The original language of a text before translation very much affects its meaning. A clear example can be found within the works of Samuel Beckett, an Irish author who wrote many of his plays in French, his second language, which he explained as a way to achieve his to desire to write without style. While the first publishing of these works was in French, Beckett also retranslated these works to be published in English. Among the works Beckett wrote in French before translating to English was his play, Waiting For Godot. Within Waiting For Godot, two men, Vladamir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), wait for over a day to be met by the titular character, Godot, conversing while they wait (this feels like a really simplistic explanation; I’m really sorry… google it- it’s among my favorite plays, if not my very favorite). Still, through two acts of this waiting, Godot never shows. Even so, Didi and Gogo never stop waiting. The play ends with them suspended in this action, the final words of the play being a stage direction, “They do not move”*. A common interpretation of the play is that Godot is a symbol for God. Among the most common reasons to support this claim lie in the Godot’s name itself. Becket rejected this interpretation, going as far as to say at one point that he regretted calling the character Godot because of the association. At one point Beckett pointed out that the association between God and Godot due to the name is only an english one, saying, “It would be fatuous of me to pretend that I am not aware of the meanings attached to the word 'Godot', and the opinion of many that it means 'God'. But you must remember – I wrote the play in French”**. The french word for God is Dieu; it’s not similar to Godot.
There is no such thing as a “perfect translation’; a work’s meaning is very much affected by its translation. Even if not affected by the interpretation of the translator, a work’s meaning or interpretation can be affected by the language in which its written. Waiting For Godot is a good example of this; even when translated by its author, in taking on a new language with different forms and constraints, it takes on a transformed (or at least affected) meaning.
While not very different from the original text, this translation of Aura is different enough. It’s not without omission, for example, on the 4/5th page as it describes the wait for the bus, the Spanish says, ‘You wait for the bus, light a cigarette, and silently repeat the dates that you have to memorize so those drowsy children will respect you,’ while the English says, “As you wait for the bus, you run over the dates you must have on the tip of your tongue so that your sleepy students will respect you." Beyond these tiny omissions are other small changes, in the Spanish version of the ad the offer is 3,000 pesos, not 4,000. The translation of the opening line is technically ‘You’re reading that advertisement’ not “You’re reading the advertisement” (3). All in all, these changes are minor. It's not likely that they really affect the interpretation of aura. Still, larger changes do exist. At various points the Spanish uses the future tense, while the english translation stays in the present. For example, on page 110/111 the English says “You murmur her name” while the Spanish, if more directly translated, says ‘You will again murmur her name’. The entire closing paragraph on page 112/113 is written in the Spanish future tense, but in the english present; the direct translation of the spanish says,
‘The two of them will rise at the same time, Consuelo from the chair, Aura from the floor. They will both turn their back on you, they will walk pausingly to the door that leads to the widow’s bedroom, together they will enter the room where the lights tremble in front of the images, they will close the door behind them, they will leave you to sleep in Aura’s bed.’
while the English reads,
“The two of them get up at the same moment, Consuelo from the chair, Aura from the floor. Turning their backs on you, they will walk slowly toward the door that leads to the widow’s bedroom, enter that room where the lights are forever trembling in front of the images, close the door behind them, and leave you to sleep in Aura’s bed.”
These changes are not mistakes, but decisions made by the translator and, while some of them are small, I would argue that the decisions made do affect interpretation. I would argue that this is particularly true of the changes in tense. In a book where the passage of time in so important, can the use of the future tense really be seen as without impact? I would say that the use of the future tense deepens the sense of possession, especially when applied to Felipe’s actions and furthers the sense of the continuity and cyclical-ness within the text. Although these conclusions are still drawn from the translated text, the translation does affect the interpretation, or at least the depth of the effect.
*I don’t have my copy with me, but I have this line memorized.This stage direction closes both acts, also making it the closing direction of the play.
**I’m pulling this from the wikipedia, so you can find it there (aka here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot)
No comments:
Post a Comment