Reidy Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) Mais j'ai tourjours lu Hugo en francais.Rand translated a passage from L'Homme qui Rit in "The Comprachicos." Presumably the passage she quoted in her intro to the novel was hers, too. I once attended an ARI event at the Hollywood library where Britting, the archivist, said they have other translations of hers. Maybe we'll see them some day.In France last year I saw menus with software-generated English translations. They offered net (i.e. filet) of beef, net of salmon, roast chicken with table linens (garnishes) and salad with the oil of walnut and the vinegar of sherry. "Pavé" is the participle "paved" and so a paving stone and so in turn a rectangular cut of meat or fish. They offered salmon paved with cobblestones and, for those in a carnivorous mood, paved with cobblestones by a rumpsteak. Lamb Menetou-Salon, prepared with a pinot noir local to Bourges, became lamb in the Menetous' living room. Edited August 12, 2009 by Reidy
Robert Campbell Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 Peter,Rand's translation of that passage from L'Homme Qui Rit was absolutely brilliant.I don't think Victor Hugo has been well served by his English translators.Robert Campbell
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 16, 2009 Author Posted August 16, 2009 I can only imagine how bad some of the foreign editions of Rand might be: "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."Phil,Just for fun, I used Google translate on Rand's quote and ran it through a few languages before returning it to English. Here is the series of languages:From English to Spanish,That result from Spanish to Polish,That result from Polish to Hebrew,That result from Hebrew to Danish,That result from Danish to Japanese,That result from Japanese to Arabic,That result from Arabic to Portuguese,And finally that result from Portuguese back to English.Here is what I got:I have in my life, other people can live for one more question to a man who pledged to live or not. Michael
jriggenbach Posted August 16, 2009 Posted August 16, 2009 Is he [Vladimir Nabokov] a master of story-telling, description, suspense, comedy, style, wit, psychological insight? Does he have a good sense of life? Is he a master tragedian?Yes to all of the above - except for the sense of life issue. I have no problem with his sense of life, myself, but I'm a notorious range-of-the-moment whim-worshipper and an inveterate psychoepistemological criminal, whose views on all things should be disregarded by earnest students of Objectivism. Nabokov is one of the top half dozen writers of modern English in history. He spoke and wrote English, French, and Russian from earliest childhood. He spent his college years at Cambridge and submitted a translation of Lewis Carroll's Alice books into Russian as his senior thesis. His greatest novel is Pale Fire (though there is much brilliant writing and much brilliant characterization in both Lolita and Ada as well). A caveat for anyone who wants to try Pale Fire, however: It appears to be so simple and straightforward that many readers fail utterly to see its underlying complexity and emerge from reading it without having understood it at all. If you read it, track down a copy of Mary McCarthy's essay "A Bolt from the Blue" (her lengthy review of Pale Fire, which ran in the The New Republic), read that, and find out if you noticed even a tenth of what was really going on all around you as you read the novel.JR
Philip Coates Posted August 16, 2009 Posted August 16, 2009 That's funny! [Replying to MSK's google translations]Jeff, since I respect your opinion and since, unlike others, you've supplied some intriguing detail, I'll add Nabokov to my list and will start with Pale Fire and the essay you mention.1. I will have to be ostracized, though, since you are an inveterate whim-worshipper and a notorious range-of-the-moment psychoepistemological criminal.2. Furthermore, if I don't like VN, I will hunt you down and force you to read several of my recommendations.3. I hope he is not subtle. When I hear the word nuance I take out my revolver.4. "find out if you noticed even a tenth of what was really going on all around you" - I try to notice about one-fifteenth. Will that be acceptable to you? :-)
Brant Gaede Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Is he [Vladimir Nabokov] a master of story-telling, description, suspense, comedy, style, wit, psychological insight? Does he have a good sense of life? Is he a master tragedian?Yes to all of the above - except for the sense of life issue. I have no problem with his sense of life, myself, but I'm a notorious range-of-the-moment whim-worshipper and an inveterate psychoepistemological criminal, whose views on all things should be disregarded by earnest students of Objectivism. Nabokov is one of the top half dozen writers of modern English in history. He spoke and wrote English, French, and Russian from earliest childhood. He spent his college years at Cambridge and submitted a translation of Lewis Carroll's Alice books into Russian as his senior thesis. His greatest novel is Pale Fire (though there is much brilliant writing and much brilliant characterization in both Lolita and Ada as well). A caveat for anyone who wants to try Pale Fire, however: It appears to be so simple and straightforward that many readers fail utterly to see its underlying complexity and emerge from reading it without having understood it at all. If you read it, track down a copy of Mary McCarthy's essay "A Bolt from the Blue" (her lengthy review of Pale Fire, which ran in the The New Republic), read that, and find out if you noticed even a tenth of what was really going on all around you as you read the novel.JRNabokov did not agree with much of McCarthy's review. "90% of her symbols were not fathered by me." See Vladimir Nabokov, The American Years," Brian Boyd, 1991, p.465. --Brant
jriggenbach Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Nabokov did not agree with much of McCarthy's review. "90% of her symbols were not fathered by me." See Vladimir Nabokov, The American Years," Brian Boyd, 1991, p.465.What's important about McCarthy's review is not her ferreting out of "symbols." It's her grasp of the Chinese-box structure of Nabokov's narrative.JR
Chris Grieb Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Does anyone know if ARI has said anything about Jennifer Burn's report on the changing of Ayn Rand's words and ideas in the Ayn Rand journals. I have seen two reviews that make this statements about a group of books ARI has facilitating the publishing of. These are books that are being offered as Ayn Rand's ideas and words.
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 8, 2009 Author Posted September 8, 2009 Does anyone know if ARI has said anything about Jennifer Burn's report on the changing of Ayn Rand's words and ideas in the Ayn Rand journals. I have seen two reviews that make this statements about a group of books ARI has facilitating the publishing of. These are books that are being offered as Ayn Rand's ideas and words.Chris,Jennifer is writing about this on her blog here: In the Rand Archives, Part 1: Gaining AccessShe was kind enough to send me an email about this, so I am going to open a new thread about it soon.Michael
kiaer.ts Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 > And why equate Nabokov with Lolita? Try something else, like Bend Sinister.Robert, I wasn't equating him, just mentioning his most praised/best known work to me.I have a huge stack of reading awaiting me -- fiction, drama, history, philosophy, poetry. Plus I'd like to learn Greek. You'd have to give me a reason. Is he a master of story-telling, description, suspense, comedy, style, wit, psychological insight? Does he have a good sense of life? Is he a master tragedian? Of course, if you can tell me he does all of these simultaneously :-), then I'll add him to my list. No one can read everything, not even all of the "classics". And I'm dancing as fast as I can.Make sure if you study greek that the teacher pronounces theiotas subscript. Ask him about this on the first day of class. Not bothering to pronounce them is a form of modern laziness. There was a sound shift after the classical era, and final i's became silent. This means that certain case forms fell together. If you learn the older pronunciation, you can always understand the more recent pronunciation. It is quite hard to go the other way around. I had a very good experience with a Baptist minister, he was a very enthousiastic teacher, wanted me to switch to a classics major in my senior year.
Jerry Biggers Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Is he [Vladimir Nabokov] a master of story-telling, description, suspense, comedy, style, wit, psychological insight? Does he have a good sense of life? Is he a master tragedian?Yes to all of the above - except for the sense of life issue. I have no problem with his sense of life, myself, but I'm a notorious range-of-the-moment whim-worshipper and an inveterate psychoepistemological criminal, whose views on all things should be disregarded by earnest students of Objectivism. Nabokov is one of the top half dozen writers of modern English in history. He spoke and wrote English, French, and Russian from earliest childhood. He spent his college years at Cambridge and submitted a translation of Lewis Carroll's Alice books into Russian as his senior thesis. His greatest novel is Pale Fire (though there is much brilliant writing and much brilliant characterization in both Lolita and Ada as well). A caveat for anyone who wants to try Pale Fire, however: It appears to be so simple and straightforward that many readers fail utterly to see its underlying complexity and emerge from reading it without having understood it at all. If you read it, track down a copy of Mary McCarthy's essay "A Bolt from the Blue" (her lengthy review of Pale Fire, which ran in the The New Republic), read that, and find out if you noticed even a tenth of what was really going on all around you as you read the novel.JRMr. Riggenbach -Regarding the issue of your confession of past psychoepistemological crimes, the ARIan Tribunal that adjudicates such issues, is unable to render a ruling due to: 1) a lack of evidence that you exist (as any records that they may have had of your psychoepistemological transgressions were long ago deleted), and 2) they are currently involved in investigating each other for any evidence of psychepistemological deviationism. So you are safe.However, you may not be completely safe, as it has been rumored that certain prominent ARIans have been known to secretly consult their copies of your superlative audiobook narrative reading of Max Stirner's THE EGO AND HIS OWN (San Francisco: Laissez Faire Books, 1994) - a treasure long appreciated by fellow deviationists and moral tolerationists.
Greybird Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 As to Jeff Riggenbach, anyone who hasn't ingested his "In Praise of Decadence" (originally published in Libertarian Review, later expanded to book length) isn't going to fully understand what shaped Americans of the '70s. Or the '80s. Or the '90s. Or the '00s.As to Nabokov, I will give a searching look (on J.R.'s recommendation) to Pale Fire, but I was utterly underwhelmed by Lolita. A much better take on Lolita-ish matters, bowing deeply toward Nabokov, is Donald Harington's Ekaterina.
jriggenbach Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 As to Jeff Riggenbach, anyone who hasn't ingested his "In Praise of Decadence" (originally published in Libertarian Review, later expanded to book length) isn't going to fully understand what shaped Americans of the '70s. Or the '80s. Or the '90s. Or the '00s.As to Nabokov, I will give a searching look (on J.R.'s recommendation) to Pale Fire, but I was utterly underwhelmed by Lolita. A much better take on Lolita-ish matters, bowing deeply toward Nabokov, is Donald Harington's Ekaterina.Is Ekaterina about sex? Because Lolita is not about sex. There isn't a single sex scene in it. Lolita is about attempting to recapture the past.JR
Greybird Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Is Ekaterina about sex? Because Lolita is not about sex. There isn't a single sex scene in it. Lolita is about attempting to recapture the past.That last is precisely what Ekaterina is also about. With a gloss of its main character making a transit between civilizations, "east" and "west," within and outside herself. Thus, to me, taking such a recapture (or rediscovery) into two dimensions.Though Harington's book does also allude to sensuousness at moments, yes. The (former) cover illustrations for it — for those finding a used or library copy — exaggerate that aspect. But Harington was until recently a professor of art history, so he couldn't resist having a cover with lovely classical curves.
Brant Gaede Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 As to Jeff Riggenbach, anyone who hasn't ingested his "In Praise of Decadence" (originally published in Libertarian Review, later expanded to book length) isn't going to fully understand what shaped Americans of the '70s. Or the '80s. Or the '90s. Or the '00s.As to Nabokov, I will give a searching look (on J.R.'s recommendation) to Pale Fire, but I was utterly underwhelmed by Lolita. A much better take on Lolita-ish matters, bowing deeply toward Nabokov, is Donald Harington's Ekaterina.Is Ekaterina about sex? Because Lolita is not about sex. There isn't a single sex scene in it. Lolita is about attempting to recapture the past.JRYou make it sound like "Death In Venice."--Brant
Chris Grieb Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Does anyone know if ARI has said anything about Jennifer Burn's report on the changing of Ayn Rand's words and ideas in the Ayn Rand journals. I have seen two reviews that make this statements about a group of books ARI has facilitating the publishing of. These are books that are being offered as Ayn Rand's ideas and words.Chris,Jennifer is writing about this on her blog here: In the Rand Archives, Part 1: Gaining AccessShe was kind enough to send me an email about this, so I am going to open a new thread about it soon.MichaelMichael; Thanks for the update. I noted in Stephen Cox review of Ann Heller's book that there is a brief interview with Heller in which Heller said that they denied Heller access because ARI Archives had granted exclusive access to Shoshana Milligram for her Ayn Rand book. I suspect in very near time ARI will regret this decision.As I have said before it's going to be a long wait for October for both books. It is going to be very interesting what ARI actually says about both books.
jriggenbach Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 . . . it has been rumored that certain prominent ARIans have been known to secretly consult their copies of your superlative audiobook narrative reading of Max Stirner's THE EGO AND HIS OWN (San Francisco: Laissez Faire Books, 1994) - a treasure long appreciated by fellow deviationists and moral tolerationists.Thanks for the kind words about the recording. I have wondered for years whether any were ever sold, whether anyone ever actually listened to it. At the time I was making the recording, I wondered whether there would be any market for such a product.JR
Reidy Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 The book has made the gossip columns, though this story has been in the public domain since Barbara Branden's book. I wonder if that last remark about cashing in on his fame is from Burns or from the Post.
Neil Parille Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Chris, The ARI's refusal to allow Anne Heller access to the Archives is unfortunate. The last I heard is that Prof. Milgram is working on an intellectual biography of Rand, perhaps ending in '57. At one time it was billed as a full scale authorized biography, but no longer.I'm wondering if Milgram has made any attempt to interview Nathaniel or Barbara, or others who split with Rand.Anne Heller says in the Liberty interview that the only important people who didn't grant her interviews were L. Peikoff and A. Greenspan. The second is surpising. I would be surprised if any of those in the "second collective" such as A. Gotthelf, H. Binswanger and P. Schwartz gave her interviews.-Neil Parille
Brant Gaede Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) . . . it has been rumored that certain prominent ARIans have been known to secretly consult their copies of your superlative audiobook narrative reading of Max Stirner's THE EGO AND HIS OWN (San Francisco: Laissez Faire Books, 1994) - a treasure long appreciated by fellow deviationists and moral tolerationists.Thanks for the kind words about the recording. I have wondered for years whether any were ever sold, whether anyone ever actually listened to it. At the time I was making the recording, I wondered whether there would be any market for such a product.JRUnfortunately L F no longer carries this. I'll drop them a note suggesting they restock it (just so I can buy it).--Brant done Edited September 12, 2009 by Brant Gaede
Jennifer Burns Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 Does anyone know if ARI has said anything about Jennifer Burn's report on the changing of Ayn Rand's words and ideas in the Ayn Rand journals. I have seen two reviews that make this statements about a group of books ARI has facilitating the publishing of. These are books that are being offered as Ayn Rand's ideas and words.Chris,Jennifer is writing about this on her blog here: In the Rand Archives, Part 1: Gaining AccessShe was kind enough to send me an email about this, so I am going to open a new thread about it soon.MichaelMichael; Thanks for the update. I noted in Stephen Cox review of Ann Heller's book that there is a brief interview with Heller in which Heller said that they denied Heller access because ARI Archives had granted exclusive access to Shoshana Milligram for her Ayn Rand book. I suspect in very near time ARI will regret this decision.As I have said before it's going to be a long wait for October for both books. It is going to be very interesting what ARI actually says about both books.If you check out the latest archive newsletter, they have already mentioned both my book and Heller's in conjunction with the archive (though they got my title wrong, arg!). http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/impact_200906.pdf?docID=2041I believe they are also preparing to update policies and information on the archive (what is on line now is very outdated).I'm writing about these topics now, check out my blog www.jenniferburns.org/blogJennifer
Robert Campbell Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 Jennifer Burns' second entry on her work in the Ayn Rand Archives is even better than the first:http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/65-in-the-rand-archives-part-2-the-edited-letters-and-diariesRobert Campbell
Robert Campbell Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 If you check out the latest archive newsletter, they have already mentioned both my book and Heller's in conjunction with the archive (though they got my title wrong, arg!). http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/impact_200906.pdf?docID=2041I believe they are also preparing to update policies and information on the archive (what is on line now is very outdated).I can't help but notice that the newsletter (besides misrendering the title of Dr. Burns' book) also claims that the Archives helped Anne Heller.What did they let Ms. Heller see?Robert Campbell
Robert Campbell Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 I'm wondering if Milgram has made any attempt to interview Nathaniel or Barbara, or others who split with Rand.Anne Heller says in the Liberty interview that the only important people who didn't grant her interviews were L. Peikoff and A. Greenspan. The second is surpising. I would be surprised if any of those in the "second collective" such as A. Gotthelf, H. Binswanger and P. Schwartz gave her interviews.-Neil ParilleNeil,I seriously doubt that Shoshana Milgram will try to interview anyone who is persona non grata with Leonard Peikoff. It's not that she wouldn't be interested, but she is too much the ARI loyalist to do such a thing (and I have to wonder how things would go for her project if she carried out any such interviews).I also seriously doubt that Anne Heller was able to interview Allan Gotthelf, Harry Binswanger, or Peter Schwartz. I think she meant to say that they are unimportant.Robert Campbell
Robert Campbell Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 As to Jeff Riggenbach, anyone who hasn't ingested his "In Praise of Decadence" (originally published in Libertarian Review, later expanded to book length) isn't going to fully understand what shaped Americans of the '70s. Or the '80s. Or the '90s. Or the '00s.Steve,I agree, as far the article is concerned. I haven't read the book version of In Praise of Decadence.Robert Campbell
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now