Translator must settle on one meaning, on one specific line of thought, on what he thinks / hopes / prays may have been the author's intention. If you're not a mind reader, both you and the author are in trouble, and anyone who has compared original texts to translations will testify to the extent of the trouble. There are two basic kinds of author-to-be-translated: type (a) wants absolutely every word translated exactly as he / she wrote it,
Translator must settle on one meaning, on one specific line of thought, on what he thinks / hopes / prays may have been the author's intention. If you're not a mind reader, both you and the author are in trouble, and anyone who has compared original texts to translations will testify to the extent of the trouble. There are two basic kinds of author-to-be-translated: type (a) wants absolutely every word translated exactly as he / she wrote it,
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
Translator must settle on one meaning, on one specific line of thought, on what he thinks / hopes / prays may have been the author's intention. If you're not a mind reader, both you and the author are in trouble, and anyone who has compared original texts to translations will testify to the extent of the trouble. There are two basic kinds of author-to-be-translated: type (a) wants absolutely every word translated exactly as he / she wrote it,
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
n+vr n nrav wr rso Comparative Critical Studies 1, 12, pp. 1925 BCLA 2004 Once upon a time, people believed that texts had one meaning one specific line of thought which the critic had to root out in order to justify his existence. The author, it was claimed, must have intended something, so lets find out what he intended. Then along came a new group of literary critics who pointed out that texts could have lots of meanings, and that you could never find out what the author intended unless he actually told you, but even then maybe you couldnt trust him, or maybe he didnt know what he was talking about. It was therefore old hat to look for the meaning or intention, and instead one needed to find out what the text did to the reader, how the text did it, and what was the nature of the interaction between text and reader. Well, yes but what happens when the text has to be translated? The translator has no choice. He must settle on one meaning, on one specific line of thought, on what he thinks/hopes/prays may have been the authors intention. Thats not old hat thats the essence of the translation game. If youre not a mind reader, both you and the author are in trouble, and anyone who has compared original texts to translations will testify to the extent of the trouble. Ask Wolfgang. Not long ago, he was challenged about a statement hed made. But I never said any such thing! he protested. Oh yes you did, came the reply and there it was, in black and white. In Korean. There are two basic kinds of author-to-be-translated: type (a) wants nothing to do with the translation, because he/she doesnt know your language, cant be bothered, or is dead. Type (b) welcomes the chance to work with you. There are two basic kinds of type (b): type (b1) wants absolutely every word translated exactly as he/she wrote it, nothing must be changed, and your job is simply to transcribe his/her words into English. Type (b2) realizes that you have a brain of your own, welcomes any comments or suggestions you might have, and accepts that if the text is to be anglicized it will have to be changed. Type (b1) will engage you in a monologue, and type (b2) wants a dialogue. 19 EUP_CCS_01Wilson 11/6/04, 7:14 pm 19 n+vrn nrav wrrso 20 Lets be careful here. Youve probably got the impression that type (b1) is a villain (you see how you automatically fill in gaps, jump to determinate conclusions, establish meanings of your own you fit perfectly into the Iserian pattern of the implied reader). What you have forgotten is that there are also different types of translator. Some want nothing to do with the author, some want only to translate every word exactly as it is written (so they love author b1), some are bullies And lets not go into the problems of editors and deadlines. Suffice it to say that each author/translator relationship is different, and if youre both alive and in contact, the pair of you must find a satisfactory modus operandi or another partner. Thats right, its just like marriage. You might think the image goes too far, but the fact is that if the two of you do work together, there can be no secrets between you, and you will argue, try to impose your will, eventually win or be forced to give in, or as is often the case find a compromise. Win and give in may make the wrong impression, because in a good relationship of whatever kind, the solution needs to benefit both partners. It shouldnt be a battle it should be a joint search. That, I think, is the essence of working with Wolfgang. It is all in the nature of a quest, and anyone who knows him will confirm that this is as true of his life as it is of his work. He is constantly open to new ideas and experiences, and there is a curiosity in him that never flags. Add to that a formidable intellect, a huge range of interests, an encyclopaedic memory, a charismatic personality, and you will begin to get some idea of the force behind the writing. But there is also a problem here. He loves the challenge of the quest, and the challenge that he has set himself throughout his academic career is to explore processes that by their very nature almost defy verbal expression. What are the somethings that take place between text and reader, that emerge from the interaction, that drive us to embrace fictions, that trigger, modify, transform our responses? Through the very nature of these investigations, he has to use language to define the indefinable, and although the language he uses may be familiar to others who have tried to plumb the same depths, it is a tangled web to those on the outside. This is where I come in. In theory (that has a double meaning), our marriage should be a disaster. He is the towering intellect, and I am the bear of very little brain; he revels in abstraction, and I need concrete clarity; he is the many-sided man of ideas, and I am a one-track explorer of the imagination; he is always on the move, physically and geographically, EUP_CCS_01Wilson 11/6/04, 7:14 pm 20 Working with Wolfgang 21 while I dream at home; he uses language to investigate, and I use it to evoke (as an author) or explain (as a teacher). We are poles apart. Even as teachers of literature, we went separate ways with him guiding his students towards analysis of processes and effects, and me burrowing into the human, psychological experience which for me is virtually the be-all even if not the end-all of literature. He is modern, and I am old- fashioned. His way is right and my way is right. Thats why we should never have hit it off with a right and a wrong way, you can easily make a judgement, but with two rights you have problems. I shall mention one more obstacle, just to prove how impossible our partnership should have been: along with all these radical differences, we are both perfectionists. What could be worse? Perhaps now you are thinking to yourself: marriage of opposites, but how does a marriage of opposites work if its offspring has to be a text that will please both partners. That it has worked is, I think, clear from the fact that not only have we been friends for over 37 years, and there has never been a cross word between us, but also Wolfgangs books have sold in vast quantities and have been translated into many languages using the English versions as their basis. Wolfgang will no doubt have his own explanation, but I think the key to our understanding is his open-mindedness, allied to a rocklike patience, a passion for his subject, a wonderful tolerance to my obtuse- ness, and crucial for both of us a sense of humour which despite the passion and perfectionism also enables him to laugh at himself. Some brilliant men are arrogant and pompous, but these characteristics are utterly alien to Wolfgang, and I can honestly say that it is a pleasure to work with him. I will go further. Its fun. There are two points to be stressed here: it is a pleasure to work with him. I did not say with his texts. They are fearfully complex, and the howls of anguish and frustration that have greeted my wifes ears have, over the years, been matched only by the howls of anguish and frustration that have greeted Lores ears as Wolfgang has latched onto yet another misinterpretation of his words. Of course, its all his fault because his ideas are so convoluted and his German language is so full of abstract, compound nouns that even other Germans would despair of their dictionaries. But no, its all my fault, because Ive confused a Meinungserscheingsverfeinerungsverarbeitung with a Meinungserscheinungs- versteinerungsverarbeitung, which of course any idiot can see is a totally different phenomenon. (Sorry, I made those terms up. Its my creative streak.) EUP_CCS_01Wilson 11/6/04, 7:14 pm 21 n+vrn nrav wrrso 22 The other point that needs to be stressed is that I have learned an enormous amount from working with Wolfgang. It is a privilege to be shown into a mind of such brilliance, and I am not so stupid as to turn away from ideas that for all their complexity shed light on the very field in which I am so deeply involved myself. He has revealed profound truths to me which I would never have grappled with, and there is no doubt that some of them have had an influence even on my own writing. We first met in 1964, at which time Wolfgang was an up-and-coming young professor in Cologne, and I was a Lektor. We became friends quite early on, and when he was offered the chair in Konstanz, he invited me to join him, which I did in 1967. By then I had a young family, and it was a not insignificant factor that the friendship had widened to include Lore and Lisbeth, who have always got on just as well as Wolfgang and myself. In Konstanz, I saw a new side of my friend. He is a great negotiator. Institutions can be dangerous places, but I had a suit of armour unlike any other: I was made a Beamter (which gave me tenure), I was protected from the interfering busy- bodies you so often come up against in such places, I was given every assistance in establishing a student theatre and a literary magazine both impossible without the input of the Great Negotiator and when the time came for me to take my family back to England, he pulled off his greatest coup, which was to set up an exchange scheme with Bristol University. It involved my belonging to two institutions, and even the top chelons of the Administration thought it to be legally impossible, but Wolfgang did it. There is a lot to be said for having a formidable intellect and a charismatic personality on your side. In those early years, he wrote only in German, and when I had wrestled with the impossible, and he had wrestled with the hopeless, we would sit together for hours going through all the problems. Lore would ply us with food and drink, and would laugh at the battles (sorry joint searches) going on, and gradually we would reach a consensus. No, not because of the drink I only take what Wolfgang calls cissy drinks, and it would require a lot of liquor to make him give way against his will. On matters of language, I remained the authority, and on matters of content, of course the final decision was always his, but the grey areas were always the fascinating ones: possible interpretations of texts, the logic of an argument, the Wilsonic cry for clarity opposed to the Iserian love of complexity. I would take things out, and Wolfgang would put them back in but not all of them. I EUP_CCS_01Wilson 11/6/04, 7:14 pm 22 Working with Wolfgang 23 would break an argument down to make it clearer, and he would build it back up to make it more comprehensive but not as bulgingly comprehensive as it was before. We would always, without fail, strike a deal. During the second phase, when I had gone back to England with my family, and I had cut my Konstanz trips from four to two a year, we did a lot more of our consulting by post and telephone. By then we had got so used to each others way of thinking that the battles had dwindled into mere skirmishes. It has to be said also that Wolfgangs English has always been excellent, and as the years have rolled by and his American career has flourished, it has got better and better. So much so that in recent years he has taken to writing directly in English, with the result that my task has become one of polishing instead of translat- ing. The time-saving for both of us is enormous, and even though his work has become increasingly philosophical, it seems to me that the discipline of writing in English has actually helped him to crystallize his thoughts. Is there a difference between translating Wolfgang and translating other authors? Emphatically yes. You would expect fiction, guidebooks, art books, childrens books, and documentary and commercial films to be more straightforward anyway and Ive worked on all of these - but even the other academic books Ive translated have used language conventionally. By that, I mean that arguments are linear, the vocabu- lary can be linked to concrete references, there is a solid base on which the words can build. Wolfgangs base is abstract, theoretical, constantly shifting, and so the language becomes self-referential, because it is all about defining definitions. Just as lawyers and linguists have created their own language, so too have philosophers, as I know only too well from the many other thinkers that Wolfgang quotes English as well as German. He is not alone. But he is unique in my translators world. Let me give you just two examples of the problems. The first of these actually seems quite simple initially, because there are no recon- dite words, and the subject-matter is perfectly recognizable. Wer lgt, muss die Wahrheit verschleiern, und das kann heissen, dass in der Lge die Wahrheit oftmals bis zu dem Grade anwesend ist, in dem die Verschleierung ausschliesslich dem Verdecken der Wahrheit dient. Lets try a straight translation: Whoever lies must conceal the truth, and this can mean that in the lie the truth is often present to the extent to which the concealment serves exclusively to hide the truth. Does EUP_CCS_01Wilson 11/6/04, 7:14 pm 23 n+vrn nrav wrrso 24 that make sense? Well, it didnt to me. In such cases, I try as a faithful implied reader always does to fill the gaps with reasoning of my own: The liar has to conceal the truth, which may mean that the lie often contains that degree of truth necessary to make the concealment convincing. Not what Wolfgang wrote, but it was an argument that I could understand. It was not, however, what Wolfgang meant, and the version we ended up with was: The liar must conceal the truth, but the truth is potentially present in the mask which disguises it. I have taken this example out of context, of course, but it will give you some insight into the problem, the solution, and the absolute necessity of author and translator working together. I shudder to think (and so does Wolfgang) what the Korean translator might have made of the German. One more example from the same text: Die Gleichzeitigkeit des mitten im Leben und zugleich an dessen Horizont zu sein macht das Fingieren zu einer Figur innerweltlicher Totalitt. Denn das Mittend- rinsein im Leben wird durch das Fingieren fr dieses Mittendrinsein inszeniert und gewhrt damit einen Zustand, den es in den Lebensvollzgen sonst nicht gibt. The beginning is clear, and the end is clear, but how do you link the beginning to the end? This time I was able to fill the gap fairly accurately by condensing the two sentences into one: This simultan- eous involvement in and detachment from life through a fiction which stages the involvement and thereby brings about the detachment, offers a kind of (intramundane) totality that is (otherwise) impossible in everyday life. The two bracketed words were inserted after Wolfgang and I had discussed the problem in detail. This is not translation at all, but rethinking, and that is why working with Wolfgang is unlike any other translating work that I have done. In the first example, my version would have been wrong, in the second I was almost right, but in both cases I was able to take certain risks because I knew that Wolfgang would correct/supplement/explain whenever necessary. Sometimes, as with a word like intramundane, we even agree to take risks together! I would like to think that between us we have generally come up with versions that are as clear as such difficult ideas can be, and it was always reassuring at least to me when German students told me that they read Iser in English rather than in German because they found it more straightforward. The comparative is, of course, important because Iser is never going to be straightforwardly straightforward! EUP_CCS_01Wilson 11/6/04, 7:14 pm 24 Working with Wolfgang 25 Nowadays, as I have mentioned, the task has changed, because Wolfgang writes his own English. The lecture that begins this book is one that I only had to polish, but it was the first time in 37 years that I had heard Wolfgang actually deliver a lecture on which I had worked. There were a couple of language mistakes which were painful to my ear my oversights, his later additions, a slip of the tongue? I dont know. There were a couple of points I disagreed with too. Why didnt I spot them earlier, when we were liaising on the text? You can never achieve perfection, I suppose, but you have to try. This was not my abiding impression, though. I attended the event along with Lore, my wife, and two of my grown-up children (the third was in America), and we all sat there riveted, despite the difficulty of the subject-matter. The lecture was followed by questions, and we all marvelled at the charm, tolerance (some of the questions were pretty silly) and absolute mastery with which Wolfgang dealt with them. It was a special occasion for all of us, and what I felt more than anything else was an immense sense of pride, as I do whenever he tells me about the latest conference, translation, publication, honour. How does one put that sort of feeling into words? Its the translators pride, the collaborators pride, but far more profound than that, its a kind of family pride. The Germans, of course, would find a single compound noun for it. EUP_CCS_01Wilson 11/6/04, 7:14 pm 25