• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who is / was the greatest author of all time?

NoC_T said:
Because it's personal, or everyone would interpret it the same way. In any case, evocation could only ever be personal; the author being the only person who will ever be moved in quite that way.
Click to expand...

No, not because it's personal. Because of exactly what I said - evocation. Words carry more baggage than their definitions. Of course there's a personal element to it, but that's not what makes it untranslatable. Anne frank's diary is personal but it's obviously translatable. See the difference?
 
Cyrylek said:
That's probably because they don't call their two languages Mordovan (Russian word) - its Erzya and Moksha, officially now :lol:
Click to expand...
My bad. :doh

I implore you. Forgive an ignorant foreign dolboeb.
 
William Shakespeare. There really isn't a close second.

Though, setting Shakespeare aside for a moment, I've always been in awe of the talent and mind of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He was a mad genius. When he sat down to write his novels he would use a huge pile of colored pens that, to him, each represented a mood, each pen had it's own personality to him. His manuscripts were rainbow of emotion and deeper meaning to every line than was ever delivered to the readers of the final monochrome print copy.

I always thought that someone needed to go back to those original manuscripts, given the advancement in printing over the years, and create the original color coded manuscripts that Solzhenitsyn had written and make them available to the public.
 
the_recruit said:
No, not because it's personal. Because of exactly what I said - evocation. Words carry more baggage than their definitions. Of course there's a personal element to it, but that's not what makes it untranslatable. Anne frank's diary is personal but it's obviously translatable. See the difference?
Click to expand...
For that very reason, what's lost in translation will always exceed the technicalities of a language barrier. Evocation refers to reaction, which will always be personal. Even more so, regarding emotion.

See the difference?
 
NoC_T said:
My bad. :doh

I implore you. Forgive an ignorant foreign dolboeb.
Click to expand...

Done. Of course, I was the one who used the wrong word, but I still forgive you.

And it's a good thing that our moderators are probaby just as foreign and ignorant :)

By the way, really, can we say nasty things in foreign langauges in this forum? really rare languages?

(Now I tried to think of a famous Mordovan, and came up with precisely one name - Stepan Nefedov-Erzia, the sculptor. And he worked in Argentina, of all places).
 
Cyrylek said:
Done. Of course, I was the one who used the wrong word, but I still forgive you.

And it's a good thing that our moderators are probaby just as foreign and ignorant :)

By the way, really, can we say nasty things in foreign langauges in this forum? really rare languages?

(Now I tried to think of a famous Mordovan, and came up with precisely one name - Stepan Nefedov-Erzia, the sculptor. And he worked in Argentina, of all places).
Click to expand...
I think that prolonged use of languages other than English is frowned upon. Certainly, the odd stream of invective should be no cause for concern, but an entire conversation? They don't like that. I think it's in the rules.
 
NoC_T said:
For that very reason, what's lost in translation will always exceed the technicalities of a language barrier. Evocation refers to reaction, which will always be personal. Even more so, regarding emotion.

See the difference?
Click to expand...

One more time. It's not the personal nature of it that makes it untranslatable. Poetry is untranslatable because word A cannot be replaced with word B (or structure A with structure B) even if they have equivalent definitions (which is essentially what translation is) because they don't necessarily evoke the same experience in the reader.

You're tripping up on the fact that it's personal, so let's just remove personal subjectivism from the equation and limit our consideration to a single individual. Jack reads a poem with word A and it evokes a certain experience in him. Now, give Jack the same poem but with word B. Jack will not necessarily have same experience as he did with word A.

Therefore it's not personal subjectivism that makes it untranslatable; it's not the fact that Jack and Jill interpret the poem differently, it's that Joe himself will experience the poem differently if it's arranged using different words and structures.
 
the_recruit said:
One more time. It's not the personal nature of it that makes it untranslatable. Poetry is untranslatable because word A cannot be replaced with word B (or structure A with structure B) even if they have equivalent definitions (which is essentially what translation is) because they don't necessarily evoke the same experience in the reader.

You're tripping up on the fact that it's personal, so let's just remove personal subjectivism from the equation and limit our consideration to a single individual. Jack reads a poem with word A and it evokes a certain experience in him. Now, give Jack the same poem but with word B. Jack will not necessarily have same experience as he did with word A.

Therefore it's not personal subjectivism that makes it untranslatable; it's not the fact that Jack and Jill interpret the poem differently, it's that Joe himself will experience the poem differently if it's arranged using different words and structures.
Click to expand...
The reason being that the same word that made it personal, has now been replaced with something that no longer can. So it's not personal, anymore.

You're attempting to remove the element that made your point relevant in the first place, then claim that it's still relevant. Your contradiction lies in admission of evocation as personal, while denying that reaction is personal. They are one and the same.
 
Too many great authors in the world to single one out....................
 
Knowledge=power said:
I'm posting this here, because I saw Indeed's point about the philosophy forum needing more philosophical questions. I guess this could be in academia, but what the hell.

Who, in your opinion, is the greatest author of all time?

I love Steinbeck, but don't care too much for Hemingway - just don't care for his writing style too much.

There are tons of good authors. Who do you like, and why?
Click to expand...

In English, the discussion starts and ends with Shakespeare. Beyond English, I'd say Dostoyevsky. For my own taste, Hemingway, because of his direct style. For poetry, A.E. Housman.:cool:
 
NoC_T said:
The reason being that the same word that made it personal, has now been replaced with something that no longer can. So it's not personal, anymore.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Why is poem-with-word-A personal but poem-with-word-B not personal? Both are poems, both are personal - that is both poems are subject to variations in personal taste.

NoC_T said:
You're attempting to remove the element that made your point relevant in the first place, then claim that it's still relevant.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I've been very specific and consistent about my point and simply claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. The untranslatability of poetry has nothing to do with the fact that there is personal variation in taste when it comes to poetry. That has been and continues to be my one and only point in this thread.

NoC_T said:
Your contradiction lies in admission of evocation as personal, while denying that reaction is personal. They are one and the same.
Click to expand...

More nonsense. Personal and evocation are not the same thing. That's asinine - they're different terms. See Merriam-Webster if you can't keep them straight.

What I HAVE said is that what feelings a particular poem evokes varies from person to person.
 
the_recruit said:
Nonsense. Why is poem-with-word-A personal but poem-with-word-B not personal? Both are poems, both are personal - that is both poems are subject to variations in personal taste.



Nonsense. I've been very specific and consistent about my point and simply claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. The untranslatability of poetry has nothing to do with the fact that there is personal variation in taste when it comes to poetry. That has been and continues to be my one and only point in this thread.

More nonsense. Personal and evocation are not the same thing. That's asinine - they're different terms. See Merriam-Webster if you can't keep them straight.

What I HAVE said is that what feelings a particular poem evokes varies from person to person.
Click to expand...
Because it's not the same poem, is it, since we both agree that the original employed language particular to the poet of that time and place. Don't attempt a swift reversal, as if it'll go unnoticed. Neither of us was discussing 'taste'. That's tangential. You never mentioned variation, either. Why try to cover your tracks, when our posts are here for all to see? That's silly. Evocation could only be personal, unless you're suggesting that reactions are shared telepathically, or that individuality is an illusion.

This is all very simple, really.
 
Well, if we're going with actual "literary big names"... I'd have to say Joseph Conrad and Cormac McCarthy are at or near the top for me.


While not considered among the "literary elite" generally, Robert A Heinlein wrote a hell of a lot of good and very imaginative stories that inspired a generation to build a space program beginning in a time when it was considered a pipe dream fit only for pulp fiction.

High and honorable mention to Tolkein, Kipling's poetry, William Golding (Lord of the Flies), Poe and of course Hemingway. For science fiction, always a major genre to me, add Clarke, Asimov, Frederick Pohl, Poul Anderson and Lester del Rey.


Modern novelists who lack the "literary" cachet but who write some damn good stories: S. M. Stirling, Dean Koontz, and David Weber.
 
Jesus, some of you guys are really big readers, huh?
 
NoC_T said:
Because it's not the same poem, is it, since we both agree that the original employed language particular to the poet of that time and place.
Click to expand...

I feel like i'm talking to a brick wall.

This is a discussion about poetry translation. I contend that poetry cannot be translated. You asked why. I explained why (and it remains the same explanation i've been repeating over and over in this thread) - the translation process necessarily destroys the original effect of the poem, the original evocation of the poem if you will.

So, now, you've basically just repeated my initial stance. Congratulations to myself. Apparently I've convinced you that I'm right.


NoC_T said:
This is all very simple, really.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but why then do you struggle?
 
the_recruit said:
I feel like i'm talking to a brick wall.
Click to expand...
It's called a mirror.

This is a discussion about poetry translation. I contend that poetry cannot be translated. You asked why. I explained why (and it remains the same explanation i've been repeating over and over in this thread) - the translation process necessarily destroys the original effect of the poem, the original evocation of the poem if you will.

So, now, you've basically just repeated my initial stance. Congratulations to myself. Apparently I've convinced you that I'm right.
Click to expand...
As expected, you made my position your own.

Attaboy. As I said, the reader can follow the conversation, so why BS?

Indeed, but why then do you struggle?
Click to expand...
God....
 
NoC_T said:
It's called a mirror.


As expected, you made my position your own.

Attaboy. As I said, the reader can follow the conversation, so why BS?


God....
Click to expand...

Here is what I wrote on page 3 of this thread in response to your question about why poetry is untranslatable:

the_recruit said:
You can't replace a bunch of words in a poem with words that have more or less the same definition and expect the poem to have the same effect.
Click to expand...

After 10 pages of going in circles, here's the conclusion you've come to regarding replacing a word in poem..

NoC_T said:
Because it's not the same poem, is it, since we both agree that the original employed language particular to the poet of that time and place.
Click to expand...

And you think i'm the one who switched positions? :roll:

So, now that you agree with me let's formally settle this. You agree with my original position that poems cannot be translated because changing the wording of the poem, even if only for purposes of language translation, alters the effect of the poem? Correct, robert downey junior?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom