He did great work, accomplished great things and helped to spread Buk's work far and wide--so cheers to a life well lived.
Bukowski was much better known in Germany, and perhaps elsewhere in Europe, than he was in the United States. Carl was no doubt a big part of that. But there must have also been something about the sensibility of Bukowski that meshed well with the Germans or the Europeans.
Here's a snippet from what I have. I found this interesting:
But a user base of 4,500 for a forum devoted to an author who doesn't write books about teenage vampires or cars that try to kill you is just this side of amazing. To me.
Bukowski was much better known in Germany, and perhaps elsewhere in Europe, than he was in the United States.
Right, he had no way to judge the quality of Weissners translations into German, but there was at least an indication: he knew the English that Weissner was using in conversations and letters. If CW wouldn't have been capable to manage this, Hank would have known.[...] since he didn't speak or read German. He trusted Weissner, but he had no way of knowing whether Weissner was any good at what he did.[...]
sure not. and this doesn't only apply for translations but for the original text also. Every individual has his/her own look at things and interpretation.[...] So if the experience is different, are we even experiencing the same thing?.
sure not. and this doesn't only apply for translations but for the original text also. Every individual has his/her own look at things and interpretation.
To be exact, this applies to every experience, not only reading. If you and I are standing together, looking at an appartment at DeLongpre, we are not seeing the same thing.
But so is reading the original itself: every reader of an original does interpret the text, and thus reduces from a potentially wide variety to one or few 'meanings'.
So, I wasn't trying to contradict mjps points - I was trying to expand them. The message is: everything is relative always.
Fair enough.Every individual has his/her own look at things and interpretation.
Sure, it "works" as a mechanical function to convey information. I just maintain that it does not work on an artistic level where writing is concerned. The odds are stacked against it working. There are too many differences not only in language, but in culture, humor, nuance, slang, context, etc.We've enjoyed translated works from all around the world for centuries, so it does work.
Agreed. So that's probably why the best translations don't attempt an exact replica, but a parallel piece of work that makes sense in their own culture, grammar etc. and should be done by fluent writers. It may almost be a re-write, but staying true to the essence of work and obviously faithful to the text as close as possible.There are too many differences not only in language, but in culture, humor, nuance, slang, context, etc.
Which is what I don't like about it and why I don't like movie remakes and cover songs and interpretations and remixes and the endless amount of other non-creative "creativity" covering the world.It may almost be a re-write...