Jünger was a ruthless young warrior — and his themes of a heroic death — the ultimate self-sacrifice is fascinating even to this day. He celebrates the heroic ideal of soldiers, and talks of how the slaughter has not been in vain. It's in stark contrast to pacific interpreters of war. Yet he himself retracts from all of it later in life, saying it was all a mistake.
>"During the 1984 Franco–German ceremony held at Verdun, the setting for the worst slaughter of the war, he sought to make amends for his youthful bellicosity, saying that the ''ideology of war'' pervading Germany before and after that conflict was ''a calamitous mistake"
Germany has always been ruthless when they probably shouldn't have been or relaxed when they should have been ruthless
Landon Martinez
"I've had my fun, now I want to settle down."
Anthony Taylor
What happened to yesterday's thread?
Xavier Phillips
What's this from? And is there a full quote of his comments? Almost everyone distorts him, and in one of his later interviews he said that he still had great care for 'that young man." He never renounced it anywhere as far as I am aware, and his middle and late writings still contain elements of military heroism, if only in a much more subtle form. So I will doubt until I see more. He also didn't like the post-German state at all and very much respected men who refused to take honours from it. I also seem to remember that he may not have been too interested in this ceremony, but that's a foggy memory and so can't be trusted.
Juan Walker
>Almost everyone distorts him indeed i feel like something is missing here, it's from an nytimes article
>interviews he said that he still had great care for 'that young man." this is true, according to wiki - "Jünger said he never regretted anything he wrote, nor would he ever take it back"
Nolan Price
>He also didn't like the post-German state at all and very much respected men who refused to take honours from it
Wait, didn't Jünger accept the crown to his Pour le Mérite from a republic?
Lincoln Lee
I agree with young Junger, doubt I'll change when I'm older. It is good to be a young man
Chase Lee
he literally explains it in all his later literature, most of which is extremely good. You should read it.
Jason Sullivan
in what books? care to give us a TLDR?
David Nguyen
>"Jünger expressed contempt for the sex-tinged infatuations—nudism, body culture, health clubs—currently seducing the younger generation.
"To be honest, all this ethical babble, this soft-baked complex of problems, this hungover no-one-understands-me feeling, this pubescent moonlit swooning, this gonad culture transplanted into the mind—it all makes me want to vomit… All these people are of course magnificent chaps when one knocks away the stilts beneath their legs and teaches them that a healthy screw is something more decent and natural than this American comradeliness with its Nordic nudist ethos mixed in…This is a company that would like to cobble together a code of ethics out of its sexual and ideological inadequacies"
Am i missing something, where in this letter does he say anything about body culture or health clubs
Joseph Jones
The natural progression is marble cliffs, where ex soldiers enjoy peace and serenity until a fascist "ranger" burns down the idyl is a good start.
Kevin Phillips
Junger's '30s are worth reading if you really want to understand his development from his earliest philo-fascist phase. You have to read his earliest stuff, then his brief techno-gestalt writings up to Der Arbeiter, then Afrikanische Spiele, Das abenteuerliche Herz, then Marble Cliffs, then you can start to understand his later work, including his esoteric and psychedelic dabblings and his late novels, but also his less well known "theological" works.
Most of these are now translated, the '30s techno-gestalt and subsequent things only very recently, but I think stuff like Zeitmauer is still untranslated.
Marble Cliffs by itself can be deceptive. Most people read it as a denunciation of fascism. Should be remembered that the protagonists remark they too spent time with the chief forester.
Xavier Baker
Jünger has been thought of as an adrenaline junkie in his younger days that tried to justify getting his kicks with the war-fetish ideology of the time.
With age can come perspective.
Elijah White
>ex soldiers enjoy peace and serenity until a fascist "ranger" burns down the idyl is a good start. How is this relevant to what op said
It's not necessarily only fascism, german soldiers would be reading this on the eastern front thinking it was communism he was talking about
Parker Clark
>Marble Cliffs by itself can be deceptive. Most people read it as a denunciation of fascism. Should be remembered that the protagonists remark they too spent time with the chief forester. Wasn't it the Mauritanians they spent time with, or was it both, been a while since i read it.
Anyway the fact that the protagonists spent time there doesn't really make it an endorsement though. I felt that it was more aimed at anti-intellectualism, mob-rule and repression in general and not so much fascism specifically. Although his stance towards Goebbels makes his opinion on both mobs and nazism pretty clear.
Logan Cox
This is why Junger is not for poltards. You idiots only care about one thing.
He was never a fascist. Astroturf the internet as much as you like, but that'll never change reality.
Friendly reminder to those that don't understand political manipulation threads. All these posts are by one guy (or a very small group of nihilist fascists) who want to distort Junger for their own purposes. This is what they actually believe, the exact opposite of Junger: >At the core of it, man is propelled by biological drives and functions, all of your wants, needs, and desires are illusions that arose to increase your fitness. We evolved in the context of groups and group conflict, the acquisition of technology only amplified and exacerbated the darwinian characteristics that are perennial for all living thing. As long as we're still under the pressures of natural selection, the principles of competitive exclusion and zero-sum game theory are applicable. Industrialization has only enlarged these conflicts, it didn't create them. At the very barebones minimum, conflict is MATERIALLY driven
Wasn't that right after the war? Sorry, I don't know the details, but I think it's in one of the interviews. It was one of his friends who refused the medal in the post-WWII period and he said something to the degree of 'that was an act of character we all agreed with.'
As for political manipulation, I don't know if these people are doing this on purpose or they simply do not have the ability to read the subtleties of Junger, perhaps they just don't care. But there are a few things which go against what has been said here. The first that comes to mind is the respect that he had for German military men even after the wars, the scene in, I think, The Glass Bees where the man decries the loss of honourable men. That is a clear show of sympathy for those who could not get over the end of the old Germany. And then in the same book, or perhaps The Marble Cliffs, the discussion of the two cavalrymen fighting at the end of a battle appears as the greatest test of men possible. It is similar to the moments of romanticism in his earlier years. The reality is that the war ended in disaster for everyone, there was no need to speak of war, there was no possibility for it, but instead the changes which would bring all new difficulties became the subject that mattered.
Jonathan Fisher
Jünger just got so old nothing really mattered to him anymore. He saw all ideologies and everything he had believed in at some point fail eventually so all he cared about at the end was getting high and collecting bugs.
Adrian Gomez
>but I think it's in one of the interviews I know what you are referring to, he talks about his friend who refuses to accept the crown from a republic, junger then laughs and agrees. However from pictures it looks like Junger himself have a crown, witch means he accepted it from a republic. You only get the crown after having it for a certain amount of years if I recall correctly
That pic you posted, the only thing that reviewer is mad at is junger himself. It was not hoffman but junger who edited his book to be less nationalistic ect. Why the fuck is he blaming Hoffman
He was kind of a fascist in the 30's. He did write a lot of proto-fascist papers ect.
>junger was a MGTOW fascist cringe
Carson Ward
>fascist in the 30 Definitely not in the 30s. An argument could be made for the short period in the 20s, but that was mostly political affiliations and working with nationalists in journals. He left them quite early on and regarding being a leader even said that he would rather write one good poem than lead thousands of idiots. The Worker was written by 1932 and was generally disliked, and misunderstood, by both the socialists and fascists.
Noah Murphy
Perhaps an interesting discussion would be the extent to which someone like Junger represents what a true right-wing would be and why the nihilist conservatives would never be able to identify with such ideas. A big part of it, of course, is the death of the German spirit itself and the New Right could not even begin to acknowledge this. They represent all of the worst aspects of fascism and liberalism, and nothing whatsoever of someone like Junger. They essentially need a figure like him, but have no clue as to why (this could be a deeper reason for these strange attempts to take over his image rather than any intentional manipulation). This is the reality of how far we have fallen, and it is not a good sign of what is to come.
Parker Sanchez
>Definitely not in the 30s. An argument could be made for the short period in the 20
Sorry yes this is true
>He left them quite early on and regarding being a leader even said that he would rather write one good poem than lead thousands of idiots
He was then speaking of the nazis, not fascist per se. He meant that the nazis was too plebeian, and that it lacked metaphysics. He was at this time more close to the national bolsheviks. Granted im not trying to pin him down as a fascist - but he dabbled with fascism, he was an elitist authoritarian it seems. Lenninism with prussian ideals of order.
Jace Robinson
Der Arbeiter (1932) was very influential on Heidegger, who enthusiastically supported the Nazis and was a significant factor in their popularity in the elections of 1933 because of his huge influence on the youth.
Charles Diaz
No worries, my intent wasn't to get in an argument or say you were wrong, just to give another view. Everyone knows Heidegger was an early supporter. But this says nothing of Junger. Nice try though.
Ayden Myers
why did his son kill himself? imagine having a chad like him as a father and still killing yourself.
Thomas Johnson
i have been searching everywhere for something on this, and i have yet to find anything about it - good luck if you are trying to find something on this
Joshua Flores
The people spamming this shit are connected with BAP types. Pretty sad.
Chase Gonzalez
What does that even mean. You're the only one in this thread spamming cryptic bullshit.
Daniel Ortiz
lmao creightonfag with his usual tactic of accusing everyone of being samefags
Zachary Turner
so, wading through the autism i've been noticing in this guy's threads, what Im understanding here is that the guy had a brief sort of flirtation with fascism in his youth, then became some kind of centrist?
someone non-retarded explain please.
Jordan Adams
Read these. The only argument that can be made is that he flirted with something similar to fascism for a few years (I would say this was his Nietzschean influence, rather than any fascism). And he was never a centrist. Ignore anyone who tries to prioritize the early few years. He's a complicated figure and these people are distorting him.
Leo Wilson
You were so appalled that they 'edited out the meat of the book' that you've spent five years trying to outdo them?
Junger in the 1920s wrote war diaries and similar materials and openly promoted various forms of proto-fascism or philo-fascism. He essentially wanted all the Freikorps and volkisch types to get together and spontaneously overthrow the phony parliamentary order and install a new, specifically German form of socialism. He didn't like the National Socialists very much, and he didn't like the other people like him who tried (like the National Socialists) to get elected legally. He was part of the camp that wanted that spontaneous revolution like I said.
When most of these efforts had fallen apart by 1930 and the National Socialists were becoming the biggest and most successful variant of this generally fascist thrust, he was becoming more disillusioned. He then wrote some works on effecting a "gestalt shift" into a radically new sort of society capable of sublating the technological and totalizing (totalitarian) dangers of modernity, a society he was implicitly ambivalent about. He still during this time lukewarmly supported at least the possibility of the Nazis being an authentic volkisch/Freikorps party.
But after the Nazis won, most people like Junger, so called conservative revolutionaries, even if they had supported them initially, increasingly started to view the Nazis as just another form of totalizing technological modernity, therefore bad. Heidegger within 2 or 3 years was already sick of the Nazis despite initial high hopes. Junger was certainly not happy with them and began writing "inner emigration" style works while remaining ambivalent toward conservatism and nationalism throughout the period, becoming more and more of an inner emigre and seeing himself as a sort of aristocrat in a world with no place for aristocrats. Late in life he had an ambivalent attitude toward his early gung-ho nationalist phase but never repudiated it.
There are two major English translations of Storm of Steel. One uses a 1920s translation, so it's from that nationalist phase. The other is a recent Penguin one that uses a late 1960s edit by Junger which a lot of people apparently regard as sanitized and lifeless. There's an insane schizophrenic retard who posts 50 times in every single Junger thread going "lmao @ u for thinking the earlier translation is good CRINGE kys lmao lol rofl" for some reason. I once had a conversation with him and he started calling me creighton(the translator of the early version)fag, and alluding to our past epic battles (I had never talked to him before). He's still calling people creightonfag. He's been at it for going on a year now I think.
For whatever reason, Yea Forums gets a lot of resident schizos like this. You get used to them.
Josiah Foster
>openly promoted various forms of proto-fascism false >philo-fascism even more false >supported at least the possibility of the Nazis citation needed >technological modernity Junger was not opposed to either technology nor 'modernity' Have you even read him? >inner emigre False, for example, he wrote The Peace specifically as an effort to save Germany. It is a legal, political document. He's not some liberal and he despised bourgeois culture. Again, have you even read anything besides biographies? >sanitized and lifeless Junger edited because it is a book about war and he wanted it to be focused. You are injecting your own views, which is ironic considering your campaign against him being edited. >schizos blah blah blah You have accused multiple people of being samefags and schizos simply for disagreeing with you. Meanwhile, your primary interest in Junger is to manipulate his thought while trying to recruit poltards to some 1920s larp. You're insane.
Ryder Adams
This poster has a worldview completely the opposite of Junger >At the core of it, man is propelled by biological drives and functions, all of your wants, needs, and desires are illusions that arose to increase your fitness. We evolved in the context of groups and group conflict, the acquisition of technology only amplified and exacerbated the darwinian characteristics that are perennial for all living thing. As long as we're still under the pressures of natural selection, the principles of competitive exclusion and zero-sum game theory are applicable. Industrialization has only enlarged these conflicts, it didn't create them. At the very barebones minimum, conflict is MATERIALLY driven His comments cannot be trusted based on this and the fact that 99% of his posts on Junger are about translation only.
Ian Sullivan
This is my first post in the thread. The last time we spoke, that is the first time, which you apparently took for Epic Creightonfag Battle #843, I did give citations and so on, because I didn't realize at first you're a crazy internet coot. You wigged out and acted pretty much how you're acting right now.
I'm not sure whether to feel pride or remorse that I've contributed to your mental illness. I am on Yea Forums every other day or so, so I see pretty much every Junger thread at some point, and you're in every single one, every one, calling people out like a methed-up teenager. Endless "kys lmao" and "lmao cringe CRINGE!!! kys" spam, accusing everybody of being the same person. You even accuse this fabled Basil Creighton fan of following you back and forth from /pol/ to carry on the eternal battle.
Your mental illness aside, you're completely and outright bizarrely wrong about Junger, just like you were the last (and only) time we spoke.
Alexander Davis
kek, because I'm sure there are so many people who are constantly on lit but only care about the translation. Love you, creightonfag.
Parker Lewis
is your quotation there by Junger or by the poster
Thomas Parker
Okay well this is massively unclear and contradictory. I'm just going to read him myself and see what the deal is.
That poster, creightonfag. His views are the exact opposite of Junger but he claims to be the biggest expert on lit and the entire internet.
David Watson
lmao >This is my first post >philo-fascist philo-fascism Who's the samefag?
Jayden Anderson
Shit, correction, this actually isn't my first post in the thread. This was: 99% of what posts? I haven't made enough posts ITT to be divided into 99%, and we've spoken one time other than this. This will be my last reply to you, I guess. Let observers judge which one of us seems more reasonable.
Better yet, if you're reading this and you're in doubt, go read Junger for yourself and find out. If you know German, you can go read his pro-Freikorps and pro-Volkisch articles (also referred to by ) of the '20s. Most of them haven't been reprinted unfortunately
I wonder if that's what the problem is here, you assume Yea Forums is smaller or slower than it is. Like I said, I see probably every Junger thread on Yea Forums eventually, and you're invariably in them. For what it's worth, I've never had to recommend Creighton's translation (though I do recommend it over Hofmann).
You're correct, my bad. This is not me though he uses "proto-fascist" the same way I do: I can't find any posts of mine in that thread. Are you linking to your own posts?
Ian Anderson
He was a part of the conservative revolutionary movement in the 20s but progressed away from it and definitely left it around the same time Hitlers rise to power began for real. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolution
Many of the people he hung out with during those years went full on nazi though, leading to misunderstandings and confusion.
It also has to be seen in light of what the 20s and 30s in Germany were like politically. literally ALL the parties had "street fighting" branches it just happened that the nazis were best at it. It was not the age of hand holding liberalism.
You should just read him yourself desu.
Ryan Davis
>i'm in every thread >i've never spoken to you before >16-20 max people in every junger thread >admits to being a samefag >absolutely spergs out at the thought of any of his 'samefag' enemies You are priceless, creightonfag.
Isaac Hughes
>riding the cockrussel is the same as fighting in on the bloodiest war
the thing is he risk he ass unlike thots
Angel Evans
>I can't find any posts of mine lmao you megalomaniac
Logan Kelly
>unlike thots The absolute state of poltards.
Camden Flores
>p-poltard
i don't browse pol, faggot
Justin Reed
>99% of what posts? Are you retarded? Every thread is just about translation, and you lie and distort in every one. Anyone can just search the archive and see that the majority of the threads are just you sperging out about translation. It's the title of the thread for most of them, or some MGTOW-tier bullshit.
Xavier Parker
To add some actual scholarship to this, here is succinct concluding chapter to the most recent English-language biographical work on Junger. I don't really agree with its ultimate conclusion that he was simply unsystematic and dilettantish (even if in a "deep" way), although I think it's interesting that Heidegger once told Junger that he was "nicht ein Denker" (not a 'thinker', a word with special significance for Heidegger). But you can see here the focus on the ambiguity and ambivalence in Junger's thought as it constantly develops.
And yes, he supported nationalist movements. Beneath that shit, I've also included some quotes from Roger Woods' book on the conservative revolution, which has a very good first chapter on Junger's 1920s radicalism.
And finally, some more citations for (the section enclosed in green, regarding the relationship between Der Friede / The Peace and Junger's earlier "gestalt" phase, in Der Arbeiter) and for (the section enclosed in blue, regarding Junger's protags and the Chief Forester)
But yeah, Maybe some of this will be helpful to get you started on reading it for yourself.
Dude, you don't need to make 9 posts in a fucking row. What is your obsession with "poltards" and "MGTOW?"
>samefag >This will be my last reply to you, I guess >instantly responds Nice work again, creightonfag.
Evan Williams
Nowhere does that say he saw technology as bad. Stop pretending to be an authority when all you've read is biographies.
Andrew Jones
That bit towards the end about unifying behind the great man as opposed to making a political programme sounds practically Carlylean. But the first section seemed to say pretty clearly that the man did not have a real system of thought at all, but a kind of confused medley of views and dispositions.
Hunter Myers
There are two English-language translations of Storm of Steel and people argue over which one is better. That's all there is to it.
Jeremiah Anderson
That was creightonfag, not someone looking for legit advice. It's an obvious samefag response
Woods calls it the "leader principle" for some reason. It was a common trope among fascists at the time, the idea that what mattered was not the programs or plans themselves but a galvanizing single will to lead men asking to be led, and bind everything together that way. That's why they were all hot for Mussolini, too. There's a whole epistemology to fascist thought in this era. It's very interesting.
I really don't think Junger was ever a sloppy thinker. Maybe at the superficial level, when he appears to be mixing a bunch of different themes and ideas, and switching to a different set a few years later. But the underlying problems he was trying to solve had an organic unity that developed across his life.
It's sort of similar to Carl Schmitt, another protean figure that many people also accuse of having no continuity whatsoever. People look at him and think, first he's defending political Catholicism, then he's defending the "legal" Weimar regime extremely aggressively against the all these fascist takeover attempts, and then he's flipping over to the Nazis.. What's the continuity? But if you read him with subtlety you see what he's doing, and in fact it's the same thing Junger is doing in a way.
Whereas if you look at someone like Thomas Mann, I think he genuinely did change his views between WW1 (Gedanken im Kriege, Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen) and the 1930s. Or rather I think he just lost heart and became bourgeois by default. That never happened to Junger, let alone Schmitt.
Christopher Roberts
Jesus Christ. This is the worst thing I've ever read on Junger, apart from your posts creightonfag. But now we know why your opinions are so shit.
But yeah it is very Carlylian, agreed. Not a mistake the romantics worshipped Napoleon.
Look at you! You read your first actual thing about Junger aside from Wikipedia. Glad I could help.
Brandon Morales
What the fuck is this trash book?
John Gonzalez
>this faggot sliding Funny how no one responds when there are effortposts.
Daniel Smith
>schizo >samefag >rdt >only reads shit junger bios Tell us more please.
David Scott
I don’t care about creightonfag or anticreightonfagfag’s war. When I was researching the two translations, I came across posts on an old forum that were made when the hoffman translation was just published. Their issue with his translation had nothing to do with whether Hoffman had distorted Junger or not, their concerns were with Hoffman’s utter lack of understanding of military terminology. They have several examples where Hoffman mistranslated a word, not realizing what it actually would have meant in the context of that time period’s military vocabulary. Apparently Creighton did not have the same issue. This alone seems reason enough to doubt the legitimacy of Hoffman’s translation
Eli Morgan
And the link?
Isaiah Butler
if I was to make a generalization about Yea Forums junger threads, it’s usually about 1/5 who move past storm of steel. Do you guys think glass bees was an influence over shit like the hurt locker re:the soldier’s terror of fitting into the real world?
Luke Thomas
It was only a mistake because they lost. He became a bitter old man. Maybe his spirit burned itself out in the glory of battle.
Isaac Flores
>He became a really good and nuanced author
FTFY
Jaxon Moore
>He became a loser nerd FTFY mr. Reddit spacing
Cameron Rivera
Probably less. And no, although perhaps you could explain further what you mean. Generally these events or laws will come to take over people and become a widespread feeling or sentiment. Some aspects of what Junger discussed are already generalised, and in other areas we have moved on without people having any clue. Anyone with great insight will be about 50-100 years ahead of the generalisation of those sentiments, and when people finally come around it will be too late.
Anthony Ward
“Reddit spacing” is the textual parry of the intellectually barren with nothing further interesting to add. Eumswil didn’t come out of some nerds view, and having done time as a stormtrooper makes him more impressive than you and the replica iron cross hanging from your computer desk
Elijah Johnson
There are so many stupid posts in this thread. How can a Junger thread be worse than the average shitpost?
Jordan Martin
I don't know, glad you pointed out one of the really good smart replies though.
This is the earliest thread I can find. Though it must not be the only one that I read because it doesn’t have some of the military mistakes pointed out that I recall. If you search through that same forum though, that’s the site where I read about them. There is one guy who claims to have contacted and conversed with Hoffman himself as well as the publisher I believe right when it came out. But I can only find a brief reference to that in the thread I linked so again I think I there were a few other threads on the topic.
My mistake, the people who contacted Hoffman and the publisher were different people. Page one of that thread has discussion as well, but page two which I linked has the posts I was remembering. Overall there is discussion of the flaws in both translations, and I find it interesting because the majority of issues are not about interpreting Junger but rather interpreting his vocabulary and what would have been appropriate and accurate to the time.
William Butler
Well this is only one mistranslation compared to how many by Creighton? I'll try searching but that's a pretty poor reason to prefer one over the other.
Ethan Butler
Thanks, but that seems to only bring it to two mistakes on very minor matters. Asking that a translator also be a professional historian is also going to be a tough order.
Asher Wood
You tell me, how many mistakes did Creighton make? I still haven’t read either version so I have no preference and couldn’t answer that question. The other thread I linked poses several possible mistakes in both translations
Oliver Nelson
That’s why it would make sense to have a collaboration between the two or at least have some proof reading done. I am genuinely curious about mistakes in Creighton though, would you say there are many?
Nathaniel Rivera
Translation analysis is not my area of interest, and I am just learning German so I only went through a few paragraphs, but I would say the Creighton certainly has more errors. This is the opening (perhaps a German can give their analysis)
Creighton >The train stopped at Bazancourt, a small town in Champagne, and there we got out. With unbelievable awe we listened to the slow pulsation of the machinery of the front, a tune to which long years were to accustom us. Far away the white ball of a shrapnel shell melted into the grey December sky. The breath of the war passed by us with its peculiar horror. Did we imagine that nearly every one of us would be swallowed up in the days when that dull muttering over there broke out into unceasing thunder . . . one earlier, another later ?
Hofmann >The train stopped at Bazancourt, a small town in Champagne, and we got out. Full of awe and incredulity, we listened to the slow grinding pulse of the front, a rhythm we were to become mightily familiar with over the years. The white ball of a shrapnel shell melted far off, suffusing the grey December sky. The breath of battle blew across to us, and we shuddered. Did we sense that almost all of us - some sooner, some later - were to be consumed by it, on days when the dark grumbling yonder would crash over our heads like an incessant thunder?
German >Der Zug hielt in Bazancourt, einem Städtchen der Champagne. Wir stiegen aus. Mit ungläubiger Ehrfurcht lauschten wir den langsamen Takten des Walzwerks der Front, einer Melodie, die uns in langen Jahren Gewohnheit werden sollte. Ganz weit zerfloß der weiße Ball eines Schrapnells im grauen Dezemberhimmel. Der Atem des Kampfes wehte herüber und ließ uns seltsam erschauern. Ahnten wir, daß fast alle von uns verschlungen werden sollten an Tagen, in denen das dunkle Murren dahinten aufbrandete zu unaufhörlich rollendem Donner — der eine früher, der andere später?
'Walzwerk' isn't machinery, and although Hofmann doesn't translate it literally either he uses a general sense rather than a particular, which conveys the meaning of the mill in this situation much better. 'Melodie' loses its philosophical connotations when translated as tune, while rhythm may lend to English readers a German sensibility.
Those were just two obvious errors. I didn't finish my response because whatever thread was up disappeared.
Oliver Moore
Oh you like Junger now? Great
Ayden Howard
I understand why somone would think he's fascist. I don't agree with it and it's wrong, but it's understandable.
MGTOW is just bizarre though.
Angel Barnes
Liberal revision
>and at the end of his life, Jungerhad come to regret his past glorification of war. He renounced his support for militarism and embraced democracy, equality, and State-administered health care plans which includes free-of-cost gender reassignment surgery to the insured
History is always fake and gay, especially when it's reported by the Globohomo Times
Jason Stewart
As for my advice, I'd definitely go with the Hoffman because it is the version edited by Junger himself. It is also generally a better translation. Then if you are interested in studying Junger you can get the Creighton for further passages, although I'm pretty sure this too is just an edited version of the 1924. You may also be better off reading an entire book like Copse or Sturm, again, unless you are looking to focus on Storm of Steel. Then if you are really serious you could get the critical edition (German) which has the first and final editions plus the changes made for the other editions.
Then again, reading other Junger would enrich your understanding once you go back to SoS. I'm not sure what you have read by him, if anything, but translations aren't very important when just starting. It's more important to get a general sense of the author.
Aiden Anderson
Also note the >unless you read racist junger you're not going to make it bit
Tyler Lewis
Thanks for noticing my effortposts, sempai. Assuming you mean me.
>As for my advice, I'd definitely go with the Hoffman because it is the version edited by Junger himself. It is also generally a better translation.
I think it's more complicated than this. Creighton has the errors like the ones you mentioned (I think, correct me if wrong) above, but there are other factors. There's the subjective one, of which is narrated in a more exciting way or has better prose, and I think some people prefer Creighton on that note although I don't care too much about that myself. The bigger issue for me is which one is more intellectually and historically interesting.
I'm still trying to find out what exactly was the justification for Junger's post-WW2 edits. Frankly it seems out of character for him to produce the milquetoast Hofmann translation based on what I know about his post-war mentality, rather than just let the original versions stand. Those were edited at a time when he had passionate here-and-now purposes for it, so even if he regarded them as juvenilia, I don't see why he wouldn't just let his juvenilia stand. I can't remember if any of the materials I've read mentioned his reasoning and I maybe just glossed over it.
But anyway, the ideal would obviously be the German critical edition, so you can see it unfold over the '20s. But that's exactly it, you want to read the original version(s) from the '20s, when they were politically relevant, when they were written with a purpose and with passion, when they stirred up an entire generation of men like Junger. In other words, when they were in their proper historical moment. Unless you understand Junger's reasoning for the post-WW2 edits, and find that reasoning intellectually and historically interesting, why would you choose it?
If anyone can post a source for Junger's motives and methods in revising the text that would be great, German or English (or even French) would be great.
Levi Martin
Forgot to say though, I do agree about just saying fuck it and reading the damn book. If you don't end up reading a lot of Junger, it won't matter anyway, because it will be some dinky book you read and tossed aside. If you do end up reading a lot of Junger, I guarantee you'll end up re-reading Storm anyway.
I have to resist giving the advice "come on, you're gonna learn German eventually anyway, so eventually you can read it in German" but that might actually apply to more than few people on Yea Forums.
Jaxon Howard
Well we're dealing with speculation unless we have a grasp of all the edits, and if the source is anywhere it is probably in the critical edition. I may get it in the coming months but I have other things to read and work on. I've said before that I suspect his edits came down to it being special to him, and he wanted to be a focused picture of the being of the war, and war in general. I also posted in the last thread why I think he edited a significant section in Copse (namely that he was defending his fellow soldiers from being wrongly associated from what would be misread, no malicious intent or self-censorship certainly). So perhaps you can decide from that if my reasoning is good or not. Similar reasons could be behind the Storm edits, but I don't know how serious they are since no one has ever posted them even though it is a constant discussion.
Easton Cruz
Yeah good point, and sounds reasonable. I'll probably go to the library tomorrow and see what I can figure out myself too. After I pray to my Basil Creighton shrine and find my Basil Creighton #1 Fan gigantic foam finger obviously.
Ryan Barnes
Yes, the focus on translations is a meme and it seems to take on an added weight here. German would be ideal but it really isn't that easy. I'll do it because I have a similar thinking to Junger and an interest in other German and Greek writers so it will be a major benefit. Like you say, for a book or two the translation doesn't matter as long as it's not ridiculous.
Austin Anderson
Explain why or get fucked.
Caleb Rodriguez
As for the subjective bit, I was focusing on errors because that was the original question. The paragraphs can give some sense of the different style. I thought I had more than that but can't find it. Maybe I'll compile a few more some day while listening to music.
