Dream of the Red Chamber by Fyodor Dostoevsky

[Original Alear]

https://www.gettextbooks.com/isbn/9780146001765/

See uploaded img

Edited December 5, 2017 by Professor Groeteschele

[Roxas]

what about it

[peener weener]

6 hours ago, Roxas said:

what about it

dream of the red chamber, a classical chinese novel, was not in fact written by fyodor dostoevsky

[Serpent of Sheol]

are you a bot

[Serpent of Sheol]

i looked at name history

my question still stands, severian 

[Original Alear]

On 12/6/2017 at 8:57 AM, bad daniel said:

i looked at name history

my question still stands, severian 

It does stand. I'll tell you this: if you're going to run a turing test on me, isn't the burden on you to administer the test and make your own decision?

Personally, I think I'm human. In general, it appears to me that when people talk about bots, they don't believe human meat bags are bots. I think I can prove I'm a meatbag.

But maybe you believe organics can be bots. If that's the case, I'm not sure how to proceed.

I think I have emotions.

I've gotten through a fair number of captchas. Is that good enough?

One last thing I'll note: human or not, I think my mental capacity, if it ever existed, is now largely gone. Just because I'm a human doesn't mean a bot isn't better.

EDIT: Perhaps most important: this ad is representative of a cultural appropriation where a chinese novel was credited to a russian author. Is that ok with you folks?

Edited December 13, 2017 by Professor Groeteschele

[Reality]

This would be a problem if this was the latest edition of the book published by Penguin books, but it seems like the mistake only comes from the "Black set Penguin 60s" edition produced in 1995. The website of Penguin books seems to have returned to their earlier "classic edition" The David Hawkes translation - produced between 1974 and 1986. This is listed as the 2012 re-publication. 

I can't confirm what the Penguin 60th anniversary edition contained, but considering that it was part of a series of classic literature  that was "meant to be able to be read in an hour" and the the low  page count for this edition of Dream of Red Chamber I strongly suspect that the book you linked is actually just a collection of extracts from the novel mixed with commentary. I've never heard of Fyodor Dostevesky writing commentary on this text, but it is possible. Otherwise the book might be referring to Dostoevsky only because his work was included in the same set of abridged classics, especially as the author field seems to have been automatically generated (hence the different orderings of Cao Xueqin's family name and personal name)

At any rate, Penguin books is NOT presenting the book as being authored by Dostoevsky.  Except unintentionally for that specific "edition"  through the online bookstore's store thumbnail. 

Personally I wouldn't read a Penguin - Dream of the Red Chamber, because I remember being disappointed by  Twayne Publishing's translation. I would recommend an academic translation such as Yang Xianyi's 1978 edition.  

Back to Penguin:  I do not see anything unethical or close to cultural appropriation. It seems like an honest mistake or a clerical error. The thing being attributed isn't even the full novel.

I am especially confused about why you made this thread- as the edition you cite as "appropriation" is now over 20 years old, is now only avaialbe from secondary distributor's and not Penguin Books itself and was never meant to seriously represent the novel to begin with. 

 

[Original Alear]

On 12/13/2017 at 10:19 PM, Reality said:

This would be a problem if this was the latest edition of the book published by Penguin books, but it seems like the mistake only comes from the "Black set Penguin 60s" edition produced in 1995. The website of Penguin books seems to have returned to their earlier "classic edition" The David Hawkes translation - produced between 1974 and 1986. This is listed as the 2012 re-publication. 

I can't confirm what the Penguin 60th anniversary edition contained, but considering that it was part of a series of classic literature  that was "meant to be able to be read in an hour" and the the low  page count for this edition of Dream of Red Chamber I strongly suspect that the book you linked is actually just a collection of extracts from the novel mixed with commentary. I've never heard of Fyodor Dostevesky writing commentary on this text, but it is possible. Otherwise the book might be referring to Dostoevsky only because his work was included in the same set of abridged classics, especially as the author field seems to have been automatically generated (hence the different orderings of Cao Xueqin's family name and personal name)

At any rate, Penguin books is NOT presenting the book as being authored by Dostoevsky.  Except unintentionally for that specific "edition"  through the online bookstore's store thumbnail. 

Personally I wouldn't read a Penguin - Dream of the Red Chamber, because I remember being disappointed by  Twayne Publishing's translation. I would recommend an academic translation such as Yang Xianyi's 1978 edition.  

Back to Penguin:  I do not see anything unethical or close to cultural appropriation. It seems like an honest mistake or a clerical error. The thing being attributed isn't even the full novel.

I am especially confused about why you made this thread- as the edition you cite as "appropriation" is now over 20 years old, is now only avaialbe from secondary distributor's and not Penguin Books itself and was never meant to seriously represent the novel to begin with. 

 

In some ways this is really really great deadpan humor, but I think you should really stick to making fun of things that people actually said. No one in the thread referred to this as "appropriation," so I think that sort of made your post a bit too absurd, if that makes any sense.

I also appreciate the recommendation of translator.

EDIT-Also I think I love your avatar.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Professor Groeteschele