Talk:Distancing effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 14:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Proposal  :	Distancing effect/Archive 1 → Alienation effect
Rationale :	According to Wikipedia's naming policy, article's title should be in English.
Proposer :	Neo-Jay

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

• Query : But is Verfremdungseffekt how this device is known in the industry?  If so, I'd say keep present title and let redirection take care of "Alienation effect" or other translations (I note the paragraph in the article beginning "The best English translation of Verfremdungseffekt is a matter of controversy..."). Regards, David Kernow 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Based on Google's search, "Alienation effect" is more often used than "Verfremdungseffekt" in English world. And it is stated in this article that alienation effect is "probably the most common translation". Using "alienation effect" as the title can make this article easier to be found by google search on the Internet. --Neo-Jay 17:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Film theory is something I'm not particularly informed about, but, as a related alternative, I've read and studied more about music theory. If Leitmotif became "Lead subject" or even "Lead motif", for example, I suspect there'd be much confusion. I'm wondering if the same would be true with Verfremdungseffekt. If "Alienation effect" is a redirect to "Verfremdungseffekt", then an internet search should pick it up. Regards, David Kernow 10:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• PS: the title of the artice in Encyclopædia Britannica is also alienation effect. --Neo-Jay 06:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: To answer David Kernow's query: neither term is used in the film "industry" as Brechtian concepts are not part of mainstream film practice. I've taught film theory in the US for 25 years and when I cover Brecht I introduce students to both terms, but then rely on the English phrase. I think this is probably a common approach. --Jeremy Butler 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the insight, Jeremy. Best wishes, David Kernow 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

(Addition and suggested merge)

This shoud be an article in its own right. I added the cinema bit. Now it should be apprent that the concept is not limited to Brecht. I am doing some research in a related topic and may add to the cinematic aspects of the alienation effect latter. --Collingsworth 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Will there be more detail coming soon on this topic? If not, it might be better to merge & redirect with Bertolt Brecht, which offers much more context than is here. Joyous 02:58, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

rename to "Alienation effect"?

According to Wiki's naming policy, article's title should be in English. "Alienation effect" is used more often in English than "Verfremdungseffekt". It is easier to be found by google search on the Internet. --Neo-Jay 10:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienation effect is a misleading name, as the intent is not to alienate the audience. Brecht developed the technique, so really it should be called "Verfrumdungseffekt". However, this will be less accessible, so maybe "V-effekt"? You can put a redirect from "Alienation effect", but that is not the proper name. Macphisto12 17:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming convention is to adopt the most common name, not the most accurate or most proper name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Neo-Jay 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A google search to determine prevalence of use is an unreliable indicator, as so often stressed on other pages in Wikipedia. Within the critical community (which constitutes the main arena of usage), the translation as 'alienation' has long-since been abandoned - not only for the reasons offered in the discussions above, but also to distinguish the term from Marx's entfremsdung, which in relation to any discussion of Brecht, given his relation to Marxism, is vitally important. 'Alienation' in Marx's sense is more or less the opposite of Verfremsdung in Brecht's theory and practice. The Brechtian process seeks to 'de-alienate', as it were. The only reason anyone still uses 'alienation' is because that is the translation adopted by John Willett in his 1964 Brecht on Theatre. You would be hard pressed to find any critical article or book that uses 'alienation' published in the last ten or twenty years or so. 'Defamiliarization' is a popular alternative, but at present that is being used on a page to describe the concept from Russian Formalism (from which Brecht derived his concept in all probability). DionysosProteus 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is misleading. Verfremdungseffekt continues to be translated as "alienation effect" within the "critical" literature. A search on Jstor reveals "alienation effect" to be five-times more common than "distancing effect" when cross-referenced with "Brecht" in scholarly journal articles since 1990. Furthermore, "alienation effect" is no more misleading than "distancing effect," since both fail to capture the dialectical nature of the concept (i.e. the employment of Verfremdungseffekten should denaturalize the theatrical conceits of the action, bringing it closer by putting it at a distance). I myself favor "estrangement effect," but the most common translation, in "the critical literature" and elsewhere, remains "alienation effect." Thus, in keeping with Wikipedia standards, the title of this page should be "alienation effect," with a discussion of the translation issues in the text.

128.148.214.56 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

The recently added example from V for Vendetta does not strike me as pertinent. The dead characters still fit within the narrative world and do not break the suspension of disbelief. Hence, the scene is not "alienating." --Jeremy Butler 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Please add the pronunciation of Verfremdungseffekt, if possible. — Emiellaiendiay 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Navigation bar and limiting definition

I've added a navigation bar to the top of this page to standardize movement between all of Brecht's main theoretical concepts and techniques.

The definition of this technique given in the opening needs some work, as as it stands it limits the technique to an aspect of the actor's work, whereas the term has a much wider valency. I will be making my way around the Brecht pages shortly and will tackle this then.

DionysosProteus 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Otstranenie

The meaning of the word "отстранение" is roughly "increasing distance", like pushing away something that's close, or moving away from something. It could be translated as "estranging", but not "making strange". "Making strange" could be "остраннение" (and would be a made-up word, too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.243.181 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)