Yes, yes, I know I do tend to ramble on about the vagaries of different translations of some of my favourite books; but at the risk of being a bore, this came back into to my mind recently thanks, oddly enough, to OH’s film-watching tendencies!
OH is a real movie buff (proper films, as I would call them, not modern blockbusters that look like computer games…) and he was watching a film called “The Gambler” from 1974, starring James Caan. It seems to loosely draw on Dostoevsky’s book of that name (which is one of my favourite of the great Russian’s works), and in fact the author himself features in a university teaching session Caan’s hosting. OH was intrigued by a quotation given, apparently from “Notes from Underground”, which was rendered as:
Reason only satisfies man’s rational requirements. Desire, on the other hand, encompasses everything. Desire is life.
He asked me about it and to be honest, I was a little dubious as it didn’t ring any immediate bells and sounded perhaps a bit too straightforward to me for Dosty. The credits gave the version as being the Signet edition, translation by one Andrew MacAndrew and despite the fact that I own several editions of “Notes..” already (as you can see from above) I felt compelled to send for this one. I also dug about in my current versions and came up with some fascinating variations!
The MacAndrew version
The MacAndrew version:
Reason is only reason, and it only satisfies man’s rational requirements. Desire, on the other hand, is the manifestation of life itself – of all of life – and it encompasses everything from reason down to scratching oneself.
A David Magarshack translated collection
David Magarshack:
But reason is only reason, and it can only satisfy the reasoning ability of man, whereas volition is a manifestation of the whole of life, I mean of the whole of human life, including reason with all its concomitant head-scratchings.
Two lots of Zinovieff and Hughes
Kyrill Zinovieff and Jenny Hughes:
You see gentlemen, rational judgement is a good thing – there can be no argument about that – but rational judgement is just rational judgement and satisfies nothing but man’s rational faculties, while desire is the manifestation of the whole of life, that is of the whole of human life including rational judgement and all the head-scratching.
Hugh Aplin version from Hesperus
Hugh Aplin:
You see: reason, gentlemen, is a good thing, that is indisputable, but reason is only reason and satisfies only man’s reasoning capacity, while desire is a manifestation of the whole of life, that is, the whole of human life, with both reason and all its funny itches too.
******
Well – that gave me plenty of food for thought and after cogitating for a while I concluded the following before my head started hurting too much:
1. The movie obviously took MacAndrew and truncated him to suit the script.
2. Even the split of sentences is not consistent in translation as some extracts I’ve given have to be longer because some of the translators run the previous sentence into this one (or else it’s not split in the original but some translators split it).
3. I’ve read Magarshack’s translations in the past with no problem, but I don’t fancy his rendering here…
4. I quite like Aplin’s funny itches, although what strikes me is that each translator has interpreted the itching and its cause and location rather individually!
So – basically I’m just going to have to live with the fact that pretty much every translated rendering of a book is going to be very different and I’ll just have to choose the one which speaks to me the most and get on with it. And I now have four versions of “Notes from Underground” which is possibly a little excessive…
Sep 07, 2017 @ 07:41:09
Fascinating, and also so confusing and frustrating! I think I like the Aplin best, but who knows if he is most faithful to Dostoevsky? And what is faithful is a matter for interpretation…my brain hurts and its not even 8am yet!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 10:59:58
Sorry to make your head hurt so early in the day!! Yes, for some reason the Aplin speaks to me too, and I usually enjoy his translations. It *is* confusing, though intriguing – I think I need to put notions of faithfulness out of my head and just read the version I like best!!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 07:59:57
If only we had the capacity to read in the original language any book we pleased! I often worry about missing something, particularly with poetry, with a translation. I guess, as you say, you may have to worry less about accuracy, which I think is a challenge in translation anyway, and go with the version you enjoy the most.
Sep 07, 2017 @ 10:59:03
I’d *love* to be polylingual but it ain’t going to happen – I’ll just have to stick to translations, and yes, I’m going to go with the one that appeals to me most. That way, at least I’ll read and enjoy the books I want to!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 08:34:05
It’s an age old-problem, I think. Better to go for readability or accuracy? There’s no easy answer to that question. As you say, it’s probably a case of settling on the version that speaks to you the most, irrespective of other factors. 🙂
Sep 07, 2017 @ 10:31:51
I think that’s going to have to be the key – because I don’t speak Russian I can only rely on how the book comes across to me, which is what I’ve tended to do in the past. And it usually works!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 08:41:42
That is one of my pet subjects too – and concerns. For a long time I refused to read poetry in translation for fear of missing out (less so in prose, but as we can see from the rather different versions, even there). But then I realised I would be missing out on so much of world literature. My favourite Dostoevsky translator is Julius Katzer in the Soviet Union (but I don’t know if he translated everything: he certainly did Crime and Punishment and The Idiot, and he also translated Chekhov and Lenin and the like), but I am not sure if anything was left out or censored to fit Soviet needs at the time. I’ve heard Magarshack is considered rather good, however one might define goodness…
Sep 07, 2017 @ 10:31:06
It’s very difficult – if I think of the literature I would have missed by not reading translations it makes me shudder. I too had heard good things about Magarshack and I’ve read and enjoyed his work, but I think I would hold back from his version of “Notes…” based on these lines. I guess I’ll just keep sticking to the version that speaks to me the most!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 10:52:55
Fascinating post Karen. It is obviously a big problem for readers if texts in translation. How can one know beforehand which is the best to choose?
Sep 07, 2017 @ 11:00:58
Exactly – having multiple version of every translated book on my shelves is not an option, as I just wouldn’t have the space – translated literature is a big part of what I read! So it’s a case of dipping into various versions when you can and then just taking a chance!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 11:22:43
If you tell me what chapter it’s in I can tell you which translation is most accurate!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 19:47:00
Thank you! It’s chapter 8, about four paragraphs in! :)))
Sep 07, 2017 @ 12:03:18
Gosh, McAndrew’s and Magarshack’s translations don’t even mean the same thing ! I understand and share your annoyance. I read The Murderess, by Papadiamantis (NYRB) a few months ago. The introduction had been written by the translator himself, which was very interesting, as he himself acknowledged the difficulty of translating certain Greek turns of phrase and words into English. He mentionned the French translation, and I think I’m going to look out for it in order to compare the two.
Sep 07, 2017 @ 19:46:43
I know – the variations in the itches alone are bizarre! I guess beggars can’t be choosers, so to speak, but I like a little consistency in meaning!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 17:00:23
I’m currently doing something that’s quite enlightening. I’m translating one if my own stories into German. I can tell you, although I wrote the original English and German is one of my native languages, it’s still very hard. I mostly skip accuracy now.
Sep 07, 2017 @ 19:45:34
I can’t imagine how complex translation is – I’ve never got over struggling with *live* in class translation during French lessons at my grammar school – one of the most nerve-wracking and difficult things I’ve ever done!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 18:02:21
I try to avoid getting too involved in comparing translations but usually fail and start trying to work out which is best. I end up getting frustrated and just going for one that at least doesn’t have any major issues.
It’s a nicer problem than having no translation of a work one wants to read.
Sep 07, 2017 @ 19:44:45
Me too – I tell myself not to get so intense about it, but I can’t help it. And yes – thank goodness for translators or I’d be screaming about not being able to read the books I love!!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 21:13:26
So I’d say the MacAndrew version is the closest to the original text, which is fiendishly difficult, like the rest of “Notes from Underground”! A word-for-word translation would be something like “reason is only reason and satisfies only the reasoning capacity of a human, while desire/wanting is a manifestation of all life, that is all human life, both with reason and with scratchings.”
Clearly clunky in the English, so you can see why the poor translators struggled with it!
Sep 08, 2017 @ 14:21:28
That’s interesting, isn’t it? I have to say that Notes is not a particularly easy read in the English versions I’ve read so I’m reassured to here you say that it’s hard in the original too! And here we have scratchings!
Sep 08, 2017 @ 20:52:45
Yes I think what is meant re: the scratchings is the physical side of life and its urges (as in the Garnett translation).
Sep 09, 2017 @ 14:12:28
Ah! Thanks for all your input on this! :))
Sep 07, 2017 @ 22:10:40
..and, of interest, here is the Constance Garnett interpretation (in my Dover Thrift copy): “You see, gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing, there’s no disputing that, but reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only the rational side of man’s nature, while will is a manifestation of the whole life , that is, of the whole human life including reason and all the impulses.”
Sep 08, 2017 @ 14:20:22
Thank you! Another one to compare – we have impulses instead of itches this time!
Sep 07, 2017 @ 22:56:34
I admit it took me a long while to get on to this. It hit when reading a Scholastic Press version of the Swiss Family Robinson to my kids. About half the book was missing yet it was supposedly “unabridged.” And the language was….off. I found the original translation and we honestly started over. Today, with translated classics I sample before I buy. GREAT POST!
Sep 08, 2017 @ 14:19:58
Thanks! And yes, sampling is definitely best practice I find – there’s such variation!
Sep 08, 2017 @ 04:17:44
I haven’t read War and Peace because I own three or four different translations and I can’t decide which one to read.
Sep 08, 2017 @ 14:13:49
It *is* difficult – I only had two translations to choose from, and that was hard enough!!
Sep 08, 2017 @ 15:41:49
Isn’t it funny how often we struggle through the mire and then elect to decide that the mire is as it is and we can only change our thinking about being in it! Thankfully, when it comes to books, we can simply reach for another edition!
Sep 08, 2017 @ 15:45:44
It’s a reassuring thought, isn’t it – if one version does work for us another one may!
Sep 09, 2017 @ 17:15:10
I prefer head scratching to funny itches!
Sep 09, 2017 @ 17:32:13
:)) Yes, the odd itches are a bit worrying….
Sep 09, 2017 @ 17:23:29
Proof if ever we needed it that translation is an art and not a science even though the automated translation tools you have from some online providers would have you believe otherwise. I have had many conversations with colleagues from other countries about how best to translate an advertising slogan and message. We ended up doing what some people call ‘trans-creation’ – in other words you think ‘ what is this text trying to say’ and then ‘how would I say it in my language’ rather than doing a straight translation.
Sep 09, 2017 @ 17:30:31
Yes, you may have got to the heart of it there – a literal translation isn’t going to capture the meanings and nuances, is it?
Sep 10, 2017 @ 16:42:13
That’s the issue exactly which is why its such a shame translators don’t get more kudos. They have to really get to the essence of the author’s style and what they are trying to achieve before they can do a good job on a ‘translation’ – its more like an interpretation I suppose
Sep 10, 2017 @ 17:28:36
Exactly – I can’t thank or praise translators enough really!
Links | XIX век
Sep 10, 2017 @ 13:59:27
Sep 10, 2017 @ 14:51:33
I’ll reproduce my comment from XIX век, omitting the Russian citations:
An interesting comparison! But I can’t say I like Aplin’s “funny itches”; it’s a funny phrase in English, but I don’t see that it has much to do with the Russian, which is not about itching but scratching. The thing that a person почесывает [‘scratches’] is most frequently head, neck, or (most notably) затылок [‘back of the head’], and I don’t think of that action as scratching an itch so much as being slightly flummoxed by a situation and unsure of what to say. I also don’t like “desire” for хотенье, since the English word carries a heavy freight of sexual connotation which (as far as I know) is absent in the Russian — хотение is simply the fact of wanting, of exercising one’s will to have. Magarshack’s “volition” is technically accurate but a horrible word to use here; I’d have to think about how to render it myself. Translation is hard!
Sep 10, 2017 @ 15:20:26
Thank you! This is all so perplexing to the Anglophone reader, particularly when the writing is so nuanced. Although I *like* funny itches, because it seems the kind of quirky thing Dostoevsky would say, I can see that it doesn’t necessarily make perfect sense here. Perhaps it was meant to imply flummoxed in a different way to stating it outright. As for desire, I agree – a reader will tend to default to the sexual desire whereas this seems to be more ‘wanting’ in a general sense. But agreed about volition – it sounds awful here! Translation must be impossibly difficult – I can only begin to imagine.
Sep 13, 2017 @ 04:02:23
Oh, I love different translations! And I also love pictures of stacks of books. Perhaps I read the Magarshack in my teens: God only knows! Last winter I read the Garnett, which I did very much like, because her prose isn’t pretty-pretty when she does Dostoevsky. And I really must force myself to reread something else by him, hoping that I finally can make my way through his derpessing half-comedies~
Sep 13, 2017 @ 07:11:07
I know I read Magarshack back in the day – possibly Crime and Punishment – but maybe all translators are not right for all books. About time I read some more Dosty, really!
Sep 16, 2017 @ 17:26:54
Fascinating stuff!
Sep 16, 2017 @ 17:38:26
Indeed – if somewhat perplexing…!
Sep 17, 2017 @ 13:26:23
I have a couple of additional translations of Notes from Underground by Pevear & Volokhonsky (1993) & Natasha Randall (2012) – the latter being the most recently published of all six:
Pevear/Volokhonsky (1993):
You see: reason, gentlemen, is a fine thing, that is unquestionable, but reason is only reason and satisfies only man’s reasoning capacity, while wanting is a manifestation of the whole of life – that is, the whole of human life, including reason and various little itches.
Randall (2012):
Do you see? Reason, gentlemen, is a good thing, that’s indisputable, but reason is only reason and satisfies only the rational abilities of a man, whereas desire is a manifestation of one’s whole life, that is, all of human life, including reason and including all its little itches.
Of these two I prefer the Randall – I particularly like her switch from reason to rational in the latter part of the sentence, whereas P/V use reason twice and I prefer desire to wanting; I also think that and various little itches is flatter (more prosaic) than all its little itches.
Sep 17, 2017 @ 13:41:12
Thank you for sharing these! Yes, I prefer the Randall of the two – P/V are always rather flat and prosaic I find. I haven’t forgiven them for nearly killing The Master and Margarita for me….
Sep 17, 2017 @ 14:32:25
I found the same with their translation of Dr Zhivago – so switched to the earlier Haward and Harari and wished I started with this one; I seem to remember at least one poor review of the P/V Doctor Zhivago. I read P/V for the Bulgakov – did you prefer the Glenny?
Sep 17, 2017 @ 14:48:57
I read the P/V M&M first and although I loved the story that was coming through, I did struggle very much with the actual reading of it. When I re-read it, I chose the Burgin and O’Connor version (my review is here https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/a-white-cloak-with-blood-red-lining/) and it was a whole different and very wonderful experience. I’ve yet to read Glenny or the other versions, but I can highly recommend the Burgin and O’Connor. As for Zhivago I had no intention of going near the P/V version – I read the Hayward/Harari which I thought was marvellous and reviewed here: https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/the-book-is-always-better/ Interestingly, Pasternak’s niece doesn’t think much of the P/V version, and also languagehat has had plenty to say about them on his blog here: http://languagehat.com/?s=pevear
Sep 17, 2017 @ 18:26:21
Some really useful pointers here – thank you for taking the time and trouble – am following them up. Best wishes, Peter
Sep 17, 2017 @ 20:24:56
Very welcome – happy reading!