Cafeteria, about a month ago.

Fame: "So what are you reading now?"

Marc(french pal): "Oh you'll love it, Fame. The Godfather."

Fame: "Nice! but wait a minute...English or French?"

Marc: "French"

Fame: "Well you're not reading The Godfather"

Marc: "Yes I do! "Le Parrain"! Mario Puzo, I have the book right here!"

Fame: "You do have a book. But not the one I've read"

----

Call me extremist. But I cannot accept translated art to be the same creation as the original. Especially with a novel like The Godfather, which is not only fiction, but a novel which stands out for its memorable dialogue. The very same classy dialogue which makes it into the movies. You have to read it in English in order to absorb Puzo's creation in the right manner. Any other language will alter this novel; translation in this case means distortion, no less. Again, call me extremist, but I always approach translated art with discomfort. Can it really be translated?


Des mots oui des mots comme le Nouveau Monde
Des mots venus de l'autre côté clé la rive
Des mots tranquilles comme mon chien qui dort
Des mots chargés des lèvres constellées dans le dictionnaire des
constellations de mots


I'm not saying one should not approach translated art. I have read one too many translated novels myself (mostly french and russian literature) -- what I do ask here: should I really go around saying I've read these novels? do you honestly think that my reading of Tolstoy in English could be compared to that of my russian friends? far, far from it. What I read is DIFFERENT than what Tolstoy wrote. It's different, because language is not just the tool with which the info is transferred. Language in itself is essential piece of the art, essential piece of the information we recieve. Especially in fiction, where so much depends on the social and cultural aspects and manners driven from the author's language.


Et c'est le Bonnet Noir que nous mettrons sur le vocabulaire
Nous ferons un séminaire, particulier avec des grammairiens
particuliers aussi
Et chargés de mettre des perruques aux vieilles pouffiasses
Littéromanes


Surely, no man could learn all languages. If we have to choose between reading translation and not reading at all, then I suppose anything is better than none. Assuming all of you reading this thread right now should have no problem reading any book in English, my question is: should you invest your reading time in English fiction only (you'll die even before reading one tenth of all that's available), or should you spice it up with translated material?

I think I know the answer. It feels like we're cheating ourselves, yet we have no choice. We are consumers of art. At all costs. We'll strip it off its wholeness while pretending the language is no more than the feeding spoon. And while non-english films or TV shows may enter our lives with the help of subtitles, the situation is very different with literature, where visuals are absent, and the emphasis on language is so much bigger.

TV and the movie industry in France and some other European countries is worrying. They abandon subtitles for the sake of dubbing. Dubbing in those countries is ENROMOUS, it is an industry in itself, and I ask myself why? can't the french read subtitles? is it really more fun to watch an american film with french dialogue, not matching the lips of the actors on screen? why should they mess around with any artistic creation and cripple it, when it really isn't necessary? subtitles are not only easier than dubbing, but they also present the best translation: side-by-side its original language.

Classical music is international, in the purest sense of the word. It has no boundaries. No matter the continent you're in, it's a language you'll understand, one you know since the day you were born.

Books, movies, music, are all examples of art. There are more areas in life to explore (feel free to do so), but going to back to my original comment about The Godfather novel -- I'd like to make it clear that my discomfort mainly refers to fiction. Non-fiction feels much easier. Reading a translated cooking book might prove the same in a different language, but that too depends on the author and book.

Go on and explore the world. Educate yourself. Entertain yourself. But know your place. Never underestimate language. It is the spoon. But also part of the food.


NOUS SOMMES DES CHIENS et les chiens, quand ils sentent la
compagnie,
Ils se dérangent et on leur fout la paix
Nous voulons la Paix des Chiens
Nous sommes des chiens de " bonne volonté "


We're international dogs. We're intercultural dogs. We smell the company of greatness overseas and we charge its existence, destroying its purity for the sake of our own satisfaction.

Are we really smarter, or just pretending to be?

Thanx for reading.

French quotes used in this thread are taken from Léo Ferré's "Le Chien". Stripped out of their political context and abused in my own silly argument. Quite a paradox, considering the notion of this thread.

But hey, I wouldn't have it any other way

Hmm. This sounds like a good Turnbull, Capo, Lilo type topic. I've heard many literary critics claim anything written in Russian is absolutely a seperate work from a translated version.

I think there are always some meanings and nuances that are lost in translation. I think that's inevitable. I work with a lot of people from the Indian subcontinent. Many of them insist upon pronouncing the word "fixed" as "Fixt- ED " with the emphasis on the second syllable so that it sounds like the proper name "Ed".
But as long as the understanding is clear there's no harm no foul.

I took French in grade school/high school and though it's mostly lost to me now I find it fascinating to read Les Fleurs du Mal by Baudelaire as translated by Norman Shapiro and look at side by side the French and English lines, both of which have been arranged so that the meter is consistent and rhymes are in order.

Is there some distortion here? Shapiro freely admits to that in his introduction but also claims that his English translation is the closest he's seen to the French original. No false humility for him.

Of course the beneficiaries of a translation mostly don't speak the original language or understand the concepts behind the language so they have nothing to compare it to and would never know or care about the difference.

And not all concepts are universal anyway. The Australian aboriginal language Guugu Yimithirr has no concept of "left,right, behind of or in front of". Speakers do not use egocentric coordinates. Everything is based on cardinal directions (east/west/north/south). And it's not the only language like that. So obviously translations into English would sound ridiculous.

If I am half watching a movie and doing other things then I like dubbed versions. But if I am really interested in a movie and am giving it my full attention I prefer subtitles.

Interesting post.

Is a novel, or other works of literature, considered Art?

I would think so yes. It's not all good Art of course but I think anyone who creates his or her own reality and shares with us plebeians is indeed an artist.

Is an actor an artist?

(Yes, I think, he is; you are.)

Literary art, performance art, cinematic art, theatrical art, fine art and concept art, and so on art.

It's all art.

Not literally, but then in terms of physicality, a book is different from a novel, and I haven't even read the same Puzo book you have, not unless the friend to whom I loaned it passed it onto you anyway - though we've both read the novel, The Godfather, right?

If we accept that there are better forms of writing than others, is it not also possible then to accept that translating a novel could in fact improve upon the original? The essential plot remains intact, but on a linguistic level, the translator could indeed make it a finer work.

It might not be the case, of course, but it very well could be. Especially, I'd suggest, with a novel like Puzo's, which I find crudely written.

No, but then it's arguable that we haven't seen a film when we watch it on DVD or VHS or Blu-Ray. If I go to the cinema tomorrow and it's a digital projection, I haven't experienced the film.

Same goes for music: live performance or tape cassette? Also, in the case of classical music, performance by whom? Have you really experienced a Chopin concerto by Chopin himself?

Have you read Walter Benjamin's 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'?

I'd agree that a translation is in some way a transformation, but again call into question the implication that a distortion is inherently damaging.

Either way, it doesn't really bother me because, after some basic research, I'll take on trust that the translation I'm reading was done by a linguist (obviously) with a professional interest in the writer's work and the style in which it was written.

I'd love to speak Russian and French and other languages, but I haven't the time to invest in them.

Not if you're a self-debilitating formalist.

But a work of art incorporates expression voiced through a formal framework, and so there's a good deal more to bite into once you get beyond the initial discrepancy.

You might argue the same for content. You can read Of Mice and Men in English, the language in which it was written, and 'connect with it', find it powerful, etc. I can read the same work - the same copy, even - but if one of us has first-hand experience of the Salinas Valley, has lived there, we might say the other one hasn't truly understood Steinbeck.

I think we'd be wrong to do so, however, firstly because I wouldn't equate knowledge with experience and primarily because an object is never observed or experienced the same way twice, not literally. Even a stage play watched in the same temporal frame is experienced from hundreds of different angles according to seating; a piece of classical music might be 'universal' but it'll mean something different to a Mozart scholar presenting it in a lecture than it would to an 8-year-old switching radio channels as a car passenger.

Including and acknowledging the specificity of one's personal subjectivity whilst consuming a work of art can be of interest - some film critics will tell you the context in which they viewed the film, for instance, right down to the price of the pop corn they purchased before it - but it's not an essential element.

Why? Because the specificity of personal subjectivity - you can't experience the world as somebody else - should be a given, a truism.

Why else? Because if a work of art is a conscious, creative response to material reality, it becomes representative of that material reality, and so it voices concerns to which we can relate through general consensus that it represents a material reality collectively experienced. Many of the world's socially universal and historically enduring works of art capture the essence of life as we know it, as we experience it. They'll do this through a mastery of medium - the painter his strokes, the writer her words, and so on - but then in order to offer us something meaningful through these tools they'll have to present a meaningful 'vision' of the material world, one that we can relate to and give meaningful response to.

Some post-structuralists would posit that since an Inuit has many more words denoting what we would call 'snow' (because everyday survival requires knowledge of various terrains and so on), the Inuit 'connects with' snow on many different levels.

The more words you know the higher your affinity to material reality...?

I reject that notion.

The term Translated Art just doesn't "translate"....don't mind me, sometimes I get hung up on language.
BTW, my Uncle's name was Art, so I guess there could be a category called uncle art.

Haha, yes, I suppose you could.

Don't scare away the others! it's a topic for everyone

and I also think, Ice, that you certainly have something to say regarding classical music

As a graphic artist/cartoonist, I have always wondered how some "creations" have been titled "art"...especially when bodily fluids are involved! However, I am a bit old fashioned and believe that art is the result of the creative process that has been initiated by a thought or image conjured up in one's head. Not sure if that is valid but it is my two cents! I know - I know: "Another crazy artist type"!

Thank you, Lilo. I'm glad you find it interesting. And I've learned a thing or two from your post as well, those examples you gave. Tho I would say that not knowing or caring about the difference of a language you don't know is a limitation, yet one that we have to live with.

One of these days I'll have to dig out my copies of Le Parrain and Der Pate and compare at least some of the most famous lines...

Capo, thanx for replying.

Yes, it's possible for a certain translation to improve. It's also possible for a film remake to improve the original. But in both cases, it is a separated work, which is basically what I'm trying to argue in this thread. It's not the quality of translation I put into question, it's what it is lacking once the art is translated. Surely, you say the VISION is maintained - the core, the idea, the heart of the work - but understanding this vision sometimes relies on the use of the language.

Whatever you think of The Godfather novel, you can't deny the impact of its dialogue. The dialogue is pretty much what made the novel so successful, what eventually gave birth to the movies, this website, and so on. You wouldn't be reading this post right now in this forum, if it wasn't for this dialogue. And when you try to translate it, you may create a fine piece of literature, maybe a great one, but it will not be the same thing Puzo wrote. The language in this novel must remain intact or it will lose its effect. But that is my personal feeling, I suppose. I feel the same towards Shakespeare and most of his work. I'll argue that you haven't read Henry V if you haven't read it in English. Not the same thing at all.

What you go on to argue in your post, is that nobody experiences the same creation, anyway, so why should the language matter so much? of course we all have different baggage, and your knowledge of a certain area from "Of Mice and Men" would differ your reading from mine, but I am not at all speaking of the receiving end of the piece, namely you, me and the other readers. That's what beautiful about literature, that we all receive something different. What I argue is that the piece itself should maintain its wholeness. Whatever interpretations we make of it is a differnt story. The artistic creation should be presented in the way it was created. But , clearly, since we live in a world with more than one language, my wish could not be attainable.

I'm not a formalist, prehaps a prefectionist. I do believe that content matters most, but again like I said, I think the original language is inevitable part of the content.

The more words and languages you know, the more doors you can open, for fully experience the artistic creation. By rejecting that notion, am I to assume that John Donne's poetry could be just the same in French or Apollinaire's poetry just the same in English?

Yes Capo - translation can be great, even superb, but hardly ever the same.

Yeah, and I didn't disagree with it. A translation isn't, by its very definition, the same. But we can approximate, surely. There'll be difficulties at points, true, which is why the need for professional translators sensitive to these difficulties has arisen. We're not lost.

Which it is to say that retaining meaning across translations comes down to the quality of translation, no?

If it wasn't for the fact I was born! Or the Internet!

Yeah, but if you're not fluent in the other language, you're in no position to judge its effects in that language. Is it not possible to approximate words in French to those written in English and, through its equivalent, retain some measure of wit, rhythm, concision, and so on? I guess you'd argue that it's just some wit, and not all of it. It doesn't bother me; I know I have to adjust and do so.

What of Old English, out of interest? Would you insist you've never read something like Beowulf until you've read it untranslated?

Therein, perhaps, lies the utopianism of perfectionism... perfectionism being a self-ascribed 'condition' based on a rather meaningless subjective statement that holds little if any truth value.

Yes, and form frames content, as I said. It's interesting to look at authors who chose to write in other languages than their first in order to express more, attain certain meanings. Conrad and Nabakov come to mind.

I've already suggested it wouldn't be 'the same'. But that doesn't mean it cannot be an approximation, to varying degrees depending on the skill and experience of the linguistic who translates it.

Yeah, I agreed with that; and if it's a 'distortion', then there's much importance given to the translation process, and the translator.

Would you argue that an English translation of War and Peace should drop Tolstoy's name altogether and emphasise its translator's?

I also note that it depends on the original use of language; I know Camus's The Plague is written in a rather plain, accessible way and that its English translations retain this.

But what's the effect when language itself is more obtrusive, draws attention to the way it's being applied, like in Joyce's Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake? I guess in these cases there would - or should - be introductory notes on the translation process.

I saw a Spanish copy of Ulysses in Cuba:

The Germans are actually known to be more devoted to the works and life of William Shakespeare than even the English are. However, the English language of Shakespeare's time is often foreign to modern ears. The German translations on the other hand tend to be in more modern German than the Elizabethan English of the originals. So in this case, no, it would not be prudent for the Germans to cease reading Wilhelm in their native umlaut.

Btw Germans show their devotion to Wilhelm by performing and attending his plays (more performances each year than in Britain), using his words and phrases, and by joining Shakespeare clubs and associations. There's even a replica of the Globe Theatre in Neuss, Germany.

I return, having given this an extra thought today. With my own emphasis:

Aren't 'memorable' and 'classy' two qualities that can quite easily be translated across language barriers?

Isn't it, from that, ignorant to assume that English is in some way superior to any language after it?

"I made him an offer he couldn't refuse" doesn't make any sense, literally, in French, not unless you translate it. But wouldn't a translation be as 'memorable' and 'classy' in the second language?

I still understand what you're trying to get at, but my point is that to use such vague adjectives to defend a work's original language is quite egocentric.

You say you understand what I'm trying to get at, but I'm afraid I didnt make myself clear enough:

No language is superior, it's not a matter of better or worse - that is not how I measure the language. What I argue is the authenticity of the creation. In order for an artistic creation to maintain its wholeness it shouldn't be translated. "Le Parrain" could even have MORE memorable dialogue than its english counterpart, it could be classier too - I can't deny it since I haven't read the French version. The only thing I do know, and the only thing I say in this thread, is that it's not and cannot be the same novel, the same creation, the same thing Puzo wrote, because the words of the language in fiction are not just carriers of information, they are part of it, and when you translate them, you lose part of their context given to them by Puzo. The language spoken by italian-americans, the phrases and way of speech is something you have to experience first hand in order to absorb it. But again, that's not to say they wont be powerful in french as well.

So to answer your previous question: if someone asked me whether I've read "War and Peace", my answer would be simply: "I've read the translation of it". Because that's what I've read - for better or worse. But for the sake of honest discussion, I feel I must mention that I've read a translation.

Or "I've read the translation of Tolstoy's War and Peace, Or "I've read Rosemary Edmonds' translation of Tolstoy's "War and Peace", if we are to mention the author and translator.

Yeah, this is what I thought you meant. And I wasn't saying (or didn't mean) you were suggesting English is a superior language, I was pointing out that that was implied by your reasoning.

So returning to that quote again:

'Especially with a novel like The Godfather, which is not only fiction, but a novel which stands out for its memorable dialogue. The very same classy dialogue which makes it into the movies. You have to read it in English in order to absorb Puzo's creation in the right manner.'

So if in the translation we're 'absorbing' Puzo's creation, and in the translation we're consuming its 'memorable' and 'classy' dialogue in our own language - and trusting the expertise and sensitivity of the translator - then aren't we reading the work's meaning in 'the right manner'?

It isn't the same of course, but as I've said, there's a strong approximation there. You seem to be arguing that the meaning is different, inherently, because the words are different or the phrase is?

I'm not sure where I stand on that in all honesty; I haven't thought about these kinds of things in a while.

Do you think "chien" and "dog" mean different things?

Yeah sure, approximation is not a dirty word; I'm all for reading translated material which interests me. The 'complete' meaning could differ tho, for example in the case of a dialogue - a difference could be critical even just by the sound and formation of the words, the "feeling" differs. Yes, the basic idea is maintained, most of the time, but you're not enojoying the full creation of the author. Poetry is even more sensitive in that manner, because the use of the language is just as important as what it is saying. On the other hand, a cooking book which lists ingredients and instructions on how to use them could mean the exact same thing in 20 different languages, but that depends on the book.




Well, if this thread generated some thoughts in your head, then I'm more than happy for posting it.



No. But "What's happening dog?" and "comment ca va chien" are different. If I knew french better I would've found the lingo to match that, but again that wouldn't teach me the english phrase "what's happening dog"....if you can call that a phrase...but you know what I mean.

I return, having given this an extra thought today. With my own emphasis:

How do you feel about dubbing?

You think you get the same creation in a different language?

Would it bother you to watch "The Sopranos" or "The Wire" dubbed in french?

If I told you I only seen "The Sopranos" in french, would you say I've watched the same thing you have? (I dont mean "watch" in the literal sense). Would you say it is the same creation in a different langauge? I'd say it is a different creation, because the switch/lack of language distorts the complete creation. I accept distortion when there is no other choice in literature, and therefore say that approximation is not a dirty word, but with TV and movies it is, since dubbing isn't necessary.

What about "Casablanca"? if I saw it with some french guy speaking the lines of Bogart - would you be cool with that?

Is it simply more convenient to say that in literature it doesn't bother you, because literature depends on reading instead of hearing, so you're not really "feeling" the differences on paper?

I always prefer watching movies in their original language, even if english dubbing is available. I can read subtitles and understand what the characters are saying. Why should I hear them speak english at all costs?

Maybe my italian sucks, but I still enjoy watching Fellini movies in italian and get as close as I can to what he created.

I absolutely hate what the french are doing. It's abomination. Everything on TV is dubbed in french. I understand dubbing when it's done for little kids who can't read yet, so it's the only way for them to watch some cartoons, but most adults can read subtitles, and should too.

Why the french need to hear their language at all costs?

I don't like dubbing for the simple reason that lip-syncing doesn't gel, and because the actors' performance is completely diluted, emotionally and therefore dramatically.

Comparisons like yours between film and writing have to take into account the fact that the former is a collaborative work and the latter (usually) isn't.

I don't think the same things are at stake across the media; dubbing isn't merely a 'literary translation', it's the reduction of a major part of the work. The filmic equivalent of translation is in its subtitling - again, we must trust the company/person responsible for the subtitles.

There isn't a literary equivalent of dubbing; if there was one, it might operate along the lines of drawing the reader's attention to the translation, with parenthesis after every single sentence or something, which would destroy any dramatic flow.

My understanding is that the French (and to be fair likely some other folks as well) are more than a bit miffed about the adoption of English as (pardon the pun) a lingua franca for international commerce, science, political interaction, etc. They are even more peeved about the creeping influence of English into French language itself-especially via US entertainment exports-music and movies. So they probably would view dubbing as necessary to protect and promote their mother tongue. That's what I've read anyway...

Lord's Prayer in Old English

Lord's Prayer in Middle English

I've recently found out my copies of "Harry Potter" are also translated, from British to American, isn't that annoying...it's what you call an "americanized" version, with certain words and phrases replaced - they figured american kids reading these novels will not pick up on the british lingo, and will not fully understand what they're reading.

For example: the word "jumper" will appear as "sweater" in the american version.

Also, the title of the first book is "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" while the American version is "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone".

It's not so much about american kids running away from the word "philosopher", is it? more like that the alchemical substance "Philosopher's Stone" is not so familiar to americans as much as to brits?

But regardless of that, I have to wonder: is that really necessary? not just the title but the entire american edition. Even if americans will fail to understand a small portion of the language, I still think the original british "flavor" of the novels should be maintained.

It would never happen the other way, would it?

More than necessary translation, it's just cultural rape.

It's funny also that these things are also justified as a means of "catering towards readers" or the masses, as if they have a choice in the matter anyway. You see the same sort of lingo used to justify repugnant selections week in week out at cinemas of all variety: "Unfortunately we have to go with audience demand."

Yeah, because citizens govern everything en masse. Pull the other one.