2226 replies to this topic

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Just finished reading Iron Man: Extremis. Very good .

[Christopher006]

I am reading From Russia With Love.

[Johnboy007]

The Quiller Memorandum - Adam Hall

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

After April, I'm planning on reading "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy. Laugh if you must, but I honestly can't wait to read it. It's considered a classic.

[OmarB]

Just finished reading Iron Man: Extremis. Very good .

That's a damn good book man. When you thought Tony could not possibly get any cooler right.

Right now I'm reading a whole mess of Mack Bolan novels I picked up used at 4 for a dollar. Currently I'm on "Stony Man - Breach Of Trust."

[dodge]

I've almost finished reading The Kill Bill Diary. Must-reading for ayone who loves the film.

[Single-O-Seven]

Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan

I love Sagan's work. This book is no less eye-opening and logical than any of his work I've seen/read so far.

[MkB]

After April, I'm planning on reading "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy. Laugh if you must, but I honestly can't wait to read it. It's considered a classic.

There's nothing to laugh about. Some classics can - surprisingly - be good reads!

[AgentBentley]

I'm still in a Slumdog Millionaire mood, so I bought The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga. A thug from Bangalore writes letters to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao about how bad India is. If this were made into a movie, it would get even more flak in India than Slumdog did.

[Qwerty]

Possible Side Effects by Augusten Burroughs.

Staggeringly twisted and hilarious.

[dodge]

After April, I'm planning on reading "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy. Laugh if you must, but I honestly can't wait to read it. It's considered a classic.

Just make sure you get a good translation. The Penguin books are always rough going. But there's a new team of translators that have been terrific with Russian authors. One of the translators is Richard Peaver.

[Kilroy6644]

Just started Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse.

[Jackanaples]

Just finished the novella "The Body" by Stephen King. I'd read it before, but I got an urge to read it again. As good as I remembered. Watched the movie again over the weekend and changed my mind on that. While I used to think it was quite good now I think it a bit weak.

Currently reading:

THE FRENCH ADMIRAL by Dewey Lambdin -This is second in his Alan Lewrie series. It's set during the Napoleonic Wars natch, and reads like Hornblower with considerably more sex and violence.

ON WRITING by Stephen King --In fifty years time I'd venture a guess that people will still be reading Mr. King, which is something you can't say about most popular writers of any age. This is his very succinct book on the craft he knows rather a lot about.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY by Arthur C. Clarke --Never read Clarke before, and want to read this as I am going to see the Kubrick film at the Arclight next Monday. I've seen the movie before, but that was years ago. The book will make a nice primer.

Edited by Jackanaples, 25 March 2009 - 05:11 AM.

[Jose]

Finished (after renewing so many times and various delays) Kafka's The Metamorphosis and Bradbury's Martian Chronicles. I liked them both. Always reading a different play every week for my Shakespeare class. This week- Richard III. Looking forward to covering Othello again later this semester.

[Harmsway]

BLANKETS by Craig Thompson.

Thompson's graphic novel is a beautifully told tale of an adolescent romance and an ongoing struggle with fundamentalist Christian upbringing. It's sad, hopeful, and sincere.

As an evangelical Christian myself, I read his story with "insider's eyes," so to speak. Much of his story was very familiar to me. I can only wonder what the experience of reading BLANKETS would be like for someone who hadn't grown up in that tradition.

[dodge]

The Message/New Testament, the very contemporary translation by Eugene Peterson. The jacket blurb by Bono caught my eye...and I started to read. Finally, a version that reads as if the original had been written in a living language. Dynamite!

[Harmsway]

The Message/New Testament, the very contemporary translation by Eugene Peterson. The jacket blurb by Bono caught my eye...and I started to read. Finally, a version that reads as if the original had been written in a living language. Dynamite!

Really? I find Peterson's paraphrase (it's not really a translation) of the Bible contemptible. It frequently takes the beautiful poetry of the original text and ruins it.

For example, compare Genesis 1:1-2:

The Message:
"First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you
don't see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an
inky blackness."

Yuck.

English Standard Version (my preferred translation):
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was
without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep."



Or John 1:1-5:

The Message:
"The Word was first,
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
in readiness for God from day one. Everything was created through him;
nothing—not one thing!—
came into being without him.
What came into existence was Life,
and the Life was Light to live by.
The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness;
the darkness couldn't put it out."

Again, ew.

English Standard Version:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

[Judo chop]

Or John 1:1-5:

The Message:
"The Word was first,
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
in readiness for God from day one. Everything was created through him;
nothing—not one thing!—
came into being without him.
What came into existence was Life,
and the Life was Light to live by.
The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness;
the darkness couldn't put it out."

Again, ew.

I could not agree more, HW. It uglifies what is already beautiful, and if the purpose of doing so is to simplify... well, I'm not sure it even manages that.

"The Word present to God"

huh?

As if somebody slipped their pocket Scrabble™ game in the offering plate.

No thanks. I do not think John would appreciate the translation.

[Greene Planet]

I just finshed a pretty good book, BODY OF LIES.

Also, before that I re-read my favorite non-Fiction, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS.

Edited by Greene Planet, 25 March 2009 - 11:24 PM.

[Kilroy6644]

Just started Kushiel's Scion, by Jacqueline Carey.

[dodge]

Or John 1:1-5:

The Message:
"The Word was first,
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
in readiness for God from day one. Everything was created through him;
nothing—not one thing!—
came into being without him.
What came into existence was Life,
and the Life was Light to live by.
The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness;
the darkness couldn't put it out."

Again, ew.

I could not agree more, HW. It uglifies what is already beautiful, and if the purpose of doing so is to simplify... well, I'm not sure it even manages that.

"The Word present to God"

huh?

As if somebody slipped their pocket Scrabble™ game in the offering plate.

No thanks. I do not think John would appreciate the translation.

What can I say? Bono, I and millions of others have found a version that speaks to us as no other has. If the two of you prefer your versions laden with dust and Biblical Correctness, go in peace. Or as The Message says: 'Get lost, Satan!'

The Message doesn't pretend to be a literal translation. I'd guess that none of us can read the Bible in the original, so we can't say how accurate the other translations are. TM may be closer to the real thing, for all we know, in its occasionally curious phrasings--e.g. 'the word present to god' or the 'God-kingdom'--than more respected/conventional versions.

In any case, though it does have its shortcomings--many of the Psalms in the OT read flatly imo--for the most part it's an absolute joy. A few examples of what I like:

Mark: 'As he preached, he said, "the real action comes next. The star in this drama, to whom I'm a mere stagehand, will change your life. I'm baptizing you here in the river, turning your old life into a kingdom life.His baptism--a baptism by the Holy Spirit--will change you from the inside out."'

Luke: "But it's trouble ahead if you think you have it made./What you have is all you'll ever get./And it's trouble ahead if you're satisfied with yourself./Your self will not satisfy you for long./And it's trouble ahead if you think life's all fun and games./There's suffering to be met and you're going to meet it.'"

John: "The Word became flesh and blood/and moved into the neighborhood."

The Message rocks.

[Harmsway]

If the two of you prefer your versions laden with dust and Biblical Correctness, go in peace.

I just like it with its literary elegance, and well, the actual textual metaphors and the ambiguities they present. You, a fan of such ancient literature as Homer and Ovid, should be able to appreciate that.

I'd guess that none of us can read the Bible in the original, so we can't say how accurate the other translations are.

I'm no Greek expert, but I've had some elementary Greek, and I read a Greek New Testament on occasion and do some exegesis of certain passages. I also have friends who can read the original Hebrew, so we have lots of conversations about different texts, and sometimes even converse with Biblical scholars. So while I don't have a degree in it, I'm fairly well educated in this stuff. More than most, at any rate.

But a lot of my dislike for Peterson paraphrase not comes from its loose (and frequently misleading) construction of certain passages, but just for the ugliness of its language. It robs the text of its literary beauty in the effort to make it "hip." It's like trading the elegance and grandeur of a cathedral for something as banal as a rock concert. Sure, it might be more approachable for some, but it's far less impressive.

Mark: 'As he preached, he said, "the real action comes next. The star in this drama, to whom I'm a mere stagehand, will change your life. I'm baptizing you here in the river, turning your old life into a kingdom life.His baptism--a baptism by the Holy Spirit--will change you from the inside out."'

Luke: "But it's trouble ahead if you think you have it made./What you have is all you'll ever get./And it's trouble ahead if you're satisfied with yourself./Your self will not satisfy you for long./And it's trouble ahead if you think life's all fun and games./There's suffering to be met and you're going to meet it.'"

John: "The Word became flesh and blood/and moved into the neighborhood."

The Message rocks.

Sorry, I hate that all. It feels like I'm watching GODSPELL.

[dodge]

If the two of you prefer your versions laden with dust and Biblical Correctness, go in peace.

I just like it with its literary elegance, and well, the actual textual metaphors and the ambiguities they present. You, a fan of such ancient literature as Homer and Ovid, should be able to appreciate that.

I'd guess that none of us can read the Bible in the original, so we can't say how accurate the other translations are.

I'm no Greek expert, but I've had some elementary Greek, and I read a Greek New Testament on occasion and do some exegesis of certain passages. I also have friends who can read the original Hebrew, so we have lots of conversations about different texts, and sometimes even converse with Biblical scholars. So while I don't have a degree in it, I'm fairly well educated in this stuff. More than most, at any rate.

But a lot of my dislike for Peterson paraphrase not comes from its loose (and frequently misleading) construction of certain passages, but just for the ugliness of its language. It robs the text of its literary beauty in the effort to make it "hip." It's like trading the elegance and grandeur of a cathedral for something as banal as a rock concert. Sure, it might be more approachable for some, but it's far less impressive.

Mark: 'As he preached, he said, "the real action comes next. The star in this drama, to whom I'm a mere stagehand, will change your life. I'm baptizing you here in the river, turning your old life into a kingdom life.His baptism--a baptism by the Holy Spirit--will change you from the inside out."'

Luke: "But it's trouble ahead if you think you have it made./What you have is all you'll ever get./And it's trouble ahead if you're satisfied with yourself./Your self will not satisfy you for long./And it's trouble ahead if you think life's all fun and games./There's suffering to be met and you're going to meet it.'"

John: "The Word became flesh and blood/and moved into the neighborhood."

The Message rocks.

Sorry, I hate that all. It feels like I'm watching GODSPELL.

I'll judge your remarks in light of your regard for THE WATCHMEN as one of the greatest novels of our time. HRM! YAWP! TCH! GRRRRR!

I like hearing JC speak like a dazzling combo of man and Son of God: 'Are you listening to this? Really listening? You still don't get it, do you? You're not in the driver's seat, I am."

I'll take that the sanctified/sanctimonious texts any old day of the week.

HRM!



I'd recommend you have a look some day at David Slavitt's highly unorthodox translation of the Psalms...also rendered in simple, almost street-style English. I much prefer them to Peterson's. Slavitt's a rogue scholar, published usually by Yale, but poo-pooed by the academics largely because he was once a celebrity novelist (several scandalous bestsellers under a pen-name). He's terrific with the Romans and you might even enjoy his rogue work with the Psalms.

[Harmsway]

I'll judge your remarks in light of your regard for THE WATCHMEN as one of the greatest novels of our time. HRM! YAWP! TCH! GRRRRR!

Ah, the old ad hominem fallacy. Come now, dodge. You can do better than that.

I'd recommend you have a look some day at David Slavitt's highly unorthodox translation of the Psalms...also rendered in simple, almost street-style English. I much prefer them to Peterson's. Slavitt's a rogue scholar, published usually by Yale, but poo-pooed by the academics largely because he was once a celebrity novelist (several scandalous bestsellers under a pen-name). He's terrific with the Romans and you might even enjoy his rogue work with the Psalms.

Maybe I will.

[dodge]

I'll judge your remarks in light of your regard for THE WATCHMEN as one of the greatest novels of our time. HRM! YAWP! TCH! GRRRRR!

Ah, the old ad hominem fallacy. Come now, dodge. You can do better than that.

I'd recommend you have a look some day at David Slavitt's highly unorthodox translation of the Psalms...also rendered in simple, almost street-style English. I much prefer them to Peterson's. Slavitt's a rogue scholar, published usually by Yale, but poo-pooed by the academics largely because he was once a celebrity novelist (several scandalous bestsellers under a pen-name). He's terrific with the Romans and you might even enjoy his rogue work with the Psalms.

Maybe I will.

You're quite right. So let me just add this: Peterson didn't just come out of the blue with his take. While he shot for a living, breathing version in the American idiom, he did have ample input from some well-respected scholars. I don't have the names with me--I believe I saw the list in the daily reading edition. I'll post the names when I find them.

I don't expect the list of names to change your opinion. But, since you've been willing to support your view with input from scholarly friends, I trust you to at least consider more seriously the author's premise: that the original was, by and large, written in simple, everyday language--which he attempts to capture in the words we use today.

[Harmsway]

So let me just add this: Peterson didn't just come out of the blue with his take. While he shot for a living, breathing version in the American idiom, he did have ample input from some well-respected scholars.

Naturally.

But, since you've been willing to support your view with input from scholarly friends, I trust you to at least consider more seriously the author's premise: that the original was, by and large, written in simple, everyday language--which he attempts to capture in the words we use today.

I'm fully aware of Peterson's premise. I just think it's somewhat mistaken. There's a clear predominance of formal literature in the Bible, with formal language. The exceptions really start to come in the in the New Testament, but even then, you have a lot of literature that was written more or less according to formal conventions.

But I think the real problem is that in trying to bring it into an American idiom, Peterson has lost too much. The original cultural setting of the scriptural texts is essential to its meaning, and to attempt to bring it into an American idiom loses much of what was there, even if it does produce an interesting result in some places. It's not an American text. These are ancient documents from a culture different than our own, and thus versions of the Bible should try to maintain as much as possible the semantics of the original. Peterson's paraphrase might serve as a curiosity (and not a particularly well-rendered one, at that), but that's about it.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Angels and Demons The prequel takes place a year prior to the D code, (which I haven't read or watched the movie) when Tom Hanks is a 40 year old(!). Still, the book is a very entertaining...it's the most mainstream thing I've read since 1993 when I read The firm and Interview with the vampire back to back, before Cruise was cast as the leads.

[dodge]

So let me just add this: Peterson didn't just come out of the blue with his take. While he shot for a living, breathing version in the American idiom, he did have ample input from some well-respected scholars.

Naturally.

But, since you've been willing to support your view with input from scholarly friends, I trust you to at least consider more seriously the author's premise: that the original was, by and large, written in simple, everyday language--which he attempts to capture in the words we use today.

I'm fully aware of Peterson's premise. I just think it's somewhat mistaken. There's a clear predominance of formal literature in the Bible, with formal language. The exceptions really start to come in the in the New Testament, but even then, you have a lot of literature that was written more or less according to formal conventions.

But I think the real problem is that in trying to bring it into an American idiom, Peterson has lost too much. The original cultural setting of the scriptural texts is essential to its meaning, and to attempt to bring it into an American idiom loses much of what was there, even if it does produce an interesting result in some places. It's not an American text. These are ancient documents from a culture different than our own, and thus versions of the Bible should try to maintain as much as possible the semantics of the original. Peterson's paraphrase might serve as a curiosity (and not a particularly well-rendered one, at that), but that's about it.

The more dogmatic you get here, the further off base you get. But hell, you'd probably have stoned Gershwin on opening night of Rhapsody in Blue. The music is there, as Jack Nicholson once said to a honcho, it's just that you don't hear it. Ugly language? Only if you require a purple style evoking sounds of angels singing from on high. I'll take The Message. I'm well aware that the Bible, thousands of years old, comes from a different era. But several scholars aside from Peterson have maintained that the bulk of the Bible is written in clear, simple, homespun everyday language. Certainly not the Song of Songs, etc. But for one man translating so many different authors, I think Peterson did a bang-up job. I've already conceded that he reads flatly in the Psalms. But his rendition of Ecclesiastes is the finest I have seen. And I'll take his NT over anything else that I've come across, for life, fire, passion--and relevance. Conservative scholars be dinged. Let's not be stuffy about this--the Bible once rocked--let it rock once again. I think you might also have stoned Stravinski!

[chriso]

Currently I'm reading Gomorrah(real story about the mafia-like organization). It's a very fascinating and incredible book!

[Harmsway]

But hell, you'd probably have stoned Gershwin on opening night of Rhapsody in Blue.

"Rhapsody in Blue" is one of my all-time favorite compositions, actually.

Ugly language? Only if you require a purple style evoking sounds of angels singing from on high.

Hardly. A sentence like Peterson's awkward "Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness" is utterly laughable by any respectable standard of English writing.

I'll concede, though, that there are vast sections where THE MESSAGE reads far better than that, though, and I've picked some of the most awkward passages to reference. There are moments where Peterson reads well, and most of those moments are in Peterson's treatment of the Gospel accounts and elsewhere in the New Testament. But still, he's hardly a wonderful stylist, however you look at it.

But several scholars aside from Peterson have maintained that the bulk of the Bible is written in clear, simple, homespun everyday language.

I'm well aware of it. But for what it's worth, there are plenty of scholars who have nothing but contempt for THE MESSAGE (indeed, among the Biblical scholars I've studied under, THE MESSAGE is something of a joke). So while Peterson has some folks in his corner, his work was hardly a ballpark smash in the field of Biblical studies.

Let's not be stuffy about this--the Bible once rocked--let it rock once again.

It's undeniable that the Bible was, by and large, somewhat scholarly lit, at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned. The bulk of the Old Testament was compiled by historical scholars during the Davidic era. Not exactly your casual "of the people" talk; it was formal, if ordinary, language. I would argue it's not quite equivalent to how Peterson's handled it.

Now, unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written in more everyday language. The New Testament writers were, by and large, more everyday folk, with an audience of everyday peoples (with a few exceptions, like the Gospel of Luke and Acts). That's why I do think THE MESSAGE works better there more than it does in the historical narratives of the Old Testament, which fit awkwardly with the language Peterson tries to place them in. But even then, the New Testament wasn't quite written with the "hip" vibe that Peterson sometimes gives it in his treatment.

But anyway, it's worth mentioning that Peterson acknowledges that THE MESSAGE is not a translation. He knew he was making a paraphrase of the Biblical text that was really his own extrapolation of ideas. So I don't have any gripes against him, per se. I'm more or less troubled by the people that would construe it as a real translation though (including the folks marketing THE MESSAGE, since they've angled it that way), since it's nothing of the sort.

I think you might also have stoned Stravinski!

I love Stravinsky. But I fail to see how he and Gershwin really have anything to do with Peterson's MESSAGE.

My dislike of THE MESSAGE stems from two things: 1) I think it frequently does a poor job of representing the original text, and 2) I think it's often aesthetically unsatisfactory, especially in the instances where the original text has an incredibly beauty all its own. It has very little to do with being a traditionalist.

I've said my preferred version is the English Standard Version (ESV). It's a relatively recent translation - only eight years old - which strives to be very faithful to the wording/metaphors/ambiguities of the original text, and uses a simple, unobtrusive, elegant language.