/lit/ - Literature

>>18247288
Twitter shills.

>>18247288
No it's both, Jünger edited it many times and removed some of the nationalist sentiment, but Hofmann/Penguin also made it more "contemporary friendly"

>>18247288
it was both

>>18247315
>>18247351
No it wasn't. Hofmann used a version edited by Junger. There was nothing removed.

>>18247370
Nothing removed =/= nothing altered to make it more normie friendly

>>18247315
Are there any other books like this that were modified?

>>18247315
>contemporary friendly
wow did they really do that?

>>18247405
The op asked if Hofmann removed it. And you said he did.

>>18247288
There were like 7 or 9 different versions, and if I remember correctly he even rewrote it once or twice. It was just Junger getting older and changing his opinions nothing else. Hofmann may or may not have altered a few things but not to the extent that Junger himself did.

>>18247457
>posters didn't go up

>>18247288
What translation should I read instead then? ISBN number?

>>18247473
Not op but I read the 1929 version and it was pretty good

>>18247464
Fine, you got me, sperg. Edited out, not removed. Same difference.
>>18247410
I wouldn't be surprised.
>>18247457
Of course, it's Penguin.

>>18247472
what?

>>18247473
Hofmann.

>>18247473
978-1696237727
The edition is lacking but it's the better version of the text
Read this >>18247520 if you want the normie friendly version.

How can I tell if I have the toned down or original version?

>>18247473
Not the one being shilled here. The guy hates Junger and spreads lies to sell his books.

>>18247528
If it looks like the one in OP you have the original version, if not you have the edited version.
>>18247536
>The guy hates Junger and spreads lies to sell his books.
?

>>18247464
Not whom you replied to, but the changing of the book is on the same level as deleting parts of it.

>>18247306
fpbp. Obvious shill thread.

my version is so cucked to the point where in the middle of the chapter it says "in earlier editions Junger implied he killed the soldier"
They changed it to he "saw" him

>>18247553
How? And what did Hofmann change?

>>18247536
The Original translation is also filled with errors and typos. It's a really bad translation

I have a critical edition (in French, éditions La Pléiade) that has all the variations. And honestly it doesn't change the book much, it mostly reflects that Jünger gained in maturity. On the other hand, a bad translation can really change the meaning of a book.

"What is more sublime than to face death at the head of a hundred men? Such a one will never find obedience fail him, for courage runs through the ranks like wine." Why the fuck did Junger take this out of storm of steel, how can he be that old

>>18247560
>in earlier editions Junger implied he killed the soldier
meaning that junger HIMSELF changed the book that way, hofmann is simply translation the work ..

>>18247847
WW2 fucked him up. If you read his wartime diaries its mostly esoteric coping and waking up screaming and covered in sweat after two hours of sleep because he saw a couple jewish girls wearing star armbands the day before.
He participated in genocide and betrayed everything he believed in with that war.

It’s a shame Mystery Grove seemed to not actually read their final product before publishing their 1929 translation because it has an embarrassing amount of spelling errors.

>>18247575
The original original translation from 1929, or the more recent republications of that original translation (as in op's pic related)?

>>18247583
Based
Does that include the original 1920 version which was only originally printed in super low quantities?

ITT: people who know nothing of authorial philology

>>18248998
Can we get a QRD?

>>18248787
The original is pretty bad, and the Mystery Grove version makes it worse.

>>18247536
>the guy hates junger
the fuck you talking about

>>18249328
hes a schizo.
in the other jünger thread he started screeching at three other people because he assumed they were put to defame Jünger even though they were not.

>>18249328
Just look at the thread. In the past he called him a bad writer and a traitor.

>>18249350
Yeah and the guy shilling his qanon version of Junger isn't schizo

Anyone remember when translation and shilling was the extent of Jünger threads? Sad that someone wants to bring that back considering all the great threads we've had recently.

>>18249328
>>18249350
is this schizo posting? pretty sure "the guy" who he accused of hating junger is the translator.

>>18248998
explain or get out

>>18249350
>he
whooo the fuck are you talking about, sounds like you are the schizo here

>>18249037
>>18249739
1/2
Well, it is basically a branch of philology that applies to the modern problem of the abudance of testimonies (different versions of the same book). Classical philology deals with the scarcity of testimonies and aims to reconstruct the manuscript tradition of an ancient or medieval text in order to identify the oldest and therefore most reliable copy of the text. We never have the manuscripts of the ancient authors, so it is always a struggle to understand where the copyist may have corrupted (altered) the text. On the other hand, authorial philology raises the almost ethical question of what version of the book the editor must publish. The answer is never self-evident, and it requires a deep study and knowledge of the author's entire production. When you're dealing with multiple manuscripts of the same literary work, and yet each of them seems like a different book, you have to make extremely careful decisions. Never, anyway, should you mix different parts from different testimonies and blend them into one. You must choose one or the other, and your choice must be motivated on the basis of objective considerations, even if a hint of subjectivity is of course inevitable in the end.

>>18249037
>>18249739
2/2
Simplistically, authorial philology is a specific branch of modern philology. While modern philology on the whole evolved and became a school of thought in Germany, authorial philology is intrinsically Italian (filologia d'autore) and developed in the delicate context of the 20th century, when a lot of writers between fascism and communism, dictatorship and democracy frequently changed their side. It can be a coincidence, but it is a fact that Italy had a curious string of tormented and inconstant authors throughout the whole 20th century, and this posed the problem of how to interpret their legacy and present their work to the public. I'll give you a rather extreme example, but it's just one among many: Ignazio Silone, mostly unknown outside of Italy although he was a great novelist, professed his opposition to fascism during fascism, and became a fascist collaborator when the fascists had expelled him. Later on, in the post-conflict situation, he drew criticism for being a heavy conservative when all of Italy was high on progressism. The troubling thing is that his most famous work, Fontamara, is a war novel on the partisan resistance, and thus gently equipped with pro-communist ideology. When he became a fascist, he revised the book and toned down the left-wing elements.

So, what must we do, as editors? Do we have to publish the rebellious, gritty version of the book that gave him success and that costed him the exile, or do we have to publish the depurated version that conforms with the stance that he endorsed in the second half of his life? After a long work, Italian philologists decided to publish his opera omnia divided into two halves, the first tome containing all his books from the first period, edited as he originally conceived them (that is to say, in the most original version possible), and the second tome containing all his books from the conservative period, edited according to his last will (that is to say, in the most recent and updated version possible). Again, this is just an example; there are other cases where the dubiousness is raised not by the political or ideological belonging of the author, but by the style, self-deprecation, external intervention and other issues.

At any rate, what is important to understand is that it isn't – or it shouldn't be – a question of censorship. Ever. The authorial philologist does not conceal a certain part of the text; on the contrary, he has the duty to account and explain why he decided to publish one version and not the other. And most of the times the variants are to be exposed and commented in the endnotes, or – if they consist of long parts – attached in their entirety in the apparatuses at the end of the book. If this is not done, the editor is shit and the publisher is shit. There's no other option. You will have in your hands a shitty edition that is arbitrarily put together and that doesn't respect the author's true essence and legacy.

>>18247288
I really enjoyed the Hofmann version. I read the first few chapters of the 1929 version kind of half heartedly too, but personally I thought right away that the prose was very inferior. I think by 1961 Jünger had rewritten the book because the order of events are totally different and the things said in the 1961 version are much, much more poignant and the prose is just way better. This year however, there's been a new English translation printed of the OG 1921 edition, so I'm vying to find a copy since it's so far unavailable on Kindle.

>>18247288
the aryan contrarian edited it over a dozen times, depending on who he thought was in power at the time and how he could confound them.

The first edited version is the best and it's only 4 bucks.

>>18249663
i know he meant the translator, but I've been following him on twitter since 2019 and have never seen him say anything bad about Junger, which is why I was confused.

>>18247288
The Hofmann translation is also better written.

just BUY BOOK bro

>>18247288
Junger himself kept autistically re-releasing it with removed passages until by the time the Hofmann translation came out the book was boring

>>18251248
>by the time the Hofmann translation came out the book was boring
Couldn't be further from the truth. See: >>18247583

>>18251257
>in French, éditions La Pléiade
This doesn't tell me anything, come back when you've read it in the original German. I've read the 1929 and Hofmann versions and while the Hofmann is technically superior it's much less interesting.

>>18247583
>maturity.
Jünger never really matured, he collapsed mentally in later life, as sad as that is. It happens to a lot of people who cannot manage or finally come to terms with existential tension. This is most obvious in the fact he converted to Christianity.

>>18251283
No, he was always a Christian, what he became in his last years is Catholic.

>>18251293
>No, he was always a Christian
Absolutely false.

>>18251273
It's an edition that contains all the changes that incels ITT whine about. It doesn't change much. The final version gets rid of all the fat and is a better book.

>>18251283
>what he became in his last years is Catholic.
BASED. Catholic writers are always the best.

>>18251283
You fag grove

>>18251316
>incels
Nice job giving yourself away as a complete faggot. I'll agree that the final version is a great reflection on how cringe and boring Junger became later in life

>>18251335
It's a general insult, faggot. Did I accidentally hit a nerve? And no, the final version is the better book. It is elegant and without all the irrelevant fat.

>>18251293
this is not true, he was an atheist in the trenches

>>18247583
soo junger is not to blame here or what ? was it him or hofmann who tuned the voilence down

bum

Cringe thread

>>18253390
I blame the incels

>>18252458
I can't tell you since I only read it in the French edition.

>>18253915
does it change much in the French edition?