Acknowledgement of translators' names

[Eric]

While the British press certainly reviews literary translations - when there are any to review - the alarming habit still prevails where a reviewer waxes lyrical about some book originally written in a foreign language - but forgets to mention the translator at all.

A translator of a novel, book of short-stories, or poetry collection should not be equated with a typist who simply copies. A translator needs to know the source and target languages and cultures like the back of his or her hand.

It is disappointing when the quick-read, quick-review merchants dash off some elegant little piece about a book they have half-read under the pressure of work, while the translator, under the pressure of doing the book credit, has to read and translate every single sentence in the whole book.

Translators don't need to stand in the Klieg lights of fame, a simple acknowledgement of the fact that they are go-betweens between author and reader would suffice.

 

[Mirabell]

In my copy of Vargas Llosa's The Time and The Hero (Faber&Faber) even the publisher seems reluctant to name names. There is NO mention of the book's being a translation nor indeed of the translator in question.

 

[Eric]

As Mirabell rightly implies, you cannot expect a reviewer to mention the translator if even the publisher is unwilling or reluctant to do so in the book itself. And for some Brits and Americans, the whole idea of translation is so vague and cloudy that they wouldn't even miss the absence of translator's name.

 

[Loki]

Wow, is this what awaits me? It's a pity they get little credit, after all their work. Personally, and as you say, I don't want to stand in the Klieg lights of fame (whatever they are...) but it would be nice at least to be recognised.

At least in the books I have the translator is always mentioned either on the front page or in the first pages. That's something at least.

 

[hdw]

In Britain, translators - like lexicographers - tend to be "harmless drudges" (© Dr. Samuel Johnson) whom no-one has ever heard of, but in many other countries the major works of British and American literature have often been translated by well-known authors, who see translation as part of their literary endeavours and nothing to be ashamed of.

I know we have a couple of novelists in the UK - Julian Barnes, Sebastian Foulkes - who seem to be keen on France and French literature, but by and large you couldn't imagine the average British writer having the linguistic skills to do literary translations. They're more likely to do what Christopher Logue did when writing his version of Homer - not knowing a word of ancient Greek, he worked from a literal translation of the original, making his own version rather than a translation as such.

Given the increasingly low status of languages in UK educational circles, we will have fewer people than ever in future capable of doing translations.

Harry

 

[Loki]

Given the increasingly low status of languages in UK educational circles, we will have fewer people than ever in future capable of doing translations.
Harry

Unfortunately this phenomenon is more widespread than just the UK. But, you know, nowadays you can use Google Translate.


As for well-known writers translating foreign literature, in Italy Eugenio Montale e Salvatore Quasimodo come to my mind.

 

[Eric]

The status and reputation of literary translators is an international problem, not confined to the UK. Here in Sweden the same battles are being fought, although the intake of translations from abroad that are not bestsellers is better than in Britain.

But in the latest copy of the Swedish magazine "Författaren" (The Author) there are articles that affect not only translators, but authors and small publishers about "bestsellerism". Not all Swedes are thrilled that a bunch of crime novelists have virtually monopolised what goes for Swedish literature in other countries.

Translators should be well paid and courteously treated. If the reviewer thinks the translation is crap, he should allude and hint, give examples, not just sweepingly say that the translation is bad (or "mellifluously wonderful").

I learnt the expression "Klieg lights" from my dad, many years ago. Evidently in early films the actors had the very bright spotlights (invented by someone called Klieg) shone in their eyes, so they got "Klieg eye", an ailment I'm not quite sure about, but can look up on Google.

 

[Eric]

Has anyone tried putting Montale (of "scuttlefish" fame) or Quasimodo (of Notre Dame fame) through one of those translation machines on the internet? That would give an idea as to how dispensible or indispensible human literary translators are.

A volume containing poems by both came out in the Penguin Poets series back in the 1960s or 1970s.

 

[Loki]

Out of curiosity I have, just now. Fortunately the result is terrible, to say the least.
Just two quick things:
- the translator missed a "not", making a negative sentence positive.
- the word "piove" (it's raining) is repeated several times in this poem, yet everytime the translation changes: it's raining, rain, raining, rains.

 

[Eric]

Fortunately, you say. Quite true. We literary translators, despite our foibles and mistakes, don't want to be out of a job too soon. Though even human translators can miss out a "not" and alter the meaning.

The word is, of course "cuttlefish", but I was feeling in a punning mood when thinking about the sepia-squirting creature.

 

[pesahson]

In Britain, translators - like lexicographers - tend to be "harmless drudges" (© Dr. Samuel Johnson) whom no-one has ever heard of, but in many other countries the major works of British and American literature have often been translated by well-known authors, who see translation as part of their literary endeavours and nothing to be ashamed of.

I know we have a couple of novelists in the UK - Julian Barnes, Sebastian Foulkes - who seem to be keen on France and French literature, but by and large you couldn't imagine the average British writer having the linguistic skills to do literary translations. They're more likely to do what Christopher Logue did when writing his version of Homer - not knowing a word of ancient Greek, he worked from a literal translation of the original, making his own version rather than a translation as such.

Given the increasingly low status of languages in UK educational circles, we will have fewer people than ever in future capable of doing translations.

Harry

For a long time I didn't pay any attention to who the translator was until only later in life. All of the books I have do have the name of the translator mentioned (I can't imagine it any other way, to be honest).

Writers and poets would be ideal translators I think. Not only do you need some writing talent to do translations but a well known name might be a bait for the readers, maybe. I knew that Czesław Miłosz did translations but I had to do some research to find the details and what I've learned is quite impressive! He learned Greek and Hebrew only to translate some of the books of the Bible. He also translated from English (W.B.Yeats and T. Eliot among others). Stanisław Barańczak, a poet and a lecturer, is famous for his translations of Shakespeare. Tadeusz Boy Żeleński (a writer, poet, critic, major figure of the Young Poland literary movement) translated over 100 books from French. He basically established French literature in Poland. Adam Zagajewski and Wisława Szymborska also did their share of translations.

Come to think of it, the state of foreign fiction isn't that bad in PL. Everybody complains about the embarassingly low reading rates but universities don't cease to produce philologists of all kind each year and many of them do dabble in translations. It might not give you a life of luxury, but let's face it, PL is still struggling so being not-so-well-off isn't uncommon.

 

[Eric]

I know a Latvian poet, Uldis Berzins, who also doubles up as a translator from several languages into his native Latvian. He has translated from Turkish and a couple more Turkic languages from Central Asia and was on a grant to the Netherlands when I met him about 15 years ago, newly translating the Book of Job from the original Hebrew.

Sadly, many writers and other intellectuals from the English-speaking countries almost regard it as a point of honour not to know any other languages. They think it may taint their writing if they were to read too much Rimbaud, Lorca, or Goethe in the original, I suppose.

I don't think I've ever read any poetry by Boy, though I have a book of Mloda Polska poetry on my shelves.

When I was young, I didn't pay much attention to the names of translators either, but since I've become one myself things have changed. You become quite sensitive with regard to your profession.

 

[Elie]

Has anyone else noticed that in the blue Wordsworth Classics editions, they don't seem to name the translator AT ALL? I noticed this in a second hand copy of The Death Of Ivan Ilyich (Tolstoy) that I picked up, which irritated me, so I checked the only other Wordsworth Classics edition I have (Les Miserables) and I couldn't find the translator mentioned in there either.I realise these are cheap editions of classics probably using out of copyright translations, but surely this isn't right? You wouldn't print either of those books without mentioning the author so why not the translator too?

 

[Eric]

I like Wordsworth Classics, when it comes to buying cheap English classics. But we translators soon get enraged when we are ignored. Especially when a playwright uses a translation to create his or her adaptation, without acknowledging the translator that made his or her adaptation possible. So it was nice to hear that Shaun Whiteside, a British translator of, among others, Amélie Nothomb, was mentioned when BBC Radio did a recent adaptation of a Freud document that he had translated and had been turned into a radio play by Deborah Levy, the novelist and playwright. There should be many more such acknowledgements.

Wordsworth Classics are by no means the only culprits. Amazon and Waterstone's appear to farm out the collation and collection of information about authors and books, and these people, sadly, haven't a clue about translators and where they should put their names, presumably because of a David Walliams style "computer says no" policy by the uneducated geeks that construct the computer programmes.

But we translators are not merely typists, or printers, or marketing managers. We have to have an intimate relationship with every word that the author wrote, and the cultural, historical and geographical backround. So every word is a problem we have to tackle, in order that the millions of British and American readers who cannot read foreign languages have some access to the rest of the world.

Another factor is copyright and after seventy years the book, and presumably the translation, goes out of copyright, so there is an indecent scramble among classics publishers to be the first to nab the potential sales of a book just leaving copyright. There appears to be a whole market in pouncing on new authors just after copyright runs out. So it is now the turn of works still in copyright until 1942 and before. For instance, I believe that the reason that Joyce's "Ulysses" has just been retranslated into Swedish is because the copyright has just run out. Whilst "Ulysses" was written in 1922, Joyce died in 1941, which is seventy-one years back, this year. Some publishers appears to be obsessed with the cheapness of being able to build up a stock of classics on their list without having to pay the author. So as soon as the seventy years is up, they pounce.

 

[Eric]

A small addition:

The reason to disguise the translator's name may also be to hide the fact that the translation is decades old, in our age of obsessive updating. So Wordsworth may be trying to flog a translation from the 1930s, which has been out of copyright for the appropriate length of time so that the publishing house doesn't have to pay.

When, for instance, a Dostoevsky book has been retranslated for the umpteenth time this last decade, Wordsworth will still be selling an older translation, and keeping quiet about it. And if the translation is not yet out of copyright, this could cause further problems. We have to assume that Wordsworth is being honest, but we obviously can't tell whether it is if the name of the translator is omitted completely.

 

[Eric]

They are not very good at all in Britain, when it comes to mentioning the translator. For instance, the Portobello publishing house, which publishes quite a bit of literature in translation, makes no mention on their website of the fact that book is translated for the most, let alone who did the work. Even though the owner, Sigrid Rausing, is herself a translation, being Swedish by birth. And neither the London Review of Books bookshop, nor the Guardian one, are very good on this count either. You frequently see reviews in British dailies where the translator is simply not mentioned either.

I reckon that some people wonder why you should mention the translator if you don't also mention the printer, graphicist, cover designer, editor, proofreader, etc., who all made the publication of the book possible. But a translator has to read and translate every single sentence in the book, even if it is 300 pages long, thus acquiring a very intimate relationship to the text. He or she is in effect re-creating the book.

Mentioning the translator on a regular basis would draw people's attention to the fact that translation is an art and a skill, far above what is needed to merely type out the text.