Difference between revisions of "WikiHaiku"
m (fix first German line) |
(add "See Also" section) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Alternate version literary commentary== | ==Alternate version literary commentary== | ||
| − | There has been some debate as to the true motive behind the recently unearthed alternate version of the only known piece of wiki haiku in existence. Some say that the author actually came up with the alternate version and intended the later version to be the true version. If this is true, it changes the spirit behind the work significantly, transforming it from an upbeat, candy-cane pump-up anthem for wikiness to a deeply personal glimpse into the author's sense of electronic loneliness. The switch from the impersonal article to the possessive pronoun could have also been a translation error, which has been known to occur when translators attempt to render the text in the vernacular from the original ASCII. Some say both versions were composed simultaneously or that the later version is actually the work of another author. Both possibilities pose tremendous difficulties to the infant field of wikihaikuitry. The implications of simultaneous composition are that the author in fact intended to generate controversy by publishing two versions -- sullying what is otherwise a beautiful work. The second challenges a long-held | + | There has been some debate as to the true motive behind the recently unearthed alternate version of the only known piece of wiki haiku in existence. Some say that the author actually came up with the alternate version and intended the later version to be the true version. If this is true, it changes the spirit behind the work significantly, transforming it from an upbeat, candy-cane pump-up anthem for wikiness to a deeply personal glimpse into the author's sense of electronic loneliness. The switch from the impersonal article to the possessive pronoun could have also been a translation error, which has been known to occur when translators attempt to render the text in the vernacular from the original ASCII. Some say both versions were composed simultaneously or that the later version is actually the work of another author. Both possibilities pose tremendous difficulties to the infant field of wikihaikuitry. The implications of simultaneous composition are that the author in fact intended to generate controversy by publishing two versions -- sullying what is otherwise a beautiful work. The second challenges a long-held maxim: there has to this point only been one author of wiki haiku. For there to be more than one practitioner of wikihaikuitry without any of his or her work being published is a perplexing and disturbing possibility. Further scholarship is surely needed before the mystery of the alternate version is finally sorted out. |
Farewell, <br> | Farewell, <br> | ||
Scott | Scott | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See Also== | ||
| + | * [[Poetry of Wesnoth]] | ||
[[Category:Humor]] | [[Category:Humor]] | ||
Latest revision as of 04:42, 8 May 2023
Wiki haiku
| English | German |
|---|---|
| Everyone sees it Collaborative effort Post on the wiki |
Jeder kann es seh'n Gemeinschaftlicher Einsatz Schreib' in das Wiki |
Alternate version
| English | German |
|---|---|
| Everyone sees it Collaborative effort Post on my wiki |
Jeder kann es seh'n Gemeinschaftlicher Einsatz Schreib' in mein Wiki |
Alternate version literary commentary
There has been some debate as to the true motive behind the recently unearthed alternate version of the only known piece of wiki haiku in existence. Some say that the author actually came up with the alternate version and intended the later version to be the true version. If this is true, it changes the spirit behind the work significantly, transforming it from an upbeat, candy-cane pump-up anthem for wikiness to a deeply personal glimpse into the author's sense of electronic loneliness. The switch from the impersonal article to the possessive pronoun could have also been a translation error, which has been known to occur when translators attempt to render the text in the vernacular from the original ASCII. Some say both versions were composed simultaneously or that the later version is actually the work of another author. Both possibilities pose tremendous difficulties to the infant field of wikihaikuitry. The implications of simultaneous composition are that the author in fact intended to generate controversy by publishing two versions -- sullying what is otherwise a beautiful work. The second challenges a long-held maxim: there has to this point only been one author of wiki haiku. For there to be more than one practitioner of wikihaikuitry without any of his or her work being published is a perplexing and disturbing possibility. Further scholarship is surely needed before the mystery of the alternate version is finally sorted out.
Farewell,
Scott