[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 108 KB, 640x640, 17617450-CF6A-4EC6-9DC7-119E9F64FDAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12939902 No.12939902 [Reply] [Original]

Is this translation any good? I am also considering the new edition from Margaret Jull Costa?

>> No.12939973

The Jull Costa one is organized much better. The two different phases of the book are actually pretty distinct and were pretty clearly meant to be written by two different authors. Zenith's translation is great but I just don't like how he mashes it all together.

>> No.12940472

Zenith is objectively a better translation.

Complaining about the organisation of short jumbled independent pieces. Ignored.

>> No.12940705

The only reason you think that is just because that's how they've presented for so long. We know when most of them were written and arranging them chronologically shows a very clear progression in what Pessoa had in mind for the collection. I'm not saying he would've organized it in the same way but again, Guedes from the earlier fragments in the first phase and Soares from the second are pretty distinct. It makes absolutely no fucking sense to just jumble them all together. Just because they found them all mixed up in a trunk doesn't mean that's how Pessoa would have wanted them to be read and understood.

>> No.12940731

>Just because they found them all mixed up in a trunk doesn't mean that's how Pessoa would have wanted them to be read and understood.
Not that Anon, and you are right to an extent, but we can never really know how Pessoa wanted to arrange them, especially because the Book of Disquiet was never meant to be a collection of fragments or entries in a journal but an actual narrative (or, at least, a novel). We know that Pessoa wanted to include it in his Complete Works; we know that it was going to be a unified work, even a novel; we also know that it is unfinished, not arranged with authorial intent and not revised. In such a case, arranging them by theme, chronology or any other sort of arrangement is always arbitrary and will never yield the actual structure Pessoa had in mind for his Book.

>> No.12940929

automatically shit. i have never read a good translation by a woman.

>> No.12941329

zenith is the definitive edition, accept no substitute

>> No.12941349

>arranging them... will never yield the actual structure Pessoa had in mind for his Book.

Of course. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise at all, just that presenting them in the way they were found is far more misleading than at least attempting some kind of reconstruction. I always get shit on here when I try to suggest there's an underlying narrative structure to the fragments and again that's just because people have been so accustomed to them being presented in a way that makes any kind of reading like that impossible. The theory behind Costa's organization is at least far closer to Pessoa's intent, even if the execution is vastly different.

>> No.12941951

Both are "misleading" since they are both based on editorial reconstruction and not from an authorial one. As you very well say, there is an underlying narrative thread to the fragments, but it will always lack the coherence of a full-fledged, well-structured narrative. In any case, as Pessoa progressed in the fragmented writing of the Book, he changed his ideas on how to go about it. And it's not like Zenith just threw them as he found them. I think you are underestimating the care of his edition. In the end, any attempt to structure the Book is mere conjecture (and, at most, educated guess), no matter if it is chronological, as in Costa, or thematical, as in Zenith. But I rather think this gives the reader more power and agency, since the Book can be read in infinite ways. Being fragments of fragments, the reader can rearrange them in the way it best fits their vision of the Book. Sure, one may read them in chronological order, or thematically, or even in the way they are presented in the book as a sort of made-up narrative, so in the end the Book as we have it can only really be said to have a structure in so far as the reader discerns and builds up that structure themselves.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.