Bonus:
Summary: A frame story for a knob slobbering wall of text.
Commentary: I've written before about how much I hate the dialogue as a format, and I think Phaedo does a great job of demonstrating this.
First of all, the entire concept of a dialogue is usually more of just an awkward frame story. The two characters don't usually add anything particular to what could've been an essay. In this case, we get about two pages of them talking before Phaedo starts the intro to the intro of his long awkward story.
The awkwardness is the second thing. The Apology while disagreeable in content, is generally pleasantly written. I liked Jowett's translation, although I can see how Grube's might be more appropriate for an intro course or whatever. I looked at about a half dozen editions/translations of the Phaedo, and they all have awkward constructions like:
ECHECRATES: What was the manner of his death, Phaedo? What was said or done? And which of his friends were with him? Or did the authorities forbid them to be present—so that he had no friends near him when he died?
Not only does no one talk like this in real life, but it's also unnecessarily wordy. You could probably cut around half of it without even going particularly skimpy.
"How did he die? What happened? Did he have anyone with him, any friends, or did they make him die alone?"
Wow, that was easy.
And, of course, it's not a dialogue unless the listener is just absolutely orally worshiping the main speaker:
ECHECRATES: You will have listeners who are of the same mind with you, and I hope that you will be as exact as you can.
OMG Phaedo, you're as good as Socrates! Not a high bar.
Anyway, after this threeish pages, Phaedo starts his story. He attempts to word for word explain exactly what was said and done. That means that about half of this "dialogue" is one uninterrupted speech by one of the characters. Why do a dialogue at all if you're not going to have them talk to each other!?
No comments:
Post a Comment