{"title":"野蛮人的最终胜利?","authors":"Philip Vermoortel","doi":"10.1515/werk-2016-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1860 the Dutch author Multatuli (pen name of Eduard Douwes Dekker) published Max Havelaar, which was to become the most famous 19th century Dutch novel. In 2010 the book was rewritten by NRC-journalist Gijsbert van Es. His purpose was to make the book more accessible for secondary school pupils for whom Max Havelaar was on the mandatory reading list. He modernized the language, updated the vocabulary but also cut out a number of long-winded passages, making the 2010 version about one fifth shorter than the original. This article analyses the many reactions to the adaptation, going from lavish praise to complete disapproval. The article focuses on the arguments of advocates and opponents, evaluating their validity. It also tries to answer the question whether the author has achieved his aim.","PeriodicalId":55904,"journal":{"name":"Werkwinkel-Journal of Low Countries and South African Studies","volume":"6 1","pages":"29 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Final Victory for the Barbarians?\",\"authors\":\"Philip Vermoortel\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/werk-2016-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In 1860 the Dutch author Multatuli (pen name of Eduard Douwes Dekker) published Max Havelaar, which was to become the most famous 19th century Dutch novel. In 2010 the book was rewritten by NRC-journalist Gijsbert van Es. His purpose was to make the book more accessible for secondary school pupils for whom Max Havelaar was on the mandatory reading list. He modernized the language, updated the vocabulary but also cut out a number of long-winded passages, making the 2010 version about one fifth shorter than the original. This article analyses the many reactions to the adaptation, going from lavish praise to complete disapproval. The article focuses on the arguments of advocates and opponents, evaluating their validity. It also tries to answer the question whether the author has achieved his aim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Werkwinkel-Journal of Low Countries and South African Studies\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"29 - 40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Werkwinkel-Journal of Low Countries and South African Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/werk-2016-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Werkwinkel-Journal of Low Countries and South African Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/werk-2016-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
1860年,荷兰作家穆塔图里(笔名爱德华·道斯·德克尔)出版了《马克斯·哈弗拉尔》,成为19世纪最著名的荷兰小说。2010年,美国国家广播公司记者吉士伯特·范·埃斯(Gijsbert van Es)重写了这本书。他的目的是让马克斯·哈弗拉尔被列在必读书目上的中学生更容易读懂这本书。他使语言现代化,更新了词汇,但也删去了一些冗长的段落,使2010年的版本比原版短了大约五分之一。本文分析了人们对这部改编作品的诸多反应,有的褒贬不一。本文着重分析了支持者和反对者的观点,并对其有效性进行了评价。它还试图回答作者是否达到了他的目的。
Abstract In 1860 the Dutch author Multatuli (pen name of Eduard Douwes Dekker) published Max Havelaar, which was to become the most famous 19th century Dutch novel. In 2010 the book was rewritten by NRC-journalist Gijsbert van Es. His purpose was to make the book more accessible for secondary school pupils for whom Max Havelaar was on the mandatory reading list. He modernized the language, updated the vocabulary but also cut out a number of long-winded passages, making the 2010 version about one fifth shorter than the original. This article analyses the many reactions to the adaptation, going from lavish praise to complete disapproval. The article focuses on the arguments of advocates and opponents, evaluating their validity. It also tries to answer the question whether the author has achieved his aim.