DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Continental Philosophy Society
HTML https://continentalphilsociety.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophy and Literature
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59--------------------------------------------------
The Second Author
By: StircrazyReality Date: September 14, 2017, 10:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Translation Wars
For anyone interested in the topic of translation I would very
much recommend they read this fantastic piece of journalism.
HTML https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars
[hr]
When we read a translation, we are reading the work of two
authors - the original creator, and the translator.
[quote]“Hemingway read Garnett’s Dostoyevsky and he said it
influenced him. But Hemingway was just as influenced by
Constance Garnett as he was by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Garnett
breaks things into simple sentences, she Hemingwayizes
Dostoyevsky, if you see what I mean.”[/quote]
Choosing who that second author is is an important question. For
much of Russian literature the default second author/translator
is Mrs. Constance Garnett. She machine fires pages upon pages of
translations. However her concern is volume of literature, not
form, accuracy, subtly or preserving what she can of the quirks
of the original language and author.
An alternative for Doestoevsky for example, is "the
Pevear-Volokhonsky translation of “The Brothers Karamazov”
[which] won almost uniformly positive reviews and the PEN prize
for translation." I followed up on these prizes for translation,
and realised ever more how much of an art form the work of this
second author is.
I have now resolved that each time I read a text not originally
in English, I shall spend half a day researching which
translation I would prefer.
I want to note that discussions with Sam Shpall helped through
some light on my understanding of translation. (He also has an
excellent library of translated works in the quad)
#Post#: 73--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Second Author
By: StircrazyReality Date: September 25, 2017, 1:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have found an article which gives arguments for the Garnett
translations of Russian over the Pevearian (PV) translations,
contrary to the above article, apparent academic consensus, and
the sentiment of my preliminary discussions with Pederson. There
are some who want to stop the PV hype train.
HTML https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
In discourse with Pederson, I have come up with arguments for
defending a preference for the PV version, and denying the
arguments for the Garnett version.
(I'm writing in a weird way because I want to talk to you
Pederson in real time, but also preserve a actual good
philosophical discourse. I suppose this could be test to see if
this is a possible way to hold a discourse)
#Post#: 75--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Second Author
By: StircrazyReality Date: September 25, 2017, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Defence of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (PV)
translations of Doestoevsky
The article defending a Garnett translation uses the following
example from the Brothers Karamazov:
[quote]In one scene, Alyosha’s monstrous father, Old Karamazov,
taunts him in the presence of another son, Ivan. The old man
relishes how he used to drive Alyosha’s mother to hysterics by
spitting on her icons. The memory of his mother is Alyosha’s own
icon, and he falls into the very same hysterics. Struck by
theextraordinary resemblance, the father cries out:
“Ivan, Ivan! Water, quickly! It’s like her, exactly as she used
to be, then, his mother. … He’s upset about his mother, his
mother,” he muttered to Ivan.
“But she was my mother, too, I believe his mother. Was she not?”
said Ivan, with uncontrolled anger and contempt. The old man
shrank before his flashing eyes … it seemed really to have
escaped the old man’s mind that Alyosha’s mother was actually
the mother of Ivan too. “Your mother?” he muttered, not
understanding. “What do you mean? What mother are you talking
about?”
Ivan has concealed his hatred for his father, who abandoned him
as a child, but here it bursts forth. By forgetting who Ivan’s
mother is, the old sot seems, once again, to deny his son’s very
existence. With sarcasm bordering on assault, Ivan reminds the
old man that Alyosha’s mother is also his mother. But in In one
scene, Alyosha’s monstrous father, Old Karamazov, taunts him in
the presence of another son, Ivan. The old man relishes how he
used to drive Alyosha’s mother to hysterics by spitting on her
icons. The memory of his mother is Alyosha’s own icon, and he
falls into the very same hysterics. Struck by theextraordinary
resemblance, the father cries out:
“Ivan, Ivan! Water, quickly! It’s like her, exactly as she used
to be, then, his mother. … He’s upset about his mother, his
mother,” he muttered to Ivan.
“But she was my mother, too, I believe his mother. Was she not?”
said Ivan, with uncontrolled anger and contempt. The old man
shrank before his flashing eyes … it seemed really to have
escaped the old man’s mind that Alyosha’s mother was actually
the mother of Ivan too. “Your mother?” he muttered, not
understanding. “What do you mean? What mother are you talking
about?”
Ivan has concealed his hatred for his father, who abandoned him
as a child, but here it bursts forth. By forgetting who Ivan’s
mother is, the old sot seems, once again, to deny his son’s very
existence. With sarcasm bordering on assault, Ivan reminds the
old man that Alyosha’s mother is also his mother. But in P&V,
Ivan says the opposite, that his mother is also Alyosha’s!—“But
my mother, I think, was also his mother, wouldn’t you agree?”
It doesn’t matter whether grammatically the sentence can be
rendered this way. If you get a passage like this wrong, you
have lost the novel.[/quote]
I can use this scene to explain what seems to be in favour of
Garnet. It just so happens that I read this chapter (Chapter 9:
The sensualists) yesterday, and so the impact of the scene on
me, a reader, is fresh in my mind.
In favour of Garnet seems to be primarily ease of readability,
that is making sure the English reader can know exactly what is
going on. The Garnet translations feels consistently strong in
tone; this makes all the events and intentions of characters
clear, "With sarcasm bordering on assault, Ivan reminds the old
man that Alyosha’s mother is also his mother". But I do not
think this clarity is always a positive when it comes to
conveying nuance and subtlety.
An aside on why Garnet is clear, and why PV is not. It is
generally agreed that PV have the primary concern of
faithfulness to language, as opposed to Garnets primary concern
of introducing English audiences to the Russian novels.
My personal preference is for faithfulness to language, both to
convey the Russian language in general, and Dostoevsky's use of
Russian in particular. Garnet feels clear yes, but also monotone
because the tone is too consistently clear and strong.
Why clarity in translation is not always positive
On the very next page after the above quote, there is an example
that shows that clarity of language is not always positive.
PV translation:
Seeing this, Dmitri gave something more like a shriek than a
shout and hurled himself at Grigory
Garnet translation:
Seeing this, Dmitri uttered a scream rather than a shout and
rushed at Grigory
The first is descriptively indefinite 'something more like a
scream than a shout'. The second is descriptively definite 'a
scream rather than a shout'. How does this affect imagining this
scene?
The first offers an indefinite simile 'something more like
a...'. It feels like like trying to classify a phenomenon with
words, and having to approximate as best you can.
The second just says what it is. What is it? Well it was a
scream. Imagine a scream.
Let us dwell on the image both phrases respectively conjure up
in our imagination (I would like to follow up thinking about
imagination on two fronts. The first, what is the causal
relationship between written words and imagining. How much of
imagining is due to the subject (subjective), and how much is
due to the artistic object. Thus, how much does the imagination
of different subjects converge when caused by the same artistic
object. How much difference can there be? How similar is the
image conjured up in me and you by the the above sentence from
Brothers Karamazov; The second, can I develop a methodology of
communicating philosophical discourse whereby I ask the reader
addressed in second person (you) to dwell on a phenomenon such
as imagination.)
The first feels imaginatively fuller, while the second feels
reductive. This resonates with the argument Albert Camus makes
about the absurdity of reducing experience to language. As if
language could reconstruct 'experience' reduced piece by reduced
piece. (I can talk more at another time about what Camus
explores through his stylistic choices in 'The Stranger', namely
the absurdity of an analytically reduced experience).
I prefer the Pevear-Volokhonsky version of Dostoevsky. I am told
Pevear and Volokhonsky have faithfulness to language as their
key concern in translation. In any case, they reveal a more
inventive and ultimately richer use of language. Garnet is
clear, but feels reductive.
*****************************************************