3 ms·

Regarding Headley's work: At what point does a "translation" become "Interpretation"? There seems to be no argument in the several reviews/comments I have seen

Regarding Headley's work: At what point does a "translation" become "Interpretation"? There seems to be no argument in the several reviews/comments I have seen of the book, that she is claiming a literal translation or to understand Beowulf in a traditional sense. As a non-lit major, it seems past writers have attempted to capture the mechanisms and literal meaning and tone of the original, in the most accessible way possible for the language and dialect of the time. Headly said "fuck it" and used particularly modern slang to make almost a parody of the telling. I'm not offended by it, but /if/ it can be said that prior translators kept their bias and creativity to the minimum required to maintain story and poetic elements, she went far beyond such shackles. It therefore would never be considered a canonical work, even if it sees uptake in some classrooms.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Yeah, even this fairly-positive (ultimately) review ends up painting it more as an adaptation or workin-inspired-by-X than a translation. Almost a parody, even.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Every translation requires interpretation. Even if you tried to do a word-for-word dictionary translation of a book, you still have to make decisions about how to handle things like idioms, metaphors, and puns that don't necessarily make sense when translated directly. A lot of translations of verse also try to keep some sort of meter in the translation, which requires even more artistic interpretation. That's only compounded with a story like Beowulf where the only known extant copy has missing sections, typos, and intentional alterations from whatever it was originally transcribed from. >I'm not offended by it, but /if/ it can be said that prior translators kept their bias and creativity to the minimum required to maintain story and poetic elements One thing that can be interesting to look at is the things that prior translators tried to avoid or gloss over in their translations. If you look at public domain translations from the 19th and 20th centuries, you'll see that the translators often go through great pains to avoid even a hint of sexuality or vulgarity. The most infamous example I can think of is Catullus 16, a poem that begins with the speaker threatening to insert his penis into various orifices of his rivals. Some translations totally skipped those lines of the poem. Or partially translated them like Sir Richard Francis Burton in 1894 ("I'll . . . you twain and . . . Pathic Aurelius!"). Some liven the lines in with a bit of euphemism while still sounding clinical ("I will make you my boys and bone you, sexually submissive Aurelius"), from ET Merrill in 1893. Some translations jazz it up with literal descriptions of the actions while keeping the aggressive tone ("I'll sodomize and face-fuck you, submissive Aurelius"), some turn into steretypical Xbox Live users ("I'll push your shit in and stuff your face, Aurelius you stupid cocksucker") etc. It's also worth keeping in mind that a translation for the 19th century won't have the same impact on a modern audience as it would then, at least without additional context. e.g. Calling someone pathic would've been like using a homophobic slur back in the day. I think Headley's translation actually does a good job of that even when it isn't so literal. "#blessed" was a bit silly. But the opening along the lines of "Bro! Back in my day, everyone knew what men were: brave, bold, glory bound, but I’ll sound the Spear-Danes’ song, hoarded for hungry times" really sets the tone of "crusty drunk dude at the bar telling you a badass and exaggerated story". Older translations just don't do that for me: Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
All translation is interpretation. Every language carries it's own nuance, which rarely translates directly to another. When translators fail to acknowledge this, they end up doing the interpretation unconsciously, and often mangle the piece. An example I can think of off the top of my head is Max Stirner's "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (Either "The Unique and it's Property" or "The Ego and It's Own" depending on your choice of translation) was originally translated into English by Steven Tracy Byington. The translation is bad, missing pretty much all subtext included in the German, for example, translating the identical first and last lines of the book differently. Now, in their respective contexts, each translation of that line is reasonable, but by translating them differently that piece of humor is missed. The Wolfi Landstriecher translation, on the other hand, attempts to maintain the symmetry, perhaps at the cost of a more literal translation of the wording.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Yeah, even this fairly-positive (ultimately) review ends up painting it more as an adaptation or workin-inspired-by-X than a translation. Almost a parody, even.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

Every translation requires interpretation. Even if you tried to do a word-for-word dictionary translation of a book, you still have to make decisions about how to handle things like idioms, metaphors, and puns that don't necessarily make sense when translated directly. A lot of translations of verse also try to keep some sort of meter in the translation, which requires even more artistic interpretation. That's only compounded with a story like Beowulf where the only known extant copy has missing sections, typos, and intentional alterations from whatever it was originally transcribed from. >I'm not offended by it, but /if/ it can be said that prior translators kept their bias and creativity to the minimum required to maintain story and poetic elements One thing that can be interesting to look at is the things that prior translators tried to avoid or gloss over in their translations. If you look at public domain translations from the 19th and 20th centuries, you'll see that the translators often go through great pains to avoid even a hint of sexuality or vulgarity. The most infamous example I can think of is Catullus 16, a poem that begins with the speaker threatening to insert his penis into various orifices of his rivals. Some translations totally skipped those lines of the poem. Or partially translated them like Sir Richard Francis Burton in 1894 ("I'll . . . you twain and . . . Pathic Aurelius!"). Some liven the lines in with a bit of euphemism while still sounding clinical ("I will make you my boys and bone you, sexually submissive Aurelius"), from ET Merrill in 1893. Some translations jazz it up with literal descriptions of the actions while keeping the aggressive tone ("I'll sodomize and face-fuck you, submissive Aurelius"), some turn into steretypical Xbox Live users ("I'll push your shit in and stuff your face, Aurelius you stupid cocksucker") etc. It's also worth keeping in mind that a translation for the 19th century won't have the same impact on a modern audience as it would then, at least without additional context. e.g. Calling someone pathic would've been like using a homophobic slur back in the day. I think Headley's translation actually does a good job of that even when it isn't so literal. "#blessed" was a bit silly. But the opening along the lines of "Bro! Back in my day, everyone knew what men were: brave, bold, glory bound, but I’ll sound the Spear-Danes’ song, hoarded for hungry times" really sets the tone of "crusty drunk dude at the bar telling you a badass and exaggerated story". Older translations just don't do that for me: Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

All translation is interpretation. Every language carries it's own nuance, which rarely translates directly to another. When translators fail to acknowledge this, they end up doing the interpretation unconsciously, and often mangle the piece. An example I can think of off the top of my head is Max Stirner's "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (Either "The Unique and it's Property" or "The Ego and It's Own" depending on your choice of translation) was originally translated into English by Steven Tracy Byington. The translation is bad, missing pretty much all subtext included in the German, for example, translating the identical first and last lines of the book differently. Now, in their respective contexts, each translation of that line is reasonable, but by translating them differently that piece of humor is missed. The Wolfi Landstriecher translation, on the other hand, attempts to maintain the symmetry, perhaps at the cost of a more literal translation of the wording.