- Aug 2021
I like the differentiation that Jared has made here on his homepage with categories for "fast" and "slow".
It's reminiscent of the system 1 (fast) and system2 (slow) ideas behind Kahneman and Tversky's work in behavioral economics. (See Thinking, Fast and Slow)
It's also interesting in light of this tweet which came up recently:
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I very much miss the back and forth with blog posts responding to blog posts, a slow moving argument where we had time to think.— Rachel Andrew (@rachelandrew) August 22, 2017
Because the Tweet was shared out of context several years later, someone (accidentally?) replied to it as if it were contemporaneous. When called out for not watching the date of the post, their reply was "you do slow web your way…" #
This gets one thinking. Perhaps it would help more people's contextual thinking if more sites specifically labeled their posts as fast and slow (or gave a 1-10 rating?). Sometimes the length of a response is an indicator of the thought put into it, thought not always as there's also the oft-quoted aphorism: "If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter".
The ease of use of the UI on Twitter seems to broadly make it a platform for "fast" posting which can often cause ruffled feathers, sour feelings, anger, and poor communication.
What if there were posting UIs (or micropub clients) that would hold onto your responses for a few hours, days, or even a week and then remind you about them after that time had past to see if they were still worth posting? This is a feature based on Abraham Lincoln's idea of a "hot letter" or angry letter, which he advised people to write often, but never send.
Where is the social media service for hot posts that save all your vituperation, but don't show them to anyone? Or which maybe posts them anonymously?
The opposite of some of this are the partially baked or even fully thought out posts that one hears about anecdotally, but which the authors say they felt weren't finish and thus didn't publish them. Wouldn't it be better to hit publish on these than those nasty quick replies? How can we create UI for this?
I saw a sitcom a few years ago where a girl admonished her friend (an oblivious boy) for liking really old Instagram posts of a girl he was interested in. She said that deep-liking old photos was an obvious and overt sign of flirting.
If this is the case then there's obviously a social standard of sorts for this, so why not hold your tongue in the meanwhile, and come up with something more thought out to send your digital love to someone instead of providing a (knee-)jerk reaction?
Of course now I can't help but think of the annotations I've been making in my copy of Lucretius' On the Nature of Things. Do you suppose that Lucretius knows I'm in love?
- Jul 2021
A searing review of David R. Slavitt's translation of Lucretius.
The "close enough" nature of the translation seems like the intellectual slide shown by too many moderns which decontextualizes our historical precedents. Perhaps fine for a quick view, but could be a slippery slope for taking as part of the basis for Western intellectual tradition.
Slavitt’s volume enters a crowded field where there are praiseworthy translations of Lucretius in both prose and poetry. There was no need for yet another English version of the De Rerum Natura, and Slavitt’s attempt to compete with the likes of the venerable Bailey, the reliable Melville and the often sublime Stallings should serve as an impetus for those interested in Lucretius to learn Latin, or at least to use a translation that is more Lucretius and less David Slavitt.
An apt summary of a scathing review.
Also a handy ranking of some of the extant translations.
Seems as if Slavitt has translated a lot of modernity into an ancient text which likely didn't have many of our modern references. This seems to be the sort of reading into a text that many moderns do to the Bible. Better would be to read it as the author intended to the audience to which it was intended rather than reading additional meanings into the text.
In general, the greatest deficiency in the translation (besides its omissions) is failure to capture Lucretius’ style: archaism and indeed repetition are part of what makes Lucretius Lucretius (and not Slavitt).
Archaism and repetition are part of what makes Lucretius Lucretius.
No indication is given of how his version might be better than Stallings’ Penguin, or the Oxford verse translation of Melville, another formidable competitor Slavitt does not equal.
David R. Slavitt's translation isn't as solid as those of A.E. Stallings or Ronald Melville.
I've been skimming Stallings' this morning and it is quite nice. I'll have to pull up Melville's.
Ronald Melville, Lucretius On the Nature of the Universe. Oxford, 1997. Also Anthony M. Esolen, Lucretius On the Nature of Things. Baltimore, 1995.
Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri SexWith a Translation and NotesVolume 1Edited by H. A. J. Munro Lucretius
Testing out the OCR functionality of docdrop.org.
I'm noticing that the pdf fingerprint of this text somehow matches that of other texts as there are a lot of non-related annotations on this page.
Is docdrop doing something squirrelly with the fingerprint @dwhly?