▲ 35 points
back
22 comments
I'm surprised to see kind of writing in a New Yorker article:
> Casanova wouldn’t discover the existence of his putative daughter Leonilda for some eighteen years, at which point he fucked her mother while she shared their bed.
I only occasionally read the New Yorker so I'm not up to date - is this the new style? I don't mind so much but I definitely did a double take when I read it.
You might enjoy this 2012 article from The New Yorker titled "Dropping the F-Bomb": https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/dropping-the-f-b...
At first I thought it was a young writer hoping to push some boundaries, but the author's bio says that she has been contributing to The New Yorker since 1987. I suppose either the writer intentionally wrote this to enhance how risqué the story is meant to be, or, perhaps she wants to normalize this use of the F-word?
I know the word choice is correct, even proper - as far as the English language is concerned - yet it feels socially improper given the reputation of the publication.
I've read that as a sarcastic comment on the attitude of Casanova that could have placed him in a situation like that.
I read it as a example of late stage journalism and it's continuing decline.
Suspiciously akin to the Casanova's state of mind. (The journalism, I mean)
As a practical matter, what alternatives might an editor propose that would adequately convey the facts of the event?
I feel like a well known euphemism such as "slept with" would suffice.
> borrowed from Cicero: “He knows nothing who does not profit from what he knows.”
The translations of Cicero I've seen as "The wise man knows nothing if he cannot benefit from his wisdom."
Casanovas version is a wordplay: ‘Nequidquam sapit qui sibi non sapit’: ‘Who does not know himself is himself not knowing/wise.’
Fantastic! Are you reading Casanova in Latin?
In what edition are you reading Casanova? The English translation of Arthur Machen[1] leaves the Latin text unchanged, translating only the French to English.
I have been reading The memoirs of Jacques Casanova, The Modern Library edition 1929, translated by Madeleine Boyd. And now I see, it seems to be an edited version. Will have to check out the A. Machen translation. Thanks.
Why Casanova Continues to Seduce Us
Does he? Most people don't even know Casanova was a real person, let alone have any exposure to his work and ideals.
Actually I've read (part) of his memoirs[0]. Worths a read. Similar to "Dangerous Liaisons" from Laclos - without the literary value.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20504101-the-memoirs-of-...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/326768.Dangerous_Liaison...
they're referring to their readership there; most people don't read the New Yorker
(yes, i put that third spelling of ðɛɹ in just because I could)
I wonder if the Italian Giacomo Casanova would be as seductive if he was an Englishman with the corresponding name Jacob Newhouse
For the English "Samuel Pepys" seems to have worked. How does that translate into Venitian ("Italian" is an anachronism)?
it would sound like "Samuele Pipino/Pipini"[0], a real surname in italy which is the roughly translation of the surname as it comes from pepin d'heristal or piper from latin (pepper). There isnt probably a drect translation from venetian, but one from italian
Yeah doesn't have the same ring to it for some reason.
The imagery of each of the words is significantly different. "Newhouse" inspires the image of what it says on the tin, a new house.
Casanova inspires the image of a castle (Casa), and maybe something new ("nova") or even a supernova. It's also likely that most English language people know at least one "Jacob," so the name has baggage with past associations versus "Giacomo."
True. But also doesn’t have any of the cultural legacy that presumably impacts how you hear the name…