/lit/ - Literature

>>12282243
>my points were that there are various features of the jargon that are the results of his crude dictionary-driven method that strain the credulity of a bilingual reader
And none of these points hold any ground as already shown. What you think are objective criticisms are no more than questioning of choice, about as sound as asking why the author decided to color the proverbial curtains blue instead of green.
>you need to demonstrate their plausibility in an analogous context and scale
>escalated by calling nadsat a "plausible jargon" and now you're retreating
This is just dishonesty and desperation par excellence. I said it is structurally plausible, i.e. it's technically entirely possible for such a jargon to exist and none of your subjective nitpicking points at any actual intrinsic logical fault. I don't need to "demonstrate at a scale" because we're talking about a fucking fictional universe and current situation in real-world has absolutely no bearing on it. Whatever sociocultural and historical preconditions are necessary for the formation of this particular jargon as it is, we're free to assume did exist in this universe, so you don't even have to suspend your disbelief with scifi-magic. This is the absolute fucking basic principle of reading fiction and it's ridiculous you're willing to be as dishonest as to try and weasel your way around this just to try and save face on an anonymous frog picture forum. Fucking apply yourself, brainlet.

>>12282243
>my points were that there are various features of the jargon that are the results of his crude dictionary-driven method that strain the credulity of a bilingual readerAnd none of these points hold any ground as already shown. What you think are objective criticisms are no more than questioning of choice, about as sound as asking why the author decided to color the proverbial curtains blue instead of green.>you need to demonstrate their plausibility in an analogous context and scale>escalated by calling nadsat a "plausible jargon" and now you're retreatingThis is just dishonesty and desperation par excellence. I said it is structurally plausible, i.e. it's technically entirely possible for such a jargon to exist and none of your subjective nitpicking points at any actual intrinsic logical fault. I don't need to "demonstrate at a scale" because we're talking about a fucking fictional universe and current situation in real-world has absolutely no bearing on it. Whatever sociocultural and historical preconditions are necessary for the formation of this particular jargon as it is, we're free to assume did exist in this universe, so you don't even have to suspend your disbelief with scifi-magic. This is the absolute fucking basic principle of reading fiction and it's ridiculous you're willing to be as dishonest as to try and weasel your way around this just to try and save face on an anonymous frog picture forum. Fucking apply yourself, brainlet.

How do Russian translations of A Clockwork Orange work?
How do translations of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake into any language work?
Are there any good translations of either of them?
Just curious

/pol/ aside, are there any female authors worth reading other than Eliot and Woolf?

Fagles or Fitzgerald's Odyssey?
Ready or Katz' Crime and Punishment?
Maude or Bartlett's Anna Karenina?
Burgin or Glenny's Master and Margarita?

>>11863924
Why are you afraid of authors who have differing opinions from your own?