It's very interesting that you hated Vonnegut's original. I hated the translators who lied to me once I read the originals.
The work of the translator (in my view) is not to make the original "better" and certainly not to embellish it with all kind of synonymous and "deep" meaning. The work of the translator is to read as closely as possible, understand the text and to produce a text as close to the original as possible in the other language. English has many more words than Russian, if the author wanted more words, they would have used them, if the author wanted existential, they would have done that. Each writing has its purpose and does the work in its way. Not everything should be reduced to the style the translator prefers (even for political reasons).
I'm still very cautious about Russian translations and prefer English ones for books I can't read in the original language. Even now, I hear some Russian translators brag how they "fix weak parts of the original, if they see it". A very bizarre tradition (to me, again).
I didn’t hate Vonnegut’s original because I haven’t read it. I hated Salinger’s, and only because I already loved the translation that was not too close. Who knows if I would have liked the book in original if I had been able to read in English as a teenager?
I worked as a translator and an editor, and there are several translation schools. None of them is superior; they are just different in their approaches. One good example is Eugene Onegin; Nabokov wrote extensively about the work's complexity.
So one school is to try and keep everything as it is, not changing anything for the reader’s ease. The length should stay in miles, the weight in pounds, etc. — but also the geographical names, the surrounding objects, the consequences. The result of this approach is that if the reader knows nothing about the setup, they are lost, miss much of the content, and get bored easily. The poetic sound of the author’s voice is also lost because you try to be as precise as possible.
Another school tries to retain the unique author’s voice, keeping what can be kept and removing or changing things that would fall through the cracks for the reader. It works better for the reader who knows close to nothing about the surroundings. And it’s easier, more pleasant to read. The goal is to bring the foreign into the comfort of the known. But of course it’s cringy for someone who could access the original; it’s just not the target audience for the translation.
No translation would be as good as the original. I think every translation is inevitably a lie.
However, it’s difficult to compare current En>Ru translations with Soviet ones. Now both translators and readers have access to the tools and information that weren’t available back then. I read a book in a language I don’t know using DeepL last week, and it wasn’t too bad. This just wasn’t possible a decade ago.
I still think Soviet translators did a great job with what they had. What is happening in the market for translated literature now is another question, and I have some opinions, but for this post, it was outside my scope.
Yes, I know about all this now. But it would be great if the Soviet translators had written a disclaimer: "This is a creative adaptation according to my taste", cause I naively assumed that it was close to the original text.
Readers are different. Some readers like to do the work themselves and are bored by the same embellished style, where everything is spoon-fed to them. As a reader, I like it when the translator (and the author) respects me and my ability to do the work and research. I do realize that I might be in the minority here.
And then, I am all for retaining the author's unique voice but it did not sound like "The Catcher in the Rye" was translated like this from your description, sounded more like it was transformed in something completely different.
Have you heard about Максим Немцов’s modern translation of Salinger? He really tried to do it very close to the original. I am curious about your opinion, if we compare the original, Soviet version, and Maxim’s one.
I only read the original of Salinger. I will check both translations if I can find them. (but of course being close to the original is not the only explectation from a text)
It's very interesting that you hated Vonnegut's original. I hated the translators who lied to me once I read the originals.
The work of the translator (in my view) is not to make the original "better" and certainly not to embellish it with all kind of synonymous and "deep" meaning. The work of the translator is to read as closely as possible, understand the text and to produce a text as close to the original as possible in the other language. English has many more words than Russian, if the author wanted more words, they would have used them, if the author wanted existential, they would have done that. Each writing has its purpose and does the work in its way. Not everything should be reduced to the style the translator prefers (even for political reasons).
I'm still very cautious about Russian translations and prefer English ones for books I can't read in the original language. Even now, I hear some Russian translators brag how they "fix weak parts of the original, if they see it". A very bizarre tradition (to me, again).
I didn’t hate Vonnegut’s original because I haven’t read it. I hated Salinger’s, and only because I already loved the translation that was not too close. Who knows if I would have liked the book in original if I had been able to read in English as a teenager?
I worked as a translator and an editor, and there are several translation schools. None of them is superior; they are just different in their approaches. One good example is Eugene Onegin; Nabokov wrote extensively about the work's complexity.
Nabokov also tried translating Alice in Wonderland (Аня в Стране чудес), the version I didn’t like as a child (I mentioned the problems of the translation of Alice in the post https://anchorberlin.substack.com/p/my-stories-happen-to-have-tails).
So one school is to try and keep everything as it is, not changing anything for the reader’s ease. The length should stay in miles, the weight in pounds, etc. — but also the geographical names, the surrounding objects, the consequences. The result of this approach is that if the reader knows nothing about the setup, they are lost, miss much of the content, and get bored easily. The poetic sound of the author’s voice is also lost because you try to be as precise as possible.
Another school tries to retain the unique author’s voice, keeping what can be kept and removing or changing things that would fall through the cracks for the reader. It works better for the reader who knows close to nothing about the surroundings. And it’s easier, more pleasant to read. The goal is to bring the foreign into the comfort of the known. But of course it’s cringy for someone who could access the original; it’s just not the target audience for the translation.
No translation would be as good as the original. I think every translation is inevitably a lie.
However, it’s difficult to compare current En>Ru translations with Soviet ones. Now both translators and readers have access to the tools and information that weren’t available back then. I read a book in a language I don’t know using DeepL last week, and it wasn’t too bad. This just wasn’t possible a decade ago.
I still think Soviet translators did a great job with what they had. What is happening in the market for translated literature now is another question, and I have some opinions, but for this post, it was outside my scope.
Yes, I know about all this now. But it would be great if the Soviet translators had written a disclaimer: "This is a creative adaptation according to my taste", cause I naively assumed that it was close to the original text.
Readers are different. Some readers like to do the work themselves and are bored by the same embellished style, where everything is spoon-fed to them. As a reader, I like it when the translator (and the author) respects me and my ability to do the work and research. I do realize that I might be in the minority here.
And then, I am all for retaining the author's unique voice but it did not sound like "The Catcher in the Rye" was translated like this from your description, sounded more like it was transformed in something completely different.
(Sorry for the Vonnegut-Salinger confusion)
Have you heard about Максим Немцов’s modern translation of Salinger? He really tried to do it very close to the original. I am curious about your opinion, if we compare the original, Soviet version, and Maxim’s one.
I only read the original of Salinger. I will check both translations if I can find them. (but of course being close to the original is not the only explectation from a text)
Just remembed though, that I know one translation of a poem that is not so close to the original (in some parts) but it just blows my mind still https://ruverses.com/sergey-esenin/oh-my-dear-maple/5222/