|
|
Wednesday, February 4th, 2004
After the New Economy: I'm a bit bewildered by Henwood's assertion on p. 115 that Cox and Alm do not use relative measures in their study of income mobility. How can a ranking by quintiles be anything besides relative? -- I just don't see how such a ranking can have any absolute sense.
posted morning of February 4th, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about After the New Economy
|  |
Tuesday, February third, 2004
Don Quixote: I'm a little mystified as to why Señor Quexana's niece and friends would have thought the proper way to cure his mania, would be to tell him an evil wizard had destroyed his library. Surely they could find a less paranoia-inducing story to tell? Different times, different mores, maybe...
posted morning of February third, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Don Quixote
|  |
Monday, February second, 2004
After the New Economy: I'm having a little trouble with chapter 3, "Income", trouble of the same variety that I recall having had while reading Wall Street -- the statistics fly fast and heavy, and at the end of a paragraph I can't really tell how much of that paragraph remains in my mind. This chapter seems to be concerned primarily with documenting the disadvantages faced by women and non-whites in finding proper recompense for their labors -- which does not seem to me totally germane to the rest of the book. The statistical information is good and useful, and I think much of it is not available elsewhere; but it seems like a detour. The piece of it that does relate to the topic of the book, is approximately that incomes did not increase during the 90's enough to make life easier for employees -- but this point is surrounded by so much other stuff that I am not sure just where he made the point, or what the point, precisely stated, is, or which statistics back it up.
posted evening of February second, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Douglas Henwood
| |
Saturday, January 31st, 2004
I had coffee (rather than beer) today with Roy Edroso of Alicublog (which is to my surprise pronounced "Ali-COO-blog", not "A-LICK-yooblog"), and old friend Nathaniel Heidenheimer. Roy brought to my attention the scene on p. 22 of Don Quixote -- a scene which I had smiled at when I read it a few nights previously but without realizing how excellent it is, and how exactly descriptive of my own actions in many situations throughout my life. ...he saw that it had a great defect, which was that instead of a full sallet helmet with an attached neckguard, there was only a simple headpiece; but he compensated for this with his industry, and out of pasteboard he fashioned a kind of half-helmet that, when attached to the headpiece, took on the appearance of a full sallet. It is true that in order to test if it was strong and could withstand a blow, he took out his sword and struck it twice, and with the first blow he undid in a moment what it had taken him a week to create; he could not help being disappointed at the ease with which he had hacked it to pieces, and to protect against that danger, he made another one, placing strips of iron on the inside so that he was satisfied with its strength; and not wanting to put it to the test again, he designated and accepted it as an extremely fine sallet. I have done precisely this many times: test something which I have put a lot of effort into, find it extremely wanting, rebuild it with a little reinforcement and then skip the test -- and say to myself, the extra reinforcement is sure to make it hold. It was good to see Nathaniel again -- he says he wants to get a blog, which would be a good thing to have happen though I am a little skeptical. He made me reconsider my support for Edwards, who he thinks is totally insincere in his economically progressive talking points.
posted evening of January 31st, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Miguel de Cervantes
|  |
Friday, January 30th, 2004
Don Quixote: I read (last night) the prologue and introductory verse (which I more skimmed than read), and the first chapter; tonight I reread the end of the first chapter, and read the second and third chapters. It is flowing very nicely for me and giving me some laughs. The author's voice (as realized by the translator) is very strong and consistent.
posted evening of January 30th, 2004: Respond
|  |
Reading After the New Economy, my first reaction is that it's far less dry and uninteresting than I found Wall Street (counter to expectations) to be. I reckon this is probably indicative of a change in my abilities to comprehend rather than in Henwood's writing style, so I should probably go back to Wall Street sometime. Of course, another distinction between the two books is that After the New Economy has more direct personal relevance to my situation. Update: I seem to have taken to singing, in a Jim Morrison whine/moan, "After the new econ'my, turn out the lights..." -- Alas! When phrases get stuck in my head they can hang around for weeks, sucking up resources which could otherwise be better used...
posted afternoon of January 30th, 2004: Respond
| |
Thursday, January 29th, 2004
So here is the plan for the next few weeks, reading- and woodworkingwise: On the train to and from work, I am going to be reading After the New Economy by Doug Henwood until I finish it, then Nickeled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich, which I bought today for Ellen -- I believe she will be finished with it by the time I want it. Come home in the evening, play with Sylvia, have dinner, recreate, put Sylvia to bed. Then I will go downstairs and work on a dust collection harness for my lathe -- or when that is finished, on Ellen's bookcase or turning projects. Then come back up and read Don Quixote for an hour or so before bed. This makes it difficult to figure when I will post my reactions to DQ but I will try and make some room for that as well.
posted evening of January 29th, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Nickeled and Dimed
|  |
Wednesday, January 28th, 2004
I went to Coliseum Books today in search of Don Quixote. Coliseum is sold out of Don Quixote but should have a new shipment delivered tomorrow morning. I took the opportunity to buy Doug Henwood's After the New Economy instead.
posted afternoon of January 28th, 2004: Respond
|  |
Monday, January 26th, 2004
I am reading Terry Castle's review of Edith Grossman's new translation of Don Quixote, and thinking I should read it. I read the book, or large parts of it, in college, in Walter Starkie's translation, but it never really hit me -- I never had the DQ experience that I was expecting based primarily on some stuff I had read by Borges. Time to go back to it? I think so -- and Castle sure makes this new translation sound worthwhile.
posted evening of January 26th, 2004: Respond
| |
Thursday, December 25th, 2003
Well actually here I am at home this morning, might as well write a post I've been thinking of for a few days. It concerns translation so I will ask LanguageHat to link to it. First topic: I found a book on my shelf the other day while looking for train reading, called The Following Story (Het Volgende Verhaal) by Cees Nooteboom (what a wonderful name! I wonder how it is pronounced.) I have a vague memory of coming into possession of this book, and it is dog-eared at p. 76, so I must have started reading it -- I took another go at it Tuesday. And a couple of subtle grammatical errors got me wondering -- is the translator (Ina Rilke) not fluent in English? Or is Nooteboom playing some kind of linguistic game that Rilke is rendering faithfully? For example: the first sentence of the second paragraph of the story begins, "I had waked up with the ridiculous feeling that I might be dead..." "Waked" can be baby talk in the usage "I waked up" but it does not sound like baby talk here, just like nonsense. I do not know any Dutch so I will put my question forth and hope someone reads this who is familiar with Nooteboom in the original. If you have answers, mail me. By the way, here is a very nice couple of sentences: I'm ashamed to say that after all those years on earth I still do not know the exact makeup of the human eye. Cornea, retina, iris and pupil, which double as flowers and students in crossword puzzles, that much I knew, but the actual substance, that vitreous mass of coagulated jelly or gelatine, has always struck fear into me. Whenever I use the word "jelly," everyone invariably laughs, but all the same Cornwall in King Lear had cried: "Out, vile jelly!" as he put out Gloucester's eyes, and that is precisely what I had in mind when I squeezed those sightless spheres which either were or were not my eyes. A lovely passage -- but note "those" in the first sentence. Seems to me like it should be "these". Again -- is this from the original or from the translator? (Note -- very cool that the crossword puzzle joke works in both Dutch and English. I am assuming it worked without too much fiddling about on Rilke's part; if I am wrong and she did have to take liberties to get it to work, well, she did a very good job of it.)We visited Ellen's friend Alice the other day and gave her son Steven Demian as a Hanukkah present. Ellen had asked what I thought would be a good book for him -- he is studying German and is reading Camus -- so I thought Demian was a good idea. It is the first book I ever read in German, anyway the first one I was ever able to actually finish. We gave him my copy, plus a translation. I had a look at the beginning of it and found it fascinating as ever, and indeed highly legible. But here's what's interesting -- the German sounds great and a bit profound to my ears -- but when I try rendering it in English it seems a lot less profound, nearly banal. I don't think this is because I am a lousy translator, though I am; when I looked at the translation which we bought for Steven, its phrasing was pretty close to my own. So could the profundity which I am seeing in the original be something I am reading into it, inspired by the rush of being able to understand a foreign language? -- this is a pretty unusual experience for me. A number of people whom I respect have dismissed Hesse as not worthwhile for someone who is not a teenager. (Which either way, Steven is, so I'm covered there.) Any thoughts? Update: LanguageHat advises me that I am mistaken here: "waked" is a standard past participle of "wake", used more commonly in Britain than in the U.S. And he thinks "those" is acceptable in the longer exerpt. I'd still be interested to know more about the original text that was translated as "after all those years".
posted morning of December 25th, 2003: Respond
➳ More posts about Demian
| Previous posts about Readings
Archives  | |
|
Drop me a line! or, sign my Guestbook.
•
Check out Ellen's writing at Patch.com.
| |
