Trevor, if you mean Boston USA b/c or f/c details so I can let some people
know. In particular there's a book person I think you'd enjoy meeting.
Mark
At 01:17 AM 4/26/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Rebecca Seiferle:
>
> > And in thinking about it, I think it's because some of these elements, the
> > personifications, the use of "sere," etc., are some of those that I dislike
> > in contemporary poetry from the UK, a sort of persistence of Victorian
> > verse as if modernism hadn't occurred. I would argue for instance for a
> > more truly archaic word than "sere" which still has vestiges of romantic
> > usage clinging to it, but, again, I was not so much snagged on a particular
> > word. However, having said this, I think you may well be right, that the
> > way to get around this particular issue in the translation is not by
> > editting it out but by emphasizing it, by making the music even more
> > discordant and thick, more dense. In other words by intensifying these
> > characteristics in the text. So perhaps it's not that those dictions are
> > there, but that they are not there enough. A little more volume, perhaps
>
>Computer's acting up tonight, so I can't be as prolix as usual. Just to say
>I absolutely take your point here, Rebecca: I think you're dead right. Mark,
>if I remember rightly, said something much earlier in the conversation which
>I interpreted along these lines, whether accurately or no. Anyway, having
>already been softened up, I just concede to this putting of the case.
>
>Of course, agreeing's one thing; actually achieving it's another. We'll see
>. . .
>
>Incidentally, I'll be on the road on and off from tomorrow: Dublin, Cork
>again, then Boston (for six weeks or so), so may not be able to join in
>much. But I hope to.
>
>Best to all,
>
>Trevor
|