| Description |
The criticism of the variants in Italy is practiced by at least seventy years, at least from that of Wise comment to corrections of vulgar Petrarch pubblicoř Contini in 1943, and ER was defined by Cesare Segre as "the safest tool to seize Piur operation, and funzionalitař, drafting text, going back far enough over form 'final' of the texts, and allowing you to capture a part of the dynamism that supports and prepares their staticitař "(C. Segre, start the analysis of the literary text, Einaudi 1999). However the general reader, and, unfortunately, many critics, believes that this is a very small thing and that basically all editions are equivalent, or - in cases where the differences are glaring - conceived as "Read" one between the versions prepared by the author. Yet the texts of living variations, and not v'eř author interested in the style or the content of their works rather than having the possibilitař, decides to at least touch up their texts over time. The case of an author like Umberto Eco ER interesting because, as a world-successful writer, his works are translated very quickly (but cosiř was not for his first novel) in all major languages and "not c'eř reader severe Piur and picky of a translator, who must weigh every word. And the various translators realize that LAR c'eř a contradiction here that you wrote the north instead of south, that a sentence lends itself to a double interpretation because maybe missing a comma, and cosiř away. The ER showed that in the Italian text of Umberto Eco's novels changes slightly from one edition to another, while foreign translations reflect different stages of the evolution of the text. Mostrerař intervention is an example from Chapter 9. Paris in two Italian editions, and some translations (Czech, Polish, English, French, Spanish, Catalan, German).
|