���Ĵ�ý

The latest addition to our Reviews Section is a piece by Phillip Witte on which comes out from New Directions next week, and was translated from the German by Christopher Middleton and Susan Bernofsky. (The joint translation set-up is explained in Phil’s review.)

Phil was an intern here way way back, and is now working at the Plutzik Foundation, where one of his tasks is to run the foundation’s blog, If you’re not familiar with Hyam Plutzik, I highly recommend checking out that Phil wrote for The Paris Review. And while you’re reading Phil’s writing, be sure and check out his personal blog, where he recently wrote Antigonicks, Anne Carson’s rendition of Sophokles���Ĵ�ý�s Antigone. (Since when did we start spelling “Sophocles” as “Sophokles”? This is disorienting. Not sure I approve. Although, “Cyklops” is a pretty rad spelling. Ikarus. Hmm.)

Here’s a bit from Phil’s review:

It���Ĵ�ý�s time to say a bit more about Bernofsky���Ĵ�ý�s preface, because most of what I focused on in my reading are themes to which she explicitly directs attention. She describes the unusual history of the book: Der Spaziergang was first published in 1917, but Walser revised and published it again a few years later. In 1955, Christopher Middleton translated the first version into English, unaware that a revised version existed. For the present edition, Bernofsky updated Middleton���Ĵ�ý�s translation (���Ĵ�ý�an English text I . . . greatly admire,���Ĵ�ý� she calls it) according to Walser���Ĵ�ý�s own revisions, which were significant at the level of sentence, but minor in terms of plot and theme. Bernofsky���Ĵ�ý�s intention is ���Ĵ�ý�to give the English-language reader the opportunity to peer over Walser���Ĵ�ý�s shoulder as he revises himself.���Ĵ�ý�

In his revisions, Bernofsky suggests, Walser ���Ĵ�ý�minimiz[ed] the divide between the writing protagonist and the walking protagonist.���Ĵ�ý� But the divide remains, at least at the beginning, and throughout the novel, though the two personalities merge, a metaphysical struggle persists between them. The two roles are introduced separately in the opening pages, as the narrator refers to himself in the third person as first one���Ĵ�ý����Ĵ�ý�With a kind face, a bicycling town chemist cycles close by the walker���Ĵ�ý�; and then the other���Ĵ�ý����Ĵ�ý�The writer is nonetheless very humbly asked to be a bit careful to avoid jokes as well as other superfluousnesses.���Ĵ�ý� (Happily, as the latter example shows, Walser didn���Ĵ�ý�t leave all of his thickly layered ironies behind when he left Berlin. The Walk might be read, I think, as a tragicomedy of the tension between irony and sincerity as played out by the contenders, walker and writer.)

The walker and writer, being phases of the one narrator, exist in separate narrative times: the writer is presumably recording the experience of the walk only after having completed it. Gradually, the two activities become indistinguishable, occurring simultaneously: when he declares ���Ĵ�ý�I have two or three important commissions to execute, as well as several utterly insuperable arrangements to make,���Ĵ�ý� is he referring to the errands of the walk, or the writing tasks presently before his pen? At another point, ���Ĵ�ý�with a bound I enter the charming situation in question,���Ĵ�ý� it is not clear whether the bound is literally an energetic step or metaphorically setting out to describe the scene.

Click here to read the entire piece.