(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 47: Serial SM Commenter Anna Silent on Family Posts Lately. I Wonder Why?

[libgirl2]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I cannot make it through the Lord of the Rings books. The first book is okay, but by the second book it seems like there is pages and pages just describing stuff. And then there are random characters that pop up and seem important but are never mentioned again. It is supposed to be this epic adventure but I lose the plot in the five million tiny details about a sword. 

My husband says "there is a lot of singing"! 

Speaking of Covid, my best friend just found out her son in law has tested positive and is not feeling well. Now her daughter is going in for testing and she is starting to feel sick. They are vaccinated but not yet boosted. My friend is upset because this was going to be their first Christmas as a married couple and they were coming out to spend time with the family. Not now. 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by libgirl2

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, feministxtian said:

Yup! Just turn it into a novel, please? I need all the descriptions, they help me imagine the setting. Updating Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales to modern English won't screw up the story. I don't see how reading these things in the "original" make you any more literate than someone who reads other fiction like The Dragonriders of Pern (on my schedule for a thorough re-read) or even Terry Pratchett (Let's hear it for the Discworld). Admittedly though, I cannot force myself to read many of "the Classics", they're just not in a genre that appeals to me. 

I love novels. I am also a fan of Ann McCaffrey.  However, I think reading different genres (poetry, prose, drama) is good because it stimulates different types of imagination.

The reason against translation is that some things don’t translate well.  Not only is poetry lost in translation but some of the nuance is as well.  Sticking with the example of “thou, thee, thy, thine” as a “familiar” form, if you translate Early Modern or Middle English into Contemporary English, you inevitably lose the ability to convey the distinction between familiar and formal forms of address.  (In a different direction, I have seen translations from English to Spanish where the use of “tu,” versus “usted” shows the translator did not capture the level of formality required because in modern English there is only one form. For example I recall a translation of Pride and Prejudice that had Mr. and Mrs Bennet addressing each other as “tu.” Yikes.)

The problem is that translation is often necessary so that we can all enjoy works written in languages that we are not familiar (or comfortable) in.  It may be that Shakespeare as well as Chaucer is best read in translation by most contemporary readers.  And, as others have suggested, plays should be experienced in performance to get the full impact.

However, I wouldn’t change a play into a novel or a novel into a play (or film) and think that they are the same work.  There is more than the story involved.

Vladimir Nabokov liked to use the word “transfigured” in place of “translated.”  I think “transfigured” could apply not only to translations but to adaptations/conversions to different genres or media.

In any case, I think people should read, study, view or listen to whatever interests or gives them pleasure. 

[neuroticcat]

When I went to college I blissfully enrolled in “early British literature” thinking I would be reading Austen and Bronte all semester…Huge disappointment. Alas! Canterbury Tales, the Green Night, Beowulf and Dante did not win a college freshman over, though now, many years later, I wish I could revisit them in an academic setting.

I am a big Dickens and Austen fan, agree that Shakespeare is best watched to be understood, and, um, Lord of the Rings forever. 

[feministxtian]

53 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

The reason against translation is that some things don’t translate well.  Not only is poetry lost in translation but some of the nuance is as well.  Sticking with the example of “thou, thee, thy, thine” as a “familiar” form, if you translate Early Modern or Middle English into Contemporary English, you inevitably lose the ability to convey the distinction between familiar and formal forms of address.  (In a different direction, I have seen translations from English to Spanish where the use of “tu,” versus “usted” shows the translator did not capture the level of formality required because in modern English there is only one form. For example I recall a translation of Pride and Prejudice that had Mr. and Mrs Bennet addressing each other as “tu.” Yikes.)

And you've just hit my argument against "literal translation". No such thing. I am Latina. My usual example is "una blousa roja". Literally it's "one blouse red" which makes NO sense in English because in English the adjective comes before the noun. It could also mean "the red top" or  "the red shirt". Every translation is also an interpretation. However, it would make it a hell of a lot easier for folks to be able to read the story in modern English. 

This is the argument I have with the fundies regarding "infallibility". Again, proper understanding and interpretation starts with the culture of the time (in this case 1st Century Palestine), the history of the time (Being ruled over by the Romans, the different religious factions). That precludes taking most scripture at face value. It also takes a decent education to understand this well enough to teach it to others. Most fundie preachers have no real theological education, that's why their theology sucks ass. They're starting at a deficit and just digging the hole deeper. 

Ok....enough rambling, I need to finish cleaning up my living room...ADHD strikes again!

Edited December 20, 2021 by feministxtian
fixed the length

[EmCatlyn]

Regarding Josh and OK Cupid questions, the way OKC was set up, the questions were for matching you with others who answered in similar or complementary ways, not to “judge” or evaluate if you were right or wrong.  A prospective match might judge, of course, but that was the whole point. There were literally hundreds of questions, very few people answered all of them, and some questions didn’t have right/wrong answers.  I always skipped questions I either couldn’t or didn’t want to answer.

I see no reason for anyone to Google to find the “right” answer unless they were trying to pretend they were someone different that they were.  So I don’t judge Josh for not thinking to check.  He was, for a change, being honestly himself.  

OK Cupid is an interesting site.  (I was on it off-and-on for about 4 years, and my husband and I found each other there about two years before Josh was on it.) I liked that it tried to match people by abilities, education, knowledge, assumptions.  However, it did lend itself to some non-standard “matchings” and you had to be careful because the default match classification was not “single/divorced/widowed” but “available.” (If you didn’t reset for every search, you could find yourself matched with a guy who was looking for an extra-marital affair.) 

The question that as a 50ish divorced woman I found most hilarious was, “Would you mind if your match was not a virgin?” 😉  (There was no option for an answer like, “I would mind very much if he was a virgin!”)

My memory is that Josh had only answered a few questions and that his description of himself and his desires was pretty vanilla.  The arrogance and ignorance came through in the few questions he did answer. Anyone who announces he is smarter than most people is giving you a warning signal. (As I recall, my now-husband and I both opted not to answer that question.)

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

And you've just hit my argument against "literal translation". No such thing. I am Latina. My usual example is "una blousa roja". Literally it's "one blouse red" which makes NO sense in English because in English the adjective comes before the noun. It could also mean "the red top" or  "the red shirt". Every translation is also an interpretation. However, it would make it a hell of a lot easier for folks to be able to read the story in modern English. 

This is the argument I have with the fundies regarding "infallibility". Again, proper understanding and interpretation starts with the culture of the time (in this case 1st Century Palestine), the history of the time (Being ruled over by the Romans, the different religious factions). That precludes taking most scripture at face value. It also takes a decent education to understand this well enough to teach it to others. Most fundie preachers have no real theological education, that's why their theology sucks ass. They're starting at a deficit and just digging the hole deeper. 

Ok....enough rambling, I need to finish cleaning up my living room...ADHD strikes again!

As another Latina,  I have always enjoyed some of the problems with literal translation. The position of an adjective can always be fixed according to rules, but what do we do with idioms.

In Spanish, when we want to say that a woman works outside the home, we say that she “trabaja en la calle” which literally means “work on the street.”  Something is definitely lost in translation here.

Language differences reflect different ways of viewing reality.  When I was new to English, at age 10, I said something about “when I was a little girl” which for me meant 7 and under, and got laughed at because I was “still a little girl.” Not in Spanish I wasn’t.  A niña (girl)  becomes a “young woman” in Spanish around 15. (Depending on context and nationality, the term for young woman will vary.  But it is never niña.) The over-use of “girl” to refer to females well over their twenties is a feature in contemporary English that reflects  an infantilization of women.  We feminists have rightly challenged it, and it is less common today than 20 years ago. Even so, we still think of teens and early twenties as “girls” ( a boy, on the other hand, becomes a “guy” around age 14, but that’s another subject.)

I am working my way back to the Bible and translations.  As many of us know, there is a dispute about whether the supposed prophecy of Jesus’s birth was really “a virgin shall conceive” or “a young woman shall conceive” or some other variant. (See Isiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.)  This is a comparable problem to the “girl/woman” distinction above because clearly at some point in Hebrew the word for “young woman” or “damsel” may have been expanded to connote maidenhood/virginity. (There is another Hebrew word for virgin than the word Isaiah uses.)   So it could be that all the fuss about Mary’s virginity, one of the defining tenets of Catholicism and most Protestant Christianity is based on an error or misunderstanding of a word.

This discussion we are having, of course, is precisely why fundies want to believe that there is one, divinely inspired translation to follow.  😉

[louisa05]

7 hours ago, Destiny said:

I have no idea why in the all-encompassing fuck we insist on making our kids READ Shakespeare, or any plays for that matter. It's not meant to be read. It's meant to be WATCHED and it makes about 18947382% more sense that way. I've been saying this for years. I struggled hard with Romeo and Juliet until someone pulled out the 1970s version and showed it to me and then everything made sense.

When I taught Shakespeare, we read it out loud in class and watched scenes from filmed versions as we went. For Romeo and Juliet, I had plastic swords and other props. The Folger Shakespeare Library has great curriculum material for teaching it as theatre. A lot of teachers use a variety of activities based on that to get it off the page.  My kids casted  the plays, designed sets, blocked scenes, etc…

[imokit]

I hate to link to the fail, but they are currently publishing many of our theories (while crediting the Sun). (I thought I was done seeing his face on tabloids.

To summarise the click bait article:

Josh is in for a long dry spell (their words), no conjugal visits in prison.

Amy called him a psycho on social media over the weekend - headline, but they then admit she simply listed traits of a sociapath.  the Fail helpfully point out that she named no names, and could have been referring to uncle JB.

Anna abandoned the kids and moved in with him at the Rebers

There will be no more Ms.  Daily Mail predicts Anna "will no longer be fertile when he gets out of prison."  But will stand by him.

They officially out Joy as a victim, in the context of the condemning statements they mention from Jill, Jinger and Joy - all 3 of whom were his victims.  While its been known since the start, she and Jinger have never officially come forward, so the media probably shouldn't be naming them as victims.

 

They didn't go into the speculation here, that Jana's child endangerment charge is related to neglect of Ms while Anna was conjugalling with Josh at the Rebers.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10329541/Father-seven-Josh-Duggar-wont-conjugal-visits-wife-Anna-prison.html

[Bluebirdbluebell]

21 minutes ago, imokit said:

I hate to link to the fail, but they are currently publishing many of our theories (while crediting the Sun). (I thought I was done seeing his face on tabloids.

To summarise the click bait article:

Josh is in for a long dry spell (their words), no conjugal visits in prison.

Amy called him a psycho on social media over the weekend - headline, but they then admit she simply listed traits of a sociapath.  the Fail helpfully point out that she named no names, and could have been referring to uncle JB.

Anna abandoned the kids and moved in with him at the Rebers

There will be no more Ms.  Daily Mail predicts Anna "will no longer be fertile when he gets out of prison."  But will stand by him.

They officially out Joy as a victim, in the context of the condemning statements they mention from Jill, Jinger and Joy - all 3 of whom were his victims.  While its been known since the start, she and Jinger have never officially come forward, so the media probably shouldn't be naming them as victims.

 

They didn't go into the speculation here, that Jana's child endangerment charge is related to neglect of Ms while Anna was conjugalling with Josh at the Rebers.  

I think leaving the Daily Fail in the rubbish bin is a good idea. It's a terrible paper with little in the way of ethics.

Jinger and Joy officially outed themselves when they started suing over the release of the police report.

[feministxtian]

45 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I am working my way back to the Bible and translations.  As many of us know, there is a dispute about whether the supposed prophecy of Jesus’s birth was really “a virgin shall conceive” or “a young woman shall conceive” or some other variant. (See Isiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.)  This is a comparable problem to the “girl/woman” distinction above because clearly at some point in Hebrew the word for “young woman” or “damsel” may have been expanded to connote maidenhood/virginity. (There is another Hebrew word for virgin than the word Isaiah uses.)   So it could be that all the fuss about Mary’s virginity, one of the defining tenets of Catholicism and most Protestant Christianity is based on an error or misunderstanding of a word.

This discussion we are having, of course, is precisely why fundies want to believe that there is one, divinely inspired translation to follow.  😉

The thing is that if you read various translations (especially the more literal ones) side by side, they essentially say the same thing. The thought for thought translations vary a bit from the literal ones but not enough to put any Christian doctrine into doubt. Well, except for the New World Translation the JWs use. I have a few electronic bible study programs and many of those let you read different translations side by side. I would like to get an Interlinear bible that has the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic along with the English, and the English is a word for word LITERAL AF translation. Thing is they ain't cheap either hard copy or electronic and my budget sucks. That's also the joy of having an EDUCATED pastor. He studied Koine Greek and Hebrew in seminary and can speak Hebrew well enough to get by in Israel. He also speaks Spanish, French and Creole (Haiti). 

Oh, I just watched some documentary on the Fundies and their right-wing ridiculousness. They showed part of a sermon that was all about sex and going to hell. What about the part that says "God so loved the world...". No wonder these people are so angry and full of hate. 

[kokocat]

In undergrad, we had to take four different English classes. The first three were required, the fourth you got to choose. I found out in my second class that one of the optional classes was Fantasy Lit. We literally got to read and study Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. We learned what it took to create a realistic fictional world and how both Tolkien and Rowling successfully did it. I still have trouble reading LoTR, but that was probably the most fun class I took in college!

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, imokit said:

 

Josh is in for a long dry spell (their words), no conjugal visits in prison.

 

I am fascinated that the clickbate authors assume that prisoners don't have sex.
 

[SPHASH]

36 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

I am fascinated that the clickbate authors assume that prisoners don't have sex.
 

Josh could end up with a prison boyfriend 

[livinginthelight]

8 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I cannot make it through the Lord of the Rings books. The first book is okay, but by the second book it seems like there is pages and pages just describing stuff. And then there are random characters that pop up and seem important but are never mentioned again. It is supposed to be this epic adventure but I lose the plot in the five million tiny details about a sword. 

This made me laugh because just today, this very morning, I was telling someone that in my opinion the LOTR books are the best books ever written. I could go on and on about them. And the movies actually do the books justice, unlike most movies based on books. I've read them maybe 11 times and watched the extended-length movies repeatedly.

Just goes to show we need different types of people to make the world go round.

Edited December 21, 2021 by livinginthelight

[EmmieJ]

Anyone else looking forward to seeing The Tragedy of MacBeth?  I haven't been this eager to see a new movie in a long time!

[noseybutt]

34 minutes ago, SPHASH said:

Josh could end up with a prison boyfriend 

And party hard with pruno.

[Dandruff]

I'd like to know whether Anna thinks Josh is more or less guilty than your average non-Christian, person who drives 5 mph over the speed limit, or petty pecan thief.  Are all sins really equal in her eyes? 

[BlackberryGirl]

Omg @Alisamer I said to Blackberry Boy, “someone just quoted Canterbury Tales on Free Jinjer.” And he recited the first 18 lines. Of course.

[LilMissMetaphor]

Medieval Lit was one of my absolute favorite courses in uni.  

[Meggo]

11 hours ago, SPHASH said:

Josh could end up with a prison boyfriend 

Would having sex with a man make him a sinner doomed to hell (according to his family cult) but not child molestation and CSAM possession? Just wondering where their line is...

 

[smittykins]

21 hours ago, Destiny said:

I have no idea why in the all-encompassing fuck we insist on making our kids READ Shakespeare, or any plays for that matter. It's not meant to be read. It's meant to be WATCHED and it makes about 18947382% more sense that way. I've been saying this for years. I struggled hard with Romeo and Juliet until someone pulled out the 1970s version and showed it to me and then everything made sense.

My ninth-grade English class walked to our town’s(now long-closed)movie theater to watch the Franco Zeffirelli film(I assume that’s the one you mean).  I’ve heard that it isn’t  uncommon for schools to arrange private showings.

[Destiny]

5 minutes ago, smittykins said:

My ninth-grade English class walked to our town’s(now long-closed)movie theater to watch the Franco Zeffirelli film(I assume that’s the one you mean).  I’ve heard that it isn’t  uncommon for schools to arrange private showings.

Yup. That's the one. For some reason, I thought it was from the '70s. I sit corrected. Interesting that they did that with you. Every kid I've watched go through high school english has had to read, not watch Shakespeare. I actually enjoy Shakespeare as long as I'm not being forced to read it, and have fortunately a lot of the time been able to pull out a copy of the most common plays to help them get through it. I have an embarrassing number of versions of Much Ado lol. I still need to find a decent telling of my beloved Love's Labours Lost though. The 2000s version did nothing for me.

[smittykins]

We did read it, the movie was just an extra. 🙂

(The thing I remember most is the wolf whistles from the boys during Romeo’s bare-butt scene.)

Edited December 21, 2021 by smittykins

[Rowan]

5 minutes ago, smittykins said:

We did read it, the movie was just an extra. 🙂

(The thing I remember most is the wolf whistles from the boys during Romeo’s bare-butt scene.)

We watched it in class over several days. My sister and I both recall it somehow starting at that scene on multiple days - at which point our unmarried and old as the hills crotchety teacher would fast forward through the “bad part” to get to where we were supposed to be. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

We also watched the Zeffirelli R&J version back in the 90s in English class. And yes, there was a class reaction to the brief nudity.