Something went wrong. Try again later

rorie

Hello!

7888 1502 54 39384
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

On Walden and Editing

I sat down and started writing a big long blog post after happening across this Kickstarter for “The New Walden.” As originally planned, these guys were going to take Walden and edit it to make the language more palatable to modern readers, in part by removing allusions to mythology, changing gendered terms to gender-neutral words, and replacing dated or large words with ones simpler to understand.

It struck me immediately as a rather bad idea, and I’m guessing that other people felt the same, as the campaign quickly pivoted away from it, instead shifting to just providing same-page annotations for the more difficult parts of the text. Which is fine, so far as things go, but it’s also an odd angle for a $100,000+ Kickstarter. There are plenty of other editions of Walden that already feature annotations and/or footnotes which you can find relatively cheaply (this is one of my favorites, and this one's pretty good if you want something smaller). It feels like that this kind of project would’ve been funded by a traditional publisher had there been a market for it, but what do I know.

Anyway, the Kickstarter didn’t succeed. I take no real pleasure in that; it was obvious that these dudes put a lot of effort into their page and the editing that had already been done. My main concern would be that someone would find this work on a bookshelf somewhere and think that it was somehow authentic or the “real” Walden, which it certainly wouldn’t have been. Walden’s great and everyone should read it, but there’s no reason not to tackle the original work if you’re interested in reading it at all; a vague grasp of context clues will get you past most of the tougher vocabulary (as will one of those, what do you call them, oh yeah, a “dictionary”) and annotations will get you familiar with who Patroclus was if you didn’t get around to watching Troy when it came out.

too much walden
too much walden

In typical Rorie fashion, I wrote a couple thousand words and then got distracted by a shiny object, and when the Kickstarter announced their shift away from editing the text, they also eliminated the whole point of writing the damn thing, so here’s the last completely unedited draft of it I had. Nabokov once claimed that releasing drafts was like “sharing one’s sputum,” but, hey: I’m no Nabokov. I can’t claim that this is going to be readable, but I don’t really have the time right now to polish it up. So hey, have a wall of text. I usually wind up starting paragraphs and pushing them off for later when I write, or just abandoning them, so those usually wind up at the bottom of these things. Same with quotes I want to refer to later in the writing process. It's a mess!

begin blog post aqui

I mentioned this briefly and rant-ily on Twitter, but I wanted to discuss this Kickstarter for “The New Walden” a bit. Now, Walden’s a fairly seminal text for me, one of those books that you discover when you’re 16 or 18 and read over and over again, to the point where certain passages are effectively memorized. I first read it in my freshman year of college, and it quickly became something of a vade mecum for me; I kept a small edition of it in my backpack and would read it both at length and when I had a few minutes to spare before a class.

As a bit of context, I was a lonely kid in college. I was scrawny, had a pronounced speech impediment, and didn’t socialize much. I didn’t enjoy having a roommate when I went off to college, so I spent most of my free evening time in empty classrooms (or the library), reading and listening to music. Walden and a few other books (primarily Stephen Mitchell’s translation of Letters to a Young Poet, Richard Zenith’s edition of The Book of Disquiet, Emerson’s Essays, the Maude translations of Tolstoy, and Infinite Jest) were fairly constant companions in those hours, to the point where they almost became surrogates for the real-life friends I didn’t actually have. They were formative: I would certainly be a very different person had I not spent so much time with them.

The paragraph above no doubt sounds like a self-pity parade, but that wasn’t really my intent. I definitely wish that I had spent more time doing the normal college routine of partying and shotgunning beers and finding out how condoms work than I actually wound up experiencing, but even so, I don’t really regret the time I spent alone in those classrooms. Solitude was good for me: I don’t think I would have been a good person to anyone I was friends with or romantically involved with in those years. I needed to figure myself out before I could ask anyone else to deal with me, and one of the ways I did that was reading Walden over and over again.

Walden; or Life In The Woods is, if you haven’t read it, a memoir of a period of Henry David Thoreau’s life that he spent on the shores of a lake in Massachusetts. He built himself a hut on the edge of Walden Pond, on the outskirts of Concord, Mass, and lived there for two years. Ostensibly the book is a paean to the ideal life of self-reliance and solitude, or a manual on living without adhering to the strictures of what’s considered a socially acceptable existence: Thoreau talks at length about the (cheap) costs of building his house, and the economics of the diet that he lives on (which includes a whole lot of beans), and paints everything with the rosy tones of a self-help guru who has figured out the One Weird Trick to living a self-sufficient life off in the forest. He’s a strong independent man who doesn’t need no man, by his reckoning.

The truth of the matter is that Walden Pond was barely two miles from downtown Concord. Thoreau would regularly walk that distance back to his mother’s house for supper and to meet friends while he lived at the pond. Walden paints a picture of a solitary life, consisting of occasional encounters with woodland hunters and wandering migrants, but his tale is pretty far from the extremes of something like To Build A Fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Build_a_Fire

So, Thoreau was a bit of a hypocrite. Most high-minded people are, in the end: leaders of Communist nations have often lived in opulence; Tolstoy (despite being the author of The Kreutzer Sonata, which apparently was a call for abstinence even within marriage) allegedly forced himself on his wife fairly often; Ghandi slept with his nieces in the nude after taking a vow of chastity (ostensibly to “test himself,” but, well...yeah); and so on, and so on. Emerson famously stated that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” and while it’s disappointing to think that great thinkers abide by the adage of “do as I say, not as I do,” that doesn’t necessarily remove the truth in what they spoke. Artists can create art while also being horrible people.

Thoreau, at least, went to the wall for what he personally believed at least once, having been jailed for failure to pay taxes in a protest against the inhumanity that was slavery. (He stayed for all of one night before his family got him released, if I recall correctly.) His embrace of solitude probably also somewhat explained by his failed proposal to a woman (who apparently fancied his brother more), but, all told: better to be a hypocrite by having dinner with your mom a couple nights a week, than, say, railing against homosexuality while sitting in Congress while cheating on your wife with male prostitutes (multiple examples here).

As the last few paragraphs no doubt show, I have a fair talent for running off the rails and taking my time to come to a point. Thoreau did as well. Walden was greatly condensed from his many volumes of journals, but even in their edited form, it still tends to err on the side of florid (if beautiful) prose, with passages running off into extended allegories and references to mythology and classic works of literature. He uses a lot of words to explain ideas that should be simple at times, but if he belabors a point from time to time, that’s only because he believed that point should be thoroughly argued and impressed upon a reader.

Thus I came across this Kickstarter for an “adaptation” of Walden with immediate trepidation.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2001070129/the-new-walden/updates

It looks to be well off the target that it’s aiming for (an almost unimaginable $104,000)

http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/2001070129/the-new-walden/

which I admit makes me somewhat pleased. I bear no real ill feelings towards the creators of the kickstarter, but I have to admit that I find the entire project to be founded on some truly odd assumptions about Thoreau’s writing and the capabilities of modern readers.

Walden has often been said to be more relevant today than when it was originally written; that trope pops up as often in essays about it as the “I didn’t know Idiocracy was supposed to be a documentary” meme does on forums more focused on pop culture. Thoreau railed against the vanity and excesses of his society, and he was doing so well before the Gilded Age or the era of the robber barons or mass child labor or trickle-down economics or whatever other example of capitalism gone mad that you might want to think of. (Although obviously slavery itself was perhaps the purest form of rapacious capitalist evil that the world has seen in the last few centuries, so it’s not like he didn’t have examples at hand to feed his outrage.) It’s no surprise that people would find his words more inspiring as the inequality between rich and poor becomes more extreme.

That doesn’t mean that those words have to be bowdlerized to remain relevant, however, and that seems to be precisely what this Kickstarter aims to achieve. Walden is by no means an entirely easy read, and even with a literacy rate of 90% or above among Massachusetts males in 1840, Thoreau does not seem to have taken any special pains to reduce the complexity of his prose to make it accessible to what I assume to be the majority of the readers of his time. He traveled in the highly literary circles of Concord transcendentalists, and it seems clear that, while he wished to promulgate ideas that he believed applied especially to the poor and downtrodden, he was writing primarily for an audience of highly-educated people who would easily grasp the references he scattered through his text.

The Kickstarter description has a pair of breathtakingly wrongheaded sentences right at the beginning:

“While Walden has always been a challenging book, the evolution of language over the past two centuries has made it harder for modern readers to get into the text. I’m creating a newly annotated, hardcover edition of Walden that I hope will solve this problem.”

This is not a problem. Books can certainly be challenging; that much is undeniable. Meanings can be obfuscated or hidden behind symbolism; words can be obscure or (gasp) require a visit to a dictionary; narrators can be unreliable. These are not problems to be eliminated with editorial sandpaper. Readers of literature should be encouraged to face them, relying on critical or foot-noted editions of a work, rather than resort to translations that make them less complicated and more palatable to a modern ear. They weren’t intended for modern readers, and pretending that they were through the creation of an “adaptation” seems to be frankly insulting.

That might sound like I’m talking from a high horse, and maybe that true. I have a degree in English, and as part of that education, I read a decent chunk of stuff that was all but unintelligible as a 21st century reader. Reading The Canterbury Tales in Middle English was fucking difficult, to be sure, but modern translations lose the poetry of the language even if they retain the essence of the plot.

www.sparknotes.com/nofear/lit/the-canterbury-tales/millers-tale/page_18.html

This is a problem for all adaptation of dated English to modern language (leaving aside the far thornier problems of foreign language translation), but the solution is not to make things easy, necessarily, but to make them easier for an audience that is willing to put an effort in. (As Thoreau asked once, “why level downward to our dullest perception always?”) There is a point where old English is essentially a foreign language and requires outright translation, and The Canterbury Tales is right on the cusp of that border.

footnotes don't have to be too onerous
footnotes don't have to be too onerous

Shakespeare is another example, and one that’s probably more familiar to anyone who read Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet in high school. I’m a reader of fairly average intelligence, and I’ll confess to needing a lot of Cliffs Notes to get me through the Shakespeare sections of my high school English classes: not only does he use many words that have long since faded from common usage, but his grammar is also often almost impenetrably dense. Having a modern version of the text side-by-side with the original language is a great help to understanding the raw meaning of the words that Shakespeare was using, but no one would claim that that modern adaptation could ever act as a replacement for the original language. (And if anyone does, run away.) I still don’t understand what iambic pentameter really is after two decades of reading about it, but even a cursory glance at updated versions of the original text make it clear that they remove almost everything that is beautiful about the original words.

I no doubt sound like a snooty elitist when I write all this. I get that texts can be challenging, and it’d be hypocritical of me to slam anyone who wants to make a difficult work easier to understand after a youth spent reading Illustrated Classics and the aforementioned Cliffs Notes.

http://www.greatillustratedclassics.com/

Aides to understanding should be appreciated, but that’s not what this project is: it’s an actual edit of the original work which attempts to supersede Thoreau’s original text, and therefore his original intent. There’ll be no copy of the original text facing the edited pages, as virtually all modern adaptations of Shakespeare feature (unless I’m missing something in the announcement). Instead, a reader coming across this edition of Walden may very well think that they’re facing

But I very firmly believe that Walden is nowhere near as challenging or complex as this project seems to make it out to be for a moderately intelligent reader that has a grasp of what a context clue is, or access to a critical edition with footnotes or annotations that help explain Thoreau’s references

The claim that 162 years ( “two centuries” is a gross and telling overstatement) of time has made Thoreau “harder for modern readers” to grasp seems to me to be

Male literacy was widespread in America by the 1840s, with rates somewhere in the 90% range, but even so,

19th-century (or pre-Hemingway, maybe) prose often can come across as florid or overwrought.

I could sum up (or “adapt”) ee cummings’ poem “since feeling is first” as simply “our love is more about emotion than logic” but that’d be a gross oversimplification. I don’t think that Steel’s edits are on that level, obviously, but there’s just something gross about assuming that someone else’s prose needs editing well after they’re around to approve those edits. Most of Walden came from entries in Thoreau’s journals, and I’m sure that Emerson and his fellow Transcendentalists had plenty of opportunities to edit

Language evolves, obviously, and even this blog post will no doubt be unintelligible given a few hundred years of that evolution. Even the most famous piece of writing in English, Hamlet’s meditation on suicide, is full of “fardels” and “bare bodkins,” and is difficult to grasp without footnotes or margin notes telling you precisely what he means.

“Beautiful imagery notwithstanding, sentences that clock in at 482 characters are pretty hard for modern readers to digest.”

ULTIMATE EYEROLL. Well, deal with it. Seriously: suck it up and read. Sentences do not have to contain one clause. Thoreau might be famous for saying “simplify, simplify,” but he was talking about life, not prose.

http://replygif.net/thumbnail/1418.gif

"[8] I do not suppose that I have attained to obscurity, but I should be proud if no more fatal fault were found with my pages on this score than was found with the Walden ice. Southern customers objected to its blue color, which is the evidence of its purity, as if it were muddy, and preferred the Cambridge ice, which is white, but tastes of weeds. The purity men love is like the mists which envelop the earth, and not like the azure ether beyond."

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

33 Comments

33 Comments

Avatar image for irish_giant_bomber
Irish_Giant_Bomber

210

Forum Posts

124

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Honestly, I am for reading the original versions of texts. Most modern versions come with sections to explain old language. I fell in love with reading Shakespeare in school and loved the old language. A lot of people are just so lazy now. A lot of people don't even read anymore. You will always feel better after challenging the original version of a text and understanding it as it was intended. Great blog, man.

If you start editing the original texts to construe different meanings then there is a problem.

Avatar image for grimluck343
Grimluck343

1384

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@rorie you should definitely write more. I also had some serious eyeroll moments reading through their kickstarter.

Avatar image for mikelemmer
MikeLemmer

1535

Forum Posts

3089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 2

I misread the title of this post at first and thought Rorie was chewing out people for putting too much crazy shit on Warren's GB wiki page.

Avatar image for bravepoptart
BravePoptart

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

*claps*

Avatar image for mintyice
mintyice

271

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

There was a great article in the New Yorker on how Thoreau was just a cranky old man and that people should stop revering Walden as some great guide on how to live.

"Perhaps the strangest, saddest thing about “Walden” is that it is a book about how to live that says next to nothing about how to live with other people."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/pond-scum

Avatar image for christaran
ChrisTaran

2054

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

Edited By ChrisTaran

Oh, when it's books it's not ok to edit it for different audiences, but games is another story.

Avatar image for jesna
Jesna

292

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I was similarly distressed when I found that kickstarter through your tweet. As someone who has to regularly wade through old nigh-incomprehensible texts in a foreign tongue, I can understand the desire to smooth out the rough spots of a text for your audience's understanding, but the way they were going about it was all wrong.

Projects like these are different, because this style of editing inherently degrades the artistry of the piece and lose the context of its writing. Walden is not really that old, and its already written in English! The reader may not understand what an epaulet is in one of Tolstoy's novels, for instance, but the job of the translator is to provide the readers access to that information, not excise it entirely. He put that word there for a reason!

Most of all it just makes me sad that people have so little faith in themselves when it comes to reading classical literature. Something being old doesn't make it less valuable, and writing that you struggle to read doesn't magically become worse from your endeavors. With a little bit of critical thinking and dedication, most will find those problems fade away. No one should need some editor to dumb a book down so that they can read it, that's just selling yourself short.

Avatar image for theht
TheHT

15998

Forum Posts

1562

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

Great read, even as a draft!

I didn't realize they were planning on straight-up editing the text itself like that. Pretty gross.

Avatar image for maluvin
Maluvin

750

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@rorie Really appreciate you taking the time to write this up.

I'm definitely of the mind that attempts to "modernize" classic texts through editing are problematic. I get the appeal but think the better approach is to use reading guides and footnotes to work through elements of the text that are obscure or potentially outdated. I remember reading a copy of Paradise Lost that had the older text on the left and a more modernized version on the right matched up line by line. I mostly stuck to the original text and felt it flowed better once I got a feel for it but the additional text was helpful in places.

I will say that the switching for gender neutral terms seems like a mistake for me when modernizing literary works. I can understand the desire but I think the original author and text needs to carry the historical responsibility for their built-in biases and changing them could distort criticism. Like if someone wanted to collect some of HP Lovecraft's works I wouldn't want the racist bits left out because I think the reader needs to see them and think about how they're tied to the rest of the work for better or worse.

Avatar image for lab392
Lab392

702

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I was 90% sure I was going to see a copy of Walden Two on that shelf. And I immediately realized that that was a silly expectation.

Avatar image for walkertr77
WalkerTR77

1811

Forum Posts

3076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 4

Man I wish Rorie had the time to weigh in more often because his writing is great. I think that the compromise of reinterpreting classic works is totally worthless because you lose all the value of the original by making it easier to understand.

I'd relate this idea to reading Dante and obviously (as Rorie alluded to) it's complicated by being translated from another language and not just another time but as much as you can get lost while reading say Inferno, the beauty of the work comes through inherently and you can gain a proper understanding of the meaning by referring to the footnotes.

If you want an easy read that's fine, pick up 50 Shades Of Grey or whatever else. Reading a challenging book can be hard going, but as a result you get rewarded for the effort.

Avatar image for yeliwofthecorn
yeliwofthecorn

106

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By yeliwofthecorn

Really wonderful proto-essay. A real treat to read.

Avatar image for Quicklyer
Quicklyer

251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Rorie you got your Walden in my Thoreau. You got your Thoreau in my Walden!

Rorie, dust your shelves. ;-)

Avatar image for yi_orange
YI_Orange

1355

Forum Posts

8359

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By YI_Orange

@rorie Genuinely curious, what is it about Walden that you like so much? I read it during my junior year of high school and it immediately joined my list of bullshit that I hate. (alongside Catcher in the Rye and Forrest Gump). Seeing your love for it makes me wonder though.

Avatar image for yummytreesap
YummyTreeSap

1268

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I've never read Walden, but this was a great article. I'd love to hear from you more often, Rorie. (Infinite Jest was also an indescribably important book for me.)

Avatar image for onkel
onkel

723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm not much of a reader, though I wish I were, but this had me hooked and I read the entire thing without knowing a lick about the subject beforehand. Maybe that means you're a good writer.

Avatar image for bkbroiler
bkbroiler

1739

Forum Posts

438

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

WRITE MORE RORIE THE WORLD NEEDS YOU

Avatar image for the_last_starfighter
The_Last_Starfighter

510

Forum Posts

481

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@christaran said:

Oh, when it's books it's not ok to edit it for different audiences, but games is another story.

When games as a medium have the power to influence generations and insight wars and riots then maybe but until then yes, the answer to your question is yes it's okay for games but not 'certain' books.

Avatar image for winternet
Winternet

8454

Forum Posts

2255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

I misread the title of this post at first and thought Rorie was chewing out people for putting too much crazy shit on Warren's GB wiki page.

Wait, wasn't that what I just read about?

Avatar image for casualbatman
CasualBatman

16

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Well that was fantastic, thanks for sharing this Rorie! I think this will get me to finally read all of Walden, not just the excerpts that I'm sure I glanced over in high school. Last year I took a delightful slog through Dante's Divine Comedy, which I will have to go through again, just because I kept reading a couple of cantos every night well after I lost the initial fervor of diving into this wonderful prose. Hopefully over the summer I'll have some time to actually sit down and enjoy some literature that isn't Batman or Batgirl graphic novels, although I am really enjoying the new 52s Batgirl. Thanks again, Rorie!

Avatar image for mikelemmer
MikeLemmer

1535

Forum Posts

3089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 2

@christaran said:

Oh, when it's books it's not ok to edit it for different audiences, but games is another story.

When games as a medium have the power to influence generations and insight wars and riots then maybe but until then yes, the answer to your question is yes it's okay for games but not 'certain' books.

The edits on Walden here (and similar ones on ancient texts) involve tweaking the meaning of the words by translating them into a more modern syntax. The game edits involve less tits/ass in a game. Contact me when a game censorship complaint involves "they lost part of the plot in translation!" instead of "they took out the cute girl's butt slap!".

Avatar image for theht
TheHT

15998

Forum Posts

1562

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

@the_last_starfighter said:
@christaran said:

Oh, when it's books it's not ok to edit it for different audiences, but games is another story.

When games as a medium have the power to influence generations and insight wars and riots then maybe but until then yes, the answer to your question is yes it's okay for games but not 'certain' books.

The edits on Walden here (and similar ones on ancient texts) involve tweaking the meaning of the words by translating them into a more modern syntax. The game edits involve less tits/ass in a game. Contact me when a game censorship complaint involves "they lost part of the plot in translation!" instead of "they took out the cute girl's butt slap!".

Wait, what games have been edited to have less tits/ass/cute-girl-butt-slaps?

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
monkeyking1969

9098

Forum Posts

1241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 18

I think the most sensible way to KickStarter a new Walden would be to find six well read philosophers, a mixture of genders, ethnicity, ordinations, and then put them in various cabins "in the woods" around the US to live for two years and two months.

Thoreau was of course not truly isolated in his cabin. There was a train then went buy every day, various people went to Walden Pond to fish or walk, and the village was not very far away. A modern 'Walden woudl be written by someone without computers, cellphones, or devices in my mind. It woudl be written by someone who merely steps away form broader society to contemplate the world from a 'slightly' outside view. Having been to Walden Pond on various occasions, I can easy I would find it very easy to live in Thoreau cabin. Hell the cottage I live in now, is only twice as big at most. My second apartment on Nantucket was AS SAMLL as his cabin and just one room too. I alos lived in a barn/house. It was more barn than house because it was made by actual 1960s hippies.

I, however, saw no need to write my own Walden. I saw no need because there was not much revealatory insight to be gained, by living in a small home or even a hippie barn. The one insight I gain came from the horses that walked up to the windows of the barn. That insight, is that a stallion's dong is HUGE, especially when he deploys it at 7AM next to where you eat breakfast.

Avatar image for christaran
ChrisTaran

2054

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

@the_last_starfighter said:
@christaran said:

Oh, when it's books it's not ok to edit it for different audiences, but games is another story.

When games as a medium have the power to influence generations and insight wars and riots then maybe but until then yes, the answer to your question is yes it's okay for games but not 'certain' books.

The edits on Walden here (and similar ones on ancient texts) involve tweaking the meaning of the words by translating them into a more modern syntax. The game edits involve less tits/ass in a game. Contact me when a game censorship complaint involves "they lost part of the plot in translation!" instead of "they took out the cute girl's butt slap!".

Has happened plenty of times. You're more than free to google it.

Avatar image for mikelemmer
MikeLemmer

1535

Forum Posts

3089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 2

@theht said:
@mikelemmer said:

The edits on Walden here (and similar ones on ancient texts) involve tweaking the meaning of the words by translating them into a more modern syntax. The game edits involve less tits/ass in a game. Contact me when a game censorship complaint involves "they lost part of the plot in translation!" instead of "they took out the cute girl's butt slap!".

Wait, what games have been edited to have less tits/ass/cute-girl-butt-slaps?

Most recent that comes to mind is Mika's butt-slap being taken out of the US version of SF5. I'm sure there's been a few others I don't remember ATM; there's always a huge stink online from people who want max sexy in their games. Just annoying when people compare a lack of max titillation to having intent/meaning mangled in translation.

Avatar image for theht
TheHT

15998

Forum Posts

1562

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

@mikelemmer: Hm, a quick google search brought me to this list (it's Wikipedia, so obviously not the be-all end-all): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regionally_censored_video_games

Seems pretty spread out between violence, nudity, and other various sensitive subject matter (like drugs, war, religion). All the sorts of things you'd expect to be fair play for a work of fiction, and certainly not all just tits and ass.

It all strikes me as the sort thing you'd either approve of for the things you particularly disapprove of, or disapprove of the act entirely. With the former not necessisarily being hypocrisy, just a certain sort of self-centeredness. I'm talking about editing for content (or "censoring"), of course.

Avatar image for notkcots
notkcots

139

Forum Posts

127

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Really good article, Rorie. As an English teacher, it really bums me out to see how intimidated people are by challenging books. Popular culture has made a sport out of portraying the classics as stuffy and impenetrable, not only impossible for most people to read but also not worth reading. There's this sense that all works are basically of equal merit, and that things that take time and effort to read aren't worth it. This creates a vicious feedback cycle that encourages people to never move beyond easy-to-consume pulp, which rarely has any real depth or personal significance, and this in turn reinforces readers' belief that all art is just as shallow, making the prospect of taking up a challenging work even less appealing. If all you've ever bothered to read are John Grisham novels, you've probably got a low ceiling on your sense of what books are capable of, and it doesn't make sense to branch out to harder works since you don't expect them to give you any more enjoyment or enrichment than an airplane novel could.

Some works are difficult for a reason, and their very complexity and difficulty is often an integral part of what makes them work. As an example, Ulysses' extreme complexity is what allows it to so fully capture the subjectivity of its protagonist, and the constantly changing, sometimes obscure or archaic language enables Joyce to draw parallels between the unsexy, everyday subjects of the story and the great epic tales of western society. The novel wouldn't work without its difficult elements, and to try to read an edited version of it means surrendering its greatest accomplishments. Walden, being an essay, may be more amenable to summary, but opting for the easier path is a really, really terrible habit to get in as a reader, and greatly limits your ability to enjoy the beauty of the author's language. Even if you knew nothing about Thoreau, his background, and the things he tends to allude to (Classical myth, for example), you could easily work through Walden in the time it would take to watch a season of a TV show on Netflix. People just need to be open to the possibility of a "great work" actually living up to its reputation (thereby justifying the decision to choose it over a more immediately gratifying work), and they need a sense of confidence that they are capable of reading and understanding it.

Also, as an aside, hearing people use "Shakespeare" as a shorthand for arcane, boring, old literature horrifies me. His plays were the blockbuster smash hits of his time, and they're full of battles, magic, murder, and sex jokes. Everyone, from kings and queens to illiterate laborers loved them. If you think you can't understand them, then you're claiming that you're stupider than an illiterate 16th century peasant, and that isn't terribly likely.

Avatar image for mikelemmer
MikeLemmer

1535

Forum Posts

3089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 2

@theht: Yeah, I know. Most of that's just not the type of stuff the Internet explodes over. The loudest rage always seems to be over lowest-common-denominator stuff like titillation or images of bongs. It's made me very cynical of the Internet's volume of rage compared to its actual impact on the original game proper.

Avatar image for kierkegaard
Kierkegaard

718

Forum Posts

4822

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 2

@notkcots said:

Really good article, Rorie. As an English teacher, it really bums me out to see how intimidated people are by challenging books. Popular culture has made a sport out of portraying the classics as stuffy and impenetrable, not only impossible for most people to read but also not worth reading. There's this sense that all works are basically of equal merit, and that things that take time and effort to read aren't worth it. This creates a vicious feedback cycle that encourages people to never move beyond easy-to-consume pulp, which rarely has any real depth or personal significance, and this in turn reinforces readers' belief that all art is just as shallow, making the prospect of taking up a challenging work even less appealing. If all you've ever bothered to read are John Grisham novels, you've probably got a low ceiling on your sense of what books are capable of, and it doesn't make sense to branch out to harder works since you don't expect them to give you any more enjoyment or enrichment than an airplane novel could.

Some works are difficult for a reason, and their very complexity and difficulty is often an integral part of what makes them work. As an example, Ulysses' extreme complexity is what allows it to so fully capture the subjectivity of its protagonist, and the constantly changing, sometimes obscure or archaic language enables Joyce to draw parallels between the unsexy, everyday subjects of the story and the great epic tales of western society. The novel wouldn't work without its difficult elements, and to try to read an edited version of it means surrendering its greatest accomplishments. Walden, being an essay, may be more amenable to summary, but opting for the easier path is a really, really terrible habit to get in as a reader, and greatly limits your ability to enjoy the beauty of the author's language. Even if you knew nothing about Thoreau, his background, and the things he tends to allude to (Classical myth, for example), you could easily work through Walden in the time it would take to watch a season of a TV show on Netflix. People just need to be open to the possibility of a "great work" actually living up to its reputation (thereby justifying the decision to choose it over a more immediately gratifying work), and they need a sense of confidence that they are capable of reading and understanding it.

Also, as an aside, hearing people use "Shakespeare" as a shorthand for arcane, boring, old literature horrifies me. His plays were the blockbuster smash hits of his time, and they're full of battles, magic, murder, and sex jokes. Everyone, from kings and queens to illiterate laborers loved them. If you think you can't understand them, then you're claiming that you're stupider than an illiterate 16th century peasant, and that isn't terribly likely.

Hello fellow English teacher! We should be friends. No seriously--haven't seen a ton of other teachers on Giant Bomb and would love to talk shop and whether games fit in anywhere.

As for Walden. @rorie You are a great writer with a strong purpose here. I think we read excerpts when I was in high school, and in my class I just teach a part of it in the larger curriculum. It's valuable for students to struggle when there is a purpose to it, to see what florid prose looks like, to see the cavalcade of allusions and wonder about them.

And it's valuable to put things into a modern context and connect student lives to what the prolific writers did or didn't do.

And it's definitely valuable to teach writers as flawed human beings who make mistakes, not perfect geniuses that we should bow down to. Shakespeare was pretty bad with women and played to the lowest common denominator like a Tyler Perry movie. Lee fought racism in mockingbird via a white savior character and some creepy descriptive fascinations on black people's teeth. Fitzgerald wrote some serious anti-semitic hogwash in Gatsby.

But flawed people created some great writing that often aspires to make us think about how we treat ourselves and others, how we interact with society and nature.

And those texts deserve to be taught in their original incarnations. Helpful guides are helpful, but students need to learn that there is value in struggle. The hardest thing about teaching is when students are either afraid or conditioned against truly diving in and trying something hard or new.

It's like a game with a five hour tutorial. Sometimes the player can wander or die or fail for awhile as long as they are able to learn. I find it incredibly difficult to not jump in and save students, but their learning to swim, not drowning.

Avatar image for rorie
rorie

7888

Forum Posts

1502

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

@maluvin said:

I will say that the switching for gender neutral terms seems like a mistake for me when modernizing literary works. I can understand the desire but I think the original author and text needs to carry the historical responsibility for their built-in biases and changing them could distort criticism. Like if someone wanted to collect some of HP Lovecraft's works I wouldn't want the racist bits left out because I think the reader needs to see them and think about how they're tied to the rest of the work for better or worse.

Yeah, I definitely agree. I do my best to write with gender neutrality in mind these days, but I think it's really unfair to extend that backwards to eras when that wasn't only uncommon but basically unknown as a concept.

And yeah, Lovecraft's racism is somewhat intrinsic to his writing. It's awful, but it's so grandiose and over-the-top that it's almost like that old Dave Chapelle bit about something being so racist you can't even be offended; you just say "Wow, that's really racist!" It'd be difficult to imagine how you could even edit that stuff out without just rewriting the stuff entirely; it's a baby/bathwater situation.

Avatar image for rorie
rorie

7888

Forum Posts

1502

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

@rorie Genuinely curious, what is it about Walden that you like so much? I read it during my junior year of high school and it immediately joined my list of bullshit that I hate. (alongside Catcher in the Rye and Forrest Gump). Seeing your love for it makes me wonder though.

Well, as someone who spent a lot of time on my own, a lot of what Thoreau had to say about solitude and self-reliance struck a chord with me. I think it's important to have resources that talk about healthy solitude and making time for self-reflection without getting into the "I'm such a weird quirky introvert!" memes that float around so much nowadays (or, god forbid, the various foreveralone subreddits). It was a good kind of "hey, you're not so weird" kind of book that was pretty healthy for me to read at the time.

Avatar image for bbalpert
BBAlpert

2978

Forum Posts

34

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

Edited By BBAlpert

I misread the title of this post at first and thought Rorie was chewing out people for putting too much crazy shit on Warren's GB wiki page.

#PushWalden

Avatar image for aethelred
Aethelred

472

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Aethelred
@rorie said:

Shakespeare is another example, and one that’s probably more familiar to anyone who read Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet in high school. I’m a reader of fairly average intelligence, and I’ll confess to needing a lot of Cliffs Notes to get me through the Shakespeare sections of my high school English classes: not only does he use many words that have long since faded from common usage, but his grammar is also often almost impenetrably dense. Having a modern version of the text side-by-side with the original language is a great help to understanding the raw meaning of the words that Shakespeare was using, but no one would claim that that modern adaptation could ever act as a replacement for the original language. (And if anyone does, run away.)

Brace yourself. Some people are doing precisely that. Specifically, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in a project called "Play On!" Their description of the project:

OSF is commissioning 36 playwrights and pairing them with dramaturgs to translate 39 plays attributed to Shakespeare into contemporary modern English between now and December 31, 2018. By seeking out a diverse set of playwrights (more than half writers of color and more than half women), we hope to bring fresh voices and perspectives to the rigorous work of translation. Each playwright is being asked to put the same pressure and rigor of language as Shakespeare did on his, keeping in mind meter, rhythm, metaphor, image, rhyme, rhetoric and emotional content. Our hope is to have 39 unique side-by-side companion translations of Shakespeare’s plays that are both performable and extremely useful reference texts for both classrooms and productions. We are also excited about the potential for a highly engaging national conversation about language that this project could prompt, and we hope you’ll join in that conversation on Facebook and Twitter. Check back often for updates and glimpses into the work being done by our extraordinary set of playwrights. Play on!

Ben Shapiro writes in The New York Times about his skepticism: Shakespeare in Modern English?

I’ve had a chance to look over a prototype translation of “Timon of Athens” that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival has been sharing at workshops and readings for the past five years. While the work of an accomplished playwright, it is a hodgepodge, neither Elizabethan nor contemporary, and makes for dismal reading.

To understand Shakespeare’s characters, actors have long depended on the hints of meaning and shadings of emphasis that he embedded in his verse. They will search for them in vain in the translation: The music and rhythm of iambic pentameter are gone. Gone, too, are the shifts — which allow actors to register subtle changes in intimacy — between “you” and “thee.” Even classical allusions are scrapped.