tired, even if I had set a personal best, and Kafka captures that. I guess I'm stuck on gender today, because I identified that front as a form of machismo. There is an episode in "Mad Men" when Don Draper and Roger Sterling climb 20 flights of stairs after eating and drinking to excess. Don taunts Roger, acting as if the climb is leisurely for him. Roger throws up. In private, we see Don doubled over, too.
Thanks for the flattering words and picture, and so much to chew on for this week.
Yes you nailed two of the three places where I really thought twice about the words. I went back and forth on "hot babes" and in a print copy I wouldn't have chosen it - but for live theater I knew it would get a laugh and give the image that was commensurate with the modest 1938 translation "two young ladies arrived, happy about the fact that they were the ones who had just been selected by lot, seeking to lead the hunger artist down a couple of steps out of the cage" -- in my translation, I sought to show that very little has changed in the way that artists are treated by the people who make money from them (as is very visible right now in the entertainment industry). "Mansplaining" is a new coinage but very accurately describes this moment: "the father of a family came by with his children, pointed his finger at the hunger artist, gave a detailed explanation about what was going on here, and talked of earlier years, when he had been present at similar but incomparably more magnificent performances" -- as for your last point, I also feel that the story is more about the artist than the "hunger" and I have always been frustrated by the reviewers who try to make the story about anorexia--in my opinion, missing the point entirely. "Starving Artist" however, holds a lot of resonance.
Thank you for elaborating and explaining. As is typical of me, I focused on the artist and missed the financial exploitation.
How does mansplaining differ from patronizing, I wonder? Is the only difference that the target of a mansplain is female? The root of "patronize" seems telling.
Pardon my ignorance, but did you translate the story directly from the German, or edit/update the 1938 translation? It must have been quite an undertaking. Your deep familiarity was evident in how well you read it.
It was a lovely evening, or, since that is pretentious, a good one.
Victor LaValle has a sense of proportion and is modest and aware. I was impressed.
The discrepancies in the Kafka translations that jumped out at me both had to do with gender: first, the now "hot babes" tending to the artist, and then the use of "mansplaining." I would be surprised if there were an equivalent term in 1924. Mansplaining definitely seemed to capture the entirety of what followed, but it is an instance of introducing a "tell" and not just letting the "show" operate. Maybe that principle does a writer more harm than good, I don't know. I also felt that, while "mansplaining" was funny, it was distracting, because it just did not seem "1924" to me. The flexible approach to the translation almost could have used a preface explaining the style of it beforehand, so it wouldn't be distracting (not that this was more than one instance).
I am struck between the parallels between philosophies of translating and philosophies of reading the constitution. Do you do it literally, or capture the underlying meanings, applied to the present day?
I feel that the word "hunger" could be extracted without losing much meaning. The things he said applied to all artists, not just hunger artists (you do it for the thing itself, yet chafe at non-recognition, etc.) But, oddly, the connection to athletics is also strong, and so I love that you incorporated that into "Tastemakers." The parallel connections are only odd in that few people think of art and athletics as similar, but they would probably are, if they connect to a third thing.
In my running days, I would try not to let on that I was tired, even if I had set a personal best, and Kafka captures that. I guess I'm stuck on gender today, because I identified that front as a form of machismo. There is an episode in "Mad Men" when Don Draper and Roger Sterling climb 20 flights of stairs after eating and drinking to excess. Don taunts Roger, acting as if the climb is leisurely for him. Roger throws up. In private, we see Don doubled over, too.
Thanks for the flattering words and picture, and so much to chew on for this week.
Yes you nailed two of the three places where I really thought twice about the words. I went back and forth on "hot babes" and in a print copy I wouldn't have chosen it - but for live theater I knew it would get a laugh and give the image that was commensurate with the modest 1938 translation "two young ladies arrived, happy about the fact that they were the ones who had just been selected by lot, seeking to lead the hunger artist down a couple of steps out of the cage" -- in my translation, I sought to show that very little has changed in the way that artists are treated by the people who make money from them (as is very visible right now in the entertainment industry). "Mansplaining" is a new coinage but very accurately describes this moment: "the father of a family came by with his children, pointed his finger at the hunger artist, gave a detailed explanation about what was going on here, and talked of earlier years, when he had been present at similar but incomparably more magnificent performances" -- as for your last point, I also feel that the story is more about the artist than the "hunger" and I have always been frustrated by the reviewers who try to make the story about anorexia--in my opinion, missing the point entirely. "Starving Artist" however, holds a lot of resonance.
Thank you for elaborating and explaining. As is typical of me, I focused on the artist and missed the financial exploitation.
How does mansplaining differ from patronizing, I wonder? Is the only difference that the target of a mansplain is female? The root of "patronize" seems telling.
Pardon my ignorance, but did you translate the story directly from the German, or edit/update the 1938 translation? It must have been quite an undertaking. Your deep familiarity was evident in how well you read it.
Fun City