Adults just can't dictate what kids ought to be outraged by. So we turn up the volume on the message, and it totally backfires.
You still have to offer them the outraged perspective, though. There are, of course, more and less effective ways to do that.
Also, I find this post Nazi-like in its genocidal intent toward outrage. C'MON WHO'S WITH ME?!?!!
Damn, it's like no one is even listening.
Hitler was good at getting his message through to kids.
1 is correct.
It's important to give the kids enough information so that they have some basis on which to ground their beliefs, but it's also going to be an uphill battle to convince them of the importance of anything that doesn't resonate with their own lives and experience.
Hasn't everybody had the experience of being a teenager and wondering, "am I just a horribly callous person because I'm not at all moved by [terrible thing X] that other people seem to get really worked up about?"
Hitler was good at getting his message through to kids.
That was Stalin.
Hasn't everybody had the experience of being a teenager and wondering, "am I just a horribly callous person because I'm not at all moved by [terrible thing X] that other people seem to get really worked up about?"
Yeah. For me it turned on around age 20 or so, and with a vengeance. "Oh god, the poor people on the Titanic girl down the well Jews who built the pyramids etc."
8: Actually both of them--just like Obama, only they weren't black. Also just like Heebie, only their asses sucked.
only their asses sucked.
Use objects with a flared base.
You always got to be fucking right, don't you?
That was Stalin.
Though, really, this search convinces me that there isn't any consensus on what quote about children should be attributed to Stalin.
Also that's quite a range of results, from theatlasphere.com to fogcreek.com and iwillsaveyoursoul.org (?).
On today's menu we feature an assortment of fruit genetically-engineered for pickability.
Actually, I think that's one of the primary differences between successful and unsuccessful social justice work. Telling people -- of any age -- how to feel is remarkably counterproductive, and usually kind of condescending.
In contrast, providing an environment where they can be presented with new information and given time and protected space in which to discuss and digest it, is more likely to result in changed participants. Whether they change in ways that the adults/facilitators intended is another question.
It's wildly tempting, when talking about topics that you think there is a broad social consensus about, to jump to the punchline: Slavery is BAD! Sexism is WRONG! Wars KILL PEOPLE!* But in my experience, if the end goal is for people to develop a shared set of values, they have to get their on their own. Skipping the intermediate cognitive steps can actually be really counter-productive, because it gets you shallow acquiescence rather than actual support.**
*Oops.
**Although sometimes I'd settle for shallow acquiescence. Depending on the circumstances.
Kraabs is right. They roll their eyes at you and are genuinely bored to hear it again, but it sinks in. Especially if they generally value your opinion. I annoy Rory with my various and sundry outrages all the time (she longs, the poor child, for the day that she can watch TV without it being A Teachable Moment). But months later she'll see something similar and express her very own outrage and I think, yes, it's worth it to be annoying.
Hasn't everybody had the experience of being a teenager and wondering, "am I just a horribly callous person because I'm not at all moved by [terrible thing X] that other people seem to get really worked up about?"
What I remember is learning about apartheid in 8th grade and being absolutely stunned that such a thing existed in the world and WTF? AND WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT AND BY "WE" I MEAN ALL YOU ADULTS WHO SEEMED TO KNOW THAT THIS WAS GOING ON AND SERIOUSLY HOW CAN THIS BE HAPPENING AND WHY I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND HOW CAN EVERYONE JUST BE SITTING HERE CALMLY AND WTF?!??!
And then a mere 14 years later, democracy!
I'm so glad that I teach my happy little math classes instead of engaging in that tractor pull.
To be fair, teaching students that race is a construct ( / that the author doesn't determine the interpretation of the text / that they do in fact take part in the performance of folk beliefs / etc) is actually a different thing than teaching them that the Holocaust was bad. In the first three, you're giving them a new analytical framework in which to think about the world around them. Not just asserting the goodness or badness of something.
Hasn't everybody had the experience of being a teenager and wondering, "am I just a horribly callous person because I'm not at all moved by [terrible thing X] that other people seem to get really worked up about?"
I have a very distinct memory of feeling this way about the Christa McAuliffe. and the Challenger shuttle explosion. As the other thread demonstrates, this continues to be an event which other people mysteriously ascribe great importance to.
In general, don't think teenagers are worse than anyone else in terms of what they do and do not get outraged by.
At my previous institution, the parking policy was the subject of great outrage from the tenured faculty. One person called it "draconian." I kept wondering what Draco the Lawgiver would have thought.
Unauthorized use of reserved spaces must be punishable by death!
At my previous institution, the parking policy was the subject of great outrage from the tenured faculty.
Isn't that true at all universities?
"I find that the three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the students, athletics for the alumni and parking for the faculty." --Charles Kerr
Really the the three, it seems to me that the students are the ones with their priorities straight.
Wasn't the quote about how he had to provide those three things? Which makes it a little squicky.
Oops that should be Clark Kerr, first Chancellor of the University of California.
The original quote was about administrative problems, but it has morphed over the years into being about providing these things.
Kerr also said that the university was "a series of individual faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common grievance over parking."
All of this is from his book *The Uses of the University*
Not to be cynical (well, yes, to be terribly cynical), the only real way to get kids outraged about something is to:
A. Convince them that being outraged is an intrinsic part of being SOMETYPEOFPERSON
B. Convince them that SOMETYPEOFPERSON's are cool, get laid a lot, etc.
Actually, this process applies to adults as well. People decide what to do mostly by mimicking the expected behavior they associate with their preferred social selfconception.
27: Thanks. I had been looking for that quotation when I wrote 24, but hadn't been able to find it.
Clark Kerr was awesome . A seminal scholar on the economics of unions, very active as a practitioner in labor relations as well. Stood up against blacklisting of faculty who refused to sign loyalty oaths, was later blacklisted himself. A shame about that whole hippie Free Speech Movement thing.
People decide what to do mostly by mimicking the expected behavior they associate with their preferred social selfconception.
Are you defining "social" just as "sometypeofperson"? Because I don't buy that that's "mostly" where morality & ethics come from.
Further to 32: Not that I don't believe that lots of kinds of social interaction affect beliefs and behavior in various ways, mind you.
28: Sure, but lots of teenagers want to be the type of person that isn't easily conned by adults with a basic knowledge of teen psychology.
New outrages:Credit default swaps and Adrian fucking Brody in a Predator movie. Try these if the old fail to roil student bloods
Are you defining "social" just as "sometypeofperson"? Because I don't buy that that's "mostly" where morality & ethics come from.
No, but people develop a basic sense of their core values and often, if not inevitably, become part of communities that they believe share those core values. And then adapt to the behaviors and beliefs exemplified by that community. For example, I periodically try* to be funny when commenting here because "funny" is a core Unfoggedian value. When I hung with the evangelical crowd, I tried to learn how to rattle off chapter and verse because rattling off chapter and verse was a core value of that community And so on.
Sure, but being funny and rattling aren't *really* values, they're behaviors. 28 does in fact use the word "behavior," but I was (unfairly?) inferring that beliefs were being lumped in as well, given the topic of the OP. I probably should have just asked for a clarification, but I feel pressured into jumping into conclusions ATM.
What 36 said.
Also, the causation isn't as direct as my glibness implied. People are more likely to mimic behavior than they are to straightforwardly adapt foreign values. On the other hand, behavior tends to drive you towards certain experiences and beliefs which in turn color your value system.
A white dude sees himself as a conscientious liberal=>makes an effort to reach out minorities=>spending time with minorities makes him more tolerant/less racist.
The only way to indicate your values to others is by your behaviors, no? Just like the actions that one can be expected to habitually do constitutes one's "personality".
I kept wondering what Draco the Lawgiver would have thought.
Considering his favorite prescription, an answer suggests itself.
Are you defining "social" just as "sometypeofperson"? Because I don't buy that that's "mostly" where morality & ethics come from.
Actually, I think it is where a lot of morality comes from, if you are simply talking about the psychological causes of people's moral attitudes and behaviors.
Most people operate at a completely conventional level when it comes to morality. They do things because that is how they assume someone in their position is supposed to act. There isn't even a particularly clear distinction between moral norms and other cultural norms for them. To the extent that justification plays any role in their thinking, the simply repeating the socially accepted justifications for socially accepted behavior.
I think 28 and 36 are basically right. Those areas of my life where I have massive moral failing are basically because to correct it would require me to be way out of step with people that I identify as my peers. Ie, I consume more energy in my lifestyle than the earth could support, if everyone lived like me. But paying for solar panels and a hybrid car, or getting a job that would allow Jammies and me not to have to commute, or not flying to see my family, are not sacrifices that I see other people doing yet. So I tell myself that it's more important to institute change on the policy level. But if enough of my peers spent a high percentage of their income on a new hybrid, I'd probably suck it up and follow in kind. Or if I was getting shamed for not having solar panels, or flying, etc. The way people get shamed for not recycling.
Someone repeats that quote like every week here.
I'm just trying to make the point that it's complicated and subtle and there's a lot of chicken and egg that goes on between behavior and belief, and that social aspiration (or mileu or however we're characterizing it) is just one possible contributor to each. Yes, white dude hanging out with non-white dudes and dudettes can lead to increased tolerance in white dude, but that's not inevitable. (How does white dude come to think of himself as a conscientious liberal anyway? Why does he gravitate toward that self-definition? Etc.)
I don't mean to suggest that anyone in this conversation -- which is the kind that I find difficult to have in writing BTW; I'm not articulating things quite the way I want -- looks at it that simplistically.
Hey, has anyone provided this quote yet?
"I find that the three major administrative problems on a campus are providing sex for the students, athletics for the alumni and parking for the faculty." --Clark Kerr
44: It happens because every week I have to go to a goddamn meeting where people think that the biggest problem at our institution is the fucking parking.
To be fair, the faculty at the institution with the "draconian" parking policy were also extremely upset that IT was going to stop fixing their personal computers (the ones that they personally own.) Oh, and there were howls, howls I say when the University stopped giving out cookies and soda at faculty meetings.
Oops, I meant at my current institution.
It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--Andy Schlafly
The distinction between argument and trolling is a liberal fallacy.
I accept 42 and similar broadly, but it's interesting to look at how we come to embrace a particular self-definition among the possibilities and how it can change. Why is my self-definition different from my sister's given that we're 2 years apart and had very similar childhoods? How much is psychology, physiology, the interaction of nature and nuture, the result of specific experiences? Why did some of our indoctrination stick with me and not her and vice versa?
18: Di, It's not sinking in, Rory has just learned to push the right buttons to get the maternal approval machine clanking. Kids don't get outraged at concepts unless they have some experiences they can use to grasp the concept.
51: Di, It's not sinking in, Rory has just learned to push the right buttons to get the maternal approval machine clanking.
That's not sinking in? I'm pushing forty, and I will occasionally come up with some completely unexamined belief that I think of as self-evidently true, and realize that it's not mine, it's something I picked up from my parents. And I'm pretty sure that I only notice that happening when it's something I either disagree with or don't understand when I give it a moment's thought. Stuff my parents said when I was eight that isn't nuts is just part of the universe that I think of as self-evidently true.
Kids may not understand positions they pick up at home, but they do sink in.
Kids don't get outraged at concepts unless they have some experiences they can use to grasp the concept.
The first time Iris saw one of those kid leashes she first asked what it was, and then asked, "How do you think the kid feels about that?" I was so proud.
52 gets it exactly right.
Y'all know that Buddy Holly is inherently superior to post-Sun, Elvis, right?
Entertainingly enough, I do know exactly that, and probably for the same reason you do.
49: That thread has to be a case of trolling.
Actually, it is kinda heartening to see the sincere replies to ASchafly's claims. Even people who edit conservapedia can recognize that Aristophanes is funny.
55: Woo!
AB once tried to argue with me that holding this position was not, in fact, a source - or even a sign - of moral superiority. Pff.
21: I had the same response to the Challenger. I made the mistake of expressing it in company that included people who thought it was just about the biggest thing ever. It seemed to me self-evident that the whole teacher in space thing was a silly stunt to gin up support for an ill-conceived pork barrel white elephant, but apparently it's only self-evident to unpatriotic heartless bastards.
Di, It's not sinking in, Rory has just learned to push the right buttons to get the maternal approval machine clanking.
In many situations, yes. That kid is a very effective maternal button-pusher. In others, no, it's more than that.
Example. During the 2008 election, she heard the word abortion for the first time and asked what it was. I explained it. She promptly declared a pro-choice position, reasoning that a woman should have the right to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not because it's her body. Now, obviously that's a position reflecting the sort of values I try to instill about respect and making your own decisions, etc. She may have, in the course of the politicking season, picked up that Republicans oppose abortion, and we all know how strongly she feels about not being associated with them. But she put all the miscellaneous input together to articulate her sound reasoning for a pro-choice stance all on her own.
Example 2. The recess monitor punished her class by not letting them go in for lunch until only 5 minutes were left because a couple of kids kept talking out of turn. On her own, Rory drafted a letter to her principal outlining why she felt this was unfair. Certainly, we have talked at length about speaking up when people in power are treating others unfairly. It's the independent application of that to a specific situation that tells me something sunk in. Frankly, I probably wouldn't have done it in her shoes, and I was a bit nervous that she'd get herself flagged as an insolent little trouble maker.
There are plenty of other examples, of course, where I wonder where the hell she picked up that godawful value...
There are plenty of other examples, of course, where I wonder where the hell she picked up that godawful value...
Isn't the answer "UNG, obviously"?
No, I'm pretty sure the answer is from Standpipe's blog.
61: Often, yes. But also there's "the neighborhood clique" or "her best friend with the slightly crazy mom." "My dad" might have been a possibility, but luckily she learned very early on the value "we don't take provocative statements from Grampa seriously."
Buddy Holly is also on my list of massively disappointing critic-deified musicians. "The singer's great and I like his energy. These songs would be pretty cool if there were other instruments besides a muted guitar and a guy tapping on two boxes", I thought.
These songs would be pretty cool if there were other instruments besides a muted guitar and a guy tapping on two boxes
But that's the part I like the most!
Buddy Holly is also on my list of massively disappointing critic-deified musicians.
That might be the saddest thing you have ever written.
OT: You Brits must be exporting your northern teens. One just turned up in my laundromat, looking helpless with his full knapsack until he blushily decided I might instruct him in the process of washing his clothes. Pretty cute stuff.
67: Did you teach him the appropriate line to use on his next laundromat visit?
When I asked him if he had detergent, he looked a bit panicked, so I asked if he had soap. (Is "detergent" un-UK?) He seemed really embarrassed not to have any. I sort of wanted to stay around and give him advice about how not to get his ass kicked, but that babe-in-the-woods thing might be how he gets around. Cheers, kid!
Detergent sounds more like toilet cleaner. If you meet any more like him, ask about washing powder.
Sometimes I miss going to the laundrette. Then I remember I have too many children to be lugging that much washing around.
Then I remember I have too many children to be lugging that much washing around.
I would think the more the better, or is the issue dividing it evenly into thirds so none of them has to carry too much?
Also OT, I'm about to go on a date with k-sky's friend from when they were boys. I assume this guy did something really mean to k-sky once, or that k is gathering details for a comitragic TV spec, but either way, I plan to get gossip.
Detergent sounds more like toilet cleaner. If you meet any more like him, ask about washing powder.
We mostly use liquid washing powder in the US.
"Detergent" means either the soap for clothes, or the soap for dishes. Toilet cleaner is called "toilet cleaner"..
Also, the first syllable of "urinal" is accented.
72: Woohoo! Antioch rules apply -- but you have to check with us before each step!
I'm wondering when k-sky's friend in Sacramento is going to email me. Surely k-sky doesn't play favorites.
71 - the nice bit about going to the laundrette is to sit in peace for an hour with a book, not being able to do anything else. I wouldn't be taking the kids.
73 - what do you get if you have to buy it from the dispensing machine in the laundrette (don't tell me it's called a laundromat)? Or do they not have them any more?
I think the liquitab things are the most popular here, but I still buy powder because it's cheapest and I have too many children. I hate doing the fucking washing.
what do you get if you have to buy it from the dispensing machine in the laundrette (don't tell me it's called a laundromat)?
Powdered detergent. And yes, we call them laundromats.
Liquid detergent is more popular, though.
72, 76: K-sky: official matchmaker to the Unfogged community?
Liquid detergent is more popular, though.
Really? I had no idea.
Hey, would y'all go vote for an occasional commenter's dog? Here, about halfway down the page, and vote for Frankie Garner. It will be your good deed for the day, and voting closes tomorrow.
83: Wow, does that page design suck. I nearly voted for Barkly wells.
Those dogs have weird names.
Mine are named "Dog" and "Other Dog"
Frankie is going to need a serious overnight boost in the voting. Losing to Angus wouldn't be so bad, but that snooty Lyra? Vote Chicago-style!
76: I think you're confusing me with someone else. I only have one other friend in Sacramento, who is married. Did I offer to set you up with someone in order to get that tasty dinner and porch hospitality? God, I'm a cad.
Oh, fudge. I just clicked over, and, having just read 85, voted for Barkly Wells. Now we're going to need a Frankie Garner bot....
...or maybe we won't, as Frankie looks to have a 300 point lead over the closest competition.
I went to a laundrywhatever in some European country some years ago where the vending machine dispensed the powder directly. You had to catch it in a plastic cup helpfully provided by the management nearby.
89: Given that Frankie was over 100 behind when I commented 2 minutes be... Clearly, a nationwide surge of individual voting, given the ethical implications of employing bots in a charity photo contest.
a nationwide surge of individual voting
Is THAT what apo's calling his cock these days?
So... what should I text my friend who's on a date with AWB? "Be sure to ask her about Mutumbo"?
I voted for Frankie, but I wanted to vote for them all, especially the ones who only had a few votes. I hate popularity contests. They're all cute! They should all win!
Can we have a clue to who the occasional commenter is without compromising his/her anonymity?
Mine are named "Dog" and "Other Dog"
When we put words in our dog's mouth, he refers to us as "Boss" and "Other Boss."
Can we have a clue to who the occasional commenter is without compromising his/her anonymity?
Grankie Farner, obvs.
94: She's willing to caress fake mustaches with her vulva.
Weird. There were two other dogs with more votes, but they no longer seem to be there. Maybe they got caught corking their bats.
If I didn't know any of the dogs involved, I would have voted for Dukie Pickles, just for his awesome name.
Wow, I can't believe I just voted for a dog I've never even met on the internet. This is normal behavior, right?
I'm enjoying the hell out of the thread linked in 68, especially since I'm picturing teo delivering his line with a tip of his hat from this past summer.
Also, I think Anna Kerenina sucks, but am willing, I suppose, to read the good new translation now that I am in a completely different mental place from where I was when I read it before.
OTOH, BOGF loved the book, and arguing over it brought us together. I'm not sure whether that should reinforce my original feelings or lead to a jinx-like desire to undo them.
You should put BOGF [I tend to read that as 'bogfuck'] out of your mind and not let the memory of her sully your experience of Anna Karenina. It won't let you down the way she did.
Angus McGee and Lyra Bloom are both ahead of Frankie.
103: Lyra is kind of creepy. I like Bindi and Barkley.
102: But I really disliked it before she was anything other than the maybe-cute girl in Russian Realism.
To me it just had this whole, "I felt sorry for myself, so I made all these terrible decisions, so now you should feel sorry for me" thing. Fuck off, lady.
I should add that we read basically all the major 19th C. Russians, and Tolstoy was the only one I disliked (I though his short stories were ok). But as I say, I'm willing to give it a go (I'm sure I read the Gardner).
Garnett? Dreary. Ava Gardner as Anna was not dreary.
One thing is that AK is also filled with characters who are not Anna.
Indeed. It's as much about Levin as it is about her.
K-sky lies. Mutombo never came up!
109: That is unfortunate. But I guess one ought not rus Mutombo.
Hours and hours later, and nobody has caught my terrible error in 17? Where is neb when I need the proofreading police?
their s/b there
And based on 19, Sir K is clearly my soul sister.
17 and 19 remind me that part of my work involves getting faculty to be optimistic about their students, saying, no, these kids today aren't dumb or incurious or untroubled by social problems; they're desperately in need of someone to believe in them and ask them what they care about. And that's an offensive thing to say to an educator who is just letting off steam.
I didn't lie, I just didn't follow through.
I.e, it's a lot easier (as a teacher, not as a parent maybe) to motivate 19-year-olds to give a shit than adults who have a lot invested in what they're doing. Kids are remarkably responsive to social injustice. It's maybe not the same things we're concerned about (as I have discovered several times, especially with young queer-identified kids), but they pick up very easily on when something's not fair or not right. The point is to encourage that commitment to social justice, not write them off as not having the right objects of disdain.
I've given talkings-to to students who ignore older (my generation's and previous) struggles, and they get it, but they have struggles of their own. They can do it if they're not stifled by capitalist pressure to bear down and make money.
I liked the Garnett translation of War and Peace. It was beautiful in places, which I'll choose to believe is true of the original too. I don't know if I'll ever read Anna Karenina, but I have the Garnett of that and don't plan to seek out any other translation if I read it.
Not that our students shouldn't make money; with the group I'm working with, the ability to do so is itself a socially-important struggle. But there are profs who say, fine, you don't care about the issues, but you're only going to learn if I tell you to study because you have to look out for #1.
112: I caught it, but it wasn't worth the hassle of commenting on my commenting-unfriendly phone.
Oh for god's sake, do I have to beg? How was the date?
115 is reminding me, somewhat amusingly, of my own naivete in not grasping that today's teenagers see the battle to establish African-American history as a required course in high school as, well, history.
The mandate passed in Philadelphia in 2005.
(First in the nation!)
119: It was nice, but short! We talked, laughed, had a glass of wine, and then he was tired, having had an early morning. It's hard to tell if there's chemistry under those conditions, but we'll probably go out again. I might have been a bit obnoxious and under-dressed (Fluevogs and skirt, but T-shirt).
88 - Oh no, you didn't say anything like that. I just figured that you wouldn't bring gum for AWB unless you had enough for the rest of the class.
It's maybe not the same things we're concerned about [...], but they pick up very easily on when something's not fair or not right.
Iris is taking donations for startup costs for her National Association to Prevent the Leashing of Toddlers (pronounced NAY-plot).
unless you had enough for the rest of the class.
For the record, k-sky, your mixes are good enough for me; I don't need any setups.
121: I'm satisfied that it seems not to have been a completely bizarre idea to introduce the two of you.
122: I think my state assemblyman is single. Would that work?
124: How bad do I want those shorts?
Hmmm. How are you going to set up a date between me and your state assemblyman?
Better act before the term limits kick in.
I have the Garnett of that and don't plan to seek out any other translation if I read it.
I'd encourage you to have a look at this New Yorker piece before you embark on it, if you ever do. I found the P/V translation a pleasure to read.
Do you think it would make Darrell Steinberg jealous enough that he would stop pretending that he has no idea who I am and is happy with his family, and then, in a dramatic scene on the California Channel, declare to the world that he and I must never be apart again?
132: What's wrong with KDL?
Phillip Morris Targets De León For Supporting Tobacco Tax Legislation
Assembly Bill To Shrink Polluter Offsets Loophole In State Global Warming Plan And To Limit The Off-Shoring Of Those Offsets
Assembly Passes De León Bill To Protect Domestic Violence Victims
De León Bill To Prevent Massive Tax Giveaways To Big Banks Clears Assembly
De León Urges Congress To Eliminate Immigration Barriers For Same Sex Couples
De León Legislation to Guarantee Breast-Feeding Rights for Working Mothers
Every hand's a winner!
KDL is hot, but if he's a public figure and single, imma go with gay. Too awful?
(to suggest someone's closeted, not that they're gay, duh)
133: Wow. The only one missing is "De León resigns to devote self full-time to dog rescue".
His bio mentions a daughter but not a wife. Can children be beards?
And...oh wow, Megan, check this out...
(to suggest someone's closeted, not that they're gay, duh)
I dunno, sounds like you're still trivializing evil. Better check with Jesus.
Nothing's wrong with him; I'm sure he's lovely.
It is just that, you know, Darrell.
Oh man, Cryptic ned. That hits pretty close to home. I sit near the Fish Passage folks, and something like that bill would do them a world of good.
OK, k-sky. Go ahead and set us up.
I hear ya. I'd go for Darrell first too. That whole regional taxation thing a few years back caught my attention.
He does date women, though.
131: Eh, I'm reading it, but I'm not convinced that the more literal is necessarily the best way to lean in a translation. (Also, I suppose I should get by my bias, but I don't really like the idea of one of the translators not knowing the source language.) There was a piece in the New Republic about Proust translations that came out at about the same time that leaned more the other direction - that they're all different but all recognizably the same novel. That seems to be the way I lean. Or maybe I just don't want to admit I bought a book I shouldn't have.
AB 680! I know! It still makes me flutter and sigh.
Did you see that Steinberg might be governor if:
1. Schwarzenegger does the mass veto he is threatening.
2. The assembly impeaches him.
3. Lt. Gov. Garamendi is elected to whatever office it is that he's running for. (Jesus fuck, Garamendi annoys me.)
4. Next is line is Senate Pro Tem DARRELL STEINBERG!
I saw something in Calitics about impeachment, but a) it's not going to happen and b) Garamendi would probably jump out of even a Congressional seat to be given the Governorship.
OTOH maybe not b -- there's no term limit on a Congressional seat.
||
I'm pretty sure my econ professor is going to spend most or all of tomorrow's class ranting about how arrogant and obnoxious economists are. He's been sending us a series of e-mails tonight about the readings he assigned for tomorrow. One e-mail was all about how the authors of one of the textbooks he assigned a chapter from are super-conservative and he doesn't agree with them at all; that was followed by one about one of the chapters in the other textbook, which he likes a lot more. He seems to be sending these as he does the readings himself.
|>
I know (i) isn't going to happen. But I like the idea. I think there's a decent case to be made that vetoing an entire year of legislation isn't governing.
147: I might prefer that. Ours is all apologetic about the conservative implications of the theory and isn't giving us much tools to confront them, though that could be in store.
Huh. Apparently, what I have are the Rosemary Edmunds translations of Tolstoy, not the Garnett. Now that I realize that, her absence from Remnick's extended discussion - she's mentioned as an aside here and there - is quite conspicuous.
I'm surprised that I'm even less convinced that I should read the new translations after reading that New Yorker piece. I'm sorry that Remnick seems to have fallen into the trap of thinking Russian so much harder than English. Harder to reach the point of simply being understood, yes, but not necessarily harder (or easier) to move beyond that to fluency. And it appears that neither Pevear nor Volkhonsky - Volkhonsky admits to English mistakes, though perhaps that's modesty - have reached that point in both languages, which I guess is why they have to be a team.
Remnick also seems to gloss over the unreadability of Nabokov's own translation - which he admits - however knowledgeable Nabokov was about, and however capable Nabokov was in using, both languages. But I haven't read any of the Nabokov-Wilson stuff aside from another summary of it that basically came down on Wilson's side about translation as a general matter while admitting Wilson's imperfect Russian. Nabokov sounds like a horrible language teacher.
Ours is all apologetic about the conservative implications of the theory and isn't giving us much tools to confront them, though that could be in store.
I've been very impressed with the approach to econ that I've seen from my professors, actually. The major point is that the theory is all about efficiency (and, now that I get to that point in the conservative textbook chapter, boy is it ever*), but when it comes to policy you don't necessarily want to prioritize efficiency over everything else; there are other issues that may be more important.
* A sample:
A subsidy to education would be inefficient because it would encourage overconsumption of education by pupils who would never become criminals.
150: In an era of inept and ignorant imitations, whose piped-in background music has hypnotized innocent readers into fearing literality's salutary jolts, some reviewers were upset by the humble fidelity of my version; the present improvements will exasperate them even more.
--VN unrepentant in "EO Revisited"
I'm even less convinced that I should read the new translations after reading that New Yorker piece
Try this one from the NYRB, though it's about their War and Peace rather than their AK; Figes is more authoritative than Remnick on P/V's fidelity to Tolstoy's style. He says that Edmonds hews closely to Garnett, which I vaguely recall from reading her W&P long ago. Edmonds was brilliant and multilingual and translated for de Gaulle at Free France HQ, so there's that. Anyway, I've always preferred P/V.
Also, as relentlessly literal as Nabokov's EO is, the two volumes of commentary are totally worth it.
I read the Figes when it came out. He establishes that P and V are more literal, but that's about it. I guess I'm unconvinceable on this.
With the caveat that I'd probably get the P/V if I were picking for the first time. It's the difference between them and Edmonds that doesn't seem large enough to me.
Anyway, what I really should do is take the Russian textbook out of the box of books I brought with me and do a little bit of re-learning every day. I doubt I will, though, but I brought it just in case.
But he says that "for the first time the English reader gets a real sense of how his writing sounds and feels to read in the original"! But fine. Be that way.
156.2: I've been intending to do the same for, um, years.
I'd say that Russian is more difficult than English. It's not the cases, or even aspect - the bane of beginning and intermediate students, but the endless permutability of the verbs. The first is just a matter of memorization, the latter folks eventually get. But the last is both a core part of the language and yet requires a degree of intuitive feel that is very difficult for a non native speaker to reach. It also must be hell to translate. Or this could just be the frustration of a Pole dealing with something that is oh so similar yet not the same - the instincts are there but all too often wrong.
My parents repeatedly urged me to read the Russians in Polish, not English. In some cases it was a minor difference, in others huge. Bunin is magical in Polish and disappointingly pedestrian in English. But at least for English language readers of Russian lit there isn't the problem you get with some Polish stuff, translated from a translation (e.g. Gombrowicz's wonderful Ferdydurke, though they finally did a proper version a few years ago)
I don't know Polish, but I felt when reading Under Western Eyes around the time my Russian was at its best that some of the constructions Conrad employs were like English versions of Slavic constructions. It's been years, so I don't have examples. I had read the novel once before when I didn't know any Russian and never thought the English seemed unusual, but that might be because I like Conrad and it seemed like normal, for Conrad.
Half of the families can be part right all of the time,
some of the families can be all right part of the time, but all the families can't be all right all the time.
I haven't even told my daughters about the holocaust yet, because daughter x is too sensitive and will freak out. I do remember explaining slavery to her when she was 5 or 6. I illustrated with the example of how our family would own her (nigerian) friend Fope's family, be able to sell them off far away from each other, make them do stuff they didn't want to, etc. her reaction was great: she stopped walking in total shock for a while and then asked, "but why did they [the slaveholders] think that was ok?" indeed.
the italics are supposed to stop at ...ok?" but SOMEONE messed up a tag. I'm not pointing fingers, but...
OK, I'll come out and say it. it's neb's fault.
150.2: [Edmund Wilson/Nabokov] Prompted me to read some of the NYRB exchanges (starts here with links at the bottom to followups). Here are a couple of bits I found compellng:
As late as 1957, at one of our last meetings, we both realized with amused dismay that despite my frequent comments on Russian prosody, he still could not scan Russian verse. Upon being challenged to read Eugene Onegin aloud, he started to do this with great gusto, garbling every second word and turning Pushkin's iambic line into a kind of spastic anapaest with a lot of jaw-twisting haws and rather endearing little barks that utterly jumbled the rhythm and soon had us both in stitches.VN, setting the stage for:
The main object of this preliminary note is to undeceive credulous readers who might assume that Mr. Wilson is an expert in Russian linguistics. Here are some of the ghastly blunders he makes in his piece.You want deep in the weeds?
I am sorry that the discussion has been further confused in my reply to Mr. Nabokov, by the printer's putting in a Greek phi instead of a simple o.Son Dmitri gets into the act 20 years later (responding to an excerpt from Wilson's diaries):
And, after many years of close acquaintance, I can attest that Father was always gentle, caring, and even-tempered, and that there is not a nasty ash in his urn. But perhaps Wilson (who admitted that the sight of a lady's heel piercing a freshly fed kitten gave him a sexual tingle) knew Nabokov better than Mother and I.My father was a saint, the other guy was a dead kitten pervert.
"but why did they... think that was ok?"
Which feeds back to salacious' observation in 28. Though sharing much of the same value system we share, they were immersed in a community that thought it was okay. People they thought of as "good" owned slaves, so they could own slaves and still think of themselves as "good".
My father was a saint, the other guy was a dead kitten pervert.
Oh man.
166: I dearly love that whole exchange.
I read the Figes when it came out. He establishes that P and V are more literal, but that's about it. I guess I'm unconvinceable on this.
I was convinced at least that the "wept" passage is vastly better (as well as more faithful to the original) for using the same verb throughout.
Wilson (who admitted that the sight of a lady's heel piercing a freshly fed kitten gave him a sexual tingle)
How does one discover things like that? I mean, it's not like it's a frequent sight. Discovering that you really, really go for tall brunettes, yes. The world has plenty of tall brunettes. After you've seen a few and appreciated the sight, you probably realise it fairly easily. But I've never seen the kitten-piercing thing at all, and I don't think I've led that sheltered a life. I could be a latent kittostabophile and never realise it.
SO COULD YOU ALL.
The Guardian has had an ongoing discussion of works allegedly improved in translation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/07/how-do-ants-sleep
[scroll down]
For me, though, the praised Pound translation isn't as good as the apparently more literal Waley.
I've never seen the kitten-piercing thing at all
I have. It was not arousing.
and I don't think I've led that sheltered a life.
Where's soup biscuit?
The closest I've come up with from searching is a reference to a dream that Wilson seemed too have had about a romantic interest where she became a bleeding kitten. So maybe you just need to follow your dreams.
171: the Supreme Court might help you find that out.
171: I think it was H.L. Mencken who said the danger of porn is that you might find something you like too much.
All healthy porn is alike. All pervy porn is pervy in its own way.
172: Yeah, I think the Waley is much better. "The rustling of the silk is discontinued"? "she the rejoicer of hearts"? Pound's version seems like a weird combination of clunkiness and chinoiserie.
Anyway, the whole comparison is beside the point--even if Pound's translation were better than Waley's, that would tell us nothing about how the Pound version compares to the original.
Figes doesn't actually provide anyone else's full version of the "wept" passage for comparison, just word counts. I do agree that it's better that P/V keep the same verb through all the repetitions. But I'm not going to go out and get their book for that.
It's funny that Figes is so excited about P/V in the NYRB piece, because he wrote a very nice afterword to the Briggs W&P that I read this summer. Granted, he's clear in the article about why he prefers P/V to Briggs, but you'd think that he might not have written the afterword in that case. (Unless he had no idea that P/V was in the works or what they were about? Hm.)
159: English-speaking readers do have that translated-from-a-translation problem with Polish literature, though. As far as I know, we only have two versions of Sienkiewicz' Trilogy, the Curtin and the Kuniczak. Curtin is t-o-a-t and dreadfully clunky, while Kuniczak is controversial (within Polonia, apparently) for having taken more liberties with the original than observers think proper. I love the Kuniczak, as my Polish never advanced far enough to read Sienkiewicz.
172: Many Hungarians think that Shakespeare is better in their language than in the original. It's one of those things that make me go hm.
Anyway, I've always preferred P/V.
With the caveat that I'd probably get the P/V if I were picking for the first time.
It's funny that Figes is so excited about P/V in the NYRB piece
This shouldn't even be controversial. How many people following the "strictly anal until marriage" policy are truly satisfied?
I'm not a big fan of the Trilogy, made it through the first two and figured I'd done my duty as a Pole. I haven't really looked at either of the translations but I imagine the difficulty would be dealing with the peculiar pseudo archaic language patterns that Sienkiewicz uses.
I mentioned Gombrowicz's Ferdydurke in my earlier comment and yesterday in a B&N I flipped through the new translation. It won the National Translators Award for best literary translation, and I agree. It's really, really well done. Better than I would have thought was possible.