Philip Harvey
When Georges Perec’s French novel La Disparition, a text
missing the letter E, was translated into English (‘Anglais’ preferred in this
context), many people asked, Why? The literary challenge of writing a book
without the main vowel was one of Perec’s interests. Indeed, it was his
purpose, because it drew attention to something overwhelmingly vital that was
actually missing. One never reads the book in French without thinking that the
main letter isn’t there, which is what Perec wanted his reader to think. This
absence was a reminder of other absences in postwar France that haunted Perec
and his audience. He draws attention to absence through the artifice of his
book, and by its very linguistic structure.
An English translation in which E has been elided might seem
perverse. Has the translator served literature well, or simply gone to
excessive trouble to repeat a trick that could not repeat the hidden message on
the French absence? Translation is always going to lose something from the
original, this is a given, but how can anyone translate such a deliberately
contrary piece of literary writing without in fact creating a new work that has
only remote resemblance to the original?
These thoughts went through my mind when reading online
about Professor Dai Congrong’s newly published translation of James Joyce’s
Finnegans Wake into Chinese. She spent eight years translating the first third
of the book, reminiscent of the Italian release of their Finnegans Wake into
recognisable sections over a protracted period of time. Anna Livia Plurabelle
is gorgeous in Italian, confirming that rivers of the world have different ways
of flowing. The report in last week’s Guardian reminds us “the book’s language
is thick with multilingual puns and brazenly defies grammatical conventions.”
That’s just for a start, some would say.
The question with a Chinese Finnegans Wake is not whether
one can be faithful to the original, or work with approximations, or at least
give the gist, but whether one is in fact writing a whole new work. How on
Earth does a Chinese translator get at the hundreds of multiple meanings, many
of them operating across several European languages, existing on a single
page? Not to mention the notgoaheadplot
itself, where characters have no sooner formed some sort of identity than they
morph into someone else, or something else like a rock, have their name changed
for them without consultation, or speak in a non-cohesive fashion? Dai Congrong
explains her approach in an interview:
"The things I lost are mostly the sentences, because
Joyce's sentences are so different from common sentences," she says,
adding that she often broke them up into shorter, simpler phrases – otherwise,
the average reader "would think that I just mistranslated Joyce. So my
translation is more clear than the original book."
Yet she took great pains to remain as faithful to the
original as possible. "For example, there was a phrase in Finnegans Wake
that said 'sputtering hand', which might mean shaky. If I translated it as
'shaky hand', that would be OK – in Chinese it's a good sentence. However, I
just translated it as 'sputtering hand'. Sputtering and hand cannot be put
together in Chinese grammar, but I put the two together anyway."
I wonder which signs in Chinese she used for ‘sputtering
hand’ and what those words mean in turn in the original Chinese language. How
many meanings are there in the Chinese that are not even in the Wakese? Are the
myriad short phrases in Chinese (her solution) a new form of Chinese poetic
prose? Where is all of this cross-fertilisation going?
Hugo Rahner, the brother of the German Jesuit theologian
Karl Rahner, once remarked of that theologian’s at times difficult writing
style, that one day someone will translate him into German. Then, by
implication, we will all understand. This anecdote occasionally comes to mind
when reading Finnegans Wake, a book that starts making more sense the more we
translate it back into the English it is supposed to be written in. We accept
that English is the language platform and operating system upon which Finnegans
Wake does its performances. We can at least see English in there amidst the
vocabulary, which is helpful sometimes. But if it has to be translated into
English, what happens in Chinese?
Apparently the first volume of Fennigen de Shouling Ye has
“sold out its first run of 8,000 copies and reached number two on a prestigious
bestseller list in Shanghai, second only to a biography of Deng Xiaoping.”
Reactions to the book may prove to be as distraught and confused and amused as
those of the Parisian intelligentsia (bourgeois through and through, not a
Maoist in sight) who first came to terms with Work in Progress through the
1920s and 30s. I like the translator’s cautious promotion of the book for her
native readers: “Dai ventures that Chinese readers may appreciate Joyce's
rumination on the cyclical nature of history, the relationships between his
male and female characters, and the sheer challenge of interpreting his prose.”
This suggests that there is a readership in China for Joyce at his craziest and
most dextrously linguistic. This is good news, I would suggest. It is welcome
to know that her contract covers the remaining two-thirds of the novel, and
that Dai has no qualms about continuing.
But beyond its immediate impact on Chinese readers, I keep
thinking of something once argued by Joyce’s rumbustious colleague in Paris,
Ezra Pound. Pound himself had translated from the Chinese, some think it is
amongst his greatest work, and he held as a tenet that English literature is
nourished by translation and that the great ages of English literature are
great ages of translation. Dai’s is a truly awesome achievement. After the
hubbub of first release subsides, I think one of the most interesting things
that will come out of this work will be its impact on literary Chinese. The
translator has possibly contributed greatly to the poetic of 21st century
Chinese literature. Dai Congrong has contributed to Chinese literature itself by
presenting a book like no other, an imaginative expression of time and human
behaviour like no other. Its real impact will be long-term on other writers in
Chinese, who stand to benefit by Dai’s play with Wakese. As she says, “I think
it's a very great book – after I read Finnegans Wake… I'll think oh, this
writer used a sentence that's too traditional, too simple, and if he can
experiment more with his sentences then he might be able to express different
things."
Comments
Post a Comment