FW: Translation II

[Jedrzej Polak]

----------
From: Jedrzej Polak <jedpolak at mac.com>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 15:01:33 +0200
To: Michel Ryckx <michel.ryckx at freebel.net>
Subject: Re: Translation II

No, Sir, IMHO French deconstructive discourse is not as meaningless as you
suggest, at least in Derrida's case.  For example: his analysis of Nietzsche
("his style is a spur which breaks the veil behind which his truth can be
glimpsed" - if I remember correctly one of Derrida's propositions) may have
some bearing on the meaning of Jessica and Roger Mexico drive "to the
country", i.e. on the overall analysis of written texts, which is quite
indispensable for us, translators, and quite useful for a regular reader.

The same may be said about their new approach to psychoanalysis proposed by
Lacan or Kristeva. And let us not forget Barthes with his "Lover's
Discourse", which helped me immensely during one or two infatuations. So it
was not a mere playing with words, but to some extent a real breakthrough
for those who deal with written word. And that is all "was der Fall ist".

Best Regards

Jedrzej Polak

> From: Michel Ryckx <michel.ryckx at freebel.net>
> Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 13:59:59 +0200
> To: "'Jedrzej Polak'" <jedpolak at mac.com>
> Cc: "'pynchon-l at waste.org'" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Subject: RE: Translation II
> 
> Dear Sir:
> Jessica and Roger Mexico drive 'to the country'.  What does that mean?
> Depending on where one is used to live, it can mean something completely
> different.
> 
> In Belgium, my country, one cannot walk for an hour 'in the country' without
> meeting someone, or without discovering a human trace.  In Britain, where the
> aforementioned action takes place, the landscape is mainly tamed by humans.
> In the United States, there still can be found some wilderness (nature, and,
> besides, in human beings, but that is another discussion).  What does an Iraqi
> reader see when 'the country' is mentioned?
> 
> This is my point: though it is to be admired that someone devotes 60 pages
> explaining 'différance', I don't know whether the reader will see things more
> clearly.  I remember it was very hard to understand  the concepts of
> 'signifiant' and 'signifié', while one over here is supposed to be more or
> less bilingual (Dutch and French).
> 
> Since Heidegger began playing with words, and often incorrectly, and after he
> was introduced in France,  and knowing that French philosophy (nowadays) is
> merely an intellectual play, without any absolute value at all, but just a
> parttaking in a public discours, I think it is even irrelevant to make such an
> effort as you mentioned.  But the exercise must be exciting.
> 
> Michel Ryckx.