Subject: Re: Sergeant Rilko
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 03 2000 - 07:56:18 EST
In a message dated 3/3/00 3:11:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, rbowman@indigo.ie
writes:
<<
And if we're right, doesn't it have implications for
the theory of reader response & authorial intention?
(Probably not. I certainly haven't the slightest inclination
to pursue them.)
Scottie B. >>
Yeah, decontruction theorists make a big deal out of translation. Spivak's
introduction to his translation of Derrida's _Of Grammatology_ has a pretty
extended discussion of the subject within that framework. I don't remember
exactly what points he made, but he seemed to emphasize that a translated
text and the text in the original language are two different things entirely.
I don't think translation would affect a reader response reading at all
(depends on what kind you were doing), but I don't think you can refer to
authorial intention without a knowledge of the language in which he was
writing. Biblical hermeneutics tends to focus on authorial intent as the
basis of textual meaning, but rather insists on studying the texts in the
original languages and knowing the history surrounding the writing of the
text, as well as knowledge of either the life of the author or the life of
the community (as far as can be had).
What I do with Rilke is just appreciate the English and trust the translator
:)
Hey...I liked him. I like Rilke's Panther more than Blake's Tyger (and I
love Blake). Rilke allowed the Panther to have its own existence without
serving some end represented by an idea, but through its own existence it
communicates an idea and a feeling. Blake's tyger is almost allegorized.
Not quite, but almost. The "own existence" of the tyger is clearly less
important than the ideas served by the description of the tyger.
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 10:11:38 EST