作者sophiacccc (simple beauty)
看板Fiction
标题Re: [新闻] 珍．奥斯汀经典小说 「修」出来的
时间Thu Nov 25 03:38:57 2010
其实我对这个有不太一样的看法... 刚好今天很闲，所以打B来聊聊
我觉得作者的原创力、剧本的编排能力是不可否认的，而匠凿之功不一定要作者本人去做
之前有朋友在美国出版业待过，他出的书花了一堆钱请专家校稿。但你能说这本小说的作
者没有原创力吗? 又是谁发明了这整本小说的脉络? 谁创造了那些生动的人物?
人各有所长，说不定作者跟校稿者合作，可以创造处更棒的经典呢! ^^
另外又想到一点题外话，也就是原报导说 Jane Austen拼字与文法经常出错，全靠编辑帮
大忙的评语。其实我觉得写那麽多谁不会出错阿，就算出错也没什麽大不了的。
一如国内许多学英文的对英文文法死守着不放，殊不之脑筋僵化的结果是造就一批
Grammar Snobs......XD 以为只有学校所教正确文法才是真正的英文的势力鬼
其实语言发展的脉络可以追溯到其历史背景、政治、经济立场。
最近读到一本关於Style的书，Quote几句分享一下
(1) Dialects
Standard forms of a language originate in accidents of geography and economic
power. When a language has different regional dialects, that of the most
powerful speakers usually becomes the most prestigious and the basis for a
nation's "correct" writing.
(2) Correctness & Logic
Conservative critics are wrong when they claim that Standard English has been
refined by the logic of educated speakers and writers, and so must by its very
nature be socially and morally superior to the debased language of their
alleged inferiors. In fact, it is true that many rules of Standard English do
reflect an evolution toward logical efficiency, yet it has also been proven
that Standard English is in many ways less logical than nonstandard English.
etc.....too many I am not going to type it all :P
So here's the point:
Those determined to discriminate will seize on any difference. But our language
seems to reflect the quality of our minds more directly than do our ZIP codes,
so it's easy for those inclined to look down on others to think that
grammatical "errors" indicate mental or moral deficiency. But that belief is
not just factually wrong; it is socially distructive.
FB上有很多黑人朋友写给我的东西文法完全不符合正规英文，不过我觉得他们的Style还挺
特别的^^，这种语言歧视其实以前国民党不准我们说台语的心态有点类似。 XD
这就像我最近跟一个学过中医的在讨论的事...在美国每年花在中医研究的经费超过台湾
中医所有研究经费总和。连老美都开始重视中医实质的效益。而受日本帝国主义影响下
曾经全盘西化提倡废中医的台湾医学体系下教育出来的学生，却口口声声瞧不起自己老祖
宗的医学技术。
扯太远了....最後我想说的是...
很多事情我们不知道的可以认定为不知道，但是如果因为无知而变成自大武断，还因此去
伤害践踏不懂的东西，那就是人类愿景的绊脚石。
※ 引述《ami2010 (双姓:减少男人再娶的慾望)》之铭言：
: Austen），写作以用字精准、笔触细腻着称。不过，新的研究显示，她的拼字与文法经常
: 出错，全靠编辑帮大忙。
: 牛津大学英文教授凯瑟琳‧苏德兰研究珍奥斯汀一些社会喜剧的1100页手稿後，赫然发现
: 珍奥斯汀小说用字的细致与精准，多由他人代劳。有些手稿一眼即可看出珍奥斯汀虽是作
: 家，却不是英文文字的高手。
: 苏德兰说，珍奥斯汀作品「爱玛」（Emma）与「劝服」（Persuasion）的字斟句酌与讽刺
: 警句风格，在原稿中找不到。出版商说，编辑季弗德（William Gifford）是将珍奥斯汀
: 的感性理出头绪，将她的「爱玛」与「劝服」淬链出特有风格的功臣。
: 珍奥斯汀早期作品「理性与感性」、「傲慢与偏见」并非由季弗德编辑，其中有许多前後
: 不一致的问题，之前，大家将它归咎为印刷出错。苏德兰说，其实这两本作品较接近她的
: 原有风格。
: 【2010/10/24 联合报】@ http://udn.com/
--
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
— Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.36.48.59
1F：推 julians:right. but what's wrong with telling of the fact of 11/25 21:36
2F：→ julians:authorship? after all, which Jane Austen? or which 11/25 21:36
3F：→ julians:Jane Austen"s"? 11/25 21:36
4F：→ sophiacccc:Nothing wrong. XD I am merely sharing some thoughts 11/26 00:06
5F：→ julians:but did the critic deny the originality of J. Austen? 11/26 16:42
6F：→ sophiacccc:My post has NOTHING to do with opposing the critic. 11/26 18:31
7F：→ sophiacccc:As I said, I am merely sharing some thoughts. :) 11/26 18:31
8F：→ sophiacccc:Sorry if that offends you. 11/26 18:32
9F：→ sophiacccc:又，换句话说，我有说书评反对作者的原创力吗?^^ 11/26 18:45
10F：→ sophiacccc:我乐於分享看法，但是并没有要比较辩论喔 :) 11/26 18:46
11F：→ sophiacccc:藉着分享看法，也可以从其他人的角度去看事情。 11/26 18:48
12F：→ sophiacccc:不管想法是相同或不同，都可以使我们的视野成长。 11/26 18:51
13F：推 julians:"他出的书花了一堆钱请专家校稿。但你能说这本小说的作 11/27 21:34
14F：→ julians:者没有原创力吗?" If you're not concerned with that, 11/27 21:34
15F：→ julians:what's the point of mentioning it? 11/27 21:34
16F：推 julians:It reads to me that your point is grammatical correct- 11/27 21:38
17F：→ julians:ness has nothing to do with originality, but it is 11/27 21:38
18F：→ julians:also an elephant in the room that the critic does not 11/27 21:38
19F：→ julians:find fault with originality. I am with the argument 11/27 21:39
20F：→ julians:that issues of grammar or spelling does not downsize 11/27 21:39
21F：→ julians:the creativity of a given author and, perhaps, its 11/27 21:39
22F：→ julians:ism, the language or linguistic form shapes the mean- 11/27 21:41
23F：→ julians:ing or content of a given text, so, does the real word 11/27 21:41
24F：→ julians:selected in no way matter? Certainly, grammar/spelling 11/27 21:42
25F：→ julians:may not influence the status of Austen; but different 11/27 21:42
26F：→ julians:selection of words may change her authorship. What 11/27 21:42
27F：→ julians:we know as Austen is not the Austen, the female writer 11/27 21:42
28F：→ julians:we know, but an assemblage of the fleshy Austen and 11/27 21:43
29F：→ julians:her editor. This way, when we are giving credit to 11/27 21:43
30F：→ julians:"Austen," then we should not just have in mind Austen 11/27 21:43
31F：→ julians:herself. This is much the same issue with Pound/Eliot 11/27 21:44
32F：→ julians:in terms of _Wasteland_. And this is apparently anothe 11/27 21:44
33F：→ julians:elephant in the room. 11/27 21:44
34F：→ julians:What is more, examined from the present time, grammati 11/27 21:45
35F：→ julians:cal correctness may not matter that much; but this 11/27 21:45
36F：→ julians:might rewrite the history of reception of Austen: she 11/27 21:45
37F：→ julians:is a great writer in terms of her creativity, the fic- 11/27 21:45
38F：→ julians:tional world creates, but NOT in terms of language 11/27 21:46
39F：→ julians:this elephant may be as shocking as possible for those 11/27 21:46
40F：→ julians:who intend to put her in the same literary position 11/27 21:46
41F：→ julians:as those male counterparts. 11/27 21:46
42F：推 julians:But I see your point. Sorry for misunderstanding 11/27 22:26
43F：→ sophiacccc:Good to learn from your professional view :) 11/27 22:34
44F：→ sophiacccc:I do agree with you. I think I just want to mention 11/27 22:35
45F：→ sophiacccc:that even though the fact is shocking, she still 11/27 22:36
46F：→ sophiacccc:did put effort in her work. I see the key point 11/27 22:37
47F：→ sophiacccc:that you are serious about, and seems like we both 11/27 22:37
48F：→ sophiacccc:agree on that. Haha, but in terms of clarity, I 11/27 22:38
49F：→ sophiacccc:think you both do a greater job. ^^ 11/27 22:38
50F：→ sophiacccc:文学院的就是专业阿~XD 真是有见解 ^^ 11/27 22:41