4 ms·

>Making a "feminist" translation of the Odyssey under the pretension that the original is a "patriarchal fantasy" is not a serious work and shouldn't be taken a

>Making a "feminist" translation of the Odyssey under the pretension that the original is a "patriarchal fantasy" is not a serious work and shouldn't be taken as such. Why not? Edit: Also unclear where you're quoting "feminist" and "patriarchal fantasy" from, as the article and this entire thread mention neither.

mcpackieh 3y ago
As an adaptation, it seems very interesting. As a translation, it seems absurd.
- roflyear 3y ago
  Would you mind pointing out how this is a "feminist" translation?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I never claimed it was, nor have I read it. I am responding to the premise presented in the comments above.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Can you explain what you find absurd about the translation that appears in this article? Edit: Am I correct in inferring that you're calling this translation absurd despite admitting you haven't read it?[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36636178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36636178
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    That's a false premise, I have no opinion on the translation in the article. I am responding to the premise of a feminist translation, not to this specific translation (which may in fact not be feminist at all.)
    - jjulius 3y ago
      ... okay then.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        > Am I correct in inferring that you're calling this translation absurd As I explained, no. mamonster presented the premise of a feminist translation. You asked what the problem with that would be, and I responded the premise of a feminist adaptation seems fine but a feminist translation does not. I have not argued that this translation is a feminist translation; I am responding to the same premise which you responded to when you asked "Why not?" If you can ask "Why not?" to a premise disconnected from the article, then I can address the same premise.
        jjulius 3y ago
        >mamonster presented the premise of a feminist translation. And there's where the breakdown occurred - mamonster didn't present a premise of a feminist translation, they explicitly called this a feminist translation in both comments.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        You humored and addressed the premise when you asked "Why not?" I can (and did) also address that premise. Anyway, I think we both understand each other now. If the NYTimes decides to let me past their captcha, I'll read the translation later and might give you my thoughts on it. Otherwise this conversation has taken an unproductive turn; I'm not amused by your attempt to rug-pull me.
        jjulius 3y ago
        >You humored and addressed the premise when you asked "Why not?" No, I did not "humor and address [a] premise" because, again, that's not what OP did. In both comments, OP asserts that this is a feminist translation that should not be taken as a serious work. I asked OP, "Why not?" because I read the piece and disagreed with that assertion - I wanted to know, explicitly, if they were able to explain what about it they felt made it not "a serious work" and why "it shouldn't be taken as such". I wanted OP to defend their assertion made about this specific piece, and to elaborate on their perspective. Because of that, I would imagine that it'd be clear to most people how your initial comment could've been read as arguing that this translation seems absurd, even if that's not where you were coming from. If you think I'm wrong in reading OP's comments as an assertion rather than a premise, just look at how many other people responded in a way that suggests that they read it the same way I did. >Otherwise this conversation has taken an unproductive turn... Really? I genuinely thought that identifying where our disconnect occurred was productive. >I'm not amused by your attempt to rug-pull me. That's... not at all what I'm doing. All I've done was clarify our misunderstanding of one another, and your misunderstanding of OP's comments. It's OK to have accidentally misunderstood what someone was saying, there's no need to get personal here. I hope you have a nice weekend.

mcpackieh 3y ago

As an adaptation, it seems very interesting. As a translation, it seems absurd.

roflyear 3y ago
Would you mind pointing out how this is a "feminist" translation?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I never claimed it was, nor have I read it. I am responding to the premise presented in the comments above.
jjulius 3y ago
Can you explain what you find absurd about the translation that appears in this article? Edit: Am I correct in inferring that you're calling this translation absurd despite admitting you haven't read it?[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36636178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36636178
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  That's a false premise, I have no opinion on the translation in the article. I am responding to the premise of a feminist translation, not to this specific translation (which may in fact not be feminist at all.)
  - jjulius 3y ago
    ... okay then.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > Am I correct in inferring that you're calling this translation absurd As I explained, no. mamonster presented the premise of a feminist translation. You asked what the problem with that would be, and I responded the premise of a feminist adaptation seems fine but a feminist translation does not. I have not argued that this translation is a feminist translation; I am responding to the same premise which you responded to when you asked "Why not?" If you can ask "Why not?" to a premise disconnected from the article, then I can address the same premise.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        >mamonster presented the premise of a feminist translation. And there's where the breakdown occurred - mamonster didn't present a premise of a feminist translation, they explicitly called this a feminist translation in both comments.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        You humored and addressed the premise when you asked "Why not?" I can (and did) also address that premise. Anyway, I think we both understand each other now. If the NYTimes decides to let me past their captcha, I'll read the translation later and might give you my thoughts on it. Otherwise this conversation has taken an unproductive turn; I'm not amused by your attempt to rug-pull me.
        jjulius 3y ago
        >You humored and addressed the premise when you asked "Why not?" No, I did not "humor and address [a] premise" because, again, that's not what OP did. In both comments, OP asserts that this is a feminist translation that should not be taken as a serious work. I asked OP, "Why not?" because I read the piece and disagreed with that assertion - I wanted to know, explicitly, if they were able to explain what about it they felt made it not "a serious work" and why "it shouldn't be taken as such". I wanted OP to defend their assertion made about this specific piece, and to elaborate on their perspective. Because of that, I would imagine that it'd be clear to most people how your initial comment could've been read as arguing that this translation seems absurd, even if that's not where you were coming from. If you think I'm wrong in reading OP's comments as an assertion rather than a premise, just look at how many other people responded in a way that suggests that they read it the same way I did. >Otherwise this conversation has taken an unproductive turn... Really? I genuinely thought that identifying where our disconnect occurred was productive. >I'm not amused by your attempt to rug-pull me. That's... not at all what I'm doing. All I've done was clarify our misunderstanding of one another, and your misunderstanding of OP's comments. It's OK to have accidentally misunderstood what someone was saying, there's no need to get personal here. I hope you have a nice weekend.