Duino Elegies is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 2, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's " European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
I do have to say, biased as I am being from Duino, that this collection is quite popular among the germans, and I think it would merit it's own article at least in Italian and German. It all ends up kind of calling rilke a liar too, about his unhasty notes, which didn't read very unbiased, confusingly. ale 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shomon ( talk • contribs)
"hierarchies" is spelled incorrectly in the second paragraph of the article.
The Elegies should be listed with key details such as original name, English translation of name and year of writing. AshLin ( talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Really the only way for the average person to grasp the poem is to read a line-by-line commentary from a scholar, but of course that would not be viable here and I am not suggesting it.
A discussion of structure would be helpful along those lines and much more feasible, given limitations of Wikipedia. 108.204.142.171 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I too, can make similar assertions about having read a great deal about the work (but only in English) since my first encounter with it 32 years ago.
Hell, I've even personally discussed the poem with its first English (co-) translator, the late Stephen Spender!
So we can both fall into the silly logical fallacy of arguing from authority.
I mention plainly at very top of this section Boney's 1975 commentary and translation, widely available in University libraries, and a very valuable introduction with which you are doubtless familiar, covering the point I am trying to make.
So I can dig out my copy and try to edit this article. But I sense an obvious "OWNERSHIP" problem that would develop. 108.204.142.171 ( talk) 21:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
108.204.142.171 ( talk) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Typical "wikipedia" difficulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.142.171 ( talk) 02:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I just changed the quotes of the Elegies to match Leishman and Spender. My goal was to consistent and based on a reliable public source. The Leishman and Spender are not my favorite, but I chose them because:
There are other accessible bilingual translations to use including Robert Hunters, Alfred Poulin's, David Oswald's, C. F. MacIntyre's, Edward Snow's , Galway Kinnell and Hannah Liebmann's, and Vita Sackville-West's. I looked at them all and thought L & S the best over all, but if there is a consensus that another is better, I'll make the changes.
There is a second issue was well. Do we want to put all the translations in the source? But my feeling is that is best not to list the various translations. There are many, many more than those listed. For instance, the Stephen Mitchell version is quite popular, but unmentioned. Why are the one's listed listed, and others not? Another reason to not list the citations translations is that the citation style becomes awkward. I saw that Cohn's translation was made into Rilke & Cohn 1989, which seems to be the best solution if we mention all the translations and add them as citations. But it also implies- to my mind- that Rilke and Cohn worked together collaboratively.
I can see that works relevant to the introduction of the poems into the English-langugage community could be relevant: Vita-Sackville's and the Leishman and Splender's come to mind as they mark the introduction into England and America, respectively. But even then it seems a citation mentioning their historical relevant than citing the works themselves. Let me know what you think is best, and I'll work with whatever is the consensus. Wtfiv ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
In addition to the list of artists who have written translations feeling arbitrary, there's a couple of other issues with the legacy. Auden seem to get a lot more coverage with his own poem in the section, so I removed that section with Auden's poems. I'm not sure the section on Gadamer fits her either. There's no doubt that Rilke's work can by read sympathetically through Gadamerian hermeneutics ( Dowrick (2011), which was cited as arguing for Rilke's influence on Gadamer, actually illustrates a Gadamerian reading of Rilke.) and Gadamer wrote an essay on him (as well as other artists like Celan and Goethe), the citations do not support that Rilke influenced Gadamer's hermeneutics. And as the sources show, other critics and philosophers have read Rilke through other constructons. Are there any problems with removing that section too? Wtfiv ( talk) 05:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've also removed the mention of Rilke influencing Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein donated money to poets, including Rilke and Georg Trackl, but Perloff the cited source, "Wittgenstein's ladder" only mentions in passing that Wittgenstein was acquainted with his poetry a bit better than Trackl's. Wtfiv ( talk) 07:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned in "Citing the Elegies" above, there is the problem of which translations- if any to mention, and how they should be mentioned. As a first solution, I created a "English-language translation" subsection in Further reading. I deleted Gary Miranda's, as it is not easily accessible. I added Steven Mitchells, as it seems very popular and had been quoted in an earlier version of this article, and I added the one by Vita and Sackville-West, which isn't great but has historical value as the first English-Language translation.
But this list feels arbitrary, as it did in the original version of the article. There are many more translations, and any editor that wants to advertise a particular translation could fairly post here. The quality of the translation is not necessarily determined by the fame of the translator. In the end, it would also make the list incredibly long, as their are dozens of translations. My preference would be to delete this list.
(As an aside, my preference is to remove the entire "Further Reading" section. There are hundreds of books on Rilke, so why are some selected and others not? The list looks arbitrary and will grow over time. In my opinion, items that are worth "further reading" should also be useful sources in the article.) Thoughts? Wtfiv ( talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I get following error: "Adorno 1964, p. 84–85. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAdorno1964 (help) Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." I'm not able to fix that error. Strange. Grimes2 ( talk) 01:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Duino Elegies is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 2, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's " European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
I do have to say, biased as I am being from Duino, that this collection is quite popular among the germans, and I think it would merit it's own article at least in Italian and German. It all ends up kind of calling rilke a liar too, about his unhasty notes, which didn't read very unbiased, confusingly. ale 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shomon ( talk • contribs)
"hierarchies" is spelled incorrectly in the second paragraph of the article.
The Elegies should be listed with key details such as original name, English translation of name and year of writing. AshLin ( talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Really the only way for the average person to grasp the poem is to read a line-by-line commentary from a scholar, but of course that would not be viable here and I am not suggesting it.
A discussion of structure would be helpful along those lines and much more feasible, given limitations of Wikipedia. 108.204.142.171 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I too, can make similar assertions about having read a great deal about the work (but only in English) since my first encounter with it 32 years ago.
Hell, I've even personally discussed the poem with its first English (co-) translator, the late Stephen Spender!
So we can both fall into the silly logical fallacy of arguing from authority.
I mention plainly at very top of this section Boney's 1975 commentary and translation, widely available in University libraries, and a very valuable introduction with which you are doubtless familiar, covering the point I am trying to make.
So I can dig out my copy and try to edit this article. But I sense an obvious "OWNERSHIP" problem that would develop. 108.204.142.171 ( talk) 21:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
108.204.142.171 ( talk) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Typical "wikipedia" difficulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.142.171 ( talk) 02:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I just changed the quotes of the Elegies to match Leishman and Spender. My goal was to consistent and based on a reliable public source. The Leishman and Spender are not my favorite, but I chose them because:
There are other accessible bilingual translations to use including Robert Hunters, Alfred Poulin's, David Oswald's, C. F. MacIntyre's, Edward Snow's , Galway Kinnell and Hannah Liebmann's, and Vita Sackville-West's. I looked at them all and thought L & S the best over all, but if there is a consensus that another is better, I'll make the changes.
There is a second issue was well. Do we want to put all the translations in the source? But my feeling is that is best not to list the various translations. There are many, many more than those listed. For instance, the Stephen Mitchell version is quite popular, but unmentioned. Why are the one's listed listed, and others not? Another reason to not list the citations translations is that the citation style becomes awkward. I saw that Cohn's translation was made into Rilke & Cohn 1989, which seems to be the best solution if we mention all the translations and add them as citations. But it also implies- to my mind- that Rilke and Cohn worked together collaboratively.
I can see that works relevant to the introduction of the poems into the English-langugage community could be relevant: Vita-Sackville's and the Leishman and Splender's come to mind as they mark the introduction into England and America, respectively. But even then it seems a citation mentioning their historical relevant than citing the works themselves. Let me know what you think is best, and I'll work with whatever is the consensus. Wtfiv ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
In addition to the list of artists who have written translations feeling arbitrary, there's a couple of other issues with the legacy. Auden seem to get a lot more coverage with his own poem in the section, so I removed that section with Auden's poems. I'm not sure the section on Gadamer fits her either. There's no doubt that Rilke's work can by read sympathetically through Gadamerian hermeneutics ( Dowrick (2011), which was cited as arguing for Rilke's influence on Gadamer, actually illustrates a Gadamerian reading of Rilke.) and Gadamer wrote an essay on him (as well as other artists like Celan and Goethe), the citations do not support that Rilke influenced Gadamer's hermeneutics. And as the sources show, other critics and philosophers have read Rilke through other constructons. Are there any problems with removing that section too? Wtfiv ( talk) 05:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've also removed the mention of Rilke influencing Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein donated money to poets, including Rilke and Georg Trackl, but Perloff the cited source, "Wittgenstein's ladder" only mentions in passing that Wittgenstein was acquainted with his poetry a bit better than Trackl's. Wtfiv ( talk) 07:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned in "Citing the Elegies" above, there is the problem of which translations- if any to mention, and how they should be mentioned. As a first solution, I created a "English-language translation" subsection in Further reading. I deleted Gary Miranda's, as it is not easily accessible. I added Steven Mitchells, as it seems very popular and had been quoted in an earlier version of this article, and I added the one by Vita and Sackville-West, which isn't great but has historical value as the first English-Language translation.
But this list feels arbitrary, as it did in the original version of the article. There are many more translations, and any editor that wants to advertise a particular translation could fairly post here. The quality of the translation is not necessarily determined by the fame of the translator. In the end, it would also make the list incredibly long, as their are dozens of translations. My preference would be to delete this list.
(As an aside, my preference is to remove the entire "Further Reading" section. There are hundreds of books on Rilke, so why are some selected and others not? The list looks arbitrary and will grow over time. In my opinion, items that are worth "further reading" should also be useful sources in the article.) Thoughts? Wtfiv ( talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I get following error: "Adorno 1964, p. 84–85. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAdorno1964 (help) Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." I'm not able to fix that error. Strange. Grimes2 ( talk) 01:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)