Lucie DuFresne wrote:
>....
>
>- I could not do most of the work that I do looking at symbols, images,
>objects, actions, texts and other cultural productions if I did not have
>in mind Levi-Strauss and the analytical tools he developed.
>
>- You're right is saying that his theory is lacking. But what you must not
>forget is that his methodology is one of the most powerful in use today.
>It is at the basis of post-modern discourse. Please go read Leach's
>wonderful analysis of Genesis or Levi-Strauss analysis of the Myth of
>Asdiwal. There is much here that can be used for the study of 'magic'
>
Je vous remerciez.
A passing note on translations. Levi-Strauss is indeed his own worst
translator... and that's saying something. The translation of _La
pensee sauvage_ is dreadful; even Levi-Strauss would have done a better
job in places, since at least he wouldn't have dropped half-sentences
and the like randomly, nor translated Saussurean technical terms
inconsistently. I have not checked all of _Mythologiques_ against the
originals, by any means, but the Weightmans seem to do a functional
job. I quite like the translation of _Look, Listen, and Read_, but I
haven't seen the original. The main piece that's awful is _La pensee
sauvage_; in my new book, whenever I quote from it, I have to
retranslate everything and put all the French original in endnotes. And
it's a pity: the book is quite beautiful in French.
For those who care about Levi-Strauss these days, it's worth reading
Marcel Henaff's book _Claude Levi-Strauss and the Making of Structural
Anthropology_, which is rather dense but comprehensive and clear.
Leach's little intro book is a useful crutch if you need it, but you
will soon have to rise up and walk, as they say at Lourdes.
Chris Lehrich
--
Christopher I. Lehrich
Boston University
|