Personal blog devoted to reviewing non-genre fiction/non-fiction and posts on languages and cultures
January 28, 2012 § 8 Comments
Which is more significant: a critical response to ancient hymnographer or a minor addition to a thirteen-book fantasy series? They are both insignificant in the broad sense. The only significance they hold is with those interested in the specific topic of either work. Which, for me, is Esslemont.
Nice answer, but in terms of larger historical significance, Romanos' work has been translated over into several hymns in languages outside of late Koine Greek, so for me, I'm as likely to have sung an adaptation of one of his works than I am to read Esslemont twenty years from now, so it's a matter of perspective, I suppose.
Cute. We get it. Denigrating popular epic fantasy is your shtick, and it brings page views.
What's denigrating about this? I imported the book, after all, and I will be reviewing it. It's more a matter of seeing who values what more. I happen to like religious poems/mystical poems/hymns a lot more than the average person, that's all.Now why someone who thinks that I denigrate each and every "popular fantasy" visits this blog is beyond me, I'll admit.
If you aren't regularly getting on your knees for the new shiny and big name authors, you are denigrating popular fantasy. Break out the knee pads and more page views will head your direction!As for which is the more significant book, all I can do is shrug. I have not a clue about the first book, but if has to do with religious poems and hymns it is/was likely quite significant to someone, somewhen, and may still have significant impact. Esslemont lost me with the first book of his branch of the Malazan series. The man can summon up some decent atmosphere, but that's about the most positive thing I have to say about that book.
It highly depends on what is actually in the Maas-Trypanis book.Going by your comments it is a work of translation. Which then leads to the question what the significance was of the lost work of the Greek tragedians compared to the little that has survived.
It's a critical edition, but it's in the original late Koine/early Byzantine Greek.
So, a critical edition of texts of someone that was part of a living and thriving culture, which might need more context to be properly appreciated. (and in a language I don't speak)And a work in a series that might prove to have had an influence in the future. But by the author that at this point seems to be the one less likely to produce the works that are relevant in a greater context.To me at this point the latter book is more relevant. But if you would have put up a critical edition of say the pillow book that would probably win.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
« Interesting article on racism and sexism found in Tolkien’s works
A couple of Friday morning links »
You are currently reading Which is the more significant book? at Vaguely Borgesian.