naznatips said:
blaydcor said:
Being a roguish thief was personally my interpration of Locke. And, like I said, I think it's all a matter of perspective which translation was better. And as far as I'm concerned, the original has more personality, and as I explained, I've been used to it forever.
Would you turn down an old friend because all of a sudden their was a new friend who was the "correct version" of your friend?
|
Haha that's a pretty poor analogy. I prefer to think of it as this: Say you saw Vincent van Gogh's The Starry Night the first time, and it was painted over with some really cool explosion in the top. You thought, "Wow, that's cool." Then you saw the original years later, with the artist's intentions preserved. I would pick the one with the artist's intentions preserved. As far as his personality goes, he is certainly a thief, but that doesn't make him a hardened badass by default. He's debonair and eloquent, more along the lines of a Zorro or some other suave outlaw. That's how it was intended. Of course I'm not going to deny you the right to enjoy the first translated version of him more. No one can deny you that right. Just saying, that wasn't the original artist's intention. |
Could you quit throwing words into my mouth? Not once have I said I thought Locke was "hardened" or "badass". I said I saw him as more of a rogue with a gradually revealed softer side. It really is just semantics, as GooseGaws said.
Also I think the analogy serves my purpose. I was trying to say that I prefer my personal attachments to something over any alleged ''correct'' or ''official'' labels you can slap on it.
If we were going with your analogy, I think it woudl be more accurate like this:
There's a famous painting. Artist A does his own interpretation of it; it's regarded as not being true to the original. Years later, Artist B does a new interpretation; one which pays heavy homage to the original and is much more similar than A's.
Is right to write off Artist A's work as any less credible?
