Lost in Translation (not the movie)

[fyodor]

Um… now that I’ve already written what follows I feel a need to post it. It’s rather lengthy though, and probably of little interest to anyone. It’s mostly an observation on the idiosyncrasies of translations. We lose so much when we depend on others. Someone please read the whole thing and tell me I don’t sound like too much of a pretentious idiot. I’ve got to go watch a hockey game.

Picked up my new copy of Crime and Punishment today. As soon as I started reading it I noticed a huge difference in the translation. I have read C&P about 4 times (maybe 5) most recently in the last few weeks. I have always read the Jessie Coulson translation but had heard great things about this relatively new Richard Pevear / Larissa Volokhonsky translation. There are other translations available, most notable the one by Constance Garnett which has been around pretty much forever.

It blows me away how much one translator is either adding to the text or another one is omitting. I’ll give you a few examples.

This is the first line of the novel:

CG: ON an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. bridge.

JC: TOWARDS the end of a sultry afternoon early in July a young man came out of his little room in Stolyarny Lane and turned slowly and somewhat irresolutely in the direction of Kamenny Bridge.

P&V: AT THE BEGINNING of July, during an extremely hot spell, towards evening, a young man left the closet he rented from tenants in S____y Lane, walked out to the street, and slowly, as if indecisively, headed for the K_____n Bridge.

Nb. In Dostoevsky’s original text he only used the initial S. for the street name and K. for the bridge. An editor somewhere along the way substituted with the actual names. The bridge ought to be the Kokushkin Bridge and not the Kameny Bridge but the editor messed that up. The Coulson translation uses the names substituted by the editor. Garnett sticks to the original. P&V go for first and last initials but use the correct bridge.

Garnett seems to give a pretty straightforward translation. She calls Raskolinkov’s room a ‘garret’, which basically describes what it really is – a small room just under the roof. Coulson employs slightly more elaborate English (sultry, irresolutely) but simply calls the room a ‘little room’. Pevear and Volokhonsky seem to stretch out the sentence as far as they can. ‘early in July’ becomes ‘At the beginning of July’; ‘a sultry afternoon’ or ‘exceptionally hot evening’ becomes ‘during an extremely hot spell, towards evening’. They call the room ‘the closet he rented from tenants’ which I think would confuse the bejeezus out of anyone who has not previously read the novel.

So far I’m happy with my old Coulson. A couple paragraphs in we get another short, one line paragraph:

CG: This evening, however, on coming out into the street, he became acutely aware of his fears.

JC: This time, however, he reached the street feeling astonished at the intensity of his fear of his landlady.

P&V: This time, however, as he walked out to the street, even he was struck by his fear of meeting his creditor.

Garnett is again concise in her wording and even leaves it to the reader to infer from the preceding two paragraphs that Raskolinkov’s fears relate to the landlady. Coulson again goes for slightly more descriptive language but makes sure you know what exactly the fear is about. P&V seem to make a bollocks of it again. “even he was struck by his fear of meeting his creditor” would make more sense contextually, and simply read better as, ‘he was struck by fear of meeting his landlady’, dropping the words ‘even’ and ‘his’ and substituting ‘landlady’ for creditor.

Still happy with Coulson and starting to take a dislike to Pevear and Volokhonsky. Moving into Chapter 2 where Raskolinkov meets up with Marmeladov we get a monologue which is where Dostoevsky really shines:

CG: “Such is my fate! Do you know, sir, do you know, I have sold her very stockings for drink? Not her shoes—that would be more or less in the order of things, but her stockings, her stockings I have sold for drink! Her mohair shawl I sold for drink, a present to her long ago, her own property, not mine; and we live in a cold room and she caught cold this winter and has begun coughing and spitting blood too. We have three little children and Katerina Ivanovna is at work from morning till night; she is scrubbing and cleaning and washing the children, for she’s been used to cleanliness from a child. But her chest is weak and she has a tendency to consumption and I feel it! Do you suppose I don’t feel it? And the more I drink the more I feel it. That’s why I drink too. I try to find sympathy and feeling in drink.… I drink so that I may suffer twice as much!” And as though in despair he laid his head down on the table.

JC: ‘Yes, such is my character! Do you know, do you know, sir, that I have drunk her very stockings? Not her shoes, for that might have some small resemblance to a natural action, but her stockings, I have drunk even her stockings, sir! And I have drunk her mohair shawl as well, and it was her own, a gift made to her in the old days, not mine; and the room where we live is cold, and this winter she caught a chill and began to cough and even to spit blood. We have three small children and Katerina Ivanovna is working from morning till night, scrubbing and washing and bathing the children, for she has been accustomed to cleanliness from a child; but her chest is weak and she has a consumptive tendency, and I feel it. Could I fail to feel it? The more I drink, the more deeply I feel it. That indeed is why I drink, to find compassion and feelings in drink… I drink because I wish to multiply my sufferings!’ And in apparent despair he laid his head on the table.

P&V: “Such is my trait! Do you know, do you know, sir, that I even drank up her stockings? Not her shoes, sir, for that would at least somehow resemble the order of things, but her stockings, I drank up her stockings, sir! Her angora kerchief I also drank up --- a gift, a former one, hers, not mine; and our corner is cold, and this winter she caught a chill and took to coughing, with blood now. And we have three small children, and Katerina Ivanovna works day and night, scrubbing and cleaning and washing the children, for she has been used to cleanliness since childhood, and has a weak chest and is inclined to consumption, and I feel it. Do I not feel it? And the more I drink, the more I feel it. It is for this I drink, that in drinking I may seek compassion and feeling. It is not joy I seek, but sorrow only… I drink, for I wish doubly to suffer!” And he bent his head to the table in despair.

This is the happy part. It’s hard to go wrong with any of these translations. If anything the P&V finishes the best with the economically simple, ‘And he bent his head to the table in despair.’ P&V do add in the line ‘It is not joy I seek, but sorrow only’ that neither of the other two refer to at all, but it seems to go with the flow of the monologue. It is interesting though, how differently all three start the paragraph – fate, character and trait. Character and trait are most alike and if we go with majority rule and assume they have translated better, then probably Coulson’s ‘character’ is the more apt noun.

Despite early misgivings I will continue to read P&V’s entire translation. I think I can get used to it. But really it’s just made me wish all the more that I actually could read Russian.

[Blarg]

Interesting. I know that I've found Nietzsche translations that I have preferred more and less, finally sticking with Walter Kaufmann's. I've also noticed how much the first line of one of my favorite short pieces, Kafka's Metamorphosis, changes depending on the translator. And Freud's theories were given an unusual slant by the translating of the "Ich" or "I" into the more complex and distant "ego." I've often wondered what I'm missing in, say, a Camus written by this or that person as opposed to another. But not enough, so far, to get up and do anything about it like learn another languge. The most I've done is bought another translation out of curiosity.

[Oski]

Hard to make money if your translation is the same as everyone else's.

[zzzzzz75]

New wife is from Belarus, their translation like our own language has situational nuances. Imagine translating "Ship it crucial" or "Donkaments". Both terms are relatively easy to spot from someone here, and understood.. but in 6 years those terms even here will become obsolete.. and must be explained.

In translating, trouble arises when deciding wether to go literal, or in a way understood in the new language, and in the the new times.

[fyodor]

Good point Oski. According to Wiki, Garnett's translations are mostly in public domain so only the publishers are making money now,

zzzzzzzzzz: I never think of that part. You hear things like, oh there's no word in this language for that word of theirs and you think, well just put two words together or something. How hard can it be? I guess if I knew another language I would know how hard it could be. donkaments is a great example.

[Enrique]

I've always wondered how much is lost in translation. But the few things I've read in both english and spanish I didn't notice many differences, at least not things that hurt the story that much.

One thing I did notice as a difference once was in a translation of "The Black Cat" of Edgar Allan Poe, there was something that in a sentence was revealed earlier than in the original english. I don't have the translation with me anymore, so I don't recall exactly what it was now. I try to read everything I can in its original language.

This past year, I have been studying russian. But I am quite far from being able to translate something like Dostoevsky. The language is quite difficult.

[Enrique]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point Oski. According to Wiki, Garnett's translations are mostly in public domain so only the publishers are making money now,

zzzzzzzzzz: I never think of that part. You hear things like, oh there's no word in this language for that word of theirs and you think, well just put two words together or something. How hard can it be? I guess if I knew another language I would know how hard it could be. donkaments is a great example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Languages also create ways of thinking in people.
For example. I am used to describing gender when I say a word, it just comes with spanish being my first language, so I always feel as if I am being incomplete when I say something simple like "My friend is coming". In Spanish you give much more information because you know if it is a male friend or a female friend.

Things like that come up in russian too. For example, they have accusative and dative forms (besides also having gender, and a third gender being neuter). So the word itself just by the ending tells you what acts on what. And you don't have to order things. You can say a sentence in almost any order as long as you know how to "conjugate" with the specific case. Growing up speaking a certain language makes you think in a certain way and takking that into another the way people in another language think is pretty hard.

[Triumph36]

this is a great post - everyone at my school was utterly convinced pevear and volokhonsky was the way to go with any Dostoyevsky, but i don't think they had any idea why. I've read C&P by two different translators and I think I preferred the Pevear and Volkhonsky but I read it years ago. I did not read the Brothers Karamazov with these two translators and some things were certainly translated differently.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good point Oski. According to Wiki, Garnett's translations are mostly in public domain so only the publishers are making money now,

zzzzzzzzzz: I never think of that part. You hear things like, oh there's no word in this language for that word of theirs and you think, well just put two words together or something. How hard can it be? I guess if I knew another language I would know how hard it could be. donkaments is a great example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Languages also create ways of thinking in people.
For example. I am used to describing gender when I say a word, it just comes with spanish being my first language, so I always feel as if I am being incomplete when I say something simple like "My friend is coming". In Spanish you give much more information because you know if it is a male friend or a female friend.

Things like that come up in russian too. For example, they have accusative and dative forms (besides also having gender, and a third gender being neuter). So the word itself just by the ending tells you what acts on what. And you don't have to order things. You can say a sentence in almost any order as long as you know how to "conjugate" with the specific case. Growing up speaking a certain language makes you think in a certain way and takking that into another the way people in another language think is pretty hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read that one of the things that makes German such a difficult language to speak conversationally in for people not used to it is that the verb is usually saved till the end. Very hard to have quick back and forths and frequent mutual interruptions that way, for instance. I think this is reflected in some German writing and even thinking, too. German philosophy is famous for "Hegelae," for instance -- the tendency of philosophers to write in the most dense, complex, wordy language possible. They also say that this is what makes German so hard to tell a joke in. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if the typically complex usage of the German language is something that primed that country's many intellectual accomplishments.

French can be quite tortured too, at least in translation. I found Roland Barthes very hard to read and actually tremendous mental training. His sentences were long and packed with interdependent ideas unfolding all at once. Trying to get to the end of a sentence and still know what was going on was quite an effort and accomplishment. I was surprised that anyone could be fluid with that sort of "long-breath" thinking, but training myself to do so was some of the best mental exercise I ever had. The French language, again so I've merely read, supposedly lends itself to logic, too. How and why, I wouldn't know.

[GTL]

i had a very interesting college course with a professor that spoke about 12 languages fluently. he would often digress on translations and how they greatly affected often simple ideas the writer was going for.