Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 August 8
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 7 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 9 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 8 edit
Honesty demands that... edit
How to understand "Honesty demands that he describe it to his readers."? Does it mean that he should describe it to his readers honestly? The context is: "So long as a man writes poetry or fiction, his dream of Eden is his own business, but the moment he starts writing literary criticism, honesty demands that he decribe it to his readers, so that they may be in the position to judge his judgements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.237.6 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Does it mean that he should describe it to his readers honestly?" No, it means that the honest thing to do is to explain or justify his criticism. That is, he should expand on it by giving a point by point analysis to his readers so they can understand why he is condemning or praising. That is the honest thing to do. It would be dishonest and a disservice to the writer of the work he's reviewing to simply pass judgement without explanation. Akld guy (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I read it, the antecedent of "it" is not "literary criticism" but "dream of Eden". In other words, the writer of criticism needs to explicitly describe his idea of what makes for good fiction or poetry. Deor (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- The nearest antecedent to "it" is "literary criticism", if we discount "honesty" which is plainly not intended. Akld guy (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Nearest antecedent" doesn't apply here because that implies that "it" has multiple antecedents in this sentence. It doesn't. It has one. The question here is which one thing in the sentence is the antecedent of "it". It's "dream of Eden", the thing that the opposition in the sentence is about: Under one set of circumstances, the "dream of Eden" is "his own business"; under another, he is obliged to "describe it to his readers". —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- The trouble is that describing one's "dream of Eden" could well require a book of its own (or an entire library of books). And what good would that do anyway, unless it's related to the text in question? No, I agree with User:Akld guy here. The critic cannot just come out with "This book is rubbish", or "This novel is a waste of time", without explaining why. Criticism is more an educative process than one of belittlement. So, the critic is duty bound to mention the boxes he felt unable to tick and how they fell short. That would be an act of describing his criticism, not merely being pejorative. I say this not because it's the nearest antecedent, but because it makes the most sense to me on sober reflection.
- Ironically, the facts that this sentence even required sober reflection, and that we band of siblings here at the ref desk are debating its meaning, mean it is not as clearly written as it could be. It can do with some literary criticism of its own. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- But it doesn't make sense. "... the moment he starts writing literary criticism, honesty demands that he decribe it to his readers". Point #1 to make here is that the sentence doesn't say "explain", as you worded it, it says "describe". As for describing: I start writing an article on literary criticism—and honesty demands that I describe my literary criticism? I'm giving you my critique; how do I also "describe" it, apart from what's already in it? I also don't see why it would take a whole book for a literary critic to summarize where he's coming from. And your interpretation leaves the whole "dream of Eden" mention just hanging there unresolved, when it's pretty clear, to me at least, that it was supposed to be the focus of the whole sentence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Nearest antecedent" doesn't apply here because that implies that "it" has multiple antecedents in this sentence. It doesn't. It has one. The question here is which one thing in the sentence is the antecedent of "it". It's "dream of Eden", the thing that the opposition in the sentence is about: Under one set of circumstances, the "dream of Eden" is "his own business"; under another, he is obliged to "describe it to his readers". —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- The nearest antecedent to "it" is "literary criticism", if we discount "honesty" which is plainly not intended. Akld guy (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I read it, the antecedent of "it" is not "literary criticism" but "dream of Eden". In other words, the writer of criticism needs to explicitly describe his idea of what makes for good fiction or poetry. Deor (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I gave two examples of a literary criticism that does not describe, it just asserts. As I see it, the first part of the sentence is about someone writing poetry or fiction (So long as a man writes poetry or fiction, his dream of Eden is his own business). He remains within his own private universe, he makes his own rules, and he does not need to state what those rules are. That's why his dream of Eden is his own business.
- The next part (... but the moment he starts writing literary criticism, honesty demands that he decribe [sic] it to his readers, so that they may be in the position to judge his judgements). That is, he is now engaged in discussing, nay judging, another author's work. He has to write his own words in order to do this, but the focus is now external. Nobody can ever say that a poem is "wrong" or that a piece of fiction does not truly represent what was in the author's mind. But when it comes to criticism of another's writing, there has to be a basis beyond just the Ebertian "I hated this book. Hated, hated, hated ... it". And that basis has to be stated in some way, so that readers of the criticism can understand where the critic is coming from, and can either agree or disagree with the criticism. Nobody can ever disagree with "I hated this book". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- "... basis ... where the critic is coming from": is what Auden meant by "dream of Eden". (Incidentally, do you seriously think Auden's target audience for that sentence was critics who write nothing more than "I hated it" without further elaboration, without saying what it was about the work that they hated?)—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Largo, ...is what Auden meant by "dream of Eden" is merely your assertion. That's of no more value here than "I'm right and you're wrong". (No. I was using an extreme example to make my point very clear.) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- "... basis ... where the critic is coming from": is what Auden meant by "dream of Eden". (Incidentally, do you seriously think Auden's target audience for that sentence was critics who write nothing more than "I hated it" without further elaboration, without saying what it was about the work that they hated?)—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- The next part (... but the moment he starts writing literary criticism, honesty demands that he decribe [sic] it to his readers, so that they may be in the position to judge his judgements). That is, he is now engaged in discussing, nay judging, another author's work. He has to write his own words in order to do this, but the focus is now external. Nobody can ever say that a poem is "wrong" or that a piece of fiction does not truly represent what was in the author's mind. But when it comes to criticism of another's writing, there has to be a basis beyond just the Ebertian "I hated this book. Hated, hated, hated ... it". And that basis has to be stated in some way, so that readers of the criticism can understand where the critic is coming from, and can either agree or disagree with the criticism. Nobody can ever disagree with "I hated this book". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Deor: otherwise why mention "dream of Eden" at all? But I see less dichotomy here than some do. —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I too agree with Deor, and see nothing unclear in the sentence. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- The quotation is from "The Dyer's Hand" by W H Auden, incidentally, following directly from the "corrective discipline" passage in the OP's previous question. Reading up on the passage, it would appear that Auden intended "it" to refer to the "dream of Eden", in agreement with Deor's interpretation. Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- It would appear that "it would appear" really means "I think". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you prefer, "other published authors who have commented on Auden's work have interpreted "it" as referring to "dream of Eden"." I also consider that "dream of Eden" is the only realistic referent, but this only goes to support Auden's thesis that all criticism is subjective. Tevildo (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- It would appear that "it would appear" really means "I think". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- The quotation is from "The Dyer's Hand" by W H Auden, incidentally, following directly from the "corrective discipline" passage in the OP's previous question. Reading up on the passage, it would appear that Auden intended "it" to refer to the "dream of Eden", in agreement with Deor's interpretation. Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- The phrasing "Honesty demands..." always seemed to me to be a personification of honesty. Long ago, human attributes were often personified as various gods, goddesses, muses, etc. So, in this case, "Honesty" is pictured as a deity of some type, which is requiring that humans be honest. Of course, this isn't to be taken literally today, but rather symbolically. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
English transcription edit
What is he saying at around 05:17?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlDeIZ0On_k
"?*! at university" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.90.195 (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it fits. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.90.195 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Thammasat University" In context: "When I first came to Bangkok, I would hear this music being played every morning. And, I heard it was like the advert for Ovaltine, because it sounded just like the way that it used to be advertised in England. But like in, say Thammasat University or in the streets, people would just stop in the tracks when they play it over the loudspeakers. [Laughs] Everyday, it's twice a day." Robert T. Edison (the speaker) is discussing เพลงชาติไทย (Phleng Chat Thai), the Thai National Anthem. -- ToE 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)