'historical consciousness, aware that this is the only environment in which it can thrive, now perceives the councils as situated historically not at the periphery of an ebbing tide but rather at the center of a rising one' (DNS 1994). 'The historical consciousness which knows that this is the only milieu where it can exist can now recognise it, no longer at the periphery of what is ebbing, but at the centre of what is rising' (Practical Pirate 1981). 'Historical consciousness, which knows that this is the only milieu where it can exist, can now recognize this reality, no longer at the periphery of what is ebbing, but at the center of what is rising' (Black and Red 1983 edition). Both these I much prefer to DNS's translation. Few works of political and cultural theory have been as enduringly provocative as Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle.From its publication amid the social upheavals of the 1960s to the present, the volatile theses of this book have decisively transformed debates on the shape of modernity, capitalism, and everyday life in the late twentieth century. Just found the 'Practical Pirate' edition of '81 - it's actually based on Perlman's translation, 'extensively revised by Tony Verlaan and Paul Sieveking.final corrections by Michel Prigent, Colin Carsten and John Fullerton.' There's not that much between the two, with certain passages in one being more lyrical than in the other, and vice versa. Haven't seen the Knabb one (didn't know he'd done one, to tell the truth). Is contemporary capitalism the society of the spectacle that Guy Debord described in his book of 1967 This question is worth asking because the terms of. It might not be the most 'correct' translation, but I think it reads better than Perlman's and DNS's, more 'quotable'. Paul Sieveking was one of the translators - I haven't a copy handy to see who the other translator was. I actually prefer the 'Practical Pirate' edition put out by BM Mattoid in 1981, which itself is a reprint of the 'Practical Paradise' edition which came out in 1969.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |