Blog des Driesch Verlags
Posts mit dem Label literature werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label literature werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2017
Kate Millett
Sonntag, 17. September 2017
Women, language, literature and the market
Anne Enright's DIARY, in the LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS, Vol. 39 No. 18 · 21 September 2017 (pages 33-35 | 5094 words) deals with the gender bias in literature (even in langauge and, of course, very much in business):
In 2015, the novelist Catherine Nichols sent the opening pages of the book she was working on to fifty literary agents. She got so little response she decided to shift gender and try as ‘George’ instead. The difference amazed her. ‘A third of the agents who saw his query wanted to see more, where my numbers never did shift from one in 25.’ The words, as written by George, had an appeal that Catherine could only envy. She also, perhaps, felt a little robbed. ‘He is eight and a half times better than me at writing the same book.’
Read on here
Thoughtful, mind opening!
Anne Enright in Wikipedia
In 2015, the novelist Catherine Nichols sent the opening pages of the book she was working on to fifty literary agents. She got so little response she decided to shift gender and try as ‘George’ instead. The difference amazed her. ‘A third of the agents who saw his query wanted to see more, where my numbers never did shift from one in 25.’ The words, as written by George, had an appeal that Catherine could only envy. She also, perhaps, felt a little robbed. ‘He is eight and a half times better than me at writing the same book.’
Read on here
Thoughtful, mind opening!
Anne Enright in Wikipedia
Dienstag, 1. September 2015
Clearing Up Ambiguity
A new article by the literary critic and writer Tim Parks, whose texts concentrate on translation, the genuin qualities of languages and modern literature.
Tim Parks is Associate Professor of Literature and Translation at IULM University in Milan. Author of many novels, translations, and works of nonfiction, his latest book, Where I’m Reading From: The Changing World of Books, has just been published by New York Review Books.
Tim Parks is Associate Professor of Literature and Translation at IULM University in Milan. Author of many novels, translations, and works of nonfiction, his latest book, Where I’m Reading From: The Changing World of Books, has just been published by New York Review Books.
Clearing Up Ambiguity
Montag, 2. März 2015
The New York Review of Books - Vol. 62/5
Vol. 72, No. 5, March 19, 2015
Die Zeitschrift liegt in unserer Bibliothek auf!
Freitag, 24. Oktober 2014
Bad reasons to read Shakespeare
In the past, if you asked someone why you should read Shakespeare, they’d probably give you two reasons: his work is beautiful; and it makes demands of us, prompting us to think a bit harder, a bit more deeply. These reasons remain true today. But there are also two bad reasons to read Shakespeare. And, unfortunately, it is these reasons that are increasingly being advocated today.
Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, SPIKED 23 October 2014
Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, SPIKED 23 October 2014
Sonntag, 14. April 2013
F. R. Leavis' 35. Todestag
Frank Raymond "F. R." Leavis, (14 July 1895 – 14 April 1978) was an influential British literary critic of the early-to-mid-twentieth century. He taught for much of his career at Downing College, Cambridge but often latterly at the University of York.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Freitag, 24. August 2012
Kafka's Wound
A digital essay by Will SelfTHE SPACE, London Review of Books
in co-operation with Brunel University London
The London Review of Books wanted to create a digital literary work that pushed the boundaries of the literary essay well beyond its traditional form; using digital technology to loosen and enhance the structure of the essay, changing the way the reader interacts with the text.
Very interesting and appealing new form of digital texting.
Freitag, 6. Juli 2012
William Faulkners 90. Todestag
Wikipedia
Dienstag, 24. Januar 2012
Ban Rushdie!
Who’s Afraid Of
Nobodaddies?
Of a weak-kneed
Congress and the manufactured dissent of clerics
The mullah brigade has made its usual statements about the writer not being allowed to set foot on Indian soil. The TV channels have a great talking point: there are some themes that can always be debated. For 24 years, ever since Satanic Verses invited the wrath of Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, and was subsequently banned in many countries, including India, Salman Rushdie is always ready material for controversy.
# # #
What the Moslems or Islamists undertake in India equals protests in the West against their own enemies: in Germany against Sarrazin, in Austria against Right wingers who assemble for a dancing ball, in other EU-countries against this or that person who is outside of the main stream.
Freitag, 13. Januar 2012
George Steiner im Gespräch ums Wissen
GesprächEine gewisse Vorstellung vom Wissen
Juliette Cerf, Télérama, Paris; 30. Dezember 2011
In: presseurop - Das Beste aus Europas Presse in 10 Sprachen
"Literatur, Philosophie, Naturwissenschaften: Heute entwickeln sich die Hilfsmittel, mit denen wir die Welt verstehen, voneinander getrennt, wie der Intellektuelle und Humanist George Steiner bedauert. Dabei ist die Kultur das, was uns rettet, insbesondere in Europa. Auszüge."
George Steiner Wikipedia (deutsch)
George Steiner Wikipedia (englisch)
Here an interview in English with Dutch subtitles: "I summon up remembrance of things past":
Hier das auf deutsch Geführte Gespräch im Rahmen der Sendereihe "Sternstunden der Philosophie" des Schweizer Fernsehens:
Mittwoch, 30. November 2011
Samuel Langhorne Clemens hat Geburtstag
The American writer, known under his pen name Mark Twain, was born November 30, 1835 and died April 21, 1910.
Wikipedia
Mark Twain Project
I have had a kindly feeling, a friendly feeling, a cousinly feeling toward Simplified Spelling, from the beginning of the movement three years ago, but nothing more inflamed than that. It seemed to me to merely propose to substitute one inadequacy for another; a sort of patching and plugging poor old dental relics with cement and gold and porcelain paste; what was really needed was a new set of teeth. That is to say, a new ALPHABET.
The heart of our trouble is with our foolish alphabet. It doesn't know how to spell, and can't be taught. In this it is like all other alphabets except one—the phonographic. This is the only competent alphabet in the world. It can spell and correctly pronounce any word in our language.
That admirable alphabet, that brilliant alphabet, that inspired alphabet, can be learned in an hour or two. In a week the student can learn to write it with some little facility, and to read it with considerable ease. I know, for I saw it tried in a public school in Nevada forty-five years ago, and was so impressed by the incident that it has remained in my memory ever since.
I wish we could adopt it in place of our present written (and printed) character. I mean SIMPLY the alphabet; simply the consonants and the vowels—I don't mean any REDUCTIONS or abbreviations of them, such as the shorthand writer uses in order to get compression and speed. No, I would SPELL EVERY WORD OUT.
I will insert the alphabet here as I find it in Burnz's PHONIC SHORTHAND. (Figure 1) It is arranged on the basis of Isaac Pitman's PHONOGRAPHY. Isaac Pitman was the originator and father of scientific phonography. It is used throughout the globe. It was a memorable invention. He made it public seventy-three years ago. The firm of Isaac Pitman & Sons, New York, still exists, and they continue the master's work.
What should we gain?
First of all, we could spell DEFINITELY—and correctly—any word you please, just by the SOUND of it. We can't do that with our present alphabet. For instance, take a simple, every-day word PHTHISIS. If we tried to spell it by the sound of it, we should make it TYSIS, and be laughed at by every educated person.
Secondly, we should gain in REDUCTION OF LABOR in writing.
Simplified Spelling makes valuable reductions in the case of several hundred words, but the new spelling must be LEARNED. You can't spell them by the sound; you must get them out of the book.
But even if we knew the simplified form for every word in the language, the phonographic alphabet would still beat the Simplified Speller "hands down" in the important matter of economy of labor. I will illustrate:
PRESENT FORM: through, laugh, highland.
SIMPLIFIED FORM: thru, laff, hyland.
PHONOGRAPHIC FORM: (Figure 2)
To write the word "through," the pen has to make twenty-one strokes.
To write the word "thru," then pen has to make twelve strokes—a good saving.
To write that same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only THREE strokes.
To write the word "laugh," the pen has to make FOURTEEN strokes.
To write "laff," the pen has to make the SAME NUMBER of strokes—no labor is saved to the penman.
To write the same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only THREE strokes.
To write the word "highland," the pen has to make twenty-two strokes.
To write "hyland," the pen has to make eighteen strokes.
To write that word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only FIVE strokes. (Figure 3)
To write the words "phonographic alphabet," the pen has to make fifty-three strokes.
To write "fonografic alfabet," the pen has to make fifty strokes. To the penman, the saving in labor is insignificant.
To write that word (with vowels) with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only SEVENTEEN strokes.
Without the vowels, only THIRTEEN strokes. (Figure 4) The vowels are hardly necessary, this time.
We make five pen-strokes in writing an m. Thus: (Figure 5) a stroke down; a stroke up; a second stroke down; a second stroke up; a final stroke down. Total, five. The phonographic alphabet accomplishes the m with a single stroke—a curve, like a parenthesis that has come home drunk and has fallen face down right at the front door where everybody that goes along will see him and say, Alas!
When our written m is not the end of a word, but is otherwise located, it has to be connected with the next letter, and that requires another pen-stroke, making six in all, before you get rid of that m. But never mind about the connecting strokes—let them go. Without counting them, the twenty-six letters of our alphabet consumed about eighty pen-strokes for their construction—about three pen-strokes per letter.
It is THREE TIMES THE NUMBER required by the phonographic alphabet. It requires but ONE stroke for each letter.
My writing-gait is—well, I don't know what it is, but I will time myself and see. Result: it is twenty-four words per minute. I don't mean composing; I mean COPYING. There isn't any definite composing-gait.
Very well, my copying-gait is 1,440 words per hour—say 1,500. If I could use the phonographic character with facility I could do the 1,500 in twenty minutes. I could do nine hours' copying in three hours; I could do three years' copying in one year. Also, if I had a typewriting machine with the phonographic alphabet on it—oh, the miracles I could do!
I am not pretending to write that character well. I have never had a lesson, and I am copying the letters from the book. But I can accomplish my desire, at any rate, which is, to make the reader get a good and clear idea of the advantage it would be to us if we could discard our present alphabet and put this better one in its place—using it in books, newspapers, with the typewriter, and with the pen.
(Figure 6)—MAN DOG HORSE. I think it is graceful and would look comely in print. And consider—once more, I beg—what a labor-saver it is! Ten pen-strokes with the one system to convey those three words above, and thirty-three by the other! (Figure 6) I mean, in SOME ways, not in all. I suppose I might go so far as to say in most ways, and be within the facts, but never mind; let it go at SOME. One of the ways in which it exercises this birthright is—as I think—continuing to use our laughable alphabet these seventy-three years while there was a rational one at hand, to be had for the taking.
It has taken five hundred years to simplify some of Chaucer's rotten spelling—if I may be allowed to use to frank a term as that—and it will take five hundred years more to get our exasperating new Simplified Corruptions accepted and running smoothly. And we sha'n't be any better off then than we are now; for in that day we shall still have the privilege the Simplifiers are exercising now: ANYBODY can change the spelling that wants to.
BUT YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE PHONOGRAPHIC SPELLING; THERE ISN'T ANY WAY. It will always follow the SOUND. If you want to change the spelling, you have to change the sound first.
Mind, I myself am a Simplified Speller; I belong to that unhappy guild that is patiently and hopefully trying to reform our drunken old alphabet by reducing his whiskey. Well, it will improve him. When they get through and have reformed him all they can by their system he will be only HALF drunk. Above that condition their system can never lift him. There is no competent, and lasting, and real reform for him but to take away his whiskey entirely, and fill up his jug with Pitman's wholesome and undiseased alphabet.
One great drawback to Simplified Spelling is, that in print a simplified word looks so like the very nation! and when you bunch a whole squadron of the Simplified together the spectacle is very nearly unendurable.
The da ma ov koars kum when the publik ma be expektd to get rekonsyled to the bezair asspekt of the Simplified Kombynashuns, but—if I may be allowed the expression—is it worth the wasted time? (Figure 7)
To see our letters put together in ways to which we are not accustomed offends the eye, and also takes the EXPRESSION out of the words.
La on, Makduf, and damd be he hoo furst krys hold, enuf!
It doesn't thrill you as it used to do. The simplifications have sucked the thrill all out of it.
But a written character with which we are NOT ACQUAINTED does not offend us—Greek, Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, and the others—they have an interesting look, and we see beauty in them, too. And this is true of hieroglyphics, as well. There is something pleasant and engaging about the mathematical signs when we do not understand them. The mystery hidden in these things has a fascination for us: we can't come across a printed page of shorthand without being impressed by it and wishing we could read it.
Very well, what I am offering for acceptance and adopting is not shorthand, but longhand, written with the SHORTHAND ALPHABET UNREACHED. You can write three times as many words in a minute with it as you can write with our alphabet. And so, in a way, it IS properly a shorthand. It has a pleasant look, too; a beguiling look, an inviting look. I will write something in it, in my rude and untaught way: (Figure 8)
Even when I do it it comes out prettier than it does in Simplified Spelling. Yes, and in the Simplified it costs one hundred and twenty-three pen-strokes to write it, whereas in the phonographic it costs only twenty-nine.
(Figure 9) is probably (Figure 10).
Let us hope so, anyway.
Wikipedia
Mark Twain Project
A SIMPLIFIED ALPHABET
(This article, written during the autumn of 1899, was about the last writing done by Mark Twain on any impersonal subject.)I have had a kindly feeling, a friendly feeling, a cousinly feeling toward Simplified Spelling, from the beginning of the movement three years ago, but nothing more inflamed than that. It seemed to me to merely propose to substitute one inadequacy for another; a sort of patching and plugging poor old dental relics with cement and gold and porcelain paste; what was really needed was a new set of teeth. That is to say, a new ALPHABET.
The heart of our trouble is with our foolish alphabet. It doesn't know how to spell, and can't be taught. In this it is like all other alphabets except one—the phonographic. This is the only competent alphabet in the world. It can spell and correctly pronounce any word in our language.
That admirable alphabet, that brilliant alphabet, that inspired alphabet, can be learned in an hour or two. In a week the student can learn to write it with some little facility, and to read it with considerable ease. I know, for I saw it tried in a public school in Nevada forty-five years ago, and was so impressed by the incident that it has remained in my memory ever since.
I wish we could adopt it in place of our present written (and printed) character. I mean SIMPLY the alphabet; simply the consonants and the vowels—I don't mean any REDUCTIONS or abbreviations of them, such as the shorthand writer uses in order to get compression and speed. No, I would SPELL EVERY WORD OUT.
I will insert the alphabet here as I find it in Burnz's PHONIC SHORTHAND. (Figure 1) It is arranged on the basis of Isaac Pitman's PHONOGRAPHY. Isaac Pitman was the originator and father of scientific phonography. It is used throughout the globe. It was a memorable invention. He made it public seventy-three years ago. The firm of Isaac Pitman & Sons, New York, still exists, and they continue the master's work.
What should we gain?
First of all, we could spell DEFINITELY—and correctly—any word you please, just by the SOUND of it. We can't do that with our present alphabet. For instance, take a simple, every-day word PHTHISIS. If we tried to spell it by the sound of it, we should make it TYSIS, and be laughed at by every educated person.
Secondly, we should gain in REDUCTION OF LABOR in writing.
Simplified Spelling makes valuable reductions in the case of several hundred words, but the new spelling must be LEARNED. You can't spell them by the sound; you must get them out of the book.
But even if we knew the simplified form for every word in the language, the phonographic alphabet would still beat the Simplified Speller "hands down" in the important matter of economy of labor. I will illustrate:
PRESENT FORM: through, laugh, highland.
SIMPLIFIED FORM: thru, laff, hyland.
PHONOGRAPHIC FORM: (Figure 2)
To write the word "through," the pen has to make twenty-one strokes.
To write the word "thru," then pen has to make twelve strokes—a good saving.
To write that same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only THREE strokes.
To write the word "laugh," the pen has to make FOURTEEN strokes.
To write "laff," the pen has to make the SAME NUMBER of strokes—no labor is saved to the penman.
To write the same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only THREE strokes.
To write the word "highland," the pen has to make twenty-two strokes.
To write "hyland," the pen has to make eighteen strokes.
To write that word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only FIVE strokes. (Figure 3)
To write the words "phonographic alphabet," the pen has to make fifty-three strokes.
To write "fonografic alfabet," the pen has to make fifty strokes. To the penman, the saving in labor is insignificant.
To write that word (with vowels) with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only SEVENTEEN strokes.
Without the vowels, only THIRTEEN strokes. (Figure 4) The vowels are hardly necessary, this time.
We make five pen-strokes in writing an m. Thus: (Figure 5) a stroke down; a stroke up; a second stroke down; a second stroke up; a final stroke down. Total, five. The phonographic alphabet accomplishes the m with a single stroke—a curve, like a parenthesis that has come home drunk and has fallen face down right at the front door where everybody that goes along will see him and say, Alas!
When our written m is not the end of a word, but is otherwise located, it has to be connected with the next letter, and that requires another pen-stroke, making six in all, before you get rid of that m. But never mind about the connecting strokes—let them go. Without counting them, the twenty-six letters of our alphabet consumed about eighty pen-strokes for their construction—about three pen-strokes per letter.
It is THREE TIMES THE NUMBER required by the phonographic alphabet. It requires but ONE stroke for each letter.
My writing-gait is—well, I don't know what it is, but I will time myself and see. Result: it is twenty-four words per minute. I don't mean composing; I mean COPYING. There isn't any definite composing-gait.
Very well, my copying-gait is 1,440 words per hour—say 1,500. If I could use the phonographic character with facility I could do the 1,500 in twenty minutes. I could do nine hours' copying in three hours; I could do three years' copying in one year. Also, if I had a typewriting machine with the phonographic alphabet on it—oh, the miracles I could do!
I am not pretending to write that character well. I have never had a lesson, and I am copying the letters from the book. But I can accomplish my desire, at any rate, which is, to make the reader get a good and clear idea of the advantage it would be to us if we could discard our present alphabet and put this better one in its place—using it in books, newspapers, with the typewriter, and with the pen.
(Figure 6)—MAN DOG HORSE. I think it is graceful and would look comely in print. And consider—once more, I beg—what a labor-saver it is! Ten pen-strokes with the one system to convey those three words above, and thirty-three by the other! (Figure 6) I mean, in SOME ways, not in all. I suppose I might go so far as to say in most ways, and be within the facts, but never mind; let it go at SOME. One of the ways in which it exercises this birthright is—as I think—continuing to use our laughable alphabet these seventy-three years while there was a rational one at hand, to be had for the taking.
It has taken five hundred years to simplify some of Chaucer's rotten spelling—if I may be allowed to use to frank a term as that—and it will take five hundred years more to get our exasperating new Simplified Corruptions accepted and running smoothly. And we sha'n't be any better off then than we are now; for in that day we shall still have the privilege the Simplifiers are exercising now: ANYBODY can change the spelling that wants to.
BUT YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE PHONOGRAPHIC SPELLING; THERE ISN'T ANY WAY. It will always follow the SOUND. If you want to change the spelling, you have to change the sound first.
Mind, I myself am a Simplified Speller; I belong to that unhappy guild that is patiently and hopefully trying to reform our drunken old alphabet by reducing his whiskey. Well, it will improve him. When they get through and have reformed him all they can by their system he will be only HALF drunk. Above that condition their system can never lift him. There is no competent, and lasting, and real reform for him but to take away his whiskey entirely, and fill up his jug with Pitman's wholesome and undiseased alphabet.
One great drawback to Simplified Spelling is, that in print a simplified word looks so like the very nation! and when you bunch a whole squadron of the Simplified together the spectacle is very nearly unendurable.
The da ma ov koars kum when the publik ma be expektd to get rekonsyled to the bezair asspekt of the Simplified Kombynashuns, but—if I may be allowed the expression—is it worth the wasted time? (Figure 7)
To see our letters put together in ways to which we are not accustomed offends the eye, and also takes the EXPRESSION out of the words.
La on, Makduf, and damd be he hoo furst krys hold, enuf!
It doesn't thrill you as it used to do. The simplifications have sucked the thrill all out of it.
But a written character with which we are NOT ACQUAINTED does not offend us—Greek, Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, and the others—they have an interesting look, and we see beauty in them, too. And this is true of hieroglyphics, as well. There is something pleasant and engaging about the mathematical signs when we do not understand them. The mystery hidden in these things has a fascination for us: we can't come across a printed page of shorthand without being impressed by it and wishing we could read it.
Very well, what I am offering for acceptance and adopting is not shorthand, but longhand, written with the SHORTHAND ALPHABET UNREACHED. You can write three times as many words in a minute with it as you can write with our alphabet. And so, in a way, it IS properly a shorthand. It has a pleasant look, too; a beguiling look, an inviting look. I will write something in it, in my rude and untaught way: (Figure 8)
Even when I do it it comes out prettier than it does in Simplified Spelling. Yes, and in the Simplified it costs one hundred and twenty-three pen-strokes to write it, whereas in the phonographic it costs only twenty-nine.
(Figure 9) is probably (Figure 10).
Let us hope so, anyway.
Sonntag, 13. November 2011
Die Paris Review-Interviews in deutscher Auswahl
«Von Schriftstellern für Schriftsteller»
Dialog auf höchster Ebene – eine Auswahl von Literaten-Interviews aus der «Paris Review»
Michael Schmitt in der NZZ vom 12.11.2011:
Die 1953 gegründete «Paris Review» will Literatur auf hohem Niveau vermitteln. Interviews mit namhaften Autorinnen und Autoren dienen dabei als Lockspeise für ein grösseres Publikum. Eine Auswahl dieser Gespräche liegt nun auf Deutsch vor.
* * *
Zwischen 2006 und 2009 erschienen The Paris Review Interviews I to IV:
The Paris Review Interviews, I
$16.00
Picador, 2006
Paperback; 510 pages
The first volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Philip Gourevitch. The book features interviews with:
Dorothy Parker
Truman Capote
Ernest Hemingway
T. S. Eliot
Saul Bellow
Jorge Luis Borges
Kurt Vonnegut
James M. Cain
Rebecca West
Elizabeth Bishop
Robert Stone
Robert Gottlieb
Richard Price
Billy Wilder
Jack Gilbert
Joan Didion
The New York Times calls The Paris Review interviews “the most remarkable and extensive interviewing project we possess” and the Times Literary Supplement of London says, "This book will intrigue and delight any serious reader or writer. It may even inspire.”
The Paris Review Interviews, II
$16.00
Picador, 2007
Paperback; 512 pages
The second volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Orhan Pamuk. The book features interviews with:
Graham Greene
James Thurber
William Faulkner
Robert Lowell
I. B. Singer
Eudora Welty
John Gardner
William Gaddis
Philip Larkin
James Baldwin
Gabriel García Márquez
Harold Bloom
Toni Morrison
Alice Munro
Peter Carey
Stephen King
The Paris Review Interviews, III
$16.00
Picador, 2008
Paperback; 446 pages
The third volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Margaret Atwood. The book features interviews with:
Ralph Ellison
Georges Simenon
Isak Dinesen
Evelyn Waugh
Ted Hughes
Harold Pinter
John Cheever
Chinua Achebe
Jean Rhys
Raymond Carver
William Carlos Williams
Joyce Carol Oates
Jan Morris
Martin Amis
Salman Rushdie
Norman Mailer
The Paris Review Interviews, IV
$14.00
Picador, 2009
Paperback; 478 pages
The final volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Salman Rushdie. The book features interviews with:
William Styron
Marianne Moore
Ezra Pound
Jack Kerouac
E. B. White
P. G. Wodehouse
John Ashbery
Philip Roth
Maya Angelou
Stephen Sondheim
V. S. Naipaul
Paul Auster
Haruki Murakami
Orhan Pamuk
David Grossman
Marilynne Robinson
Dialog auf höchster Ebene – eine Auswahl von Literaten-Interviews aus der «Paris Review»
Michael Schmitt in der NZZ vom 12.11.2011:
Die 1953 gegründete «Paris Review» will Literatur auf hohem Niveau vermitteln. Interviews mit namhaften Autorinnen und Autoren dienen dabei als Lockspeise für ein grösseres Publikum. Eine Auswahl dieser Gespräche liegt nun auf Deutsch vor.
* * *
Zwischen 2006 und 2009 erschienen The Paris Review Interviews I to IV:
The Paris Review Interviews, I
$16.00
Picador, 2006
Paperback; 510 pages
The first volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Philip Gourevitch. The book features interviews with:
Dorothy Parker
Truman CapoteErnest Hemingway
T. S. Eliot
Saul Bellow
Jorge Luis Borges
Kurt Vonnegut
James M. Cain
Rebecca West
Elizabeth Bishop
Robert Stone
Robert Gottlieb
Richard Price
Billy Wilder
Jack Gilbert
Joan Didion
The New York Times calls The Paris Review interviews “the most remarkable and extensive interviewing project we possess” and the Times Literary Supplement of London says, "This book will intrigue and delight any serious reader or writer. It may even inspire.”
The Paris Review Interviews, II
$16.00
Picador, 2007
Paperback; 512 pages
The second volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Orhan Pamuk. The book features interviews with:
Graham GreeneJames Thurber
William Faulkner
Robert Lowell
I. B. Singer
Eudora Welty
John Gardner
William Gaddis
Philip Larkin
James Baldwin
Gabriel García Márquez
Harold Bloom
Toni Morrison
Alice Munro
Peter Carey
Stephen King
The Paris Review Interviews, III
$16.00
Picador, 2008
Paperback; 446 pages
The third volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Margaret Atwood. The book features interviews with:
Ralph EllisonGeorges Simenon
Isak Dinesen
Evelyn Waugh
Ted Hughes
Harold Pinter
John Cheever
Chinua Achebe
Jean Rhys
Raymond Carver
William Carlos Williams
Joyce Carol Oates
Jan Morris
Martin Amis
Salman Rushdie
Norman Mailer
The Paris Review Interviews, IV
$14.00
Picador, 2009
Paperback; 478 pages
The final volume in the new four-volume selection of The Paris Review interviews, with an introduction by Salman Rushdie. The book features interviews with:
William Styron
Marianne Moore
Ezra PoundJack Kerouac
E. B. White
P. G. Wodehouse
John Ashbery
Philip Roth
Maya Angelou
Stephen Sondheim
V. S. Naipaul
Paul Auster
Haruki Murakami
Orhan Pamuk
David Grossman
Marilynne Robinson
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)