'Bottom, thou art translated.'

[davem]

So anyway, I've just read a recent translation of the Vinland Sagas & noticed something interesting. (The Vinland Sagas, by the way, tell the story of the Norse discovery of America.)

The interesting thing is that the name the Viking settlers used for the inhabitants of North America, or 'Vinland', was 'Skraelings' & Wikipedia has the following definition:

The word skræling is the only word surviving into modern times from the Old Norse dialect spoken by the medieval Norse Greenlanders. In modern Icelandic, skrælingi means a barbarian. The origin of the word is not certain but it is probably based on the Old Norse word "skrá" which meant "skin" and also (as a verb) "to put in writing" (which was done on dried skin in Iceland for example in the case of the Icelandic Sagas). This would refer to the fact that the Inuit (both Dorset and Thule) as well as the other indigenous people the Norse Greenlanders met wore clothes made of skin, in contrast to the woven wool clothes worn by the Norse.

Now what did I find interesting about this?

Well, the new translation (taken from the Icelandic publisher Leifur Erickson translation of all the Sagas of Icelanders, which is intended to be the most accurate translation yet made) doesn't use 'Skraelings'. It translates the word as 'natives'.

Now 'natives' is certainly politically correct, exchanging a possibly offensive term meaning 'barbarian' for something more acceptable to modern readers - particularly to readers of Innuit descent - it is actually creating a false impression of the Viking settlers of Vinland & of the writers of the Sagas. The Viking settlers called the 'natives' Skraelings - barbarians, because they believed (wrongly) that's what they were.

Now, I think Skraelings should have been left (as it has been in every other translation I've read, partly because its honest & reflects the way the Vikings thought of the natives, but also because there's something evocative about the very sound of the word. Skraelings sounds like a 'harsh' & 'dangerous' - not to mention that it 'is the only word surviving into modern times from the Old Norse dialect spoken by the medieval Norse Greenlanders'. So this most accurate 'PC' translation is actually wrong, &, worse, misleading.

Which got me thinking....I read that in some older translations of TH into Russian the translator had Bilbo exclaiming things like 'Good Heavens!' at various points, which introduces a 'religious' element into the story which is not there in the original.

Are there examples of such 'translations' of Tolkien's work which are not strictly correct, & made for reasons of political correctness, etc?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, the new German translation (by Krege) has often been cited for such things as Sam calling Frodo "Boss" - which might be what could be used nowadays, but LotR isn't nowadays! There are many other examples of vocabulary that lowers the story to a vernacular level instead of bringing out the "high and lofty" character of the book. However, I don't own the modern translation, so I can't give specific examples now. Perhaps other German language readers can add more.

The purpose of these changes was not for political correctness, but for modernizing the text to attract a young generation. Whether it has really succeeded in achieving that aim I can't say.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Well, the new German translation (by Krege) has often been cited for such things as Sam calling Frodo "Boss" - which might be what could be used nowadays, but LotR isn't nowadays! There are many other examples of vocabulary that lowers the story to a vernacular level instead of bringing out the "high and lofty" character of the book. However, I don't own the modern translation, so I can't give specific examples now. Perhaps other German language readers can add more.

That's interesting, because in a way the change from 'Master' to 'Boss' doesn't so much make the story 'more accessible' to a younger readership as change the relationship between the two into one of employer-employee.

Now, not to push this too far, but I know that a lot of accusations of racism aimed at LotR are based on the descriptions of the enemy as 'dark', 'swarthy', & suchlike, & it would be easy for a translator to 'alter' such descriptions to avoid such accusations.

However, what interests me is the extent to which such changes alter the reader's understanding. To go back the the 'Skraelings' example, to refer to the inhabitants of Vinland as 'barbarians' is very different to referring to them as 'natives'. 'Barbarians' is perjorative & 'natives' is neutral. In the same way if Sam calls Frodo 'boss' he is acknowledging that he is his employer, but if he calls him Master he is implying so much more than that, because 'Master' can also imply 'teacher' or 'guide' (& let's not ignore the implication of 'better' which is implied - something I believe Tolkien was examining, or even 'playing with'). A reader of the original will pick up on that implication whereas a reader of the German probably won't. Certainly 'boss' is not a 'neutral' translation of Master.....

[Bêthberry]

I always enjoy the opening line in your posts, davem. Your "So" and "So anyway" reminds me muchly of "hwæt" although I suppose you can ascribe that remembrance to my reading of Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf.

I probably share many of the regrets and hesitations over translations and "modernisations" that Esty and davem have. However, I would like to step back just a sec to consider an assumption in the first post here. Is 'political correctness' the only motivator in using 'native' for 'Skræling'?

A starting point is to consider if skræling exists in any English dictionaries. It does not appear in the OED and it is not in the dictionary.com as an English word. It does appear in encyclopedias, but there it appears as Old Norse. So the translator could be legitimately and honestly looking for a specific English word, believing that skræling is not English and would not be understood by the English reader. Another point to consider is that, while skræling might mean barbarian in modern Icelandic, that is not necessarily the meaning it had in the ancient texts.

The orgin of the work is not clearly known, as this Reference.com entry suggests. It could in fact have been an attempt to reproduce the name of the North American tribe. And certainly 'sickly' could well describe the effect of disease which the Europeans brought to Vinland.

Originally Posted by Reference.com

As recounted in the Greenlander (Grœnlendinga) saga, the word skraeling may have been the name of one of the North American tribes encountered during initial contact. A Norseman saved two Skraeling boys from the sea. As was their custom, the Skraeling boys became the Norseman's life-long servants. During this service the Skraeling boys indicated that the word "skraeling" was how their peoples' name was pronounced in Norse.

A further point to consider is that the original meaning of 'barbarian' was far, far less derogatory than the word became in English usage. In classical Greek and Latin, its first meaning (as I understand, not being a scholar of ancient languages) was simply someone who was not a Hellenic or, latterly, Roman speaker. It was linguistic. It is probably impossible to "go back" to this more neutral meaning of 'barbarian', but it is worthwhile considering if "native" is not in fact closer to this original idea of separating native from non-native speaker. It's a jump I admit, as logically 'non-native' would be closer, but my point is really to ask if, in the original sagas, the word was necessarily as pejorative as our later usages make it.

If that is the case, then the translator has tried to recapture an historically accurate rendition of the relationship between the Vikings, Greenlanders, and the North American tribes. It was, after all, the later Europeans who slaughtered the Boetiuk Indians by putting a bounty on their heads, not the Vikings. It was the later Europeans (aka English) who put the highly derogatory connotations on barbarian. But did the Vikings share this attitude towards others? Christian Europe created the image of the Vikings as brutal, barbarous tribes who went around killing and slaughtering, but modern historical and anthropological research suggests that is not an accurate reflection of the Vikings' attitude towards other tribes.

These are, I think, considerations far more significant than the handy old stand-by of "political correctness." Language changes over time and there is an honest attempt by translators to capture an original meaning which may be lost by the "baggage" which words pick up after the text was originally created.

Of 'boss' and 'master' the issue is quite different, between very different forms of social and economic organisation. Yet can we really say that "master" is an example of the 'high and lofty' tone? Not everything medieval was high and lofty, particularly social relationships. I'm not saying that I prefer 'boss' to 'master', just that power and authority pertains also to medieval terminology.

[davem]

I take your point re Skraelings - though it has been kept in all translations I've read so far. And that perhaps is also PC - because apparently the closest literal translation is 'wretches'.

The early Norwegian
settlers in Greenland sought to control their natural environment in the same way that they did
in their native Norway. By not recognizing the fundamental differences between their former
environment and their new one their society eventually collapsed. Had the Norse
Greenlanders interacted with the indigenous people rather than seeing them to be mere
“skraelings” (“wretches”), they might have learned how to cope and survive in Greenland’s
extreme environment. Similarly, in Vineland, had the Norse Greenlanders interacted with the
Labrador and Newfoundland Beothuks on arrival rather than killing them on sight, they may
well have colonized North America (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a)

That said apparently the Icelanders used the name to refer to the inhabitants of Greenland too.

[Lalwendë]

Of course there are many meanings to "Master" as used for Frodo, as davem gets at. There's Master in the sense of the older, wiser person, one who might teach or lead a pupil. And Master in the sense of a formal title for a young man. Master in the sense of military leader or commander. I'm not quite sure why a German translation would alter Master to the more limiting word "Boss" as isn't Meister much the same in German as in English? Possessed of multiple meanings?

And Skraelings are found in His Dark Materials. Interesting as one of the accusations sometimes levelled at Pullman is that he's a modern, PC, trendy type. But he's not afraid to use that word.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I take your point re Skraelings - though it has been kept in all translations I've read so far. And that perhaps is also PC - because apparently the closest literal translation is 'wretches'.

That said apparently the Icelanders used the name to refer to the inhabitants of Greenland too.

I don't know which I should do first--applaud your ingenuity in finding such an article or laugh hysterically at an earnest engineer doing anthropological or archeological lectures! That said, the esteemed Professor Ircha does not footnote his source for the interpretation of 'wretches' and that I would like to see simply because the linguistic sources say the word's etymology is unclear. It's a tangled web when a pragmatic researcher takes on cultural studies and treats hypotheses like literal fact. His source for those claims about the Norse (Diamond's book Collapse) has been contested and his off hand remark about relations with the Inuit does not really reflect the general consensus about the relationship of the two cultures.

To go back to the switch from Skræling to native, I can't help but wonder if it reflects a change in assumption about the readership of the sagas--the great loss of cultural knowledge which makes familarity with a Norse word no longer a given, just as familiarity with the social organisation reflected in 'master' can no longer be assumed either. Kids these days--all they know is pop culture.

Pullman uses Skræling in a fantasy world, though, doesn't he? I mean, are readers to take either of his Oxfords as the actual historical one we live in or can visit? So he can take a word and tilt it a bit without being literally or pedantically referring to the actual historical usage of the word. He's calling up something different than a translator of an historical text would be doing.

[Lalaith]

Love this thread title - I had no idea what to expect when I clicked to open it!

The term Skraelingi would still understood by modern Icelanders, and even used, but only as a rather self-consciously archaic and/or ironic term of abuse.

I think in some ways "native" does convey the same sense, because no decent modern English speaker would refer to "natives" except in such a deliberately archaic way, you know...."the heat, the flies, the beat of the tom-toms, the natives were restless that night..."

I do however also agree that "Skraelingr" has a much better onomatopoeic sense than "native". More interesting etymological facts - it is also related to the common verb, skraela, to peel (ie [de-]skin) which is used in Danish as well as Icelandic. And the present-day Greenland Inuits refer to themselves as Kalaalleq, which is believed to be derived from the word Skraeling, rather than their own original word for themselves.

And to keep the Tolkien link....albeit off topic....the dealings of the Snowmen of Forochel with Averdui - could they have been inspired by the trade between the Inuits and Norsemen of the sagas, I wonder....

[davem]

What interested me was not so much whether the term was insultingly used originally - who knows when we're dealing with a literary work set down around the time of Chaucer & recounting events from centuries before that - but whether the current translator was motivated by a belief that Skraelings is 'offensive' & if he used 'natives' because that was felt to be more 'neutral'. We have something similar happening at Christmas over here, where the word 'Christmas' itself is not used & Christmas trees are not put up 'in case it offends non-Christians'.

The real question related to changes made in translations of Tolkien's works. The change from Master to boss is very significant in that it restricts the range of meaning & what is being said about the Frodo-Sam relationship. The introduction of overtly 'religious' expletives on Bilbo's part in Russian translations of TH is also interesting, in that someone who only reads the works in translation will form some very different opinions about the works than a reader of the original.

It also begs the question of how sensitive a translator should be to the feelings of his/her readers & how faithful they should be to the original?

'Natives' doesn't convey 'wretch' or 'barbarian' in the same way that Skraelings did to the original hearers/readers of the Sagas & it can be taken as a 'neutral' term in a way that Skraelings couldn't. If modern Icelanders would understand Skraeling as an (archaic) term of abuse then is their understanding of the term when reading the original correct or incorrect - either way a modern Icelander reading about Skraelings in Vinland is not going to have the same response as a modern English or American reading about 'natives' are they?

[Lalaith]

Well, they kind of do, because both were terms formerly used by colonists of that country, to refer to indigenous populations. I don't think "native" used in this sense is particularly PC, in fact to refer to people as "natives" is rather offensive although I agree, not as offensive as Skraelingar.
I think the Vikings did use this somewhat dismissively and insultingly, because they found the wearing of skins barbaric. In terms of just how insulting, I suppose it would be on a par with calling native Americans, "Redskins".

What was the name of the Vinland translator btw?

As for Bilbo saying "Good heavens" in Russian, I personally wouldn't have thought about the religious significance until it was pointed out, it's not like saying "Good God" to my mind. Also I'm sure that in the Hobbit he does say "Bless me" which also has religious connotations does it not?

If you like, I'll check the Icelandic translations of Tolkien to see if I find anything interesting.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I think in some ways "native" does convey the same sense, because no decent modern English speaker would refer to "natives" except in such a deliberately archaic way, you know...."the heat, the flies, the beat of the tom-toms, the natives were restless that night..."

Good call, except sometimes these days I hear that phrase used by parents/adults about adolescents out on a Saturday night.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

As for Bilbo saying "Good heavens" in Russian, I personally wouldn't have thought about the religious significance until it was pointed out, it's not like saying "Good God" to my mind. Also I'm sure that in the Hobbit he does say "Bless me" which also has religious connotations does it not?

Now, that's down to my poor memory & posting while at work. The actual Russian (tr. Rakhmanova) has exclamations such as 'Dear God!', 'My God!', 'Merciful God!', 'god only knows', & 'otherwise god only knows' & has Bombur saying 'God forbid that I should criticise Thorin, may his beard grow limitlessly' (taken from the essay 'Tolkien Through Russian Eyes' by Mark T Hooker.) Note that this translation was made during the communist period, so the references to God were actually quite risky! Point being, a Russian reader would have understood the book to be to be a far more 'religious' work than an English reader of the original.

I think that translating the word as 'natives' makes the Greenlanders seem too PC. But this is another question - if you avoid using an 'offensive' term in order to spare the feelings of modern readers don't actually create a false image of the original work &, by extension, of the original settlers? Rakhmanova's translation of TH could be seen as a 'political' statement in a communist state, but how many Russian readers take TH as a 'Christian' story. Tolkien stated that he deliberately removed all references to religion in LotR, Rakhmanova has inserted religious references into TH. But has she made it a different work?

BTW, the translator of the Vinland Sagas is Keneva Kunz. The earlier Penguin translation by Magnus Magnusson (I think) retains the original Skraelings.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I think you really do undermine the function of translation if, for whatever well-intentioned reason, you deliberately alter the author's perspective and the flavor of his words. The ideal translation is perfectly transparent- never achievable, of course, but that's the goal. The reader of the Leifssaga Erikssson wants to read the medieval text, and 'feel' the medieval Norse mind behind it- otherwise he'd just read a modern history. Surely you wouldn't want a translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to clean up all the nasty things the monks said about those same Norsemen, would you?

The early Norwegian
settlers in Greenland sought to control their natural environment in the same way that they did
in their native Norway. By not recognizing the fundamental differences between their former
environment and their new one their society eventually collapsed.

A rather obsolescent theory, I'm afraid: work with Greenland ice cores has shown that in Eric's time mean temperatures on the South Greenland coast were much warmer than today, and suitable for Scandinavian-style agriculture. It was the onset of the global cooling known as the 'Little Ice Age' that doomed the Greenland colony- although I suppose they might at that stage tried adapting to Inuit living.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

A rather obsolescent theory, I'm afraid: work with Greenland ice cores has shown that in Eric's time mean temperatures on the South Greenland coast were much warmer than today, and suitable for Scandinavian-style agriculture. It was the onset of the global cooling known as the 'Little Ice Age' that doomed the Greenland colony- although I suppose they might at that stage tried adapting to Inuit living.

Its unfortunate the whole approach isn't obsolete. There seems to be an attempt on the part of the author to make out the Norse settlers to be a kind of almost proto-fascist group who swept into Greenland/Vinland & attempted to impose the final solution on the natives & brought about their own Gotterdammerung by rejecting the wisdom of those 'noble savages' (the 'Vikings as bad guys' approach as typified in the recent movie 'Pathfinder') whereas the translator of the Graenlendinga Saga seems to want to erase any perceived 'racist' attitudes on behalf of the Norse settlers & present them as a combination of heroic warrior poets & peaceful traders (the 'Vikings as good guys' approach).

To me this kind of 'Hollywoodising' simplification & desire not to 'offend' anybody is a major problem. The good guys must be without fault & the bad guys without virtue - one can't imagine, for instance, a WWII movie aimed at the mass market which showed a Nazi soldier performing a selflessly heroic act or a US soldier as racist or anti-semitic (a British soldier maybe, because, as Tony Parsons put it Hollywood mainly shows the British as 'Nazis with good table manners' - but I digress...). There are stereotypes which the good guys & the bad guys are expected to conform to - when the good guys are good they must be very, very good, but when the bad guys are bad they must be horrid.

EDIT

Of course, the other problem with translation is when the translator uses modern idiom to make a work like LotR more 'accessible'. I've noticed this a few times with these recent translations of the Sagas. phrases like 'Now that I see you're in good shape', or 'The lights (in the hall) went out' & 'When the lights came back on' simply don't work as they put us too much in mind of contemporary neovels, & , in the second instance, of electric lights being switched off & back on. Brian Rosebury commented on the speech patterns of the Orcs in LotR & how Tolkien took care not to make them sound like contemporary gangsters. The language a translator of the Sagas employs must not simply reflect contemporary usage 'because the originals used everyday speech - they must use a language which reflects that these events took place many centuries ago (or in the case of LotR many millennia ago) & so pharaseology which puts us in mind of contemporary drama or electrical appliances is simply out of place.

[Lalaith]

Oh, here´s an interesting translation nugget I found out today, davem...apparently some saga/edda translator made a cock-up at some time in the 18th century which meant that for ages, people thought that Vikings drank out of human skulls, rather than horns.

[Formendacil]

As a bit of an aside... regarding the changing meaning of words from the time of composition to the present, we can already see some of that in the Lord of the Rings. As already pointed out, the use of "swarthy" and other terms denoting dark pigmentation relating to some of the enemies of the West is held as evidence of racism in Tolkien's work, though it not necessarily proof of such. On perhaps a more dramatic level, references of being "gay and merry" amongst Hobbits might well confuse a younger reader only familiar with homosexual gays--and might help explain the reams of related fanfiction.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As a bit of an aside... regarding the changing meaning of words from the time of composition to the present, we can already see some of that in the Lord of the Rings. As already pointed out, the use of "swarthy" and other terms denoting dark pigmentation relating to some of the enemies of the West is held as evidence of racism in Tolkien's work, though it not necessarily proof of such. On perhaps a more dramatic level, references of being "gay and merry" amongst Hobbits might well confuse a younger reader only familiar with homosexual gays--and might help explain the reams of related fanfiction.

Makes me wonder how soon we'll need an English translation of LotR

And yet....if a translator of LotR into another language was to us 'non-racist' terminology how far would that damage the 'Light vs Darkness' imagery Tolkien spent such effort building up? Has 'gay' for instance now come to completely lose its original meaning of 'light-hearted' for a general readership for it to actually find the usage strange - do some readers actually interpret it as meaning that some characters are homosexual? And what about 'queer'? I know that in the radio adaptation of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil by Brian Sibley (its actually an sramatisation of the House of Tom Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode which was missed out of the BBC radio LotR, not the poems) the word 'queer' is used once, then replaced by 'weird' - also suitably Anglo-Saxon, but not the word Tolkien used ('gay' is used in the LotR adaptation - Aragorn says of Merry in the Houses of Healing 'So strong & gay a spirit is in him'). I can't help wondering whether the reason was that the use of 'gay' & 'queer' would provoke giggles in the audience. I only note in passing that in the movie Sam in Lorien says 'silver showers' in his verse on Gandalf's fireworks rather than the original 'golden showers'.....

All of which is to ask how much the changes in language even in the original can affect the reader's perception of the tale. Of course, readers of translations have it easier in some ways than readers of the original, as new translations can be commissioned on a regular basis to avoid the changes in language that may provoke such 'awkwardnesses'.

And it also occurs to me whether any translations are considered as especially significant in themselves, so that they stay in print after a new translation appears? This occurred to me recently when looking at translations of Ovid's Metamorphoses. I noticed that Penguin have two translations currently available - a new one by David Raeburn & Arthur Golding's 1567 translation, widely considered a masterpiece of Renaissance literature in itself. And let's not forget Chapman's Homer! Both are, in a real sense, works of great literature, rather than simply being seen as 'translations' to be surpassed by more 'accurate' versions of the originals. Could there be (if there aren't such already) translations of Tolkien's works which are seen as 'equal' to the original, or are all destined to be 'second best' versions only there for readers who can't read the book in the original?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Both the older and newer German translations are still in print, though the publisher makes it difficult for newcomers to buy the (better) older one - no paperback version, no movie covers, just a rather plain hardback that costs a good deal more. Fans go to the trouble (and cost!) of buying it, but those who were introduced to LotR by the movies or lack the financial means have little choice.

However, there's no way either could be considered even close to equal with the original. The depth of language used by Tolkien will never be entirely translatable.

[davem]

ANd then I found this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Now, I can actually see that this kind of (very) simplified 'primer' might be of some use in getting across the basics of the stories for those with no knowledge of the plays, but I can't see that these 'translations' have any real value beyond that. But I wonder how similar these 'translations' of Shakepeare are to some of the modern translations of Tolkien? Now, admittedly, there are versions of these comics which use the original language, but what really annoyed me was the 'Peter Jackson-ish' approach of Clive Bryant, Chairman of the company behind the project:

"We want to make Shakespeare as energetic and colourful as Spiderman" he told the Times Educational Supplement.

I've heard some trendy producers claim that if Shakespeare were around today he'd be writing scripts for Eastenders (a badly written soap opera about depressed Cockerney's going to the pub & having fights among the market stalls) but the idea that if he was around now he'd be writing superhero comics takes the biscuit. Surely Shakespeare plays a few divisions above Stan Lee? Or am I wrong - do the 'boring' plays of W.S. have to be raised up to the level of our friendly neighbourhood web-slinger?

As an aside, I can't help but compare the quality of illustrations in these editions with the work of illustrators like Walter Crane (Faerie Queene), Gustave Dore (Paradise Lost) & Aubrey Beardsley (Morte d'Arthur). Thwack! Crump! Aaargh!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

ANd then I found this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Oh dear, and they have the stamp of approval from the National Association for the Teaching of English. I suppose the teachers there think that poetry and metre and rhyme don't play any role in the art of reading.

On the other hand, if they had Neil Gaiman to write the lines and some of his illustrators . . . now there'd be something indeed to stimulate some imaginations. Come to think of it, why don't they just use some of the Sandman graphic novels to reach out to Shakespeare?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh dear, and they have the stamp of approval from the National Association for the Teaching of English. I suppose the teachers there think that poetry and metre and rhyme don't play any role in the art of reading.

And because they see it as an acceptable way of teaching Shakespeare they assume there's no problem - to me the fact that they see some kind of 'equivalence' speaks volumes about their own limitations. I recall a Minister in the Education Department some years back claiming Bob Dylan was a greater poet than Keats. Now, I think Dylan has produced some great songs, & is a gifted artist, but greater than Keats?? But then this attitude seems to be a commonplace - 'If Ithink Dylan is greater than Keats then Dylan is greater than Keats. If I think Eastenders is comparable to Lear then it is. If I think Shakespeare needs bringing up to the standard of Spiderman, then lets get the comic book writers to 'adapt' the stories'. Someone should tell

Ian McNeilly, director of the National Association for the Teaching of English

he needs educating. This is dumbing Shakespeare down to the level of the lowest common denominator & telling kids who read the 'quick' versions that they've read Shakespeare. In reality, its not 'Shakespeare' at all, in any way, shape or form.

Actually, a few years back the BBC produced some animated versions of Shakespeare's plays, using narration & original text, which would serve far better as introductions:
Hamlet http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sFDb8S...elated&search=
The Tempest http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7SeJza...elated&search=
(They also produced adaptations of The Canterbury Tales, btw)

[obloquy]

Yeah, yeah. We get your intellectual outrage. blah. The comics are intended to spark an interest in Shakespeare, not replace his work. It sounds to me like the kids these are intended for would either get very little out of reading Shakespeare (due to their lack of interest), or wouldn't read him at all.

Originally Posted by Article

They are targeted at older primary pupils and teenagers

These are for children. Where's the harm?

But then this attitude seems to be a commonplace - 'If Ithink Dylan is greater than Keats then Dylan is greater than Keats."

So "Dylan is greater than Keats" is just some crackpot's dissenting opinion, but "Keats is greater than Dylan" is an objectively established fact? Who do you think you are?

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

These are for children. Where's the harm?

Well, there's a real danger that they might not be able to tell the difference between Dylan & Keats when they grow up.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, there's a real danger that they might not be able to tell the difference between Dylan & Keats when they grow up.

I know you're just trying to be clever so I don't expect you to explain how that might follow from Shakespeare comics.

I don't see the disaster, though. Kids come out of high school not knowing the difference between capitalism and communism, too; they're not given any sort of perspective on Pearl Harbor and the horrific culmination of U.S. retaliation; they're made to read Hemingway and completely ignore Dostoevsky; they learn to sing Disney songs in music class instead of being exposed to Chopin and Dvorak. There's a lot of things to whine about when it comes to education. So what? It'd be nice if everybody's idea of what constitutes a meaningful education could be fulfilled in tax-supported schools, but it's not going to happen, and a comic book used to spark an interest in Shakespeare is better than ignoring him altogether, whether deliberately through curriculum, or through the kids' lack of interest.

Whether Dylan is "greater" than Keats remains a matter of opinion, regardless of how hard you blow.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I know you're just trying to be clever so I don't expect you to explain how that might follow from Shakespeare comics.

They aren't 'Shakespeare' comics. The 'quick' versions contain nothing of Shakespeare's poetry, & the full versions, which contain the original text, are redundant. And the 'art' is terrible....

a comic book used to spark an interest in Shakespeare is better than ignoring him altogether, whether deliberately through curriculum, or through the kids' lack of interest.

Oh, believe me, there are many 'educationalists' in this country who would love nothing better than to dump Shakespeare altogether & replace him with something more 'relevant'. This is their attempt to make Shakespeare 'easy' - not for the kids, but for the teachers.

Whether Dylan is "greater" than Keats remains a matter of opinion, regardless of how hard you blow.

No its isn't. Keats is greater than Dylan. Bach is greater than Andrew Lloyd Webber. Tolkien is greater than Robert Jordan. etc, etc, etc I place no value on 'opinion' at all, unless its the informed opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about & can offer some evidence in support. Now, I'm not saying that Keats is more 'popular' than Dylan, but that's another issue. 'I prefer 'X' to 'Y'' is totally different to ''X' is greater than 'Y''. The problem is that some (the minister I mentioned for instance) don't make that distinction.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

They aren't 'Shakespeare' comics. The 'quick' versions contain nothing of Shakespeare's poetry, & the full versions, which contain the original text, are redundant. And the 'art' is terrible....

That's because the poetry of Shakespeare is not what's going to interest kids. The idea is that the things that happen in the plays are exciting, but kids rarely realize that because the language is virtually impenetrable to the novice. If an interest can be created, Shakespeare can be taught; if not, he's not the kind of author you can force down a kid's throat just by making his work required reading.

Originally Posted by davem

Oh, believe me, there are many 'educationalists' in this country who would love nothing better than to dump Shakespeare altogether & replace him with something more 'relevant'.

Which is bad in your opinion, but things have to be left out of curriculum and your assessment of Shakespeare as necessary for the average teenager may not be all that well-considered. Shakespeare is not fundamental to education. He is a luxury, and an introduction to his plays via a medium that kids are familiar with is better than nothing.

Originally Posted by davem

This is their attempt to make Shakespeare 'easy' - not for the kids, but for the teachers.

Those lazy, incompetent teachers. They should have their pay cut. Tell me, do you think they're having difficulty teaching Shakespeare to children because they do not understand him themselves and have no idea how to teach his work? Or is it, perhaps, because most kids in school have almost zero interest in reading anything? Kids get out of school what they put into it.

Originally Posted by davem

No its isn't. Keats is greater than Dylan. Bach is greater than Andrew Lloyd Webber. Tolkien is greater than Robert Jordan. etc, etc, etc I place no value on 'opinion' at all, unless its the informed opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about & can offer some evidence in support. Now, I'm not saying that Keats is more 'popular' than Dylan, but that's another issue. 'I prefer 'X' to 'Y'' is totally different to ''X' is greater than 'Y''. The problem is that some (the minister I mentioned for instance) don't make that distinction.

You're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. I'd like to see the data you're referencing. Did you have to extract samples of Dylan and Keats themselves, or were you able to run the tests using pieces of their published materials? I'm really eager to see how the inherent value of these artists' work can be quantified and compared. Because unless you can do that, you're talking about opinion and taste, regardless of how many other opinions validate yours.

Edit: Just so we're clear, I don't know much about Keats or Dylan. I've probably been exposed to an equal amount of each, and didn't really put much effort into either of them. If we were to go into it, you might be able to convince me to agree with you. That's beside the point, though. This guy believes that Dylan is a greater poet than Keats. When someone says "Dude 1 is greater than Dude 2," I hear nothing more than an opinion being voiced, and while I may wonder why they hold an opinion that seems so backwards, I know that it would be literally impossible to prove the point one way or another.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

That's because the poetry of Shakespeare is not what's going to interest kids. The idea is that the things that happen in the plays are exciting, but kids rarely realize that because the language is virtually impenetrable to the novice. If an interest can be created, Shakespeare can be taught; if not, he's not the kind of author you can force down a kid's throat just by making his work required reading.

If you're only going to teach kids what interests them they're going to learn nothing. If the language is 'impenetrable' to them (& we're not talking about 5 year olds here, but older children & teens) its because the kind of literature they're exposed to is so dire. Shakespeare is modern English. Mind you, I've seen Milton & Bunyan dismissed as 'impenetrable' too.

And the whole point I'm making, btw, is not that young children should be thrown in at the deep end & given no help in understanding Shakespeare. If you look at the links to the animated Shakespeare I gave earlier, you'll see some very clever ways 'in'. The problem with these versions is not that they give children a way 'in', but that they focus purely on plot & not on poetry. This is like trying to teach about Wordsworth by producing comic books full of pictures of clouds & daffodils.

Which is bad in your opinion, but things have to be left out of curriculum and your assessment of Shakespeare as necessary for the average teenager may not be all that well-considered. Shakespeare is not fundamental to education. He is a luxury, and an introduction to his plays via a medium that kids are familiar with is better than nothing.

And what is 'necessary' then? Stuff that has 'practical' uses, which will enable them to pass exams & get jobs? If you can't use it to get on then its optional?

Those lazy, incompetent teachers. They should have their pay cut. Tell me, do you think they're having difficulty teaching Shakespeare to children because they do not understand him themselves and have no idea how to teach his work? Or is it, perhaps, because most kids in school have almost zero interest in reading anything? Kids get out of school what they put into it.

I think its the former in some cases. And, sorry, but its the teachers' job to teach.

You're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. I'd like to see the data you're referencing. Did you have to extract samples of Dylan and Keats themselves, or were you able to run the tests using pieces of their published materials? I'm really eager to see how the inherent value of these artists' work can be quantified and compared. Because unless you can do that, you're talking about opinion and taste, regardless of how many other opinions validate yours.

So, anything goes. There are no objective standards by which we judge quality. A trashy soap opera is equivalent to Hamlet if you think it is? Nothing is objectively better than anything else? Is the 'quick' comic book version of Henry V as good as the original? If so, why bother with the original at all? Why bother moving on to the original - why not just stick with the quick version then?

And yet, we seem to be going round in circles here. We'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Or to get back to Tolkien - is 'boss' a good translation of 'master'? Or would 'Meister' be better?

[Lalaith]

ANd then I found this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Oh, Davem, you should know better than to ever take *anything* at face value that you read in the Mail, they constantly misquote, make mischief and de-contextualise everything. This quote:

The genius of Shakespeare is in the language, but for some students understanding it can be a struggle. It will be useful for teachers to have three different versions of the text."

indicates that this is all about differentiated learning - the simplified version is intended for kids who wouldn't be able to access the Shakespearean language for whatever reason - because they have EAL (English as an Additional Language) or SEN (Special Educational Needs).

Its not particularly controversial and it's perfectly good teaching practice - in your average mixed ability class, you could have some kid with an IQ of 55, or a kid who arrived from Poland or Somalia a month ago and can barely speak the language. You've got to teach them too, not just the kid who's going to get an A*, but in order to do so you have to give them different learning materials to help them access the curriculum at whatever level they can.

KIds in the UK have to study closely a set Shakespeare text - including use of language, dramatic effects of various scenes etc - for their English SATs at Key Stage 3 (aged 14) they also have to study another set text for their GCSEs - both in English and English Literature. That isn't going to change any time soon, whatever the scaremongers say.

But of course Keats is greater than Dylan. It's not about personal preference - Milton is also greater than Dylan, and I find Milton boring as hell. (There, I've said it.)

Now that I've disagreed with both of you, I'll depart.

[Bêthberry]

Kudos to Lalaith for arguing with neither disputant!

Having just seen the new Doctor Who episodes "Human Nature/Family of Blood", I venture to ask davem if his objection to this project derives from its apparent lack of quality or from the concept itself?

It seems to me that Doctor Who is doing a fab job making history exciting for young viewers. How many of Doctor Who's fans really appreciate what the red poppy means? Or rather, appreciated before they saw this episode?
Isn't that what Doctor Who was initially/originally intended to do--provide a window into history and the cultural past such that the audience could reaffirm those qualities?

And isn't Doctor Who revered the world over? So... couldn't a comic book version be equally successful in inspiring young 'un to take on The Bard? I'd still rather see a Neil Gaiman comic than these, but I'd leave this question for the disputants?

How does one help new readers of a new age imaginatively enter into art that isn't contempoary?

After all, wasn't Tolkien himself doing something similar, recreating for a new audience a past that he was capable of reading but for which he wanted to stimulate new readers? Can it be said that Tolkien's work is a "dumbing down" of the past sagas and heroic literature for a modern age?

[davem]

The point I'm making is that these 'introductions' are bad - poor quality art, poor quality 'simplified' versions of the text. If you compare the high quality of the animation in the BBC Animated Shakespeare (they used some of the best Russian animators) you can see what can be done if a decent effort is made. This is an attempt to 'translate' Shakespeare, & its a poor effort. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be attempts to make Shakespeare accessible. I'm saying they should be good, high quality efforts, not silly attempts to make it as 'exciting as Spiderman'.

BTW, I also find much of Milton boring - & some of Shakespeare, but, as Lalaith says, that really is not the point.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by davem

Or to get back to Tolkien

Great idea!

- is 'boss' a good translation of 'master'? Or would 'Meister' be better?

Neither - in the first German translation, it is "Herr Frodo". "Herr" can be used in several ways; the most common is as a generic term for male persons, comparable to the English "Mister". It can also mean "lord" or "master". At any rate, it is a formal way of addressing a superior, something that might seem stranger to modern Americans than to traditional Brits and Europeans, who still differentiate between friends and acquaintances and who are still aware of class differences.

Dear me, I can vividly remember the days when one did not dream of addressing an older person by her/his first name unless specifically invited to do so! And this tradition still holds here in Germany, at least partially, especially so in a formal setting such as business and education.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Dear me, I can vividly remember the days when one did not dream of addressing an older person by her/his first name unless specifically invited to do so! And this tradition still holds here in Germany, at least partially, especially so in a formal setting such as business and education.

Oh, yes. I can remember, around 1970 or so, Major Naumann, with whom my father had shared an office for nearly a year, holding a little schnapps ceremony wherein their relationship formally changed from 'Sie' to 'du' and 'Major/Commander' to 'Hans/Bill.'

[Lalaith]

So how does the du/sie tu/vous te/usted (is that right - so long since I did Spanish...) formats work in the German, French and Spanish translations of LotR? Can anyone tell me?
And how were these decisions made I wonder, given that the original English does not have these differentiations?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Ah, excellent question, Lalaith! That is indeed an important question for translators not only of books, but also of movie dialogues for dubbing. Just where does the relationship turn personal enough to allow a transition from the formal "Sie" to the intimate "du"? Basically, one can only attempt to locate a point of time in the plot where the change would take place if it were originally written in German. That also depends on the historical period in which the story takes place. The use of the second person personal pronoun has changed in history.

The medieval feeling of LotR means that there is a form that was once used and is now considered old-fashioned, if not obsolete - "Ihr". That is what Sam uses for "Herr Gandalf". I don't have the modern German translation, so I don't know off-hand what he uses there. But a modern usage would change the flavour of the story, taking it out of ancient times.

Tolkien did give us a hint about the Hobbits' usage - he once said/wrote (sorry, I don't have the exact quote or location at the moment) that the Hobbits only use the familiar pronoun. For that reason Pippin was considered royalty by the people of Gondor, because he addressed Denethor with the familiar pronoun! Only an equal would be allowed that privilege.

That is the reason that Sam calls Frodo "Herr Frodo" (Mr. Frodo) yet uses the familiar "du" - an unlikely combination!

[davem]

Is there a difference in the German translation of Mister Frodo & Master Frodo, or is the same word used for both?

And for those in search of some light relief http://www.kombu.de/twain-3.htm

[Lalaith]

Tolkien did give us a hint about the Hobbits' usage - he once said/wrote (sorry, I don't have the exact quote or location at the moment) that the Hobbits only use the familiar pronoun. For that reason Pippin was considered royalty by the people of Gondor, because he addressed Denethor with the familiar pronoun! Only an equal would be allowed that privilege.

Yes, I remember that too...presumably Merry would have been the same with Theoden.
Can you remind me of the difference between Ihr and Sie?

I was wrong actually that there was no use of du/sie in the English original. I remember that there is a point in LotR where Eowyn addresses Aragorn as "thee". This is a more intimate form of address and it shifts the mood dramatically.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by davem

Is there a difference in the German translation of Mister Frodo & Master Frodo, or is the same word used for both?

And for those in search of some light relief http://www.kombu.de/twain-3.htm

Davem, I'm not familiar enough with the German translations to answer that question. Maybe Guinevere or Macalaure or others who have read the German version can give more information. As I read the original first, I could never bear to read more than a page or two of the translations!

Thanks for that wonderful Twain link - I'm familiar with his essay on the "awful German language" and have chuckled over it many times, but a number of these quotes are from other works and new to me. One in particular is quite appropriate for the Downs:

...it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it.

Lalaith, normally "ihr" is an informal plural pronoun; in the old-fashioned usage, it can substitute for "Sie", which is the formal pronoun and can be either plural or singular. Good reference to the (obsolete) usage of "thee" by Éowyn/Tolkien! Nowadays, the fact that it is used only in a religious context clouds its original intimate meaning.

[Lalaith]

Yes, that's how I remember Ihr, as the plural of du, the other use I think we were taught about briefly, but I couldn't remember. When, exactly, would you substitute it for Sie?
Old Yorkshire people do still use thee and thy, in the old-style intimacy way. When I was a student, m neighbour, a pensioner, used to lean over the fence and say, "I do worry about thee, pet, so far away from thy parents.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Yes, I remember that too...presumably Merry would have been the same with Theoden.
Can you remind me of the difference between Ihr and Sie?

I was wrong actually that there was no use of du/sie in the English original. I remember that there is a point in LotR where Eowyn addresses Aragorn as "thee". This is a more intimate form of address and it shifts the mood dramatically.

Eowyn uses thou also with Theoden, where her usage has a very ritualistic tone.

Originally Posted by The King of the Golden Hall

The king now rose, and at once Eowyn came forward bearing wine. Ferthu Theoden hal! she said. 'Receive now this cup and drink in happy hour. Health be with thee at they going and coming!'

If I recall correctly, it was the Quakers who took up 'thee' and 'thou' as a public insistence upon the equality of all people. Yet their usage came to be seen as archaic and religious. Interesting.

(Of course, now we know where the modern phrase "happy hour" comes from. All praise to Tolkien!)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

[quote}The medieval feeling of LotR means that there is a form that was once used and is now considered old-fashioned, if not obsolete - "Ihr"[/quote]

And therefore perfectly useful in attemting to get Tolkien's English across. It's certainly not beyond moderately literate Germans, since both Goethe and Wagner used it- not to mention of course Luther's Bible.