Talk:The Castle (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. April 2006 – April 2006

Contents

[edit] Re-Write

This article was rewritten (29-Mar-06) in an attempt to better represent the two major and one minor translations of Kafka's work. In that process, information was kept from previous editor's, although some may have been significantly edited. Supporting links to a few other articles and stubs were created, as well as a section added to the Kafka entry.

One citation is still needed that I could not find for the previous article. I do believe that it is a correct statement but I could not find a source. Hopefully someone knows the source.

Articles:

Stubs:

-Todd 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comment

This book is rather difficult to sum up as it can get rather subtle and labrynthine in its turns. I looked at it, and it is rather vague regarding the story. But the story itself is rather vague.

The Castle consists more of a situation than a plot.

I think that's rather a good way to state it, or as good as any I can think of at the moment.

Inaccuracy: K. was indeed summoned for land survey (note his talks with village superintendent), although his services were no longer needed.

I don't think this is ever made entirely clear, and I'd be afraid to make any definitive statements about whether he was summoned or not. It may indeed be a stroke of genius on Kafka's part that we can't quite tell. An interesting novel, with interesting criticisms, but it's damn difficult to work on the article without detailed re-reading of the book itself.

I've got a copy and I'll try to get a cover scan so we'll at least have that. --DanielCD 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have always been led to believe that K. wasn't a land surveyor at all. He simply made it up on the spot. Admittedly, this information was given to me by my father who said he'd read an Oxford University Professors take on the novel and it appears that K. wasn't a land surveyor and the whole point of the book it to illustrate Kafka's own struggle in communicating with his father. - Michael Bowden

M. C. Escher's works or Impossible objects might be an interesting analogy to mention. --DanielCD 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the literary style of The Castle is crafted as to mimic the Castle that K. is attempting to contact: the novel has every appearance of holding together and building a text, but as it is examined, the text deconstructs itself and crumbles like the Castle in the story.

I removed this for now until we can reword it. It is quite confusing.

Also note that the name of K. should always include the period. I have tried to standardize the capitalization of the Castle by capitalizing it when it is referred to directly (as if it is a character itself). I've left it uncapitalized, however, when it's used as an adjective (i.e. "castle" officials). --DanielCD 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Representing Translations

I have been thinking about how to clean up parts of this article and have corrected a few items, but feel that the current structure does not work well with this book. So, after talking to kevinalewis, I would like to propose a new structure for this article and carry that structure over to The Trial (others?) if it looks like it works well here.

[edit] Purpose:

Not just The Castle, but many books are translated into different languages. Translations, not done by the author, have one serious issue with them -- they are inherently interpretations of the work and are biased by the thoughts of the translator and the political and social environment at the time of the translation. In the case of Kafka there is a second issue -- his death prior to finishing and publishing his works in the original language. So the purpose of a new structure for this article is to provide the reader with the plot of the book, its history and pointers to the different versions (including German) so they can determine which version(s?) is most appropriate for them to read.

[edit] Main Title Article

The idea is to build a small hierarchy of articles. I do not think it should get carried away, so two levels should suffice. The highest level is the Main Title Article (this article). This would be the original editions published by Max Brod and Kurt Wolff in 1927. It is my understanding that there were four editions of the German text and the forth was the "complete" work. The details of the book will probably need to be completed by a German speaker. This level article should have two sections -- The Plot: the "normal" information entered for a novel and Edition History. The latter should have the history of the manuscript. In The Castle's case the history is interesting and very relevant to the translation one may want to read.

[edit] Subsequent Editions

Max Brod composed a number of editions of The Castle as he pieced together the manuscript. These are all German copies and if possible should reference an article on them written by a qualified individual. In 1982 Malcolm Pasley, et al, created the "restored" text version in two volumes -- the novel and the editorial notes/edits.

There are three basic editions that should be represented and defined for the reader. These are:

  • The Definitive Edition
  • The Critical Edition
  • The Restored Text Edition

So I see at least two articles, one on the Brod construction of the novel and the other on the Pasley version. There may be others if there is a significant difference that warrants description or discussion.

[edit] Translations

The translations follow the editions above, but take on many forms. The translations by Edwin and Willa Muir are themselves quite varied. Some are just the novel and end at Frieda leaving K. while others continue beyond that to the "full unfinished" novel. Some of the editions have editor's notes or additional translations on where chapters had been changed between editions, added footnotes to deleted text, etc. These translations, though regarded as dated, are the translations that made Kafka famous in the English speaking world and hence have a significant importance.

Beyond these there are the translation of the Pasley Restored Text. In this case the reference is to the Harmon translation That put a fresh light on the author many of us read decades of years ago.

Therefore here too I see two articles, one for each of the primary English editions.

[edit] Other references

I think there also needs to be some general reference to the various versions added to Kafka's entry (I am working on that) to alert English readers of the manuscript history and difference in the translation.

Comments?

-Todd 17:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for any improvements. I've read The Castle, but I have had a hard time trying to add to this article. Any suggestions or rewriting is welcome, and I'll try to help. And yes, translations need to be described, especially since the Muir has been a little controversial (given later translator/interpreters' claims they read it as an attempt to reach an unavailable God, among other translating details). Not that that isn't a possible reading, but the translations to play a role in its history and interpretation. Translations age in ways the original work does not, and it is a tough thing to translate any classic work. I applaud your efforts. --DanielCD 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to The Castle article

All,

In my User:Toddwill/sandbox1|sandbox (no longer there) I have placed a re-write of this article. I have attempted to maintain the input and edits from everyone where appropriate. I would like input prior to posting this (sometime next week) to make sure there are no major objections. Please note that this article has become very generic about the book and the specifics for the various translations are kept with the editions -- namely Muir: The Castle, Definitive Edition, Muir Translation Harman: The Castle, Critical Edition, Harman Translation and Underwood:The Castle, Critical Edition, Underwood Translation (only a stub). I have also added an article for Malcolm Pasley which could use some help.

Please make your comments/corrections on my sandbox page and I will try to respond quickly. -Todd 18:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I rerated this as High-importance. Kafka's most important novel, with the most influence outside the scope of literature, is definitely The Trial. I have therefore given that work Top-importance, and this considerably less influential work (imho) High-importance. Errabee 11:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging translations

I see no reason -- and no precedent -- for different translations to have their own articles. I was actually about to merge the Underwood translation into this article. Someone please convince me why I shouldn't simply nominate them for AFD. 23skidoo 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pending that discussion, I have placed Merge requests on the three articles (and cancelled my immediate merge of Underwood to allow time for discussion). An alternative to loading them all into this article is to create ONE article discussing the noteworthy elements of the three translations. That I would support. Otherwise I can't see any reason why I couldn't create an article on the Norwegian translation of The Da Vinci Code (for faceteous example) 23skidoo 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 23skidoo. I don't see a reason for different translations having their own articles. Merge them. Grey Shadow 16:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please delete or merge, the Wikipedia article The Castle should include discussions of the various translations. They do not merit their own articles. The same with various versions of a number of modern novels (the main versions of The Stranger, a Fitzgerald, various other books that flit across the mind). The user should be able to go to one article and gather all the information they need, including the differences between various versions. Two of these versions need only a paragraph in the main article, the other a sentence to cover their subject matter. Making one version a main article and the others variation articles requires a POV to decided which is which, especially if all versions were published while the author was alive or all are posthumous. KP Botany 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the other thing. What makes these 3 translations particularly notable enough to warrant their own articles? I agree that's a POV judgement call right there. I'll wait a little longer for any potential objections before going ahead. As mentioned above, I would support a single article on the translations ... if there's any real reason for discussing them (i.e. controversy, critical acclaim, etc.) 23skidoo 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
When you say you "see no reason" are you aware of the work and it's tranlations to be able to knowledgeably comment. This debate in my view should be largely the perview of those that are conversant with the specific issues. It is a serious novel with significant literarary merit. Wether individual translations have, I don't know. But those that do should be the ones to answer this question. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the articles should be merged. As with virtually all of Kafka's works, there are very important differences between the various translations; however, there's no reason why this cannot, or should not, be addressed at the main article. The current situation, in my view, could only lead to a splintering of discussion of this material. --Todeswalzer|Talk 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Definitely merge them. Perhaps I will if it isn't taken care of in a week or two.b_cubed 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kafka is NOT a German writer!! He lived in the Prague, which was part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Castle.jpg

Image:The Castle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DasSchloss(Pasley).jpg

Image:DasSchloss(Pasley).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)