Talk:All Quiet on the Western Front

Political context

This article is heavy on the book's plot summary and characters, but doesn't have very much at all about its reception and the way it was banned in Nazi Germany (aside from one line in the intro.) Doesn't that deserve elaboration in the article itself? --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

someone needs to write that section it is very important, the book was very influential at the time, being published in 1929 only 10 years after Versaille (Fdsdh1 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC))

Added some material. Bubka42 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job! Rumiton (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Providing the literal translation in the lead

A few days ago, I added a literal translation of the German book title to the lead. This has been reverted by Rumiton with the edit summary 'literal translations are rarely helpful. The original German also carries a meaning of "no news" which "nothing new" does not.'

The literal translation I used ("In the West Nothing New") is taken from the section All Quiet on the Western Front#Title and translation. As it says in WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the body (with due weight). I was following that principle. If you think the single translation is unhelpful in the lead then surely is also unhelpful in the body. (From the edit summary, I don't think there is an issue of undue weight here, but I stand to be corrected).

There's nothing stopping us giving two literal translations in the lead. Another option would be to give the most common literal translation in the lead and then give a more full description of the possible translations in the section All Quiet on the Western Front#Title and translation.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I missed your post. Yes, I do find this translation unhelpful, anywhere in the article. Not so much that it is "literal" but that it is narrow and somewhat misleading. The German word Neu in the army report carries two meanings. One is that the situation in the west is unchanged; nothing particularly interesting has "newly" happened. This adds irony to the death of the central character, for amid so many deaths, it is insignificant. The other meaning is that the Central Army Headquarters have received no "news" from the troops on the western front. This increases the irony, as it is saying that the field army has not considered there was anything worth reporting to headquarters, including Baumer's death. These two meanings echo and reinforce each other but are different, and are both important. Can you find a way to convey this? Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Now it is me who must apologise for missing a post. I'm sorry.

Perhaps the nearest thing to a decent literal translation is "No News from the West". It appears that is what the English Translation was originally going to be called.

I think this does capture both meanings you refer to.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to agree but cannot. Your suggestion does not add to the reader's understanding of the phrase, rather it undermines the resonance of the original (see my previous post). Better to leave it out than to constrain and trivialise something of lasting literary significance. Rumiton (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So that I understand you objection: Are you suggesting that the phrase "no news" doesn't capture the idea that nothing particularly interesting has newly happened? Yaris678 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty you may be having with this, and I must be appearing rather nitpicky by now...but yes, "no news" does not come close to conveying the nuances of the original. It really just means "They haven't told us anything." German art and literature over the last 300 years is full of these extended meanings, for reasons that people from relative democracies can never quite grasp. They didn't have freedom of speech; they had to leave themselves an escape route by saying, "Look, I intended only the simple, primary meaning." It gives a richness to their communication, as well as a sometimes frustrating vagueness. But narrowing it down like this is not helpful. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton, Thank you for the explanation. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board#Im Westen nichts Neues. Yaris678 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rumiton. Although a literal translation might be "in the West, nothing new", that would not adequately convey the dual meaning that was intended to be given, and understood to be given, by the use of the word "Neues" (the other meaning being "No news from the west"). Thus, a more helpful addition to the article than a literal translation of its German title would be a comment, supported by a reliable source, to the effect that the German name of the book has a dual meaning and explaining what the two meanings are. At the moment, the commentary in the section "Title and translation" is not really adequate, and is not supported by any sources, let alone reliable ones. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Im Westen nichts Neues" does have a double meaning. "Im Westen nichts Neues" can also mean "No big deal in the West". "Das ist nichts Neues" = "Happens all the time". And with the inversion (he didn't write "Nichts Neues im Westen" which would be the idiomatic word order in German), the author may have wanted to stress "Im Westen" (symbolizing the war situation, PTSD, numbing, death not significant) as opposed to "Im Osten" (home, mother, death and suffering significant). I think he was trying to convey the feeling that the sentence is incomplete: "Im Westen ist das nichts wirklich Neues, aber im Osten ist es die totale Katastrophe". (No big deal in the West but it's a total disaster in the East). In my opinion the translation "No news in the West" (in not from) does convey that, I'm not sure if "In the West nothing new" does. (And there's a comma missing after West.) Hope this helps.--^Melody _Lavender 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Some ideas from a native German speaker, who may however not have both enough knowledge of English and nowledge of the German used by the "Heeresbericht" (official communiqué) in WWI to understand all nuances:

• An interesting discussion in German can be found here.
• I object Melody Lavender, that the sentence means "no big deal in the West but otherwise in the East". Instead the title is connected with the last sentences of the book. I have no English neither a German version at hand, but this very Wikipedia article describes its as "When he dies at the end of the novel, the situation report from the frontline states, 'All is Quiet on the Western Front,' symbolizing the insignificance of one individual's death during the war."
• I think its important the title sounds "Im Westen nichts Neues" and not "Nichts Neues im Westen". The latter would be also grammatically correct. However, the latter form would be used by Germans in case someone wants to tell us something about the West only. The former version, in contrast, is used in listings, e.g. "In the East ... blah blah... in the South ... blah blah, and in the West all quiet." This latter form therefore evokes the feeling of an extract from an official protocol or military communiqué.
• I totally agree with Rumiton's 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC) posting, that these two meanings are intended. However, I actually don't see much differences between both. The higher rank officer staff behind the front reports to the Central Army Headquarters. Nothing important to notice happened on this front from their point of view.
• "Neues" can be translated as "news", althoug the latter one also has the meaning of "TV news" or "something in the newspapers", which "Neues" does not have. So this direct translation may be misleading?
• I think we need two steps for a good literal translation. First, either a reliable source how to the effect of the German title on German readers was. Or, because I don't think we will find one, we just use the book's last sentences as source, they show us how the title was meant by the author. Second, we need some native English speaking persons to translate this meaning into an adequate English wording. Although the second step is somewhat original research.

--Cyfal (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All Quiet on the Western Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050321023449/http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-6.html to http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception

The “Publication and Reception” section only references the negative reception of the novel. Being one of the most highly-regarded war novels in history, I feel that some positive reviews should be added in. YourAuntEggma (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I can't ref it, but at the time of publication it simply wasn't the most highly-regarded war novel in history, certainly not in Germany. Jünger's "In Stahlgewittern" had much more litterary prestige, and Rommel's "Infanterie greift an" had much greater appeal among the, shall we say, non-pacifists. Just like his contemporaries did not spare Kant in his time, Remarque got quite negative reviews, even from "his own side", like such a militant pacifist as Tucholsky: "Das Buch hat nicht als Kunstwerk die Millionen erregt, sondern wegen seines Stoffes und wegen der Behandlung des Stoffes. Das Buch ist kein großes Kunstwerk, aber ein gutes Buch." (= The book did not excite millions as a work of art, but due to its subject matter and the treatment of this subject matter. The book is no great work of art, but it is a good book."). All his life, Remarque had to suffer highbrow critics accusing him of writing rather pulpy fiction. Only abroad, and in Germany after WWII did he gain recognition; however, AFAIK, in Germany mainly for effort and good intentions, but not for brilliant writing. On the other hand, it sold very, very, very well, so it was certainly liked by many, but, alas, mainly the voice- and reviewless. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Paul Bäumer, Main Character

I find it curious that the list of Main Characters does not include Paul Bäumer, the central figure in the story. Surely he is a main character? I do not want to take the time to write a proper description of Bäumer, so I am adding a stub. I hope one of you other wonderful editors will take up the challenge and complete the description. --Jdlh | Talk 04:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)