The new translation of Don Quixote by Edith Grossman definitely has it's flourishes and nicely turned phrases...
but it's not enough to compensate for the cost that has been exacted upon the text.
At times, it is tiresome, and it feels uneven.
It is a long, almost breathless text. absurd, but moreover, I'm not sure that translation is all that was needed.
Don Quixote requires scholarship, commitment, contemplation and resolve.
Not just for the reader, but, especially so, for the tranlator.
The uneveness results in (my opinion) many unintentional consequences.
And, I'm assuming the consequences were unintentioned, because I can not see how someone could justify adding their own "interpretation" to the text that was not rooted in the standard and historically accepted interpretations and meanings that scholars througout the centuries have arrived at...
The passages are still very funny, but it plays more like a sitcom, than epic comedy.
I tried to be patient, to see where it was going, but when the new translation started calling Don Quixote,
"The knight with the sorrowful face"
instead of "the knight with the mournful countenance"
I completely lost my faith.
granted, I may get it back. Granted, come 2/3rd into the book, her version may wear me down to a level of acceptance. That would depend on many factors coming together, that have not as yet, in addition to some strong sentimental loyaties for the Ormsby-Douglas-Jones translation being thrown-over.
It seems that there could not possibly be all that great a difference in the translations, or at least one would imagine, that is, if the translator were "translating" and not interpreting or transforming.
It is rare that we have a book, like Don Quixote, that has been translated so many times, and so, readers become aware of the vast differences that can be had between translations.
Granted, the changes are subtle, but, that is canceled out due to the fact that the minor differences, then begin to take on a much larger importance, as they stack up.
but the intent it seems in this new text, was generally to take potatoes and to turn them into flakes that are unrecognizable, yet more easily marketed.
The effect is that the constant patter of language between Sancho Panza and Don Quixote at times makes one think, "Shut the fuck up!!" because whereas in the older translation, the conversation seemed to be at a conclusion at he end of every phrase, and yet, would continue for pages, whereas here, it's like two cute young first time drunks who are amusing, yet silly, lacking the feeling of immediacy of the faithful , non-colloquial, Ormsby-Douglas-Jones translation.
Edith Grossman has a few things working to her advantage though. 1. She's a beautiful writer, and translator and has a natural ear for smoothness and rhythm. 2. It's got to be fuckin' hard to fuck up Don Quixote, if you actually know how to translate 3. Most of the folks who have praised her work, have never read Don Quixote before (?) and so perhaps they attribute the greatness of the novel to her translation(?). 4. The Audiobook version performed by George Guidall is transcendent. Many readers today are not readers at all, rather, commuters who listen to books on CD. I've heard a bit of the Audiobook version and it's impossible to fully describe or even figure out how Mr. Guidall came to add so much seemingly appropriate and nuanced interpretation to the text.
In the Grossman version, the effect of all the "smoothing" also causes it to have less peaks and valleys which, are very much needed in a work so long-winded and verbose.
for instance, take the following passage from the old version, and compare it with the new,
The Old (Ormsby) translation:
"Thou art a bad Christian, Sancho,"
said Don Quixote on hearing this,
"for once an injury has been done thee thou never forgettest it:
but know that it is the part of noble and generous hearts not to attach importance to trifles.
What lame leg hast thou got by it, what broken rib, what cracked head,
that thou canst not forget that jest?
For jest and sport it was, properly regarded,
and had I not seen it in that light
I would have returned and done more mischief in revenging thee than the Greeks did for the rape of Helen,
who, if she were alive now,
or if my Dulcinea had lived then,
might depend upon it she would not be so famous for her beauty as she is;"
and here he heaved a sigh and sent it aloft;
The new (Grossman) translation:
"You are a bad Christian Sancho,"
said Don Quixote when I heard this,
because you never forget an injury once it has been done to you:
but you should know that noble and generous bosoms do not pay attention to trifles.
were you left with a lame foot, a cracked rib, a broken skull,
is that why you never can forget the jest?
For if the matter is viewed correctly it was merely a jest and a diversion,
if I did not understand it in this way
i should have returned and in avenging you
inflicted more harm than the Greeks did because of the abducted Helen
who if she had lived in this time,
or my dulcinea lived in hers,
could be certain of not enjoying the reputation for beauty she had now.
Whereupon he heaved a sigh, and sent it heavenward;
In a paper titled, "The Text of Don Quixote as Seen by its Modern English Translators" by Daniel Eisenberg,
he states, "The most textually ignorant of the modern translators is Edith Grossman (2003). She states that she 'chose to use Martin de Riquer's edition because it is based on the first printing'... remaining blissfully unaware that de Riquer has published two quite different editions...of which, she used the older edition solely.
Eisenberg also mentions that Grossman was, "A professional translator intimidated by Cervantes scholarship, who states, "A lifetime would not be enough time to read it all (Cervantes scholarship), and I had a two years' contract"
In contrast the approach taken by Ormsby and Putnam was to, "to study the available materials, make decisions, and present the reader with the rationale used" resulted in a translation that was "head and shoulders above the rest".
And the point of a serious translation is an important one, because the text should be taken seriously,
and not moved or transformed or dumbed down,
nor should the humor and satire be played up,
or into, or in any other perpositionary or directional manner which differs from the original.
To treat the text as serious,
and to let the humor rest comfortably ensconced within the bosom of the ignorant "seriousness" of the characters,
rather than playing into their ignorance in a manner of lightly regarding their seriousness,
is to add an un-needed device or artifice to the text.
One of the many hooks of the novel is that all of us, on a deep semi-conscious, pre-psychotic level, hold vast narcissistic fantasies about ourselves that we feel may one day be realized, and in Don Quixote, we are allowed to view an indivdual, who, instead of waiting for fate to make the psychotic fantasy real, plunges headlong into the world, to force the hand of fate, and make his dream become real.
How does Don Quixote achieve this? by forcing himself into a conscious mental breakdown in midst of a mid-life crisis and his constant reading of chivalric tales, thus spurring his in-born desire to make a frantic, desperate and fool-hearty attempt to make something of his life before all is said and done. To think of himself as a Knight-errant, is a salvation to Don Quixote, and he is seemingly all too eager to die in the fantasy of attaining greatness, rather than to die in peaceful, anonymous repose in hermitage with his Books. He does what we all unconsciously wish we could do, and through the greatness of the novel over the centuries, he has surely, and undoubtedly attained his goal. Through the process of reading this book, and coming to know Don Quixote, we become a part of his inner circle and are transformed into part of his entourage, clinging desperately to his mighty arm for our own opportunity at greatness through association....
The fractionated, frequently interrupted and incessantly occupied and purged nation of Spain and it's subsequent national personality and history, includes a deep-set ethos of making ones own wealth and a tradition and dream to search and scour the lands, risking death, for the opportunity to earn greatness, wealth and a title or position. Such was the desire of the Conquistadores and the motivation for the colonization of the America's, the Phillipines and the world. The Quixotic desire was most certainly a Spanish dream, no less important, vital, nor seemingly graspable than for contemporary Americans who similarly seek an engagement with the American Dream.
As mentioned before, the version of Don Quixote I fell in love with, was the 1981 version based on the Ormsby translation. It had a bit of history to it, seeing that Dr. Kenneth Douglas, a French scholar began the translation, whereupon he died unexpectedly. His work was carried on to conclusion by Joseph Jones, a "cervantista" scholar who added 170 of supplementary materia for "the university student". It was known as the Ormsby-Douglas-Jones translation. It was widely used until it was suddenly and inexplicably replaced by a new, less authoritative translation meant for the general public.
Jones has the reputation for being one of only two translators who were Cervantes scholars prior to their translation projects. Therefore, as Eisenberg states, "it may be safely assumed that Jones consulted multiple editions and was aware of their textual differences."
In summary, it is hard to fall in love and to have those love letters replaced, revised, or even improved upon. If you fell in love with that person, through those letters, then they will always resonate more truly than any other.
so yeah, I love my old Ormsby-Douglas-Jones translation. I find it far superior.
No comments:
Post a Comment