"Edited for the Modern Reader"

Catawumpus <kimmerian RemoveThis @fastmail.fm>:

>> Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. So
>> they should be impeached.

norrin <adweiland RemoveThis @hotmail.com>:

> Impeach the judges.

Them, too. Maybe it's already been done. Unacknowledgely.

> How can anybody measure greatness? It can only
> be recognized.

You should aim that question to Sean, since he contributed
the idea of a greatness-metric.

-- Catawumpus
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

: Catawumpus <kimmerian.RemoveThis@fastmail.fm>
: Implied? If you tell me some -- all? -- KJV-onlyists link their
: ideas about divine inspiration to a certain white-supremacy form of
: racism, then I'll agree that's possible. Those thoughts could be
: connected. But to argue the one entails the other would be false, and
: displacement theology has its roots in Paul. Anyway, I'm not
: commenting about the "WASPs are God's chosen people" shtick, I'm
: saying it's no more or less crazy to claim the KJV is inspired than to
: say the same about what it's translating, regardless what other
: beliefs the onlyists may hold.

I think it's quite arguable that God intervening at the translation step
is less plausible, since it seems to entail that the things tranlsated *from*
are erronious. Because (as the OP of this notion noted) it's fairly well
accepted that there are *mis*translations. Why God let the originals
be erronious is then a bit of a conundrum.

Of course, it's also quite arguable that the mere fact that multiple people
take the same KJV (or original language version) verse to mean different
thing would already have demonstrated the problem to people... "the problem"
being God has to intervene for every *reader*, not the writer/translator,
or it's all for naught anyways. And God demonstrably does not do so
(given how people disagree about the meanings of the same KJV words).

Which of course leads you right smartly away from literalism
in the first place. (Heh. "Smartly".)


Wayne Throop throopw.RemoveThis@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Catawumpus <kimmerian RemoveThis @fastmail.fm>:

>> ... It's no more
>> or less crazy to claim the KJV is inspired than to argue the
>> same about what it's translating, regardless what other beliefs
>> the onlyists may hold.

throopw RemoveThis @sheol.org (Wayne Throop):

> I think it's quite arguable that God intervening at the translation step
> is less plausible, since it seems to entail that the things tranlsated *from*
> are erronious. Because (as the OP of this notion noted) it's fairly well
> accepted that there are *mis*translations. Why God let the originals
> be erronious is then a bit of a conundrum.

True -- but I'd say that the error-filled originals are no
more of a mystery than the mistakes in the translations.
Wouldn't a god who assures inerracy in the originals then go on
to do the same when they're put into other languages?
Evidently not, so you've got to ask why he's willing to let his
words get screwed up.

> Of course, it's also quite arguable that the mere fact that multiple people
> take the same KJV (or original language version) verse to mean different
> thing would already have demonstrated the problem to people... "the problem"
> being God has to intervene for every *reader*, not the writer/translator,
> or it's all for naught anyways. And God demonstrably does not do so
> (given how people disagree about the meanings of the same KJV words).

Fair enough reasoning, but its weight falls equally on the
originals and the translations, since if God steps in to
clarify for every reader, he may as well skip the scriptures in
any language and go straight to revelation, giving all and
sundry (or maybe only the elect) a direct line to whatever he's
saying.

-- Catawumpus
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Catawumpus <kimmerian.RemoveThis@fastmail.fm>:

>>>> Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. So
>>>> they should be impeached.

norrin <adweiland.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>:

>>> Impeach the judges.

Me:

>> Them, too. Maybe it's already been done. Unacknowledgely.

Him:

> You referenced Mr. Peachum, but I don't think the name
> means anything to you.

No, peaches, I alluded to Shelley, but I agree that you're
not thinking. Now beggar off, eh?

norrin:

>>> How can anybody measure greatness? It can only
>>> be recognized.

Me:

>> You should aim that question to Sean, since he contributed
>> the idea of a greatness-metric.

Him:

> You're the one who says greatness is internal and that
> it's possible to analyze a book out of context.

You're the one who's confused. I pointed out greatness is
"an essence which all great literature contains" in Sean's
earlier comments, contrary to his later claim that said essence
isn't within the book.

Analyzing a book out of context is not only possible, it's
unavoidable for mortal creatures who lack world enough and
time to consider it in each and every setting. But in the same
way it's also very hard to analyze a book outside of any
context at all. And of course results will differ depending on
which ones you choose.

-- Catawumpus
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Catawumpus <kimmer....RemoveThis@fastmail.fm>:
>
> >>>> Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. So
> >>>> they should be impeached.
>
> norrin <adweil....RemoveThis@hotmail.com>:
>
> >>> Impeach the judges.
>
> Me:
>
> >> Them, too. Maybe it's already been done. Unacknowledgely.
>
> Him:
>
> > You referenced Mr. Peachum, but I don't think the name
> > means anything to you.
>
> No, peaches, I alluded to Shelley, but I agree that you're
> not thinking. Now beggar off, eh?

Without law, soldiers are reduced to beggars. Are poets the
legislators of the world? Do they make the laws and rules
everyone must repeat or ignore at their own peril? There
are many qualities of poetry that are opposed to the qualities
of law. Naturally, because one is written by a single person
and one is written by committee. I admit some poems, like
laws, are long winded and verbose.

Laws compel people to behave a certain way and poems
inspire them. A demogarg uses poetic truths and poetic
techniques to inspire people to act in ways that are
opposed to law but not to justice.

> norrin:
>
> >>> How can anybody measure greatness? It can only
> >>> be recognized.
>
> Me:
>
> >> You should aim that question to Sean, since he contributed
> >> the idea of a greatness-metric.
>
> Him:
>
> > You're the one who says greatness is internal and that
> > it's possible to analyze a book out of context.
>
> You're the one who's confused. I pointed out greatness is
> "an essence which all great literature contains" in Sean's
> earlier comments, contrary to his later claim that said essence
> isn't within the book.

An essence isn't always internal, but the claim that literature
contains an essence, instead of saying it possesses one,
suggests an internal quality.

> Analyzing a book out of context is not only possible, it's
> unavoidable for mortal creatures who lack world enough and
> time to consider it in each and every setting. But in the same
> way it's also very hard to analyze a book outside of any
> context at all. And of course results will differ depending on
> which ones you choose.

I could agree with that.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 17, 3:41 pm, Sean O'Hara <seanoh....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Smith didn't write in a different version of English. He wrote in
> our language, badly. Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Howard are perfectly
> understandable from the same period.

Smith didn't write "badly." He wrote in an earlier and more florid
style. Just because Hemingway popularized extremely bald prose does
not mean that florid prose is therefore "bad."

And if you have trouble "understanding" Smith, look to your own
vocabulary, or the limitations thereof.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 17, 9:48 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke....DeleteThis@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> You mean the idea that God originally planned for the Hebrew and Greek
> writers of the Bible to make mistakes that, over time, due to copying
> errors and revisionism, would eventually lead to His very own intended
> Sacred English Original, just in time for American Protestants? It's not
> only ridiculous, it's arrogant, racist, and quite thoroughly damnable.

It's _hilarious_, too. In this view, all the _earlier_ versions of
the Bible, which God presumably _also_ claimed were literally true,
weren't. Which means that God LIED to everyone save the Anglospheric
Protestants.

But, if God lied to all those other groups, what makes them believe
that he isn't lying to them, too?

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 15, 4:59 pm, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacdeinvalidbhan....TakeThisOut@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> Wait, wait, wait.
>
> You're suggesting that J. R. R. Tolkien's characterisation *wasn't*
> atrociously weak?
>
> That's a madman's argument. He *has* no characters. They're cardboard
> cutouts defined by single virtues or flaws, hardly more sophisticated than
> allegorical figures.

Oh, really?

So tell me, quick: is Sam Gamgee a servile xenophobe, or an
indomitable neophile? No nuances, please -- he's simply a "cardboard
cutout defined by a single virtue or flaw," so I'm sure it can't be
hard to figure out _which_.

Be prepared to defend your choice.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 4, 3:33 am, "Barb" <black.....DeleteThis@nothing.invalid> wrote:
>
> My opinion - it's simply because most people are more familiar with the
> course of events of addiction these days, whereas it didn't even appear on
> the radar of the "great unwashed" ?

Google on "gin hell" or "opium den" someday, and be enlightened.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 4, 7:18 pm, "Cosmin Corbea"
<cosminc.RemoveThis@spa_mtrap.canada.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> And yet, it seems to me that old movies had more plot. There were subplots,
> diversions, characters were more well, characterized. The modern movie has
> replaced most of that with extended and less and less believable action
> sequences

Part of the reason why is that over-the-top action scenes are easier
to shoot now than they were 25-50 years ago. Another part of the
reason is that movies now have evolved further from their origin in
plays, and of course in a live play an action scene is harder to
perform than in even the most primitive movies.

And _audiences_ come to expect more action when it is easier to
deliver. To moviegoers in the early 20th century, a simple explosion
was spectacular, because that was something you couldn't safely do on
stage. Now, people are used to multiply-shot explosions with bits of
wreckage and body parts and flames going in all directions.

Finally, screen reality tends to reinforce itself. Younger viewers,
in particular, tend to be extremely naive about real action, and so
they come to expect versions of action which exist only in make-
believe. Fireballing cars, people leaping out of danger by riding
shockwaves, and the like are now standard.

This isn't really new, though. As early as World War II, NCO's had to
train recruits _out_ of trying "John Wayne stunts" in real life,
because these would get them killed on an actual battlefield.

- Jordan

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 9, 8:42 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe....DeleteThis@acme.com> wrote:
>
> What fiction from the early or mid-20th century is still widely read?
> Thinking on my own reading, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Raymond Chandler
> come to mind.  There must be more, but it frankly isn't my favorite
> period for fiction.

J. R. R. Tolkein and Ernest Hemingway also come to mind.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 9, 10:30 am, erilar <dra....TakeThisOut@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> Oh, of course.  Somehow, I just don't think of Swift as "18th Century."  
>

Swift is very appropriate here, since his most famous work is plainly
science fiction.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 10, 5:25 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi....DeleteThis@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> erilar wrote:
> > In article <6675g8F2cnj4....DeleteThis@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Sean O'Hara <seanoh....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Catawumpus
> >>declared:
>
> >>>     If you want to decide  whether a book is any good, I still
> >>>think _reading_ it would be sensible,
>
> >>If you want to form your own opinion of the book, yes. If you want
> >>to find out why a book is considered great, yes.
>
> >       I have done this from time to time.  I can admire the
> > greatness(Brothers Karamazov) while actively disliking the book at the
> > same time   One test is that it's hard to forget.
>
>         By that criterion, "Night Travels of the Elven Vampire", "Eye of
> Argon", and "VAN GOGH IN SPACE! ! !" are great works of art.

My mental organs of remembrance will certainly never lose a firm manly
grasp on "Eye of Argon."

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader"