作者sophiacccc (simple beauty)
看板Fiction
標題Re: [新聞] 珍．奧斯汀經典小說 「修」出來的
時間Thu Nov 25 03:38:57 2010
其實我對這個有不太一樣的看法... 剛好今天很閒，所以打B來聊聊
我覺得作者的原創力、劇本的編排能力是不可否認的，而匠鑿之功不一定要作者本人去做
之前有朋友在美國出版業待過，他出的書花了一堆錢請專家校稿。但你能說這本小說的作
者沒有原創力嗎? 又是誰發明了這整本小說的脈絡? 誰創造了那些生動的人物?
人各有所長，說不定作者跟校稿者合作，可以創造處更棒的經典呢! ^^
另外又想到一點題外話，也就是原報導說 Jane Austen拼字與文法經常出錯，全靠編輯幫
大忙的評語。其實我覺得寫那麼多誰不會出錯阿，就算出錯也沒什麼大不了的。
一如國內許多學英文的對英文文法死守著不放，殊不之腦筋僵化的結果是造就一批
Grammar Snobs......XD 以為只有學校所教正確文法才是真正的英文的勢力鬼
其實語言發展的脈絡可以追溯到其歷史背景、政治、經濟立場。
最近讀到一本關於Style的書，Quote幾句分享一下
(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上有很多黑人朋友寫給我的東西文法完全不符合正規英文，不過我覺得他們的Style還挺
特別的^^，這種語言歧視其實以前國民黨不準我們說台語的心態有點類似。 XD
這就像我最近跟一個學過中醫的在討論的事...在美國每年花在中醫研究的經費超過台灣
中醫所有研究經費總和。連老美都開始重視中醫實質的效益。而受日本帝國主義影響下
曾經全盤西化提倡廢中醫的台灣醫學體系下教育出來的學生，卻口口聲聲瞧不起自己老祖
宗的醫學技術。
扯太遠了....最後我想說的是...
很多事情我們不知道的可以認定為不知道，但是如果因為無知而變成自大武斷，還因此去
傷害踐踏不懂的東西，那就是人類願景的絆腳石。
※ 引述《ami2010 (雙姓:減少男人再娶的慾望)》之銘言：
: Austen），寫作以用字精準、筆觸細膩著稱。不過，新的研究顯示，她的拼字與文法經常
: 出錯，全靠編輯幫大忙。
: 牛津大學英文教授凱瑟琳‧蘇德蘭研究珍奧斯汀一些社會喜劇的1100頁手稿後，赫然發現
: 珍奧斯汀小說用字的細緻與精準，多由他人代勞。有些手稿一眼即可看出珍奧斯汀雖是作
: 家，卻不是英文文字的高手。
: 蘇德蘭說，珍奧斯汀作品「愛瑪」（Emma）與「勸服」（Persuasion）的字斟句酌與諷刺
: 警句風格，在原稿中找不到。出版商說，編輯季弗德（William Gifford）是將珍奧斯汀
: 的感性理出頭緒，將她的「愛瑪」與「勸服」淬鍊出特有風格的功臣。
: 珍奧斯汀早期作品「理性與感性」、「傲慢與偏見」並非由季弗德編輯，其中有許多前後
: 不一致的問題，之前，大家將它歸咎為印刷出錯。蘇德蘭說，其實這兩本作品較接近她的
: 原有風格。
: 【2010/10/24 聯合報】@ 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)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(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，換句話說，我有說書評反對作者的原創力嗎?^^ 11/26 18:45
10F：→ sophiacccc:我樂於分享看法，但是並沒有要比較辯論喔 :) 11/26 18:46
11F：→ sophiacccc:藉著分享看法，也可以從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，都可以使我們的視野成長。 11/26 18:51
13F：推 julians:"他出的書花了一堆錢請專家校稿。但你能說這本小說的作 11/27 21:34
14F：→ julians:者沒有原創力嗎?" 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:文學院的就是專業阿~XD 真是有見解 ^^ 11/27 22:41