I have so many wonderful things to say about this book. Not only did it introduce me to a whole bevy of authors, but it did so in their original language. Translation in general is suspect, and translation into verse is as near to heresy as exists in my book. How is one to ever appreciate the poetry of other languages without devoting a lifetime to the languages themselves?
Burnshaw et al execute this balancing act in exactly the right way, offering the original text, a literal translation, and a detailed analysis of the prosodies that contribute to the texture of the finished work. Previously I only had a vague notion that I didn't like French poetry. After reading this volume, in which one finds such revered luminaries as Mallarme, Baudelaire and Rimbaud, I can state confidently that I indeed do not. It all seems to be trying too hard, either to be beautiful, or to be meaningful, and never both. I suppose I should offer the caveat that of all the languages included in this volume, I am the weakest at French, but the English translations should have levelled that out a little.
Previously, I simply had a vague notion that Spanish poetry was the best in the world. After reading the treatment here of Machado, Guillen, and Salinas, I find that I was right. Noticeably absent is that greatest of poets, Octavio Paz, who was possibly still too modern at the time of publication. I would love to see him given the same treatment, but seeing as it would likely fall to me, I suppose it will remain a vague desire.
The real surprise was how lovely I found German poetry. I became fully absorbed, not only in the work of Stefan George, Hugo Von Hofmannsthal, and of course Rilke, but also in the fascinating lives that colored their work. It is to this area that I most want to devote future attention.
And there were some Italian guys too. Not bad.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Saturday, April 12, 2014
1 Peter
1:1 already a solemn, ominous note that I don't find in Paul's writings--even when he was writing about his own iminent death.
1:2 By now a familiar greeting. Was Paul copying Peter when he adopted this greeting, or was it just colloquial?
1:5-6 We can look back on this argument and judge it to be specious, I suppose. The last time is near! This suffering is temporary! For how long have religious orators been offering some version of those lines? Theologically speaking, of course, both statements can be seen as true, but it seems a little disingenuous.
1:8 This book is clearly meant for a later audience than previous books, addressed as it is to a second generation of believers, who have only second hand knowledge of Christ. This persents some chronological and/or authorial difficulties however. Isn't Peter supposed to have died before Paul?
1:10-12 "Peter" is laying it on pretty thickly here, I must say. Surely it's an overstatement to say that the first century audience is the fulfillment of all sort of divine plans, and that the angels themselves are jealous of their knowledge.
1:18 Peter's rather dismissive references to Jewish tradition also argue in favor of a second generation audience, as contrasted with the reverent tone earlier authors took.
1:20 By no measire can the first century be labelled "the end of the ages" in retrospect.
1:24 Ok, I'm really intrigued by this. Of course this is not the first time that the version I'm reading (NRSV) sets a section of in stanzas, but it's not clear exactly what this signifies. It's either indicitave of the quotative or the poetic properties of the original text. If this is a quote, from where? If this is poetic in a way that can be perceived through the veil of ancient Greek, could it really be the voice of a fisherman?
21-3 The three statements here are each interesting in their own right, but do not quite seem to relate to each other. For one thing, why is "Peter" putting such stron emphasis on things that should be self evident? Malice is a pretty strong word. Are the the Christians of Asia Minor really in need of a reminder not to be malicious? Are they really so juvenile? I especially like that he includes an admonition not to be insincere. I'm not sure I have seen a similiar directive elsewhere in the Bible. Now that I look at it more closely, it does tie in rather nicely to the next verse after all. After reminding them of what should be bare minimums, he them tells to to long for spiritual milk like newborns. It's as if he's saying, "Quit acting like such infants. If you are going to be infants, at least drink your milk."
2:6 Here it's clearer exactly why the verse is set poetically: it's a quotation from Isaiah. Why was 1:24 set in the same way then?
2:10 and here a more telling quote from Paul, which makes the dating/timing of this book even more suspect in my mind.
2:16 In what sense does he urge them to live as a free people? As one free from the Mosaic Law? From obligation to secular law? And in what sense it that meant to contrast with the fact that they are servants of God?
2:18 oooohhhhh he's talking in part to slaves, who are in spirit free, but in law not so much.
2:23 I found this reasoning a bit suspect at first reading. Is he really suggesting that the unjust beating slaves endure are analogous to the beating Christ underwent? But yeah, I guess he is. And I guess it holds up logically, but it still rubs me strangely for some reason.
3:1 By the same logic: if a man beats his wife, she should just put up with it. Wow has this verse ever been taken out of its rhetorical context . . .
3:16 This is the second mention of reverence, a trait that I never had much use for. It's a running theme of this section, and although I can see the connection to a Christlike mind (as in 3:8), I question whether it's not being overgeneralized here. What "Peter" is suggesting is not reverence for God, or Christ, or even each other. But reverence to everyone who might pass on the street. Surely there is some language barrier that is obscuring the original meaning of what is here translated "reverence".
4:1 "Peter" tries to give Paul a rune for his rhetorical money here, emplying a rather bald appeal to his audeince's ego, but unlike Paul's similar rhetorical turns, this has no logical underpinning. The argument that suffering is the absolution of sin is really unsuuportable, logically or theologically.
4:7 It is impossible to count how often this tactic has been employed by unscrupulous preachers throughout history. "The end is near" persists as a theological fraud because of its undeniable effectiveness.
5:13 Now this is an interesting turn. Babylon? This statement of "Peter" has been the subject of much discussion among schoalrs, whether it is code for Rome (which seems a bit unnecessary) or Babylon in Egypt (possible) or even, I suppose, actual Babylon (unlikely). At any rate, the entire book smells of demagoguery, of the flavor that I hesistate to ascribe to the Biblical figure of Simon Peter, whom I perefer to think of as a man whose chief virute was his simplicity, not his ability to work up a crowd.
1:2 By now a familiar greeting. Was Paul copying Peter when he adopted this greeting, or was it just colloquial?
1:5-6 We can look back on this argument and judge it to be specious, I suppose. The last time is near! This suffering is temporary! For how long have religious orators been offering some version of those lines? Theologically speaking, of course, both statements can be seen as true, but it seems a little disingenuous.
1:8 This book is clearly meant for a later audience than previous books, addressed as it is to a second generation of believers, who have only second hand knowledge of Christ. This persents some chronological and/or authorial difficulties however. Isn't Peter supposed to have died before Paul?
1:10-12 "Peter" is laying it on pretty thickly here, I must say. Surely it's an overstatement to say that the first century audience is the fulfillment of all sort of divine plans, and that the angels themselves are jealous of their knowledge.
1:18 Peter's rather dismissive references to Jewish tradition also argue in favor of a second generation audience, as contrasted with the reverent tone earlier authors took.
1:20 By no measire can the first century be labelled "the end of the ages" in retrospect.
1:24 Ok, I'm really intrigued by this. Of course this is not the first time that the version I'm reading (NRSV) sets a section of in stanzas, but it's not clear exactly what this signifies. It's either indicitave of the quotative or the poetic properties of the original text. If this is a quote, from where? If this is poetic in a way that can be perceived through the veil of ancient Greek, could it really be the voice of a fisherman?
21-3 The three statements here are each interesting in their own right, but do not quite seem to relate to each other. For one thing, why is "Peter" putting such stron emphasis on things that should be self evident? Malice is a pretty strong word. Are the the Christians of Asia Minor really in need of a reminder not to be malicious? Are they really so juvenile? I especially like that he includes an admonition not to be insincere. I'm not sure I have seen a similiar directive elsewhere in the Bible. Now that I look at it more closely, it does tie in rather nicely to the next verse after all. After reminding them of what should be bare minimums, he them tells to to long for spiritual milk like newborns. It's as if he's saying, "Quit acting like such infants. If you are going to be infants, at least drink your milk."
2:6 Here it's clearer exactly why the verse is set poetically: it's a quotation from Isaiah. Why was 1:24 set in the same way then?
2:10 and here a more telling quote from Paul, which makes the dating/timing of this book even more suspect in my mind.
2:16 In what sense does he urge them to live as a free people? As one free from the Mosaic Law? From obligation to secular law? And in what sense it that meant to contrast with the fact that they are servants of God?
2:18 oooohhhhh he's talking in part to slaves, who are in spirit free, but in law not so much.
2:23 I found this reasoning a bit suspect at first reading. Is he really suggesting that the unjust beating slaves endure are analogous to the beating Christ underwent? But yeah, I guess he is. And I guess it holds up logically, but it still rubs me strangely for some reason.
3:1 By the same logic: if a man beats his wife, she should just put up with it. Wow has this verse ever been taken out of its rhetorical context . . .
3:16 This is the second mention of reverence, a trait that I never had much use for. It's a running theme of this section, and although I can see the connection to a Christlike mind (as in 3:8), I question whether it's not being overgeneralized here. What "Peter" is suggesting is not reverence for God, or Christ, or even each other. But reverence to everyone who might pass on the street. Surely there is some language barrier that is obscuring the original meaning of what is here translated "reverence".
4:1 "Peter" tries to give Paul a rune for his rhetorical money here, emplying a rather bald appeal to his audeince's ego, but unlike Paul's similar rhetorical turns, this has no logical underpinning. The argument that suffering is the absolution of sin is really unsuuportable, logically or theologically.
4:7 It is impossible to count how often this tactic has been employed by unscrupulous preachers throughout history. "The end is near" persists as a theological fraud because of its undeniable effectiveness.
5:13 Now this is an interesting turn. Babylon? This statement of "Peter" has been the subject of much discussion among schoalrs, whether it is code for Rome (which seems a bit unnecessary) or Babylon in Egypt (possible) or even, I suppose, actual Babylon (unlikely). At any rate, the entire book smells of demagoguery, of the flavor that I hesistate to ascribe to the Biblical figure of Simon Peter, whom I perefer to think of as a man whose chief virute was his simplicity, not his ability to work up a crowd.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Hall, Smith and Wicaksono: Mapping Applied Linguistics
Normally I don't write about my textbooks here, for the very simple reason that I usually don't read them very thoroughly. This volume, for example, was assigned to one of my grad level classes last semester. I gave it a cursory flip-through, heaved a shoulder in a gesture of unimpressiveness, and proceeded to give two very successful presentations on it.
Then came time for my comprehensive exam, a monolithic beast taking five hours and covering everything from syntax and phonology to translation and language policy planning. To my weary disgust, this book was on the reading list. Now I had to pull it off the shelf and actually read it, for who knew what obscure point would be referenced by our seemingly sadistic professors?
And in the course of reading it, I developed an opinion that was somewhat more specific than a shrug of disregard. To wit: this was not a textbook--let one appropriate for graduate level work. It was a discussion guide, such as might be found in the back of a coffee club book. It offered no information, merely a wearisome list of things to think about, hedge statements, "possible answers", and "some thoughts on" various topics about which one would hope to be getting rather more detail.
In short, I suppose I could picture using this as the textbook for an undergraduate introduction to linguistics, but that it was not only a textbook for my graduate level seminar, but also on the reading list for my senior comprehensive exam is insulting, and should give you some idea of the laziness of my advising professor.
Then came time for my comprehensive exam, a monolithic beast taking five hours and covering everything from syntax and phonology to translation and language policy planning. To my weary disgust, this book was on the reading list. Now I had to pull it off the shelf and actually read it, for who knew what obscure point would be referenced by our seemingly sadistic professors?
And in the course of reading it, I developed an opinion that was somewhat more specific than a shrug of disregard. To wit: this was not a textbook--let one appropriate for graduate level work. It was a discussion guide, such as might be found in the back of a coffee club book. It offered no information, merely a wearisome list of things to think about, hedge statements, "possible answers", and "some thoughts on" various topics about which one would hope to be getting rather more detail.
In short, I suppose I could picture using this as the textbook for an undergraduate introduction to linguistics, but that it was not only a textbook for my graduate level seminar, but also on the reading list for my senior comprehensive exam is insulting, and should give you some idea of the laziness of my advising professor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)