
That being said, and keeping in mind my sympathy for the plight of the translator, Ron Hogan's translation of the Tao Te Ching is not very good. A little background; for some time Hogan's translation has been available online, and despite recently being put into print (in a slightly different form than what I read, and retitled "Getting Right With Tao") Hogan has allowed anyone who cares to read his work for free do so under Creative Commons. To which I say, kudos. I also give him hesitant props for the very basic core of his project. That is, stripping away the accumulated translators' filigree of hokey faux-mystical orientalism surrounding Lao Tzu and boiling him down to the most prosaic language possible.
Useful? Sure. Neccesary? Maybe, maybe not. A translation? I'd say no.
The problem is that Hogan goes too far in hammering Lao Tzu's language into the most down-to-earth sentiments possible, shaving off anything like ambiguity or poetry and leaving little nuggets that often come out worn down to platitude. On the other extreme, occasionally in eschewing exaggerated exoticism he goes too far in putting on a Joe-the-Plumber style working class patois. Parts of it sound like getting your Taoism 101 from Jeff Bridges, which is entirely less delightful than it sounds.
Here are some of his drastic reductions:
-“If you can talk about it, it ain’t Tao.
If it has a name, it’s just another thing."
-"Stop wanting stuff. It keeps you from seeing what’s real.
When you want stuff, all you see are things."
-"Tao's neutral:
it doesn't worry about good or evil.
The Masters are neutral:
they treat everyone the same.
Lao Tzu said Tao is like a bellows:
It's empty,
but it could help set the world on fire.
If you keep using Tao, it works better.
If you keep talking about it,
it won't make any sense.
Be cool."
True, it goes down easy, and in the third passage above I even kind of see where he was going with the whole thing. But popularizing any work of philosophy is a dangerous game, because going too far can neuter the depth of thought that made the original worthwhile in the first place. I'm afraid that between instances of pointless reduction and flights of embarrassing folksiness, I'll be sticking with my Mitchell.

This is follow-up, a series of character studies set against the backdrop of a single night. Again, music and the irresistible grip it exerts on a person's universe are his primary concerns, and again I found myself impressed at how well he balances the abstract and the concrete. Each story sets up and explores an idea about music, while simultaneously developing a full, meaty portrait of an individual. The shared setting works in his favor, letting characters drift in and out of the spotlight, showing up as faces in the crowd, recurring as a supporting character, popping up again as antagonist, and at some point taking center-stage.
McKelvie's clean lines and gorgeously soft and crisp faces are a perfect fit. His figures are at once wonderfully expressive and somehow plastic, their pupils maybe just a bit too big for the words coming out of their mouths. There's no real illusion of life, there's always a plastic sheath of hyperreality between his drawings and the reader, and it only helps to accentuate the tone of the whole work. For Gillen's world of fashion as talisman, where who are might just be a narrative counterpoint to what you listen to, McKelvie is absolutely ideal.


19. The Stranger Manual, Catie Rosemurgy. Same here. Loved it, check a few pages back to find out why.

20. The Left Bank Gang, Jason.

I like these little review things. I've read a bit on the Tao and I like the excerpts you posted, so I will have to take a look. Completely agree with the statement about reducing philosophical texts down that much, but it seems like he did OK in some of those.
ReplyDeleteAlso glad you are going to talk about the Tao Lin book...it reminded me that I wanted to read it.
I'd suggest borrowing a copy or getting it from the library, I enjoyed it but it was way too short to justify $14, unless you're planning on reading it more than once/writing about it.
ReplyDelete