You're viewing part of a thread.
See at some point this discussion starts to feel kind of up itself. @roscoe@roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com casually created a dividing line between "books that are for entertainment" and "real literature" but balked at marking the location of that line. "Don't be obtuse."
I genuinely don't think that line exists. Shakespeare was the Netflix Original of his day, and his day was some 400 years ago. A lot of "real literature" is labeled as such basically on the authority of generations of pretentious twats, at least a few of whom basically think "old = good and new = bad."
We translate works from one language to another all the time, you think the precise nuances always make it through that process? We also adapt novels to film or television as a matter of routine. The original post uses the example of The Great Gatsby, which has at least one film adaptation. Is that a perfect 1 to 1 transfer of the author's intent? Then you have retell
Beyond this, if I understand correctly, this could be used interactively. Say you're using this on an e-reader, you could have the original text in the book, and then have a "what the fuck does that mean" button you can push to get an AI powered simplification if a sentence is too complicated for you or you don't understand a particular idiom or something. I bet there's someone out there who reads English as a second language generally well enough for The Great Gatsby, but doesn't get the colloquialism "turning it over in my mind." Hell, I'm a native English speaker and I could use something like that for a lot of works over 100 years old that use obsolete language I'm not familiar with.
Or...there's this book called Congressional Anecdotes by Paul Boller, who writes in a style that is trying to be more clever than he is. Instead of saying something like "Senator Grug from Montana called Senator Flub from Wyoming an idiot, and that made Senator Flub angry" he instead writes "The esteemed member from the Gold and Silver state referred to his colleague Flub as a man of dubious intelligence. This didn't sit well with the senator from Wyoming in the slightest measure." I got just far enough into that book before giving up on it to recognize when an author on Cracked.com basically plagiarized it for an article. I mentioned it in the comments and the author messaged me like "Hahaha shutthefuckup" That book needs an AI simplification like I need a good night sleep.
The original post uses the example of The Great Gatsby, which has at least one film adaptation. Is that a perfect 1 to 1 transfer of the author's intent?
No, and like almost every movie made from a classic, the one I saw is complete and utter dogshit.
A good translation is done by skilled translators who understand how to keep the substance of the work.
The words are the story telling. The "translated" version in the OP is a completely different story with completely different meaning than the original. The actual sequence of events in a lot of "literature" is not that compelling. The way it's told is why it's compelling.
I'm not balking at communicating what I think the line is, either by trying to define it or by listing some things on one side and some on the other, because it's hard, although it is. I'm not doing it for two main reasons, no one else should give a damn what my line is and I wouldn't want to list a book that I thought was shallow fun when someone else could have related to it in a profound way. I don't want to shit on someone else's experiences.
I think your being dishonest and pretentious when you say the line doesn't exist. Plenty of books I've read lately, and enjoyed enough I'm looking forward to the next things from those authors, are not in the same league as things I would consider art. This is true for all forms of art/media. Jerry Springer is not art like (insert what you think is the best expression of art on the small screen here). Battlefield Earth is not art like (insert whatever you think fits here). Are you seriously going to try and pull some smug insufferable "everything is art" bullshit here?
I never said there is anything wrong with a good translation even though it obviously can't be perfect and something is almost certainly lost. My French is never going to be good enough to read Camus, so I have to settle for a translation.
But that's not how this started. Before you started your "the line doesn't exist", "Shakespeare is overrated", "aren't I just so smart" auto-fellatio session, you defended butchering art with ai in the name of allowing ESL students to read it.
No one who wants anything more than an entertaining read should use this, ESL or otherwise. If you're going to read something with the hope that it's more than just entertainment, you should try to avoid any further opinions or analysis on it, avoid TV or movie adaptions, not read the Cliff's notes, and not use this fucking app. If you're going to use the app, use it for something you don't expect to get anything more than a bit of fun out of. And if you think you'll never have the necessary level of mastery, or just don't want to wait, find a good translation.
Using this app on anything you would consider art is indefensible. I have a hard time believing this is anything more than you being bored and feeling contrary.
Are you seriously going to try and pull some smug insufferable “everything is art” bullshit here?
No, I'm more saying that "art" has no useful or stable definition especially as you are trying to use the word, to contrast "just entertainment" from "real art." I don't believe a line can be meaningfully drawn between those because lots of creative works have found themselves on both sides of that line depending on when they are in time.
Using Shakespeare as an example, he and his actors thought they were making plays that would be enjoyed by the few hundred or maybe few thousand people who would show up to the Globe theatre during the few weeks they were performing a particular play, and then never again. They weren't setting out to make immortal classics for the ages and none of them lived to see that take place. When did Shakespeare's plays become "real art?"
I don't think JRR Tolkien intended people to take The Hobbit as seriously as they do today.
George Lucas didn't think he was making a century-defining masterpiece on the set of Star Wars.
There is nothing preventing a future where massively anachronistic misinterpretations of the shooting scripts for eight episodes of Two And A Half Men become required reading for all teenagers 200 years from now as time transcending, culture defining classics.
On the other hand, what brilliant works are forgotten because they failed to find an audience in their time, or they became a meme and burned out?
The only honest criteria you could present to me for what makes "real art" different from "just entertainment" is the court of public opinion, which is subject to change over time. I live in a world where huge budget movies are based on stories and characters that originated in pulp magazines and penny dreadfuls.
I'm not interested in trying to draw a line between "this is just entertainment, feel free to view this in whatever abridged format you like" and "This is real art, so I demand you undergo whatever effort is necessary to experience it in what I consider to be the original and correct format, I don't care what your priorities are or how much time and effort you can budget to this project." I don't see a functional difference between an individual reading a version of a classic book that has been abridged by AI and watching the relevant episode of Wishbone. There's someone alive today who only knows The Tempest or Cyrano De Bergerac as the version with a Jack Russell terrier in it. Who are you to say "No that's not good enough"?
As long as the original works continue to be available I have no problem with any method of abridging them, and I don't believe any work is above consuming in abridged format for whatever reason especially on accessibility grounds.
Yeah yeah
How about for an encore you tell us how The Godfather is overrated and Sharknado 3 is actually a good film.
You know what both of those films are? Exactly what their creators set out to make.
two things Lemmy users don't understand: art and nuance.