I may pass over the difficulties in finding a publisher, andmerely glancing at the facts recorded on ,to which I shall presently return, I come to Letter 27, of June 3, '51: "Youalready know that Weber, after all, will print my book. Recently Ireceived four sheets of proof; to my astonishment I see that he isgoing to publish it in three volumes, small octavo and verywide-spaced—in fact quite noble—type. Thus he will put upthe selling price. O, you book-dealers!" Again, Letter28, of June 18, '51, where Wagner writes: "My book at Weber'sprogresses at a very slow pace. My "readings" here consisted of aselection from ',' given quite privately beforea group of acquaintances and friends." Letter 31, September 8, '51,is more important; Wagner is ill, and writes: "I have a freshprayer to make to you. There are still about twelve sheets of'' to be corrected. To-day I am writing toWeber, asking him to send them to , together with themanuscript. You really must see to them for me. . . . Don't beangry with me for thus disposing of your time." This 'proof,'handed over to Uhlig for 'correction,' would wellnigh cover thewhole Third Part, since in the original edition that Part occupied247 pages, and to the 192 for the "twelve sheets" we must add acertain number for the "about." We thus see that it was almost adecree of Fate, that Part III should not be properly revised,firstly in the manuscriptstage, and secondly in that of 'proof.' Uhlig's labourswould necessarily be confined to the correction of printer'serrors, nor—even had there been time for any extensivealterations—was he quite the best adviser that could befound, on the point of clearness of meaning; his own articles inthe are often admirable in matter, butwhenever he attempts to follow his master into the depths ofaesthetic speculation he loses his way in intricate sentences,unrelieved by any of those flashes of intuition which light up eventhe hardest page of Wagner's prose and make his darkest sayings allthe more worth unravelling. To this consideration, also, I shallhave to return; but I wished to emphasise the lackof revision of Part III.
Your comparison should include: (1) any elements of fiction and literary devices which are present in both or which are present in one but not in the other; (2) a discussion of the tone of the two presentations; and (3) an evaluation of the two presentations stating which you think is more effective in communicating the ideas contained in the story, including your reasons for that opinion.
Essayer de comprendre les hommes humour valkyrie essay episode 1
"Das literarisches Kunstwerk des Romanes selbst.."In the this stood simply as"den Roman selbst": i.e., in view of the commencement of thesentence, "the Romance employed itself,"—a form of expressionwhich naturally required amendment.—It is more importantto notice, however, that to "den Roman" Wagner appended in the a foot-note: "German poets employ the sametactics () even in theLiterary-drama,—as witness Hebbel." Friedrich Hebbel (1813-63)was then in what is now called in Germany his 'second period,' andhis works appear to have been considered much too cold and bitterin their 'analysis'; he is best known by those of his 'thirdperiod,' such as "" (Vienna, 1855) and"" (ibid. 1856),the former work being still given, I believe, on the Germanstage. Singularly enough, Hebbel's masterpiece was a dramaticTrilogy, "" (Vienna, 1862) in which Kriemhildand Hagen form the central figures, the idea of the work beingbased on the conflict between Pagandom and Christendom.—See.—TR.