Unit 7 and Unit 8 Posts
Unit 7: In Professor Ewington’s unit, we covered materials about the “Great Purge” in the Soviet Union under Stalin. One of the assignments is to read two different versions of translation of the same elegy “Requiem” by the Russian poet Anna Akhmatova. The following passage is a short comment I wrote on the difference between two versions of translation and some questions. I thought this unit 7 post goes really well with my research paper which argues that political oppression is just as much if not worse in the Soviet Era compared to the Tsar Era in Russia.
Because I do not know Russian, I cannot possibly judge which of the two versions of translations more accurately expresses the emotions that Akhmatova intended. I find the translation by Thomas easier to read, and therefore expresses the emotion in a simpler manner, which is preferred by me. On average, Thomas uses more punctuations in the middle of the verse to space out different words so that the readers can fully grasp the power of each of them. On the contrary, Anderson tends to use longer sentences with no spacing in the middle and the readers might get lost in the sea of words. Moreover, Thomas’ choice of words is simpler and gives a more of a humane vibe compared to Anderson. A quick example would be the opening sentence of the poem. Thomas chooses to translate it to “For seventeenth months I’ve called you/ To come home, I’ve pleaded”; while Anderson chooses to translate it to “Seventeen months of futile plea, I cry for you to come”. Here Anderson’s use of “futile” summarizes the process of “for seventeenth months” in a single word and cannot as effectively express the desperate emotion that Akhmatova intended in this sentence.
!: Poetry has played such an important role throughout the history of Russian civilization. And the Soviets are, effectively, banning the poetry culture.
?: Why does communist revolution always tend to destroy the old culture?
Unit 8: In Professor Denham’s unit we read from Ulrike Meinhof and discussed the theory and application of the use of violence in modern politics. The following is my comments and question regarding some of the articles that Ulrike Meinhof wrote in ‘Everybody Talks About the Weather . . . We Don’t”.
I actually find the concept of violence super interesting, especially in the case of the RAF. The Western media tends to label the RAF as a terrorist organization because of the violent acts it has committed. However, looking back in history, violence is everywhere. Is violence justified when the cause is good or is it unacceptable no matter what the cause is? I have
“Shadows of the Summit Pointing West”
!: It is interesting that Meinhof is pointing out the self-interests of all the participants at the Paris Conference.
?: Why is she insinuating that nuclear arms = wars/violence?
“Hitler within You”
!: Blaming on some scapegoats is never the way to go; it is paramount to learn from history.
?: Is the politicization of college students beneficial or detrimental?
“Vietnam and Germany”
!: There’s a natural association of communism with “evil” in the west, as seen with the vietcong.
?: On what degree should the public opinion influence politics?
“Women in the SDS: Acting on Their Own Behalf”
!: I find it quite interesting that Meinhof believes that the reaction of men is essential to determine the outcomes of this women’s rights in Frankfurt.
?: Is the primary goal for movement like this one is to make the conflict public?
“From Protest to Resistance”
!: She argues that the state somehow produces the violence.
?: Does resistance have to be violent?
“The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum“
!: The documentary technique of telling the story makes the movie more realistic.
?: What are some other ways that government can alter reality besides newspaper?
“Baader-Meinhof Komplex“
!: The movie portrays the RAF as hero-like figures.
?: Is it morally correct to retaliate violence with violence?
