Here we go again – literal or liberal?
Months ago, in preparation for the Reading the Russian Revolution Challenge, I bought a copy of the Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky translation of Doctor Zhivago from Amazon. But, for reasons best known to themselves, they sent me a copy of the Max Hayward/Manya Harari translation instead. I’d probably not have been too fussed about this, except that I had also bought a copy of the audiobook to do a combined read/listen, so obviously it was important to have the same translation in each. So I acquired the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation too. (A sad footnote to this episode was when I discovered that the Audible audiobook, also listed as Pevear, is in fact the Hayward! It appears Amazon and Audible don’t really understand that different translations matter. They should be clearer now they’ve read my e-mails on the subject… 😉 )
So at the weekend I finally settled down to read. The Pevear/Volokhonsky is the most recent translation and my initial sketchy research had suggested they’re the go-to people for Russian translation at the moment. The Hayward/Harari is, I believe, the translation most people will be familiar with who read the book before 2010. I decided to read the first chapter of each and decide which I preferred. And that’s when it began to get complicated…
The Hayward/Harari seems to be generally recognised as a good but liberal translation, where they’ve kept the meaning but made changes to word order and vocabulary to make it read more naturally in English. Apparently they’ve also omitted the occasional bit and, from my own reading, have sometimes added a little extra to clarify something which might not be immediately obvious to a non-Russian. Pevear/Volokhonsky, however, is claimed to be a more literal translation, keeping not just the words but often the order, and striving to emulate the rhythms in the original. Here are some comparisons…
H/H – “There was a certain amount of unpleasantness, and there are certain consequences. For instance, I am banned from the civil service for quite a long time and I am forbidden to go to Moscow or Petersburg. But these are trifles.”
P/V – “There was some unpleasantness; it had its consequences. For instance, I can’t hold a government job for a long time. They won’t allow me in the capitals. But that’s all rubbish.”
In this one, H/H have clarified that the “capitals” are Moscow and St Petersburg. P/V have used “capitals” and then footnoted the explanation. On the one hand, this kind of thing makes H/H easier to read and simpler to understand on a superficial level. But on the other hand, it means that the reader is left unaware that the Russia of the time considered itself to have two capitals, an old (Moscow) and a new (St Petersburg), which, all my history reading of the last few months has led me to believe, is quite important to understanding the country and the revolution. P/V’s footnote clarifies this quite well. I’ve also never come across the term “civil service” in connection with government jobs in Russia – it’s a very British expression, I think.
P/V – A rain of clods drummed down as four shovels hastily filled the grave. Over it a small mound rose. A ten-year-old boy climbed onto it.
Only in the state of torpor and insensibility that usually comes at the end of a big funeral could it have seemed that the boy wanted to speak over his mother’s grave.
H/H – Clods of earth drummed on the lid like rain as the grave was filled hurriedly by four spades. A mound grew up on it and a ten-year-old boy climbed on top.
Only the numb and unfeeling condition which comes to people at the end of a big funeral could account for some of the mourners’ thinking that he wished to make an address over his mother’s grave.
Here, H/H have changed the structure of the sentences making them read more naturally and perhaps simplistically. P/V’s more literal translation follows the Russian structure, I assume, making it seem rather stilted and convoluted at points. On the other hand, I think P/V create a clearer image overall, and I prefer “torpor and insensibility” to “numb and unfeeling”.
H/H – During the night the boy, Yura, was woken up by a knocking at the window. The dark cell was mysteriously lit up by a flickering whiteness. With nothing on but his shirt, he ran to the window and pressed his face against the cold glass.
Outside there was no trace of the road, the graveyard or the kitchen garden, nothing but the blizzard, the air smoking with snow. It was almost as if the snowstorm had caught sight of Yura and, conscious of its power to terrify, roared, howled and did everything possible to attract his attention, revelling in the effect it had on him. Turning over and over in the sky, length after length of whiteness unwound over the earth and shrouded it. The blizzard was alone on earth and knew no rival.
P/V – During the night, Yura was awakened by a tapping at the window. The dark cell was supernaturally lit up by a fluttering white light. In just his nightshirt, Yura ran to the window and pressed his face to the cold glass.
Beyond the window there was no road, no cemetery, no kitchen garden. A blizzard was raging outside; the air was smoky with snow. One might have thought the storm noticed Yura and, knowing how frightening it was, revelled in the impression it made on him. It whistled and howled and tried in every way possible to attract Yura’s attention. From the sky endless skeins of white cloth, turn after turn, fell on the earth, covering it in a winding sheet. The blizzard was alone in the world; nothing rivalled it.
This third example is a little more bothersome to me. I like both these passages and think both translations convey a vivid picture of the snowstorm – my preference is for P/V. But ‘mysterious’ and ‘supernatural’ have distinctly different definitions and I am left wondering which translation catches Pasternak’s meaning. I suspect ‘supernatural’ might be closer, since even this first chapter shows me that religious belief or lack of it is going to be something of a theme in the book. But, when I started looking for other opinions on the two translations, Ann Pasternak Slater (Boris’s niece) points out in this interesting Guardian article, that, when describing the moon in a later passage, P/V have chosen “blackish purple”, while H/H have gone for “crimson” which Slater, herself a Russian speaker, thinks is closer to the meaning in the original. So P/V’s literal translation may not always convey the author’s intention better than H/H’s liberal one. (Or, of course, Slater could be wrong – being a relative of the author doesn’t necessarily confer greater depth of understanding. And I can’t help feeling crimson moons are a little banal while blackish purple ones are dramatically poetic…)
My final example is the one that I find most discombobulating…
P/V – As they passed by the Gordons’ compartment, wrapping the corners of their shoulders in shawls and turning the narrowness of the corridor into a source of fresh coquetry, it seemed to Misha that they hissed, or, judging by their compressed lips, meant to hiss: “Ah, just imagine, such sensitivity! We’re special! We’re intelligentsia! We simply can’t!”
H/H – When, with a coquettish wriggle of their shoulders for which the narrow passage offered an excuse, they passed the Gordons’ compartment, it seemed to Misha that through their pursed lips they must be hissing: “Gracious, what sensitive plants! They think they’re a special creation! They’re intellectuals! All this is too much for them!”
It seems to me that, on the surface, these two translations mean entirely different things, though I think P/V’s translation actually leaves the meaning quite unclear (“we simply can’t” what?). H/H suggest fairly strongly that the women were being rather dismissively anti-Semitic towards the Jewish Gordons (or at least that Misha thought they were), while P/V reads as if they were boasting instead about their own superior aristocratic sensitivity. Either works, but what was Pasternak’s intention? Having read the H/H version, I can now see that the P/V version could also be read as a snide comment on the Gordons, but I don’t think it’s at all clear. I studied Russian a little at school and while I’m entirely unable to understand the text in its original form, I can just about tell the difference between “they” and “we”. When I look at the text in Russian it undoubtedly uses “we”. But I suspect H/H may have caught the actual meaning better, perhaps by interpreting some nuance of language or punctuation that P/V have too literally translated. But in truth I have no idea…
I’ve decided to go with Pevear/Volokhonsky, because of that “capitals” thing, because overall I prefer their vocabulary choices, because the footnotes are good, and because they haven’t anglicised the Russian names quite so annoyingly as H/H (who use Nicky instead of Nika, for example). However, I’ll keep H/H to hand to help on those occasions that P/V leave the meaning unclear. But what do you think? Have you read either, or both, and if so what did you think of them? And if not, which do you think looks more enjoyable based on the examples?
FictionFan's Book Reviews 
From the extracts you quote, both translations seem a bit stilted to me. That’s unfair, of course — one can’t judge the flow of a text from short snippets — but I have to confess that neither versions seems currently very tempting.
I remember, aeons ago, starting Zhivago but not getting very far with it. I’m now thinking this might have something to do with the translation . . .
I remember the plot of the movie, though! It goes like this: Julie Christie.
LikeLike
I must admit that one of the major reasons I don’t enjoy Russian literature much is because the translations always seem stilted to me. It must be a particularly hard language to translate, I think – even translations from Japanese usually read more naturally to me. However, apart from the occasional dip into incomprehensibilty, I’m actually enjoying the P/V translation a lot now that I’m getting into it. They seem to have kept what I assume is Pasternak’s poeticism. Still not totally sure if I’m enjoying the book itself, though…
Oh, was she in it? I hope she doesn’t take too much screen time away from my Omar…
LikeLike
Ah, interesting debate. I’m always torn about this – not at all consistent. Sometimes I prefer the literal, sometimes the more liberal. I am planning to read Dostoevsky in multiple translations, to see which I prefer.
LikeLike
I’m inconsistent too – basically, if I’m not constantly aware of it being translated, then I assume it’s good, which may not necessarily be the case. I’m enjoying the P/V on the whole now that I’m further in – occasional incomprehensibility but made up for by the quality of the more descriptive passages. And excellent notes – much needed, since Pasternak assumes his readers will catch all the references to people and events of the period. Good idea re Dostoevsky, but I don’t think I have the strength of mind to read any Russian fiction twice! 😉
LikeLike
I tend to err more on the interpretive side of translation when I do it myself, by the way… But one of the authors I translated said he liked it better like that.
LikeLike
I think, on the whole, a bit of interpretation is a good thing, necessary even. It’s a tricky balancing act – I don’t want a “foreign” book to end up sounding British (or American) but I don’t want it to sound so foreign it’s clunky. So I don’t like things like H/H translating “government posts” into “civil service”, but I equally don’t like P/V leaving a sentence as “We simply can’t!” without interpreting the nuance that clearly must exist there…
LikeLike
I found a German published version of Doktor Schiwago which appears to have been printed in 1961. I bought it at an estate sale in Kansas City and it has a handwritten note in pencil dated February 1962. When I saw the movie in the mid 60’s I knew nothing of the history or the path to publication and the involvement of our own CIA. While I do not believe the book in my possession is historically or literally important, I am interested in the path to German publication. Interesting in that the book was sitting on a shelf above the fireplace in a home where all items were in German including the televisions and stereo. Simply stated I am /was intrigued. Can you shed any light or have any need from my copy of the novel?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the publishing history of the book in German. However, several years ago I read a book called The Zhivago Affair which told the story of the CIA’s involvement in getting it published. To be honest I can’t specifically remember now if it said anything about the German version, but it might have. Here’s a link to my review of it…
LikeLike
Interesting post. I can’t comment as I haven’t read Doctor Z, but can say that translators matter. They can make a huge difference in understanding nuances of the text. P&V I think have made it their life’s work to translate as much as possible of the Russian canon.☺️ I have yet to read their translation of The Brothers Karamazov, and compare it to my old Penguin one.
LikeLike
Absolutely – and not just from Russian! I went through this when reading Stendhal a few years ago, that time ending up with three versions before I found one I could bear, and even then I didn’t think it was great. I don’t really understand why it’s so hard – perhaps the differences in language actually make people from different nations think differently? However, I’m enjoying the P/V translation now I’m getting properly into it, so hopefully you’ll be impressed with their Karamazov… 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, this is a brilliant and very academic post, FF! Very well done. I haven’t read either, but I have seen the film and pictures of Omar Sharif are always very welcome. It is interesting how the different translations can be so diverse in parts. I remember doing a sort of similar exercise with translations of Latin and Greek texts in my Classics classes. I think for historical and non-fiction texts, a more literal translation is better. For creative and poetic pieces, a bit of fluidity is acceptable if it helps get across the general feeling to a ‘foreign’ reader. Not sure I like the westernising of the names, though. That’s a step too far.
LikeLike
Haha – thank you! Glad you enjoyed it! 😀 Yes, I’m looking forward to watching Omar – I can always fast forward through Julie’s bits. Funnily enough, the best translation from Russian I’ve read is Max Eastman’s translation of Trotsky’s History. He actually knew Trotsky well and was there for quite a lot of the events, I believe, so I suspect he understood every nuance of what Trotsky was saying, probably discussed the translation with him, allowing him to even get the humour and/or anger across. However, I’m enjoying the P/V translation quite a lot now I’ve got into it – occasionally incomprehensible, but they make up for it with some lovely language in the more descriptive parts… 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
This post has got me thinking ALL DAY about a particular piece from Livy where he was describing the passage of Hannibal across the Alps – one translation described the animals carrying supplies as donkeys the other as ‘baggage animals’ and I thought what a strange phrase ‘baggage animal’ is. The Latin was ‘iumentum’ as opposed to ‘asinus’ (donkey) so baggage animal was a more accurate translation, but it leaves unanswered questions about the type of animal – not elephants, they were mentioned elsewhere. Now, if anyone ever offers to carry my bags or suchlike I think of ‘baggage animal’. This has been going round my head all afternoon, now. Probably not your intended result for such a well researched and well presented post!
Also, I think it would have been fascinating to know Trotsky, but am now so preoccupied with baggage animals that I can hardly think of anything else.
LikeLike
Haha – sorry about that! But that is an interesting point, because if Livy left it unclear in the original then I’m not sure I think the translator should assume what kind of baggage animal it was. It’s the choice between readability and accuracy again. And if the baggage animal was actually a pony – like Bill in LOTR – imagine how hurt its feelings must be by all of posterity thinking it was a donkey… (I think I’ve just made myself sad…)
Trotsky’s the one that fascinates me most too – I wish I could track down a good bio of him… still trying!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, I have always refused to accept the donkey translation just in case. As you can see, it haunts me to this day 😉
If you do find a good bio you must let me know!!
LikeLike
Haha – it’s maths and science classes that haunt me – and I suspect they probably haunt my old teachers too… 😉
Will do!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, this is so interesting, FictionFan! I’ve often been torn between translations in exactly that way. Do you go for the more literal one? For the one that really captures the author’s intent (if you know what that is)? It’s difficult. In this case, I’d go for P/V for exactly the reasons you outline. But H/H has a lot to offer, too. And I really like the idea of looking at two translations of the same text in terms of understanding that original text. Oh, and you’ve put Omar in here, too! What more could one want? 😉
LikeLike
It’s always an issue with classics because there’s a choice. With modern fiction, you just have to take the translation that exists and either like it or not, but with the classics there are all kinds of questions. Should they keep it sounding ‘old-fashioned’ or modernise? Should they explain points a modern audience is unlikely to catch? I prefer P/V’s decision to explain obscure stuff in notes rather than trying to incorporate it into the text as H/H seem to have done in some cases, but I can see the advantages of either. I’m enjoying the P/V though, now that I’m further in… and I shall enjoying watching Omar afterwards… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love this article, as well as Omar—and I love Julie too, whoops! (Although I’d rather it was me in the picture and not her.) However in my copy of H/H, Nika isn’t anglicized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! Haha – yes, I’d like Julie much more myself if she’d only keep her hands off my Omar! 😉 That’s intriguing! I wonder if there are changes in different editions then? I only read the first chapter of each before deciding to go with the P/V and from then on I only dipped into the H/H occasionally for clarification. If memory serves me right, Nika was a child in that chapter, so I wonder if they used Nicky as a diminutive and then changed to Nika as he grew up? Sadly, I passed both books to the charity shop when I’d finished, so can’t check…
LikeLike
I read Zhivago so long ago that I don’t remember who the translator was, but it was during a period where almost any translation of a Russian book, especially one like Zhivago which had been smuggled out, was judged not on its merits but by its existence. I read a lot of Russian books around that time, and don’t remember Zhivago reading any better or worse than the others.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s kinda what happened with the H/H one, as I understand – they did it in a hurry just because pressure was on to get it out to the west. And it doesn’t seem to be bad, in any way – it’s very readable, so that’s probably why it’s survived as the main one for so long. But now that I’m further in, I do think the P/V is better from a purely literary point of view…
LikeLike
‘Russians are so long.
LikeLike
I know!! And not just the fiction – all the history books are monsters too!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I got one book and read it and never again.
LikeLike
Yeah, I feel much the same about Russian literature, but every few years I forget and read another one…
LikeLike
What an interesting post.I guess as I read Chicago many many moons ago, it must have been HH , but I’m rather with realthog, in that they both feel stilted: however not having read the original, I can’t comment further. I wonder what Shoshi and Karen, both steeped in Russian lit in translation, have to say to shed light. In my head is a memory of Constance Garnett being the translator of almost everything Russian, an age ago. Maybe that is false memory….
LikeLike
In my head is a memory of Constance Garnett being the translator of almost everything Russian, an age ago. Maybe that is false memory….
Nope. I remember it too.
LikeLike
I haven’t read enough Russian lit to know the best translators, but I’m sure I came across her when I was looking at Tolstoy – W&P perhaps. But I didn’t go with her in the end – can’t remember why now…
LikeLike
Ah, a collective unconscious ……………!
LikeLike
OMG! You’re…. the Borg!!
I suspect that’s you rather than realthog…
LikeLiked by 1 person
A major part of the reason I don’t really enjoy reading Russian fiction is that it always feels stilted to me – it must be a particularly hard language to translate. I’m sure I came across Constance Garnett when I was looking for a translation of something else – W&P perhaps. But of course she was dead before Zhivago was written, ruling her out rather as a candidate for that one… 😉 I must say I’m liking the P/V translation now I’m further in – they do leave me scartching my head from time to time, but they also do a great job in getting some lovely poeticism into the more descriptive passages. Still not 100% sure what I think of the actual book though…
LikeLike
So……why should that rule her out of translating from beyond the grave?? (!)
LikeLike
Perhaps she is! Perhaps she’s trying to channel someone through their dreams! I shall nap even more often than usual to give her every chance to come through…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, did you say something? I was looking at Julie.
LikeLike
Oh, is she in the picture? I can only see Omar…
LikeLike
This is really interesting – I find the subject of translations fascinating and often wish I had a better grasp of other languages in order to read books in their original tongues. I’ve read quite a few Pevear/Volkhonsky translations and have never been unhappy but since I don’t read Russian I have nothing to compare it too.
LikeLike
I do too, and have always regretted that other languages never came easily to me – even French, which I studied for years, I would find very hard to read anything complex in, and would miss nuance entirely. I’m enjoying the P/V now that I’m further in – they do leave me puzzled from time to time with an odd sentence structure or something that seems out of context, but on the other hand they do an excellent job of bringing what I assume is Pasternak’s poeticism through into the more descriptive passages…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Based on your examples I would also go with the P/V but use the H/H as a backup resource. It’s an interesting question. I often wonder when reading translated books how accurate the result is and as a reader am I really getting the author’s meaning.
LikeLike
It’s working quite well so far and I’m finding I’m referring less and less to H/H as I go along, so maybe my brain is getting more wired into P/V’s style. Yes, I do too – even German and French translations sometimes don’t “feel” quite right. And I always assume that if a translation flows well then it must be good – but that’s not necessarily the case, I suppose…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. Such differences between the texts! I would go P/V based on your reasoning.
LikeLike
It’s incredible, isn’t it? Any time I compare translations, I end up wondering how you can ever be sure how much of what you’re reading comes from the original author. However, I’m enjoying the P/V now that I’m further in… 🙂
LikeLike
Fascinating! I haven’t read Dr. Z, but the movie is beautiful. Yeah, I know, that’s taking the easy way out, ha! But who wouldn’t rather feast one’s eyes on Omar than wade through all those words on the printed page??!
LikeLike
Hahaha – now what kind of attitude is that to have? How will you feel when they turn your book into a movie and everybody decides just to watch it? 😉 He is rather lovely, though – watching the movie will be my reward for finishing the book…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gee, that’s not too likely with a debut novel, I imagine, but wow! Wouldn’t that be something?!!
LikeLike
You never know! I’ve told George Clooney to be on standby just in case… 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your post has made me realise why people learn a language for the specific reason of being able to read a book in the original language, although I can’t think of a book I love enough to do that! I preferred the Pevear/Volokhonsky excerpts as they seemed simpler…
LikeLike
Yes, I’d love to be able to read books in the original. But I’d think you’d have to be able to speak it like a native to really get the nuances. I don’t think being able to order steak and a red wine counts as fluent, sadly, though it’s always stood me in good stead whenever I’ve been in France… I’m enjoying the P/V now I’m into it a bit more. Still not sure about the actual book though…
LikeLike
I can’t comment on the story after falling asleep at the stage show! I do love Lara’s Theme though.
All of the foreign words I know are food words too, no hope of reading anything in another language except possibly a recipe book!
LikeLike
Haha – I find I’m nodding off quite often over the book… 😉 But at least we won’t starve. I can also say I love you in many languages – just so I’ll be safe if anyone ever invades us…
LikeLiked by 1 person
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting post! I read Doctor Zhivago a few years ago and it was the H/H translation, but I didn’t choose that one in particular – I just picked the book up from the library shelf on a whim, so had no choice. I have to admit, I didn’t enjoy it all that much, but I did find it perfectly readable so I don’t think the translation was to blame!
LikeLike
I’d have taken whichever one Amazon had sent me and thought no more about it if the mix-up hadn’t meant I ended up with both! I’m still not sure about the book either – about a third of the way through and it feels very light somehow, especially for Russian fiction…
LikeLike
I’ll be following your progress with interest though not envy. I’m afraid Zhivago is my least favourite Russian novel and I am convinced this is because of Pasternak rather than any of his translators. Still, if you end up with a winning edition I know what to start with if I can ever face a re-read.
LikeLike
I’m not much of an enthusiast for Russian fiction in general, though I’ve never quite been able to put my finger on why. So far I’m about a third in and still undecided. It doesn’t seem to have much depth so far, though I’m enjoying it in the context of all the revolutionary history I’ve been reading recently. I’m definitely enjoying the P/V translation now I’m more into it – willing to put up with the occasional incomprehensibility for the sake of the quality of the descriptive writing…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I’d be with you on the translation although that dangling sentence did bother me and I know I’d find that frustrating but the Civil Servants seemed to be an unnecessary Anglicisation turn of phrase. I did read this a long time ago though and I can’t remember having any issues and presume I read the P/V translation. I tend to assume the translation is good if I enjoy the book whereas you’ve shown us (and presumably told amazon) that it is far more complicated than that.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s usually how I judge – if it’s not constantly annoying me with clunkiness I think it’s good, but any time I compare translations and realise how different they can be, it leaves me wondering how often we’re not really getting what the author originally intended. Having said that, I’m enjoying the P/V translation mostly now, though there are still times when I’m left thinking “What?” Haha! Amazon and Audible should both be better informed on the subject of translations now… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, translations… the endless debate. I’m glad you decided on the P/V in the end, for the simple reason that that’s the translation I have, too.
A few years ago, I read this book that starts with a short story in English, then comes the same story in French, and then a translation of the French text back into English by someone who didn’t know the original story. It was fascinating to see how two translations changed the original text and how little things like using “bag” instead of “satchel” would change the picture the story painted.
LikeLike
You’ll be glad to hear I’m quite enjoying the P/V transaltion now I’m further in – it’s still leaving me saying “What?” occasionally, but the quality of the descriptive stuff makes up for it, and the notes at the back are very good at explaining the background.
That sounds like a fascinating exercise! I have a feeling I’ve heard that English has more words than most languages, so that we can use them alone to say what we mean, whereas in lots of other languagaes with fewer words, context and nuance are much more important – I wonder if that could be why translations vary so much in meaning and quality…
LikeLike
I haven’t read this book at all, but throughout your examples I liked the PV version better each time. The language is clearer, crisper. And if it takes a footnote to clarify, I’d rather have that than the clunkier language of the HH version. I’ve never compared a translation of one book to another translation before. I think the only opportunity I would have had to do so was when I took a Nietzsche class in grad school. However, we were told which translations the professor favored, and I was also trying to teach 3 courses on the side, so there wasn’t as much time for me to focus and explore as there should have been. Thanks for doing this post! I learned a lot!
LikeLike
Glad you enjoyed it! 😀 I never set out to compare them deliberately either. It only happens if I hate the first translation I try and decide to see if another’s better, or like in this case, where some mix up means I end up with more than one copy. But it’s always intriguing to see just how different they are, and it always leaves me wondering just how much of the flavour of the original we’re really getting…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating FF! I’ll be interested to see how you get on with it, it’s such a difficult choice. On more important matters: how ridiculously beautiful was Omar Sharif? My goodness *fans self*
LikeLike
He is rather lovely, isn’t he? I must give him a place in the hunks’ gallery more often… 😀
So far, I’m enjoying the translation – not so sure I’m enjoying the book though…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m editing (new edition) a book that uses a passage from Dr Zhivago to illustrate the Russian language. The author of the book was fluent in Russian (he compiled a Russian-English dictionary that’s been through several editions and is still popular), and he could easily have retranslated the passage himself if he felt the H/H was inadequate. Nonetheless, I thought I might replace it, given how much time has elapsed for something better to come along. Then, after reading the reviews of P/V, I thought, well, maybe I can combine the two, to capture the best of both. But no, there’s no point. P/V has nothing to offer. Compare the passage in question:
H/H
A spring evening. The air punctuated with scattered sounds. The voices of children playing in the streets coming from varying distances as if to show that the whole expanse is alive. And this expanse is Russia, his incomparable mother; famed far and wide, martyred, stubborn, extravagant, crazy, irresponsible, adored, Russia with her eternally splendid, and disastrous, and unpredictable adventures. Oh, how sweet to be alive! How good to be alive and to love life! Oh, the ever-present longing to thank life, thank existence itself, to thank them as one being to another being.
P/V
There outside is the spring evening. The air is all marked with sounds. The voices of children playing are scattered at various distances, as if to signify that the space is alive throughout. And this expanse is Russia, his incomparable one, renowned far and wide, famous mother, martyr, stubborn, muddle-headed, whimsical, adored, with her eternally majestic and disastrous escapades, which can never be foreseen! Oh, how sweet it is to exist! How sweet to live in the world and to love life! Oh, how one always longs to say thank you to life itself, to existence itself, to say it right in their faces!
Ugh! The P/V is awful. I can’t help but hear it in a cartoonish Russian accent. In comparison, the H/H is poetry. If I read it out loud a couple times, I start to choke up.
“Unpredictable” is clearly better than the puzzling “which can never be foreseen”. But the most substantial difference is right at the end – сказать это им самим в лицо (skazat’ eto im samim v litso). Yes, a literal translation is something like ‘to tell it to their selves in the face’, but Google Translate comes up with ‘to say it to them in person’, presumably an idiom that it’s been trained to recognize. I’m guessing, but I suspect that in Russia, as in Arabia, to speak inches from someone’s face, to breathe the same breath, is a measure of intimacy and the mutual respect of equals. In English, it means just the opposite: confrontation, even contempt. I don’t know if ‘as one being to another being’ in H/H is the best possible translation, but it’s clearly at least a decent one, and there’s no comparison to P/V, which isn’t close to adequate.
Here’s the Russian text. As an experiment, try plugging it into Google Translate. The result isn’t much worse than P/V.
Вот весенний вечер на дворе. Воздух весь размечен звуками. Голоса играющих детей разбросаны в местах разной дальности, как бы в знак того, что пространство всё насквозь живое. И эта даль — Россия, его несравненная, за морями нашумевшая, знаменитая родительница, мученица, упрямица, сумасбродка, шалая, боготворимая, с вечно величественными и гибельными выходками, которых никогда нельзя предвидеть! О как сладко существовать! Как сладко жить на свете и любить жизнь! О как всегда тянет сказать спасибо самой жизни, самому существованию, сказать это им самим в лицо!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intriguing stuff! What I find so interesting is how different two translations can be. I totally agree about the paragraph you’ve chosen – the H/H is much better. I eventually went for the P/V translation and found it had some clunky bits and some beautifully phrased bits, but it never stopped feeling like a translation to me. The H/H, from the bits I read and your sample, flows more naturally, but I did feel it was quite often too anglicised – I could not only forget it was a translation but sometimes it stopped even feeling like Russia! What I did like about the P/V were the translations of Zhivago’s poetry at the end, especially A Candle Burned. But then I’ve never read any other version of them, so I was reading them in a vacuum if you see what I mean.
Truthfully I never find translations from Russian terribly satisfactory – it must be a particularly hard language to get all the nuances of, I think. I seem to remember Pevear saying in the introduction that, in comparison to English, it has much fewer words, so that often the meaning has to be derived from the context.
LikeLike
I’ve just found this by accident! P/V is the one I read and I’m pleased after your very helpful review. The whole translation thing is so difficult, thank you for taking the time!
LikeLike
Thanks – glad you found it helpful! I’m always fascinated in the differences between translations of the same book – it always leaves me wondering how much of what we think is the author’s work is actually the translator’s…
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is great! Thank you. I’m deep into the HH version but it feels flawed to me. I may look in my library system for the PV alternative. What really got to me was the difference in the translation of the poem ‘Hamlet’, an alternative to which is at the end of Pasternak’s Wikipedia bio. It’s historically a very important poem, so I really wanted to understand its meaning. Thank you again!
LikeLike
Thank you – I’m glad you found it helpful! 😀 I enjoyed the PV a lot in the end, and quickly got used to the occasional obscure sentence. And I particularly thought they did an excellent job with the poetry translations at the end of the book – they actually read like poems rather than translations which isn’t easy. Hope you manage to track down a copy!
LikeLike
This was a very interesting blog post. I saw the movie while in college in the early 1970s. I think I read the book. It’s hard to remember 45 years later. (I do remember falling in love with Omar Sharif, though!)
LikeLike
Thank you – glad you found it interesting! I’ve still never seen the film, but I still managed to fall in love with Omar… 😉
LikeLike
I inadvertently purchased both translations, the H/H translation published in 1991 and the P/V translation as a kindle edition. I wanted to reread this book so was faced with a decision of which one to choose. I randomly chose one section of the book from The Hour of the Inevitable book 4 and was surprised by the differences. In H/H it read “Nine days later their friends arranged a farewell party in that same room.” P/V it reads “Ten days later their friends organized a farewell party in that same room.” I am astonished that nine and ten would be mistranslated. That seems like such a simple error even though it is not of significant consequence to the story, but seems like a simple inaccuracy that one would expect to be avoided. I wish I knew Russian so that this choice would not need to be made. Maybe I will read both translations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for commenting and sorry for the delay in replying! Yes, I must say mistranslating nine or ten does seem particularly strange – careless even. I wish I could read books in the original language too – translations so often seem a bit clunky, and I’m never sure whether I’m getting the book the author intended. I did enjoy the P/V in the end – I thought they did a great job with the poeticism in the book, even though sometimes they left a phrase or sentence a bit too unclear for my taste.
LikeLike
Sorry to comment on such an old post, but it is utterly fascinating to me. When I was reading Doctor Zhivago in the original language (my native is Russian) I found Pasternak’s sentences and paragraphs very unnatural-sounding. I really mean it. In comparison to other “classic” Russian authors, even in the original Russian language, his sentences are “stiff” and uncreative – definitely non-flowing and his language surprises with its abruptness. It is as though Pasternak himself was translating something to Russian in his book. And, to be even more honest, I found some passages in English to be way more beautiful than in his original. English almost made his Russian more beautiful and imbued it with more meaning that it is actually there. That is my personal opinion as I know it sounds shocking.
For example, here is the original sentence:
“”Если подойти к ней близко или дотронуться до нее пальцем, искра озарит комнату и либо убьет на месте, либо на всю жизнь наэлектризует магнетически,” влекущейся, жалующейся тягой и печалью. and here is the translation:
“If you go near her or touch her with your finger, a spark will light up the room and either kill you on the spot or electrify you for your whole life with a magnetically attractive, plaintive craving and sorrow.”
The original sounds almost “scientific”, dull, impersonal and unpoetic – and the English has “a flow” to it which I cannot even put to words – pure magic. It is one of my favourite English language (though translated) quotes from a book. I don’t know why this is the case – maybe because the English addresses the reader – using personal “you” (“will kill YOU on the spot”), but the translated bit sounds better to me than the original. And, of course, “наэлектризует” – “will electrify” is a Latin word anyway, so it appears better in Latin/English letters.
I also would like to comment on the last translated paragraph that confuses you:
“P/V – As they passed by the Gordons’ compartment, wrapping the corners of their shoulders in shawls”… I think the first translation by Pevear/Volokhonsky is true to the original both in meaning and literary, and the second seems to me wrong and omits words unnecessarily. It seems that one group of translators thought that the woman were talking about others in the text, while another group of translators thought that the women were talking of themselves [as heard in the imagination of Misha]. I think the latter meaning is the right one. “We simply can’t” is a confusing translation – was translated too literary – the meaning here is “We just can’t stand it [any longer]!” [whatever – the wait, the corpse, the suicide, the trip, etc. – I read the book some time ago now). The meaning here are that the women SHOULD be saying “of themselves” as Misha thinks: “Oh, what sensitivity! We are special, we are intellectuals, we cannot stand [all this mess]”- a suicidal person on the rails, etc. And it is definitely “we” and not “they” and this is peculiarly Russian sarcasm which is difficult to understand for others. That is my impression and on that basis I don’t think at all that H/H captured any meaning of the original.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I’m glad you commented, and that you found the post interesting! That paragraph on the train always bothered me, so I’m delighted to have a native Russian speaker confirm that it should be “we” – about the women – rather than “they”, about Jews. It’s an entirely different meaning, isn’t it? Odd that H/H got it so wrong. Someone else pointed out a discrepancy between the two translations where one lot translated something as “nine” and the others used “ten” – that also seems like more than a matter of interpretation, doesn’t it?! I wonder if you got a chance to look at the “crimson” or “blackish purple” moon – another one where I don’t know what the original implied but I preferred the P/V. Overall, in the end I didn’t love the book – I thought it was rather over-rated, perhaps because of the politics of it having been smuggled out of the USSR for publication – but I did enjoy the P/V translation, especially of the poetry at the end. And I found their footnotes added much more clarity than H/H’s attempt to make everything feel familiar to a British audience. I don’t really expect “foreign” books to read like English ones – in fact, half of their charm is that they transport us to a different place and culture.
I shall use you now as an authority on which translation to choose whenever I decide to read a Russian classic… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Doctor Zhivago is overrated and that one was a difficult paragraph to translate as it also needs the awareness of culture and Russian expressions. It reminds me of another case – at times on Russian TV one can hear statements such as “Oh…yes, we are silly, we are incompetent”…but the meaning is the actually the exact opposite, i,e, “we are NOT silly and NOT incompetent”. This sarcasm is much more common in Russia than in the west, and, by the very different intonation and “oh”..at the beginning, a Russian person will understand that the speaker means the opposite of what they are saying (the context and the intonation are very important here). However, often these phrases are translated into English literary and most people assume some people in Russia are admitting that they are silly and incompetent – when it is exactly the opposite of what they were trying to say 🙂
I cannot find the “crimson” or “blackish purple” moons in the text – I need more words to find it in the text, but if you refer to your third example and the passage that confused you, the P/V translation is true to the original both in meaning and literary (as the first paragraph goes). Pasternak talks about “the white light” and definitely not “whiteness” as H/H translated, and he used the word “supernaturally” – that is the literal word which he aimed to go for. If he wanted to express something more metaphorical, he would have used the Russian word “загадачно” which is more or less “mysteriously”, but I think he wanted to go precisely for that “ghostly” and “supernatural” feel. (But yet again, that is why I don’t particular like Pasternak’s prose and do not find it “flowing” – the word he uses in Russian “сверхестественно” (supernaturally) – it has a very “western” feel to it and makes his sentence sound “odd” in Russian, as though he was thinking in English and translating his thoughts). In the second paragraph, I found both translations alright, and, here I preferred one or two sentences from H/H, but others from P/V, so its no clear win here.
I also completely agree with you that foreign-language books should not be “anglicised” unnecessarily, making them easier for the reader. Even if some meaning is unclear it will just be an incentive for someone to understand this or that cultural point and look it up and broaden one’s horizon, so to speak, rather than to fall back on the convenience of a purely British/American version, which will, in the end, be misleading in some way anyway.
I am at your service as this “authority” hehe 🙂 Most Russian classics I read in translation were translated very well…or so I thought at that time 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Funnily enough we have a similar kind of thing in Scotland – or maybe just in Glasgow, in fact – of saying the opposite of what we mean as a kind of sarcasm, and often even other Brits don’t get it. For example, when a Glaswegian is asked to do something s/he has no intention of doing, the response will be “Aye, so I will!”, which all Glaswegians know means “No way!” but which other people sometimes think means we’re actually agreeing! Our local book festival calls itself “Aye Write”, which is a take on a similar expression “Aye, right!” which basically means “You’re talking nonsense!”
I’ve often wondered how much Scots has been influenced by Russian, in fact – I think there was a lot of connection via our navies back in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. When I was a kid, for instance, there was a playground song that began “Skinny, malinky longlegs…” Malinky is not a Scottish word, and when I studied Russian (a tiny bit) I discovered it’s a corruption of the Russian for little – so curious that it should have made it’s way into children’s language. I love language and how we all adapt phrases from each other’s cultures. And I do find the vagaries of translation fascinating, even if it can be frustrating at times!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s very interesting! I will now know what a Glaswegian means when they say “Aye, so I will!”. I too love languages and thinking about the origins of words, and the intricacies and complexities of translations. It is all often very eye-opening. As for “malinky” in a Scottish song – that’s very interesting and anything is possible, I guess. I mean, there is a “MAL” in the English word for “small” (sMALl) as in “mal”inky, so I guess these language corruptions had a long way and it again proves that all European languages can be traced to more or less one common root.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and also we all tend to use the same “new” words for technological and cultural things, just changing endings and so on to suit our own languages. So that sometimes a different language can suddenly surprise us with a familiar word.
LikeLiked by 1 person