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text, Wissenschaft, Dichtung und Labyrinth (Science, Poetry and Labyrinth), a text which was written in 1885, but left unpublished until 1946, eight years after Gollesten’s death.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
