site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   1894 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 15, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, what are you reading?

I'm picking up al-Gharbi's We Have Never Been Woke. It's more scholarly and less popular than expected. The title apparently means that for all the woke signalling being done, actual wokeness is more about appearances and ambition than anything.

I just started Jane Austen’s Emma. I’ve been meaning to read more ”proper” books for a while and I recently watched and loved Clueless (1995) which turns out to be a very well regarded modernized adaptation of Emma to a 90s high school setting. Thus getting an annotated ebook seemed a natural choice (for the high, high, price of $4.50). Wish me luck, lol.

Some googling for translations has also revealed an interesting example of elitism in literary circles. People recoil at the very idea that someone would translate older English language Classics to modern late 1900s / 2000s English and tell you to just suck it up with the overly complicated sentence structure and completely changed meaning of words. However translating to a foreign language - which throws the sentence structure to wind and streamlines it significantly - is somehow perfectly fine. Goddamn elitists…

However translating to a foreign language - which throws the sentence structure to wind and streamlines it significantly

Then that is a bad translation. If a book has complex and difficult sentence structure in the original, it should be preserved in translation (and some translations, like Ottilie Mulzet's translations from Hungarian, imo qualify as great works in themselves). Of course, good writing, ideally, has sentences which are complex but not difficult, sentences which flow, which pull you along in a clear semantic progress from concept to concept. Reading these sentences is a skill, one which modern readers have to develop, but that's fine, it's part of being a good reader. You may be taking too much of a jump at once - consider taking a look at Conrad or some other turn-of-the-century author, who can act as a bridge into the Victorians. Personally, I read very few Victorian novels, too stodgy for me, but still try to keep sharp on it to read Victorian poetry, history, and philosophy.

With respect to archaic terms, that's understandably frustrating to non-native speakers, but also part of the game. There are very few cases where you can seamlessly replace a word without some semantic or rhythmic difference. Where I do share your frustration is with the ebook format. Footnotes are very easy, and often necessary, on a physical book (e.g. there is simply no way to do without them for a Classical text), but a huge pain in the ass on e-readers.

If a book has complex and difficult sentence structure in the original, it should be preserved in translation

Are you actually proficient in two languages that belong in two different language families?

Because if you are, then you should know that preserving the original sentence structure is flat out impossible in many cases because languages have different grammars. What is correct structure in language A can be very much not correct in language B.

sentences which flow, which pull you along in a clear semantic progress from concept to concept.

This is exactly why I wish such english -> english translations would exist! To me the old text does not flow. It's overly complicated in ways which contribute absolutely nothing to it and could be streamlined with minimal alterations (see example 3 here) that would subtract absolutely nothing from the original. And of course the original keep existing for anyone who wants to read them.

Reading these sentences is a skill, one which modern readers have to develop, but that's fine, it's part of being a good reader. You may be taking too much of a jump at once

Seriously, what is it with these condescending personal attacks? Do you truly believe that anyone who disagrees with you can only do so because they are somehow inferior?

Unless your intent is to demonstrate that literature buffs are narrowminded gatekeeping idiots who can only consider their own position and never anyone else's, in which case you're doing an excellent job at that. It sure takes some guts to complain that non-native speakers don't have perfect enough grasp of the language when only a small fraction of the natives speak any other language with remotely the same fluency.

With respect to archaic terms, that's understandably frustrating to non-native speakers, but also part of the game.

No, it is not. Some of it can be but others are simply a case of changed meaning where a new word can be substituted in that place to restore the original meaning.

Because if you are, then you should know that preserving the original sentence structure is flat out impossible in many cases because languages have different grammars. What is correct structure in language A can be very much not correct in language B.

I think I've been unclear there. What I mean to say is that if a book has complex and layered sentence structure, that should be reflected in the translation, and likewise if it has clear prose with short sentences. Translation is not a case of going word for word. For instance, if you are translating a single-sentence modernist novel, your translation should if at all possible be a single sentence in the other language. It's an art that trades off preserving word-for-word accuracy, semantics, flow, rhythm, and structural considerations. I've read a couple works in multiple translations, and you can see how the tradeoffs work and which translators do it better.

I did see your examples, and I'm sorry to say that Example 3 is just worse prose (to be fair, Example 2, the Finnish translation, is execrable, I assume because that sentence structure is impossible in Finnish?). It's easier for an inattentive or less experienced reader to follow, because it breaks up the sentence with an extra verb and a reminder of the subject, but it kills the rhythm and unbalances the structure. Try reading the original and the edit out loud - notice how, for instance, the original is instantly dramatic, with the little break between "Woodhouse" and "handsome" making you read "handsome, clever, and rich" with energy, notice how the emphases on "house" and "handsome" both play on each other and break natural iambic rhythm in a way that makes "handsome" bounce off the tongue, and that runs all the way to the next strong syllable of "COMfortable". Meanwhile Example 3 reads comparatively flat, just conveying information, more like a movie narrator or a story you could read out in a classroom.

Seriously, what is it with these condescending personal attacks? Do you truly believe that anyone who disagrees with you can only do so because they are somehow inferior?

It's fine for the various forms of art appreciation to be skills you have to learn and develop - and, as you point out, only a small fraction of native speakers ever develop them. As an example, I am a complete philistine when it comes to appreciating music (but I also don't insist to my Wagner-loving friends that he's got too many notes and they're just gatekeeping). I suppose I could couch it in more padding and compliments and so on, but this is the Autism Forum. I told you how it is, and gave you my advice, which is to use authors who bridge the gap in prose style between the modernists and the Victorians as a way to develop those skills.

To a more general point, I think a lot of people have skills they don't think of as "skills" but as innate things which are reflections of their intelligence, self-worth, whatever. I've made this point a lot in the various Wellness Wednesday discussions of socializing, making friends, dating, etc. that those things are skills you have to learn and practice consciously, and doing that is the difference between getting what you want socially and becoming an ngmi shut-in. People are more receptive to that advice about social skills here, because, again, this is the Autism Forum, but it's also true of reading and writing prose. Such is life.

However, translating to a foreign language—which throws the sentence structure to the wind and streamlines it significantly—is somehow perfectly fine.

This sounds like a strawman to me. Plenty of people hate "streamlined" translations into other languages. "Localization" of Japanese games and anime into English has borne the brunt of this criticism, but I don't think it's unknown in other areas.

Esteemed writer Vladimir Nabokov (in the "translator's foreword" to his 1958 translation of A Hero of Our Time):

This is the first English translation of Lermontov's novel. The book has been paraphrased into English several times [footnote listing five works from 1854 to 1940], but never translated before. The experienced hack may find it quite easy to turn Lermontov's Russian into slick English clichés by means of judicious omission, amplification, and levigation; and he will tone down everything that might seem unfamiliar to the meek and imbecile reader visualized by his publisher. But the honest translator is faced with a different task.

In the first place, we must dismiss once and for all the conventional notion that a translation “should read smoothly” and “should not sound like a translation” (to quote the would-be compliments, addressed to vague versions, by genteel reviewers who never have read and never will read the original texts). In point of fact, any translation that does not sound like a translation is bound to be inexact upon inspection; while, on the other hand, the only virtue of a good translation is faithfulness and completeness. Whether it reads smoothly or not depends on the model, not on the mimic.

In attempting to translate Lermontov, I have gladly sacrificed to the requirements of exactness a number of important things—good taste, neat diction, and even grammar (when some characteristic solecism occurs in the Russian text). The English reader should be aware that Lermontov's prose style in Russian is inelegant; it is dry and drab; it is the tool of an energetic, incredibly gifted, bitterly honest, but definitely inexperienced young man. His Russian is, at times, almost as crude as Stendhal's French; his similes and metaphors are utterly commonplace; his hackneyed epithets are redeemed only by occasionally being incorrectly used. Repetition of words in descriptive sentences irritates the purist. And all this the translator should faithfully render, no matter how much he may be tempted to fill out the lapse and delete the redundancy.

When Lermontov started to write, Russian prose had already evolved that predilection for certain terms that became typical of the Russian novel. Every translator becomes aware, in the course of his task, that, apart from idiomatic locutions, the “from” language has a certain number of constantly iterated words that, though readily translatable, occur in the “into” language far less frequently and less colloquially. Through long use, these words have become mere pegs or signs, the meeting places of mental associations, the reunions of related notions. They are tokens of sense, rather than particularizations of sense. Of the hundred or so peg words familiar to any student of Russian literature, the following may be listed as being especial favorites with Lermontov:

[list of 13 Russian phrases, of which four are borrowed from French]

It is the translator's duty to have, as far as possible, these words reoccur in English as often, and as irritatingly, as they do in the Russian text. I say as far as possible because in some cases the word has two or more shades of meaning depending on the context. “A slight pause”, or “a moment of silence”, for instance, may render the recurrent “minuta molchan'ya” better than “a minute of silence” would.

A few years ago I read A Hero of Our Time in English, now I'm curious which translation it was.

How is it a strawman to say that the existence of foreign language translations is considered fine by people? I've certainly never seen a literature enthusiast who'd want to restrict others from reading translated works when they can't read the original language.

As for streamlining, the very act of translating English text to Finnish inherently changes the sentence structure because English and Finnish are in different language families and have completely different grammar. It's impossible to translate many forms of archaic English to Finnish without streamlining the sentence structure because proper Finnish doesn't have the same forms of very long tacked on sentences (there are some long sentences but they are different form and thus wouldn't be any more authentic than the streamlined ones).

Obviously poor quality translations are considered bad but that's the very reason why I wish someone would make slightly streamlined versions of English language classics. As it is, my options are 1) try to read the originals and give up because the text is too laborous and annoying to read (without a very good cause, ie. the language used was the norm for the era instead of being a dedicated stylistic choice as you'd find in some books that intentionally evoke the feel of archaic language), 2) read at best a middling quality translation (because they are old and done without access to proper understanding of the source material) or 3) hope a newer high quality translation exists (eg. Pride and Prejudice has been translated by Kersti Juva who's renowned for her outstanding Tolkien translations). Given the lack of option 3, how is it better to either prevent me from reading the book in the first place or to force me to read a subpar translation (that gets say 70% there) instead of allowing me (and everyone else without requiring N different translations) to read a slightly modernized version that's 95% accurate to the original? (and will result in outright better comprehension and appreciation of the text because it uses the words in their modern meaning instead of 200 year old outdated meaning that will cause misunderstandings)

And if you think the existence of people who think that is a strawman, take a look at this and this comment in thus subthread which are essentially saying just that.

How is it a strawman to say that the existence of foreign language translations is considered fine by people?

I didn't say merely "translations into other languages". I specifically said "'streamlined' translations into other languages".

As for streamlining, the very act of translating English text to Finnish inherently changes the sentence structure because English and Finnish are in different language families and have completely different grammar. It's impossible to translate many forms of archaic English to Finnish without streamlining the sentence structure because proper Finnish doesn't have the same forms of very long tacked on sentences (there are some long sentences but they are different form and thus wouldn't be any more authentic than the streamlined ones).

Streamlining should be kept to an absolute minimum. I know approximately nothing about Finnish, so I can't say anything more there. But see the Nabokov quote that I now have been able to add to my previous comment for his thoughts on Russian–English translation.

Obviously, poor-quality translations are considered bad

"Quality" is a meaningless buzzword.

Obviously, inaccurate translations are considered bad, but that's the very reason why I wish someone would make slightly streamlined versions of English language classics.

Streamlining and accuracy are inherently opposed to each other. The more streamlining a person does, the more he becomes a paraphraser (or a localizer) rather than a translator. Again, see the Nabokov quote.

Also: To clarify, I am not opposed to the creation of streamlined/inaccurate translations/paraphrases/localizations, as long as they are clearly labeled as such rather than being passed off by their publishers as truly accurate.

Goddamn elitists…

Checking in.

If you can't read Austen you aren't really literate in English. Annotations are fine, adaptations are fine, but you should be able to read it without some Reader's Digest bowdlerization of it.

I guess I'm not really literate then. Of course, I assume this means that you in turn can read eg. Dostoevsky in the original Russian editions without problems, right? Afterall, by your measure anything else would be "bowdlerization".

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about some "simple English" version but simply updating those words and terms that have changed their meanings in the last 200 years (and there are enough that the first chapter alone has 34 foonotes!) and making minor changes to some of the overly complex sentence structure so you don't have to keep a dozen different things in mind just to be able to parse a single sentence.

But more to the point I simply cannot understand this view where nobody, not even non-native speakers, should be allowed to have an easier to read version available for them that stays authentic to the original's spirit and it would be better that all those people simply not read at all such books.

Dostoevsky in the original Russian

Or, more precisely, Dostoevsky with dialogues jumping between original Russian, French, English, and German. His upper-class characters jump between the four languages in their conversations, as they would in real life at the time. No properly-educated young lady would speak Russian without at least a hint of a French accent.

I guess I'm not really literate then. Of course, I assume this means that you in turn can read eg. Dostoevsky in the original Russian editions without problems, right? Afterall, by your measure anything else would be "bowdlerization".

As far as I'm aware, the only changes to the original Dostoevsky (and contemporary authors) that are present in the editions you can read now are grammar changes - that is, updating the 19th century spelling, full of i's and ъ's, to the grammar USSR and modern Russia share.

Of course, I assume this means that you in turn can read eg. Dostoevsky in the original Russian editions without problems, right? Afterall, by your measure anything else would be "bowdlerization".

I don't claim to be literate in Russian. You got me there.

But more to the point I simply cannot understand this view where nobody, not even non-native speakers, should be allowed to have an easier to read version available for them that stays authentic to the original's spirit and it would be better that all those people not read at all such books.

Because with a little effort, one can read Austen in the original, and by struggling through one or two such books in the original, one can learn to read them. And by doing so one unlocks the entire history of the English language. And such efforts are what keeps the entire concept of the English language stable and keeps it from drifting permanently into low slang and ebonics.

Languages are defined and anchored by the great works of literature that the literate members of the linguistic group are expected to read and understand. Dante in Italian, Homer for the Greeks, Virgil in Latin, Goethe in German. The English that God has blessed us with has remained remarkably stable from Shakespeare to today. I can attend a Shakespeare play and with a little inference from context clues get what is being said.

But this process requires collective effort to maintain. And when we create shortcuts, like "updating" Austen's language, we destroy that effort, we would permanently cut off that part of our heritage. We would be left with people unable to read the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, John Stuart Mill, the Gettysburg Address.

We've already mostly lost this to wokeness and ignorance, with the literary canon in tatters. For decades every American public high school student was forced to read Shakespeare at least a little to pass, now it's been replaced with modern identitarian garbage. Was there ever a time where the majority of Americans could read the Great Books? Maybe not, but there existed a literate culture that could. We're in danger enough of losing that as it is, and maybe it's all irrelevant in the age of AI. But it was a beautiful thing while it lasted.

So please, leave me Austen.

English is essentially anchored by Shakespeare and the King James bible, and for specifically American English also Twain. Not by Jane Austen, particularly- while she definitely 'counts' as a literary great, Pride and Prejudice in not an anchorwork for English as a literary tongue the way that Shakespeare's first folio is, nor the the King James bible.

It's not that simple to delineate one classic as the anchor of a language and another as outside of that. Certainly Shakespeare and the KJV are the bedrock of modern English, but everything within the canon serves a purpose as a bridge from here to there. Austen is much more accessible to the modern reader than the KJV or Hamlet, and reading things like Pride and Prejudice will prepare you for reading Shakespeare. Reading Austen serves much the same purpose, really, because Jane Austen read Shakespeare and the KJV. It's not about preserving one work and not others, it's about preserving the connective tissue that makes a living tradition with our ancestors.

My seventh grade English teacher had a big chart on her wall that some past class had made, with literary and intellectual movements stacked on top of each other, with their themes and what they were reacting against in the past movement. The writers of the Enlightenment were reacting against the religiosity and irrationalism of the medieval period, the Romantics were reacting against how boring the Enlightened rationalists were, Realism reacted against how goofy the Romantics were, Modernism and Absurdism reacted against Realism's limitations, etc. An extremely Hegelian view of literature. Everything exists within a context.

When you start editing original texts, you get stuff like this. The old teen girl book series Pretty Little Liars has been "updated" in the latest releases, including e-books apparently purchased in the past and stored in the cloud, to include modern references. At least, that's the stuff girls noticed, I wouldn't be surprised if slurs that would have been mildly edgy in 2003 were edited out in 2020. Now I'll grant you that PLL isn't a core work of the literary canon, but the only way this kind of thing doesn't happen is if people at least try to prevent it. I don't want to be hunting for particular editions of a book to make sure it's the real text and not recent politically correct innovations.

Austen is much more accessible to the modern reader than the KJV or Hamlet, and reading things like Pride and Prejudice will prepare you for reading Shakespeare.

Funny, I would hard disagree on the Shakespeare point. Sure, there will be even more words you have to look at the footnotes for, but Shakespeare's plays are written to be performed on stage, generally in a simple and natural meter, which inherently limits sentence length and complexity. Having trouble with To Be or Not To Be? Just read it like you were speaking it. Austen and the later Victorian novelists are the result of a tradition continually building on Shakespeare's English, making it more structurally complex and verbose to fit a reading public rather than a theatre audience (if nothing else, if you look at Victorian novelists, their most kudzu sentences are generally physical descriptions of a scene, which Shakespeare doesn't do much. Marlowe, yes, but rarely Shakespeare).

87 years ago, our forefathers founded a new country based on liberty and equality. Now we are at war with ourselves in a test of whether our nation, or one like it, can survive. We gather on a battlefield of that war to dedicate a cemetery for those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service of our nation, as is proper. However, there is little we can do, as it has already been consecrated by those who fought here. No one will remember this ceremony, but no one will forget the battle. Now we must use their deaths as motivation to finish the job and guarantee the future of democratic government.

Someone who cannot read The American Reader: Words That Moved a Nation is not a literate American.

This just sounds like a WW2-era speech. I can almost hear the mid-Atlantic accent.

And by doing so one unlocks the entire history of the English language

Let's not get carried away here - reading Shakespeare will help you with reading Old English approximately not at all.

I should have specified modern English, roughly Shakespeare to today, but I felt that would be more confusing than useful.

Frankly, I don't care about the "history of English language". Neither do I care about "[your] heritage". I am afterall not English (or anglo- anything).

I simply want to read a few classic books in versions that don't require constantly jumping back and forth for no good reason or require using translations that can't capture the meaning of the original, being simultaneously both inaccurate and sounding archaic in precisely the wrong way (ie. many Finnish translations from 1940s and 50s). I don't see how making a new entirely optional version aimed at modern and foreign readers would somehow erase the existence of the original, particularly given that it's out of copyright and can't thus be removed from the market (like happens with movies). This isn't about "proving my literateness". I just want to read the book so that it's actually enjoyable instead of a chore.

Contrast the first paragraph of the original:

"Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her."

with the only available Finnish translation (translated back to English and differences to the original bolded):

"Emma Woodhouse was beautiful, intelligent and rich; She had a comfortable home and happy disposition; She seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence. She had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with nothing to meaningfully distress or anger her."

and with something close to what I'd prefer:

"Emma Woodhouse was beautiful, clever and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, and seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; She had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her."

Do you really think that people should have to read the second instead of the third when the first is not an option?

But the quality of the prose is the entire reason to read Austen in the first place. If you're going to throw out all her original language, why not just go watch Clueless instead? If the basic plot and themes of Emma are what you want, there are dozens of adaptations out there that will be much easier to consume than the original. You could always buy the Young Illustrated Classics edition. That's how I was originally exposed to much of the English canon as a child.

Austen was a beautiful and wickedly sharp prose stylist. It's worth slowing down and trying to appreciate it.

Mostly it seems like your problem is with the quality of Finnish translations. I'd rather the publishers work on improving the literary quality of their translated works than spend resources producing simpler English language versions.

Frankly, I don't care about the "history of English language". Neither do I care about "[your] heritage". I am afterall not English (or anglo- anything).

If you don't care about me or my heritage, I don't see why I have to care about you or your convenience. If you want an easy reading for the non-native English speaker, read it in translation, which you've pointed out exists and is easier for you.

Do you really think that people should have to read the second instead of the third when the first is not an option?

I don't really see how the third is a massive improvement over the first. The first simply seems to be an option to me, and I'm comfortable with the idea of gatekeeping here. By putting in the effort to read the first, you can easily come to understand the sentence structure and the meaning of the word "handsome" in context, which will help you read other works in the same period without needing translation. With a modicum of effort, these things evaporate for you.

I, of course, will never have a meaningful opinion on Homer or Tolstoy by my own standard. Awkward, as those are some of my favorite works, and I have an effortpost on them in the hopper, but alas. I am not perfect.

I don't see why I have to care about you or your convenience

You don't. All I ask is that you not actively try to prevent me. Yet you keep claiming that I must read it the original way.

read it in translation

I would if a high quality translation existed. It does not exist. See example #2 that I linked.

I don't really see how the third is a massive improvement over the first.

Yes, for a native it may not be. For a non-native like me it's a significant improvement in readability.

which will help you read other works in the same period without needing translation

Again, I do not care about this. I'm not doing this for some school course or bragging rights. All I want is to read the book so it's enjoyable to me.

Why are you trying to force me to do something I do not want and that has absolutely no effect on you? Why are you so much against people simply enjoying literature if they do not do it exactly as you prefer? You don't have to read it. All I ask is that people like me be allowed to read a version we prefer without ridiculous gatekeeping and personal attacks.

Seriously, all this does is further the impression that literature buffs are gatekeeping assholes who care more about some weird concept of purity than that people actually enjoy literature.

How exactly am I preventing you from doing so? If such a modernized abridged Austen existed, I wouldn't go to the Barnes and noble at the mall with my buddies from jiu jitsu and take every copy and throw it in the river.

I (and those similarly situated and opinionated) would probably vaguely sneer at it as degenerate or childish. I would probably judge someone negatively for reading it if I saw it, the same way I judge people I see reading Bill o Reilly "killing" books or White Fragility or Heated Rivalry. Maybe if I got worked up I'd write a tweet or a substack essay or an effort post about it, but probably not. I would view such a thing as a slippery slope towards the English speaking peoples, my people, being estranged from our own heritage. That would not lead me to violent action, I am after all not Italian, but I would sneer and gatekeep.

Given that you know that such would be my reaction, your objection seems to be that the possibility of that sneering prevents such a work from being published? But why should I withhold judgment of something I believe would harm my cultural heritage to enhance your convenience?

Gatekeeping is good, actually.

You should be able to read a book from ~1800 without needing a translation. Literally, it’s not that different.

Literally, it’s not that different.

Oh, really?

Do you often use words like "bride-people" or "valetudinarian", describe someone as of "easy fortune" or say "consequence" when you mean "social position"? Those are examples from just the first few pages of the book.

I mean the latter two, yes. Bride people seems easy enough to parse, especially with context. I will admit to probably needing to look up valetudinarian, but we have dictionaries in our pockets.

No, but reading books like Emma is precisely the way one becomes familiar with these sorts of archaisms. It'll never get easier if you don't force your way through it. But once you've got a couple 19th century doorstops under your belt, the prose becomes a lot easier to digest.

Also, the different language is half the fun! There's nothing wrong with having to look something up every other page. Consider it an opportunity to learn something new.

Looking up every second word is how I learned foreign languages to begin with. If it weren't for brute-forcing my way through foreign literature via dictionary, I wouldn't be writing to you right now.

I think there is value to knowing the words the author selected. Consequence is a word that shows it's not just "class" and that class is more than just how comfortable your life is. Consequence means that these character's lives are considered more significant through the means they get their bread. The word choice is an introduction and an education into a mindset that is unlike ours.

With about 40-80 hours of practice, you can accustom yourself to the vocabulary and grammar differences. The number of words you will need to look up will go down to maybe a dozen a book. This is very different from requiring everyone read all novels in their original language, because learning a whole language takes 1000s of hours.

Also modern people write like that sometimes. Pick up This is Happiness by Niall Williams for example.

You are a Finn right? It's worth noting that the a core part of "English" education in America has been reading the classics, so we do get more practice with the more archaic style. This serves to expand vocabularies, recognize more styles of English communication, and to understand where some words and cultural references come from (I'm looking at you Billy S).

If your primary experience with English is dryer teaching English or technical writing some literature will absolutely be a bit challenging to read, but much of it was more or less lowbrow at the time and it is expected that an "educated" person in the U.S. be able to read these with an excess of assistance.

Separately, many English speaking people will have a fluency with Victorian social norms that will puzzling to people from outside milieus.

Probably your struggle is as much vocabulary as it is missing cultural context.

EDIT: An earlier version of this comment had misremembered OP's country of origin. Apologies for all involved and for my dead dignity.

Jane Austen was not a victorian writer, and he's Finnish anyways.

I don't know that she's a popular part of the American curriculum, either- Shakespeare makes a strong showing in the better programs, and everyone reads Huck Finn(The American novel). The shorter works(Where the Red Fern Grows, The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird...) are pretty common. Younger grades have modern literature written almost specifically to be read in English class. In high school, I remember a bit of Steinbeck, more Dickens than I would have preferred, but perhaps a quarter of the curriculum being Shakespeare.

Context

Yeah def mixed him up with someone else.

Doesn't need to be literally Victorian or Regency for random English bullshit and Amero-English bullshit to be an appropriate description of context that is skipped off of.

And agree with the characterization of Austen being less popular than Shakespeare etc, but it remains pretty popular with women and girls who read which means the influence is there.

And the point remains: it's not pure highfalutin, and educated people will communicate in that way at times and American students are supposed to be presented the opportunity to develop understanding of those references. It's much harder for non-English speakers to get the exposure (especially in the formative years) to make this stuff easily understandable.

You are Indian right?

Accusing a Finn of being Indian...

Dang must have had 'em mixed up with someone else - point remains about it being a first language vs. not a first language expectations thing.

Always going to be harder coming in.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats