Subject
Re: VN Bibliography (fwd)
Date
Body
>-------------------------------------------
>
>EDITOR'S NOTE. Sergey Il'yn <isb@glas.apc.org>,
>Russian translator of the forthcoming ADA, offers (inter alia) the
>following, elegant, thoughts on the ineffable concept of Poshlost'. I=20
>have supplied the rough translation.=20
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>----------------- Message requiring your approval (31 lines) ------
>
>I'm not sure that this is big news but in a book I read 10 or 15 years=20
>ago, called something like _Babel' in the Memory of his Contemporaries_,
>Babel', returning from Berlin at the end of the 1920s, remarked.=20
>"Nabokov's a good writer, but he has nothing" to say (like Kataev, I=20
>quote from memory).
>
>------------------
>Ne uveren, chto aeto bol'shaya novost', no v chitannoy mnoy let 15 nazad
>(ili 10?) knige "Babel' v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov" - vprochem i v
>aetom ya ne uveren, vo vsyakom sluchae to byla nekaya kniga o Babele -
>privodilos' sledyuschee ego (Babelya, vernuvshegosya iz Berlina - konetz
>20-kh godov) vyskazyvanie: "Khoroshii pisatel' Nabokov, no pisat' emu
>sovershenno ne o chem" (tzitiruyu, kak Kataev, po pamyaty).
>-------------------------------------
>
>
>And now about poshlost': The concept is almost indefinable since however
>much Nabokv-L's correspondents strive to provide a definition, any
>definition itself automatically smacks of poshlost', in any case to the=20
>sense of the definer, if his ear is keen enough. We can use the meager=20
>set of definitions in Dal' or Ozhegov (I don't own Ozhegov, so I don't=20
>know), but all these are merely approximations. Poshlost' is an eternal=20
>category and, like a mathematical point, does not admit definition.=20
>Everything that one can say about it has been said by Joseph Brodsky:
>"The devil walks among us and awaits this phrase evey minute of every=20
>hour." People, Be Vigilant. (Yet another example of poshlost' since any=20
>phrase can become poshlost' from too requent usage.)
>
>
>Aeto ponyatie prakticheski neopredelimoe, kak
>by ni staralis' opredelit' ego russkie correspondety odnoy iz Vashikh
>correspondentok, poskol'ku lyuboe opredelenie poshlosti avtomaticheski
>samo otdaeot poshlost'yu, vo vsyakom sluchae na vkus opredelyayuschego, es=
li
>emu dostayuot slukha. My mozhem vocpol'zovat'sya skudnym naborom
>opredelenii, privedennym u Dahlya ili Ozhegova (u menya net
>Ozhegova, tak chto ne znayu), no vsyo aeto budet lish' priblizhenie.
>Posholst' - kategoeriya vechnaya i, kak matematicheskaya tochka,
>opredeleniyu ne poddaeyotsy=E0. Vseo, chto mozhno o ney v aetom otnoshenii
>skazat', skazano Brodskim: "Mezh nami d'yavol brodit ezhechasno i
>pominutno aetoy phrazy zhdet". Lyudi, bud'te bditel'ny. (Esche odna
>poshlost' - poskol'ku k tomu zhe lubaya phraza mozhet obratit'sya v
>takovuyu ot slishkom chastogo upotrebleniya).=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dear Don
First of all, thanks for Boyd proposition but I have both volumes already -
one of my friend had sent first volume to me from USA 3-4 years ago and
second one I had bought in Moscow (but who is this kindly Dol?).
Now about translation:
1. "but he writes about nothing" is not exact - "ne o chem pisat'" means
roughly "ne imeet o choem pisat'" and You version in back-translation is
"pishet ni o chyom". I don't know how to tell it in English - something
like "hasn't what to write about".=20
Dumayu, Babel' gordilsya opytom svoey sluzhby v Pervoy Konnoy and so on. Ne
znayu, naskol'ko iskrenen on byl. Obschii ofitzial'nyi ton ontnosheniya k
emigratzii byl zadan A.N. Tolstym (dedom of my best foe I.N.T.) - bylo
postanovleno, chto russkie emigranty sut' kokainisty, sadisty i taksisty, a
luchshie iz nikh sposobny lish' rydat' pod muzyku Romskogo-Korsakova i
toskovat' po Rodine.O cheom takie mogut pisat'? V aetom kluche i polagalos'
pisat' "o nikh". Vot Babel' i pisal (vernee - piblikoval, a aeto ne to zhe,
chto "dumal").
2."smack of..." is OK, I think.
Best of all bests.
Sergey
Sergey B. Il'in
<isb@glas.apc.org>
Moscow
Nashe delo veseloe.
>
>EDITOR'S NOTE. Sergey Il'yn <isb@glas.apc.org>,
>Russian translator of the forthcoming ADA, offers (inter alia) the
>following, elegant, thoughts on the ineffable concept of Poshlost'. I=20
>have supplied the rough translation.=20
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>----------------- Message requiring your approval (31 lines) ------
>
>I'm not sure that this is big news but in a book I read 10 or 15 years=20
>ago, called something like _Babel' in the Memory of his Contemporaries_,
>Babel', returning from Berlin at the end of the 1920s, remarked.=20
>"Nabokov's a good writer, but he has nothing" to say (like Kataev, I=20
>quote from memory).
>
>------------------
>Ne uveren, chto aeto bol'shaya novost', no v chitannoy mnoy let 15 nazad
>(ili 10?) knige "Babel' v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov" - vprochem i v
>aetom ya ne uveren, vo vsyakom sluchae to byla nekaya kniga o Babele -
>privodilos' sledyuschee ego (Babelya, vernuvshegosya iz Berlina - konetz
>20-kh godov) vyskazyvanie: "Khoroshii pisatel' Nabokov, no pisat' emu
>sovershenno ne o chem" (tzitiruyu, kak Kataev, po pamyaty).
>-------------------------------------
>
>
>And now about poshlost': The concept is almost indefinable since however
>much Nabokv-L's correspondents strive to provide a definition, any
>definition itself automatically smacks of poshlost', in any case to the=20
>sense of the definer, if his ear is keen enough. We can use the meager=20
>set of definitions in Dal' or Ozhegov (I don't own Ozhegov, so I don't=20
>know), but all these are merely approximations. Poshlost' is an eternal=20
>category and, like a mathematical point, does not admit definition.=20
>Everything that one can say about it has been said by Joseph Brodsky:
>"The devil walks among us and awaits this phrase evey minute of every=20
>hour." People, Be Vigilant. (Yet another example of poshlost' since any=20
>phrase can become poshlost' from too requent usage.)
>
>
>Aeto ponyatie prakticheski neopredelimoe, kak
>by ni staralis' opredelit' ego russkie correspondety odnoy iz Vashikh
>correspondentok, poskol'ku lyuboe opredelenie poshlosti avtomaticheski
>samo otdaeot poshlost'yu, vo vsyakom sluchae na vkus opredelyayuschego, es=
li
>emu dostayuot slukha. My mozhem vocpol'zovat'sya skudnym naborom
>opredelenii, privedennym u Dahlya ili Ozhegova (u menya net
>Ozhegova, tak chto ne znayu), no vsyo aeto budet lish' priblizhenie.
>Posholst' - kategoeriya vechnaya i, kak matematicheskaya tochka,
>opredeleniyu ne poddaeyotsy=E0. Vseo, chto mozhno o ney v aetom otnoshenii
>skazat', skazano Brodskim: "Mezh nami d'yavol brodit ezhechasno i
>pominutno aetoy phrazy zhdet". Lyudi, bud'te bditel'ny. (Esche odna
>poshlost' - poskol'ku k tomu zhe lubaya phraza mozhet obratit'sya v
>takovuyu ot slishkom chastogo upotrebleniya).=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dear Don
First of all, thanks for Boyd proposition but I have both volumes already -
one of my friend had sent first volume to me from USA 3-4 years ago and
second one I had bought in Moscow (but who is this kindly Dol?).
Now about translation:
1. "but he writes about nothing" is not exact - "ne o chem pisat'" means
roughly "ne imeet o choem pisat'" and You version in back-translation is
"pishet ni o chyom". I don't know how to tell it in English - something
like "hasn't what to write about".=20
Dumayu, Babel' gordilsya opytom svoey sluzhby v Pervoy Konnoy and so on. Ne
znayu, naskol'ko iskrenen on byl. Obschii ofitzial'nyi ton ontnosheniya k
emigratzii byl zadan A.N. Tolstym (dedom of my best foe I.N.T.) - bylo
postanovleno, chto russkie emigranty sut' kokainisty, sadisty i taksisty, a
luchshie iz nikh sposobny lish' rydat' pod muzyku Romskogo-Korsakova i
toskovat' po Rodine.O cheom takie mogut pisat'? V aetom kluche i polagalos'
pisat' "o nikh". Vot Babel' i pisal (vernee - piblikoval, a aeto ne to zhe,
chto "dumal").
2."smack of..." is OK, I think.
Best of all bests.
Sergey
Sergey B. Il'in
<isb@glas.apc.org>
Moscow
Nashe delo veseloe.