Translation

[mrzz]

Right at the beginning of a major is not exactly the best time to start a non-tennis thread, but I can't help it.

@tented was kind enough to include two videos about translation in an answer to a post of mine, here. The original thread is about traveling, so I figured it would be best to start a new thread instead of replying there, since actually the topic interests me and I would surely help to completely hijack the aforementioned original thread with this conversation.

The translation that started it all was one that I did for something I wrote myself. Being short of time, I put the text on google translator and just amended the results. I think the outcome was pretty decent, even if surely a bit odd.

Then came Tented's answer and the two videos there. I admit that I am a pain in the ass, and therefore confess that I did not like the first one, while I enjoyed the second, even if some things there touched questions that intrigued me for so long regarding translation.

The first video, a lecture of Gayatri Spivak (who I did not know before) rubs me in a lot of ways I don't like. Obviously she has a great culture, has a lot of interesting things to say, and strikes me as probably being a very nice person. A chat with her would be a very pleasing and teaching experience. However, she has an academic style which I really, really don't like. It is something that I personally call the "French style", maybe in an unfair way, just because I associate it a few specific contemporary French authors. That "style" consists of basically to navigate across all possible fields of knowledge making extremely far-reaching statements that use very broad and abstract concepts. One example quote from the video, among many, (not that much abstract as others, but navigating through a lot of fields) is this:

"My second example comes from contented globality, were the narratives of post-coloniality persists, but are not predominant. Here the claim to constitutionality is so undone by pre-colonial structures of corruption and domination, combined with the absolute technological superiority of the digital that our own resistant motives just would not suffice."

Of course, there is a context to that, which I am omitting. But still... remember that the theme here is translation. The impression I have is that some authors want to transmit so much in so little time, and they have this feeling that they can grasp so many connections, that they get completely lost when they try to communicate all that (the honest ones. Others simply hide behind obscurity). The end result is a speech that can mean virtually anything.

One needs only a few minutes of the video to realize that the speaker's subject goes far beyond the actual activity of translation (sorry for the cacophony). This is not a bad thing in itself, for sure. But... given that even if you try to restrain yourself to the actual thing, translation is still quite a complex thing in so many ways, I can't help but feel that we are very much running away from the tough questions by doing that. Not that the questions raised here are easy to answer themselves...

The second video is much more about translation itself, and it was very, very, interesting and informative to me. I strongly suggest anyone interested in literature to watch it. But still (I told you that I am a pain in the ass), there is something there that pinches me. I surely give all the value in the world for the work of a translator. It is extremely difficult -- even utterly impossible in some cases -- and extremely relevant. I spent my life reading translated books, which I loved, and I am forever indebted to all the translators. But one thing is to give credit to the translator, other is to confuse its role with the one of the author. I get the ultimate impossibility of the perfect translation, but there is this movement that calls translation a "transcreation" or something on those lines that I really think that goes to far. I even read some works where you can see the "hand" of the translator, he is visibly pushing for the way he reads the book he is translating. I am certainly not saying that Edith Grossman (the translator interviewed in the second video) is someone who goes that far, but it seems to have a touch of a concession to that approach on her views. Or maybe I am just traumatized.

One very interesting discussion in this video is "which way" should the translation go. The question is, should the translator translate foreign works in to his mother tongue, or vice versa? Grossman's opinion is the that the translator should translate to her mother tongue. She makes a very interesting point, but it is a tough question for which I could see arguments for the opposite view as well.

Anyway, thanks once more Tented for the references.

 

[tented]

The first video, a lecture of Gayatri Spivak (who I did not know before) rubs me in a lot of ways I don't like. Obviously she has a great culture, has a lot of interesting things to say, and strikes me as probably being a very nice person. A chat with her would be a very pleasing and teaching experience. However, she has an academic style which I really, really don't like. It is something that I personally call the "French style", maybe in an unfair way, just because I associate it a few specific contemporary French authors. That "style" consists of basically to navigate across all possible fields of knowledge making extremely far-reaching statements that use very broad and abstract concepts. One example quote from the video, among many, (not that much abstract as others, but navigating through a lot of fields) is this:

"My second example comes from contented globality, were the narratives of post-coloniality persists, but are not predominant. Here the claim to constitutionality is so undone by pre-colonial structures of corruption and domination, combined with the absolute technological superiority of the digital that our own resistant motives just would not suffice."

Of course, there is a context to that, which I am omitting. But still... remember that the theme here is translation. The impression I have is that some authors want to transmit so much in so little time, and they have this feeling that they can grasp so many connections, that they get completely lost when they try to communicate all that (the honest ones. Others simply hide behind obscurity). The end result is a speech that can mean virtually anything.

One needs only a few minutes of the video to realize that the speaker's subject goes far beyond the actual activity of translation (sorry for the cacophony). This is not a bad thing in itself, for sure. But... given that even if you try to restrain yourself to the actual thing, translation is still quite a complex thing in so many ways, I can't help but feel that we are very much running away from the tough questions by doing that. Not that the questions raised here are easy to answer themselves...

You figured out Spivak immediately. She is a protégée of Jacques Derrida, and is credited with introducing “deconstruction” to English speakers when in 1976 she translated Derrida’s 1967 book “Of Grammatology”.

I agree that her lecture goes far beyond a discussion of translation itself, and arguably I shouldn’t have used it within this context, but I thought it might interest you nevertheless. Her idea of “translation” quickly becomes political, since a lot of her work involves saving (for lack of a better word) small, almost lost languages from Asia and Africa.

The second video is much more about translation itself, and it was very, very, interesting and informative to me. I strongly suggest anyone interested in literature to watch it. But still (I told you that I am a pain in the ass), there is something there that pinches me. I surely give all the value in the world for the work of a translator. It is extremely difficult -- even utterly impossible in some cases -- and extremely relevant. I spent my life reading translated books, which I loved, and I am forever indebted to all the translators. But one thing is to give credit to the translator, other is to confuse its role with the one of the author. I get the ultimate impossibility of the perfect translation, but there is this movement that calls translation a "transcreation" or something on those lines that I really think that goes to far. I even read some works where you can see the "hand" of the translator, he is visibly pushing for the way he reads the book he is translating. I am certainly not saying that Edith Grossman (the translator interviewed in the second video) is someone who goes that far, but it seems to have a touch of a concession to that approach on her views. Or maybe I am just traumatized.

One very interesting discussion in this video is "which way" should the translation go. The question is, should the translator translate foreign works in to his mother tongue, or vice versa? Grossman's opinion is the that the translator should translate to her mother tongue. She makes a very interesting point, but it is a tough question for which I could see arguments for the opposite view as well.

Anyway, thanks once more Tented for the references.

In terms of discussing translation in a more traditional sense, the Grossman video is interesting (I rewatched both before responding). In a certain sense, both and Spivak are similar in their concept of (as Spivak has expressed it) to translate is to destroy, and then rebuild. Grossman expresses it differently, of course, but the word “transcreation” gets at this from a different route.

As for whether or not translators should only translate into their mother tongue, I’m not certain either. My instinct is to agree with this, but I could be convinced the other way is at least also legitimate.

You quoted a poem by a Brazilian poet in the “Poems that have moved you” thread, which you noted integrates the use of rhyme, to mimic the original. This is something I do feel strongly about: to do perhaps whatever it takes to make the translation rhyme is a tricky, perhaps even dangerous endeavor. That, more than a novel, has the potential to destroy the original. In my opinion, translators should not be concerned with trying to retain a rhyming scheme — it forces them to make compromises which can take the poem’s meaning in another direction. They should translate poems the same as a novel: address the language, word by word, and ignore the rhyming.

I haven’t watched it, but here is a video of a panel discussion concerning translation, which includes not only Grossman, but also the duo Pevear & Volokhonsky, who are married, and have received a lot of critical praise over the last decade or so for their work with Russian literature. I’ll watch it at some point soon myself, because I imagine and hope it’s interesting.

 

[tented]

@Moxie - you met Grossman, didn’t you?

 

[Horsa]

Hello! Aloha! Ola! Hola, Buenos Dias! Salut! Bonjour! Buonjuorno! Allo! Guten Tag!

I'm very sorry to interrupt your conversation. Je suis desolee. Oyga por favour, lo siento. Desculpe.

You're not a nuisance. People could say that about me, word-playing when they're wanting to be serious, being serious when they're having a laugh & joke, interrupting their conversations & taking their words the wrong way to see what they say sometimes as well as acting daft sometimes when I've said something that I thought was o.k. at the time but realised later was a bit in your face. I also realise that I've annoyed people at times by personalising everything.

I thought your piece was very good. I noticed a few errors I could have corrected but I understood what you had to say easily.

The videos tented shared were fascinating but I'll have to watch them again before saying what I really think as I've been doing a lot of reading recently. I'm reading a book on the flora & fauna of the British Isles, 1 on British history & 1 that tells you about a bit of everything as well as some leaflets, postcards & poems I've been given by an author & poet at an event today. (We had a nice chat.) I'm also busy filling up my hush journal with positive poems & writing some poems based on what the author & poet gave me. I've started reconsidering whether I should write that romantic short story & that mystery story. I'm going to both a Roman Day & a Civil War re-enactment tomorrow.

As I'm busy I'll say the following words meaning "Goodbye!".

Farewell! Adios! Auf wiedersehn! Ciao! Au revoir!

 

[Horsa]

You figured out Spivak immediately. She is a protégée of Jacques Derrida, and is credited with introducing “deconstruction” to English speakers when in 1976 she translated Derrida’s 1967 book “Of Grammatology”.

I agree that her lecture goes far beyond a discussion of translation itself, and arguably I shouldn’t have used it within this context, but I thought it might interest you nevertheless. Her idea of “translation” quickly becomes political, since a lot of her work involves saving (for lack of a better word) small, almost lost languages from Asia and Africa.



In terms of discussing translation in a more traditional sense, the Grossman video is interesting (I rewatched both before responding). In a certain sense, both and Spivak are similar in their concept of (as Spivak has expressed it) to translate is to destroy, and then rebuild. Grossman expresses it differently, of course, but the word “transcreation” gets at this from a different route.

As for whether or not translators should only translate into their mother tongue, I’m not certain either. My instinct is to agree with this, but I could be convinced the other way is at least also legitimate.

You quoted a poem by a Brazilian poet in the “Poems that have moved you” thread, which you noted integrates the use of rhyme, to mimic the original. This is something I do feel strongly about: to do perhaps whatever it takes to make the translation rhyme is a tricky, perhaps even dangerous endeavor. That, more than a novel, has the potential to destroy the original. In my opinion, translators should not be concerned with trying to retain a rhyming scheme — it forces them to make compromises which can take the poem’s meaning in another direction. They should translate poems the same as a novel: address the language, word by word, and ignore the rhyming.

I haven’t watched it, but here is a video of a panel discussion concerning translation, which includes not only Grossman, but also the duo Pevear & Volokhonsky, who are married, and have received a lot of critical praise over the last decade or so for their work with Russian literature. I’ll watch it at some point soon myself, because I imagine and hope it’s interesting.

I agree with what you say about trying too hard to keep the rhyme when translating poetry. In some cases it can change the meaning though sometimes changing words round in poetry to make the line rhyme with the next works.

 

[tented]

I'm very sorry to interrupt your conversation.

You’re not interrupting. Everyone is welcome to join in.

 

[Horsa]

You’re not interrupting. Everyone is welcome to join in.

O.K. Thank you very much. :0)

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie - you met Grossman, didn’t you?

Well-remembered. I was honored to have lunch with her, and a friend who is another Spanish to English translator, (esp. notably of José Martí.) I was the small fly on the wall in their conversation, but Edith Grossman is a great translator. And her book on "Why Translation Matters" is well worth reading. I am late to this conversation, but it is one that interests me. Let me catch up and come back in.

 

[tented]

Well-remembered. I was honored to have lunch with her, and a friend who is another Spanish to English translator, (esp. notably of José Martí.) I was the small fly on the wall in their conversation, but Edith Grossman is a great translator. And her book on "Why Translation Matters" is well worth reading. I am late to this conversation, but it is one that interests me. Let me catch up and come back in.

The discussion began here, in another forum, before @mrzz began this thread.

I look forward to your thoughts on everything thus far.

 

[mrzz]

@tented, thanks for the reply and for the references mentioned. I watched the first part of the panel you linked, and will watch it all soon I hope -- it is very good. There is so much there that can trigger a lot of interesting discussions. Hope we get there...

..but for now I want just to reply that I very much agree with your point about translations of poems, even if I guess all the times I had the audacity of translating myself poems here, I inserted rhymes on it. But I have a good defense I guess. My point is that in translating poems your first rule should be to respect language and original meaning at all costs. But in translation, you generally have options, and if among those options you can preserve rhyme, without "killing" the original, then I am ok with it. However, now that you mentioned it and I am thinking about it, it could well be the case that even this rule would inevitably lead to "assassinations". What do you do if can follow this rule in 90% of a given poem? You let loose on the other 10%, or you "assassinate" it? (because the temptation will be there). Maybe the only way is to consciously and meticulously avoid rhyme completely. I need to digest it more, but we are on the same page for sure. My only doubt is how far should we go.

 

[Moxie]

You figured out Spivak immediately. She is a protégée of Jacques Derrida, and is credited with introducing “deconstruction” to English speakers when in 1976 she translated Derrida’s 1967 book “Of Grammatology”.

I agree that her lecture goes far beyond a discussion of translation itself, and arguably I shouldn’t have used it within this context, but I thought it might interest you nevertheless. Her idea of “translation” quickly becomes political, since a lot of her work involves saving (for lack of a better word) small, almost lost languages from Asia and Africa.

In terms of discussing translation in a more traditional sense, the Grossman video is interesting (I rewatched both before responding). In a certain sense, both and Spivak are similar in their concept of (as Spivak has expressed it) to translate is to destroy, and then rebuild. Grossman expresses it differently, of course, but the word “transcreation” gets at this from a different route.

As for whether or not translators should only translate into their mother tongue, I’m not certain either. My instinct is to agree with this, but I could be convinced the other way is at least also legitimate.

You quoted a poem by a Brazilian poet in the “Poems that have moved you” thread, which you noted integrates the use of rhyme, to mimic the original. This is something I do feel strongly about: to do perhaps whatever it takes to make the translation rhyme is a tricky, perhaps even dangerous endeavor. That, more than a novel, has the potential to destroy the original. In my opinion, translators should not be concerned with trying to retain a rhyming scheme — it forces them to make compromises which can take the poem’s meaning in another direction. They should translate poems the same as a novel: address the language, word by word, and ignore the rhyming.

I haven’t watched it, but here is a video of a panel discussion concerning translation, which includes not only Grossman, but also the duo Pevear & Volokhonsky, who are married, and have received a lot of critical praise over the last decade or so for their work with Russian literature. I’ll watch it at some point soon myself, because I imagine and hope it’s interesting.

I'm going to jump in here, because if I keep reading and watching videos, I'll never comment. (Sometimes coming late to a conversation is like jumping rope double-Dutch...you just have to get in.)

I think the issue of translating poetry and rhyming is very complicated. But let me offer two examples of translating one work that I think is interesting. And maybe this gets to the notion of "transcreation," as well, though I'm not sure what I think about that. I was reading Dante's "Inferno." I did read it in Italian, but I appreciated some help. I used two translations. One was Allen Mandelbaum's, from the the 80s, and one was Robert Pinsky's, who is a great poet in his own right. Mandelbaum's was useful to me, because it was completely literal. Rather than a dictionary, I just used him, but it was dry as dust. Pinsky found not only the "terza rima" of Dante, but he made it sing with the fun and exuberance of the original. It wasn't 100% literal, but it was so much more "Dante" to me. Is this what "transcreation" means? To me, I think it's good translation. The literal can't be more important than communicating the spirit/feeling of a work.

I think great translators absorb the work, and find a way to communicate it, as best can be done, in service to the author. They take a point of view. Edie Grossman's take on the Quijote is an interesting one. She said that he was so modern and revolutionary for his time, so she felt that she could be very modern with the language, though she made certain choices, as related to class, for example, and she displayed it in contractions. I thought this was a genius choice. She also told me that she has a 16th or 17th C. Spanish dictionary. She worked very hard on that translation, and she has been rightfully praised. She also told me that when she works with living authors, it's a collaborative process. She complained, in the video, about the lack of appreciation for the work of the translator, and I think she's within her rights. It's an under-appreciated art. Carlos Fuentes, who spoke and wrote well in English, was asked why he didn't translate his own work. He said because that there were more talented people than he to do translation. That says something.

 

[tented]

I'm going to jump in here, because if I keep reading and watching videos, I'll never comment. (Sometimes coming late to a conversation is like jumping rope double-Dutch...you just have to get in.)

I'm delighted you jumped in, because I know this is a topic you know and care about.

I think the issue of translating poetry and rhyming is very complicated. But let me offer two examples of translating one work that I think is interesting. And maybe this gets to the notion of "transcreation," as well, though I'm not sure what I think about that. I was reading Dante's "Inferno." I did read it in Italian, but I appreciated some help. I used two translations. One was Allen Mandelbaum's, from the the 80s, and one was Robert Pinsky's, who is a great poet in his own right. Mandelbaum's was useful to me, because it was completely literal. Rather than a dictionary, I just used him, but it was dry as dust. Pinsky found not only the "terza rima" of Dante, but he made it sing with the fun and exuberance of the original. It wasn't 100% literal, but it was so much more "Dante" to me. Is this what "transcreation" means? To me, I think it's good translation. The literal can't be more important than communicating the spirit/feeling of a work.

I think great translators absorb the work, and find a way to communicate it, as best can be done, in service to the author. They take a point of view. Edie Grossman's take on the Quijote is an interesting one. She said that he was so modern and revolutionary for his time, so she felt that she could be very modern with the language, though she made certain choices, as related to class, for example, and she displayed it in contractions. I thought this was a genius choice. She also told me that she has a 16th or 17th C. Spanish dictionary. She worked very hard on that translation, and she has been rightfully praised. She also told me that when she works with living authors, it's a collaborative process. She complained, in the video, about the lack of appreciation for the work of the translator, and I think she's within her rights. It's an under-appreciated art. Carlos Fuentes, who spoke and wrote well in English, was asked why he didn't translate his own work. He said because that there were more talented people than he to do translation. That says something.

Have you read Grossman's book Why Translation Matters? I'm curious if she mentions the inherent, problematic decision-making process of translating rhyming poetry.

The Dante example is perfect, and offers perhaps the best solution: two translations -- one literal, the other artistic (?). Of course, that's also asking a lot, especially if it's one translator doing twice the amount of work.

 

[Moxie]

I have read the book, and I recommend it to you. It's a slender little volume, but she packs a lot in. It's been quite a long time since I read it, but she definitely discusses poets, so I'm sure it's in there. She has many examples. As her area is Spanish language literature, it's a bonus for me, as it's a lot of people I've read.

No translator is going to do two translations, and no editor is going to pay for that, I shouldn't think. But for classic works, there exist several translations, and philosophies/fashions in translation change, so one can "shop around" for a translation that appeals. And I think you should shop around. I've started to read something that's supposed to be great, say in Russian, and have felt so disappointed. Only to seek out another translation and find that it wasn't the work, it was the translator. You mentioned Pevear and Volokhonsky in Russian. Constance Garnett has long been revealed as a Russian translator to English, but I can't read her. P&V changed my relationship with Russian literature. (Not that I've read that much.)

I think the most literal translations are good for people who have some skill in the language and are trying to read in the original. My Mandelbaum "Inferno" was a side-by-side, so it was super-handy for me, as I mentioned...no need to reach for the dictionary. However, when I felt bogged down or that it was going too slowly, I'd reach for the Pinsky and read a Canto or two in English. I don't know where we are in this notion of "transcreation," (which I may not have completely grasped yet,) but I definitely think that a work of literature isn't just a combining of words. There is mood, tone, the basic spirit of the thing, the "voice" that the author in the original spent time searching for. Anyone with a reasonable competence (and good dictionaries) can translate word-for-word. But a great translation, imho, understands the author, the work, and delivers all that other stuff. Which is going to require something that might not be completely faithful in every word, but gets to the soul of the idea, in the language of the target reader.

When @mrzz is back from his travels, he'll have opinions, too, I don't doubt.

 

[mrzz]

I am back, @Moxie my friend, got home Saturday night.... and woke up Monday morning! Btw, thanks for mentioning Grossman's book, I will look for it... I really liked her and I am sure there is a lot to learn on her book. But I will confess that I loved what I saw from Volokhonsky in the video that @tented linked. I was sure she is a great translator after seeing her talk for 5 seconds... her respect for the author's words, for language itself, it visibly overflows. And I honestly feel that this is a quality lacking in a lot of translators today. To use Grossman's words, they also want to have a voice. I think that is too much.

In its essence, I agree with what Moxie put on the penultimate paragraph of the post just above, but not without realizing the risks involved. I see the point, but when you "understand" the author, the risk of putting your own spin to it becomes a factor. Someone like Grossman seems to be able to do that (to understand the author) "safely", because I can also sense on her a deep respect for the writer, and this respect is exactly what would restrain one of going to far on her interpretation/approach.

Here in Brazil I have a very bad relationship with the current generation of translators.... and it is commonly accepted that we have now a "golden era" of translations. There are some extremes that are maddening. One example that I cannot fail to mention is a translation of one Henry James novel, "What Maisie knew". The translator (not the editor) chose to "translate" the title to "Pelos olhos de Maisie" (Through Maisie's eyes). Now, to begin with I think that altering the very title is giant dose of petulance from either the translator or the editor, but I can understand that in one in a million cases there is a good motive to do that (and I am not talking about any commercial motivation). However, and this is the maddening part here, not only this particular simple title is quite easy to translate, it also dialogues to the very last sentences of the novel!!! AARRRRGHHHH! It is OBVIOUS that the author was completely aware of what he was doing, and for me altering that is beyond absurd.

I could go on and on. One very respected translator here, that translates from Russian, routinely writes the preface of the books he translates. Ok, but then you see that he gives a lot of attention to his interpretation of the book and the author. Then he inserts footnotes starting by "Here the author means that...". Full stop. It is the reader who is supposed to figure out what the author means.

Obviously, I am citing specific examples which do not prove or disprove anything. But I guess they illustrate my point. In the end, a great translator is one that can go beyond the "word for word", but at the same time finds a way to respect the "author's voice", or rather, somehow find it in a word for word translation.

Two topics I still want to chat about, translation of old classics and the "couple" translation of Pevear & Volokhonsky, but I leave it for future posts.

 

[Horsa]

You figured out Spivak immediately. She is a protégée of Jacques Derrida, and is credited with introducing “deconstruction” to English speakers when in 1976 she translated Derrida’s 1967 book “Of Grammatology”.

I agree that her lecture goes far beyond a discussion of translation itself, and arguably I shouldn’t have used it within this context, but I thought it might interest you nevertheless. Her idea of “translation” quickly becomes political, since a lot of her work involves saving (for lack of a better word) small, almost lost languages from Asia and Africa.



In terms of discussing translation in a more traditional sense, the Grossman video is interesting (I rewatched both before responding). In a certain sense, both and Spivak are similar in their concept of (as Spivak has expressed it) to translate is to destroy, and then rebuild. Grossman expresses it differently, of course, but the word “transcreation” gets at this from a different route.

As for whether or not translators should only translate into their mother tongue, I’m not certain either. My instinct is to agree with this, but I could be convinced the other way is at least also legitimate.

You quoted a poem by a Brazilian poet in the “Poems that have moved you” thread, which you noted integrates the use of rhyme, to mimic the original. This is something I do feel strongly about: to do perhaps whatever it takes to make the translation rhyme is a tricky, perhaps even dangerous endeavor. That, more than a novel, has the potential to destroy the original. In my opinion, translators should not be concerned with trying to retain a rhyming scheme — it forces them to make compromises which can take the poem’s meaning in another direction. They should translate poems the same as a novel: address the language, word by word, and ignore the rhyming.

I haven’t watched it, but here is a video of a panel discussion concerning translation, which includes not only Grossman, but also the duo Pevear & Volokhonsky, who are married, and have received a lot of critical praise over the last decade or so for their work with Russian literature. I’ll watch it at some point soon myself, because I imagine and hope it’s interesting.

1stly, I'd like to say thank you very much for the videos. They were fascinating. I had to re-watch the 1st couple because I'd been reading books which spoke about everything in all different ways going from beliefs & science. They also reminded me that most things if not everything are mental constructs or social constructions or a mixture of both. Hardly anything is natural. Most things that we normally think of as natural have been shaped by society. We only understand things through what is going through our heads so we're all going to interpret things differently according to our culture, experiences, education & ways of seeing things anyway whether we use the same language or different languages. They also reminded me of something that Socrates supposedly said which although he said it arrogantly was very true. That quote from Socrates was "I'm the wisest person on earth because I know that I don't know anything.". What he meant when he said that is that when you really think about everything & question everything, no matter what evidence there is to prove or disprove anything most things have been made or said by others from their view-point & we only see things through what's going on in our own heads so even if we're convinced by what we see or hear we can't really know anything. I was also asked what I thought of "Meditation is not what you think" & I wrote a proper answer. Anyway, I must go back on topic now.

2ndly, I think translation should be done word for word as originally written just in the required 2nd language if possible. I agree with what you have to say that trying too hard to keep the rhyme can make the poems mean something different. Sometimes changing words round to make the ends of lines rhyme can change the meaning of the poem although this isn't always the case.

3rdly, I especially liked the 3rd video you shared. I very much agreed with the initial point that even literature in our own language sometimes requires translation on both a translator's level & on a reader's level. (Even the simplest sentence can be read in at least 2 ways.) Examples I can think of off the top of my head are the English language has changed so much since both Chaucer's & Defoe's times. Apparently Chaucer's English is supposed to be hard. I love Canterbury Tales & found it easy to understand. Spelling has changed so much since Defoe's time. I've had to stop myself from re-writing Moll Flanders with modern spelling many times. This quote from Romeo & Juliet which is Juliet's answer to her parents when they wanted her to marry Paris could be interpreted in many ways, "I look to like if looking liking move but no more deep will I endart mine eye than your consent give strength to make it fly." I read it as "I'll look at him to see if I like him but your approval of him won't influence me." however others could phrase it differently. Moving onto different languages there are differences between translating for ourselves & doing it for a living. Anyone who knows a certain amount about a language & how to use a dictionary & have a certain amount of common sense can translate a book for themselves. For example, as an antique lover I jumped at the chance to get the original version of Jules Verne's "En tour du monde de quatre-vingts jours" & got rid of my English version as I was good at French & I mentally translate it for myself every time I read it, however if I had to do it for a living I'd be under pressure to do it to a certain standard & to a certain time-scale. Like it was stated on the video the setting & tone of the novel needs to be considered too. I think it's dreadful that translators don't always get the credit they deserve. I think it's also important to note that although we're concentrating mainly on written translations some translators get paid to go along with V.I.P.'s who need to go on trips but don't know the other language & help them communicate with others so they get to do translation on an conversational level like when I went to Spain with my family & I ordered all food & drink for them & helped them to talk to locals & find out where things are (because they wouldn't learn the language & I did) obviously on a different level as they do it everyday in a business or diplomatic sense & get paid for it

 

[Horsa]

I have read the book, and I recommend it to you. It's a slender little volume, but she packs a lot in. It's been quite a long time since I read it, but she definitely discusses poets, so I'm sure it's in there. She has many examples. As her area is Spanish language literature, it's a bonus for me, as it's a lot of people I've read.

No translator is going to do two translations, and no editor is going to pay for that, I shouldn't think. But for classic works, there exist several translations, and philosophies/fashions in translation change, so one can "shop around" for a translation that appeals. And I think you should shop around. I've started to read something that's supposed to be great, say in Russian, and have felt so disappointed. Only to seek out another translation and find that it wasn't the work, it was the translator. You mentioned Pevear and Volokhonsky in Russian. Constance Garnett has long been revealed as a Russian translator to English, but I can't read her. P&V changed my relationship with Russian literature. (Not that I've read that much.)

I think the most literal translations are good for people who have some skill in the language and are trying to read in the original. My Mandelbaum "Inferno" was a side-by-side, so it was super-handy for me, as I mentioned...no need to reach for the dictionary. However, when I felt bogged down or that it was going too slowly, I'd reach for the Pinsky and read a Canto or two in English. I don't know where we are in this notion of "transcreation," (which I may not have completely grasped yet,) but I definitely think that a work of literature isn't just a combining of words. There is mood, tone, the basic spirit of the thing, the "voice" that the author in the original spent time searching for. Anyone with a reasonable competence (and good dictionaries) can translate word-for-word. But a great translation, imho, understands the author, the work, and delivers all that other stuff. Which is going to require something that might not be completely faithful in every word, but gets to the soul of the idea, in the language of the target reader.

When @mrzz is back from his travels, he'll have opinions, too, I don't doubt.

Thank you very much for the recommendation.

I agree with what you have to say. I haven't read much Russian literature either, however I love Anna Karenina, Anton Chekhov's short stories & Dr. Zhivago.

 

[tented]

@Horsa @Moxie @mrzz

I just finished watching the panel discussion on translation. It was well worth the nearly 2 hours. I enjoyed learning about their individual methods.

Of course P&V have a unique approach, since they’re married and began this whole journey into translation through their relationship. In a way, they’re translating twice: first her, then him. I liked their emphasis on getting the voice of the writer right, and prioritizing that over a rote, word-for-word translation. Their example of a Dostoevsky passage, in which a character repeats the same word a dozen times, was informative. Apparently copy editors would have changed it so that the word was only used once, but P&V stressed the importance of the repetition.

I think Grossman had the best line: “You don’t do translations with tracing paper.” That seems to have been the old way of approaching it, which is why so many Russian novels, in particular, were considered to have been dull, dry, and boring. P&V bring it alive.

I read their “Anna Karenina” a few years ago. Now, I have never read another translation, so I can’t compare, but I thoroughly enjoyed theirs. It felt so ... alive. Modern, even, but not in a bad way. More so in a way which demonstrated Tolstoy’s universality. Ironically, two of the greatest novels ever written, in my opinion, are Don Quixote and Anna Karenina (I read Grossman’s translation, of course, which moxie brought to my attention), so what a treat to see the people who worked so hard on these books, which allowed me even to read them, interact together!

Finally, near the end, they got to poetry vs. novels. P&V were asked the apparently inevitable question of translating Pushkin, and agreed it just can’t be translated in any manner which does him justice. They didn’t address the question of retaining rhyme scheme, but I thought it interesting nevertheless that two people who have spent so long translating Russian literature admit there’s something which they can’t or shouldn’t do.

 

[Moxie]

Forgive me if I go a bit on a tangent, but the above posts inspired a couple of thoughts to throw in. Mrzz mention a translation of the title of the Henry James story that he objected to. There was a German film a few years back called "Gegen die Wand," which literally means "Against the Wall." In English, the film was called "Head On," which the filmmaker claimed he thought was better. Obviously, it's useful to have a living artist on hand to approve, but I just thought that was interesting. I also thought Horsa brought up an interesting point about interpretations of Old/Middle English to New English, which is English-to-English, (heaven help the non-native speaker.) I imagine we were all required to memorize the opening of Beowulf in Old English, but we read that and Chaucer basically in translation, or at least I did. And now, when Shakespeare is performed, we understand that the rhyme changes somewhat because pronunciations have changed. (And not to mention modern settings of the works...or perhaps TO mention them, because these are similar to the notion of flexibility in classic works for the current sensibility.)

As to tented's point re: P&V and Pushkin...I will watch the video, to hear the deep reasoning, and I respect that they think some things can't be done justice, but if great translators don't tackle them, they will remain untouchable for most of us.

Sorry...just throwing some things out there that all of your posts pinged in my head. Such an interesting topic, to me.

 

[tented]

I also thought Horsa brought up an interesting point about interpretations of Old/Middle English to New English, which is English-to-English, (heaven help the non-native speaker.) I imagine we were all required to memorize the opening of Beowulf in Old English, but we read that and Chaucer basically in translation, or at least I did. And now, when Shakespeare is performed, we understand that the rhyme changes somewhat because pronunciations have changed. (And not to mention modern settings of the works...or perhaps TO mention them, because these are similar to the notion of flexibility in classic works for the current sensibility.)

I also thought it was interesting that @Horsa introduced the concept of Old and Middle English vs. Modern English. I looked at Beowulf a few months ago, and couldn’t believe how alien it seemed. Thoroughly impenetrable. It’s another language, yet a version of English. Chaucer is closer to Modern English, but (to me) still too different to make sense.

Shakespeare is certainly Modern English, but not 21st century English. I think it’s better to hear it than to read it. For those who haven’t seen Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, it’s a must see, especially for Derek Jacobi, who makes it sound like he’s making it up as he goes along, vs. reciting something written in the 17th century.

The same goes for James Joyce or T.S. Eliot. While they both must be read in order to appreciate everything that went into creating their written forms, I found it revelatory to hear them as oral performances. Somewhat tangentially, Grossman mentioned how she always reads her translations aloud to make sure they’re right. I forget the exact quote, but something about getting away with things on the page you can’t get away with when hearing them.

 

[Moxie]

I also thought it was interesting that @Horsa introduced the concept of Old and Middle English vs. Modern English. I looked at Beowulf a few months ago, and couldn’t believe how alien it seemed. Thoroughly impenetrable. It’s another language, yet a version of English. Chaucer is closer to Modern English, but (to me) still too different to make sense.

Shakespeare is certainly Modern English, but not 21st century English. I think it’s best to hear it than to read it. The same goes for James Joyce or T.S. Eliot. While they both must be read in order to appreciate everything that went into creating their written form, I found it revelatory to hear them as oral performances. Somewhat tangentially, Grossman mentioned how she always reads her translations aloud to make sure they’re right. I forget the exact quote, but something about getting away with things on the page you can’t get away with when hearing them.

I think the notion of reading aloud, especially poetry is a really important point. I always tune into the radio for the reading of Ulysses on Bloomsday, (which is coming up.) So much more comprehensible when interpreted by actors, in the same way as Shakespeare. They get the beats right. I'm glad you mentioned Eliot, too. I love him, and always read him aloud. So I get why Grossman reads aloud. Good for her. You really do feel the rhythm when you speak it, as in reading poetry. And I guess, as a translator, you find the hiccups.