I conducted the following interview with Thomas Stalle on 11.29.08 via Skype. Look for parts two and three of our conversation to be posted here in the next couple days. Here we discuss Stalle's experience translating Gollesten's cryptic Science, Poetry and Labyrinth (to be published by Black Thicket Press in 2010). If anyone has any detailed questions/comments for Dr. Stalle, contact him in person at stalle_t@yahoo.com. Thanks again to Dr. Stalle for taking the time to talk to me.
Alex: Thomas, how are you? Can you hear me okay?
Thomas: Greetings Alex, I'm quite well and yes I hear you loud and clear. I’m just looking at your webpage right now, a very interesting project it seems to me.
Alex: Oh, thank you, I’m glad to hear you say that. Okay, let’s start by addressing a topic that I know all labyrinthians are chomping at the bit to know more about: the impending publication of your translation of HM Gollesten’s famous “lost” text, Wissenschaft, Dichtung und Labyrinth (Science, Poetry and Labyrinth), a text which was written in 1885, but left unpublished until 1946, eight years after Gollesten’s death. Could you tell me a bit about the difficulties involved in translating this elusive text?
Thomas: Thanks for your question, Alex. Even though the Framework is nearly twice as long, Science Poetry and Labyrinth proved much more time consuming to translate. I completed my translation of the Framework in just three years, I’ve been working on SPL now for almost a decade. At the level of language, the text is difficult, but perhaps no more demanding than Gollesten’s other works. Formally, however, the text is very tough to work with. Gollesten’s writing from the 1880's, SPL, Mind and Labyrinth, Perimeter as Center and What is the Labyrinth?, all incorporate sketches, photography, poetry and, in the case of SPL, a novella in the form of a parable detailing a young boy’s decision to remain on the floor of a labyrinth despite his parents’ decision to circumvent the boundaries. Maintaining the cohesiveness of Gollesten’s writing over this wide range of forms proved to be immensely difficult indeed.
Alex: Many labyrinthians argue that SPL represents a quantum shift in Gollesten’s thinking, do you agree?
Thomas: This is a difficult question. I agree, in a sense, but at the same time I also disagree - if that makes sense. I agree that in SPL and the texts which Gollesten published in the early 1900's there are some important distinctions to be made. For example, in his pre-1870 texts Gollesten is concerned always with arguing the labyrinth back from the constructivists who dominated the field in the early 1800's (Aaldi, Milosovici, Reede, and others). Gollesten’s writings from this period function largely as refutations of the constructivist position. With the publication of the Framework and the 1880's texts, Gollesten would abandon these critiques and focus on the pragmatic, psychical, and poetic faculties of the labyrinth as such. That being said, I feel that Gollesten’s labyrinthological project as a whole is remarkably consistent and focused; the ideas that are fleshed out in SPL are present in his text from the beginning.
Stay tuned for parts two and three.
Posts
9 comments:
Stalle has a Yahoo! account?
Now, I have heard a rumor that Stephon Crete sent a controversial new manuscript to Black Thicket Press, and it was rejected. I think Crete has really found something in his Labyrinth Magnetics Theory. It's a shame the labyrinth community is so factious and fractious.
Daryl_E_83: What you've heard is true. Crete's manuscript, entitled Procodic Boundaries: On the Ballast of the Perimeter proved a bit too contentious and reductive for Black Thicket's shall we say onto-phenomenolabyrinthine bent.
That said, I think Paragone Publishing has picked up the book, with a tentative publication date of early 2013. Though I take issue with a lot of Crete's views, I for one will be interested to read the volume.
Alex,
I can corroborate your information. In an email, Crete recently confirmed that Paragone has picked up the work. I am talking with his publisher as we speak about an exclusive sneak-peak of the manuscript. Apparently the work is getting some buzz in the superstring theory community. I will keep you posted.
Labcrit died with Klára Zsófia's Labyrinth Deconstructivism.
That's such a cliched thing to say.
Labfan719: I think most labyrinthians would agree that the Deconstructivist movement fizzled out with Afzelius and Lundqvist. There are plenty of progressive labyrinth studies that are currently thriving: eco-labyrinthianism, hermeneutico-labyrinthology, New Labyrinthianism, to name but a few.
Good point, Alex.
I am intrigued in the more socioeconomic phenomenon of loco-labyrinthism, though it is still in its embryonic stages.
In light of Walt's call for Cincinnati solidarity via the incorporation of the Flying Pig into the Paul Brown Labyrinth, loco-labyrinthism may serve as an effective paradigm.
I notice that some of the bloggers use the term "labyrinthism" while others use "labyrinthianism." What's the difference?
Post a Comment