What strikes the reader upon entering Romanian bookshops these
days is the promptness with which the latest literary
productions of the West are translated and made available in our
country. One can only wish that Romanian texts were translated
into foreign languages with the same eagerness and
expeditiousness. What strikes the reader next, upon opening a
sampling of the Romanian translations, is, sadly, the poor
quality of many of these instant translations, especially those
of books in English. Though not a frequent reader of
translations, I seem to read enough to have discovered a paradox
at the heart of this phenomenon: the rendering from the Turkish,
say, of Orhan Pamuk’s novels has the ring of the “real language
of men in a state of vivid sensation,” whereas translations from
Martin Amis, Kazuo Ishiguro, and others, are often awkward,
disingenuous, and sit ill with the reputation of the original
texts. The explanation is multifaceted. On the one hand, it
could be argued, the Romanian language has deep roots in Turkish
and the archaic diction of Pamuk’s tales resonates with our own
chronicles and folklore. The common history, the shared Balkan
temperament and mentalities must have contributed to identifying
and rendering adequately the authentic rhythms of Pamuk’s prose.
English, on the other hand, drags in the paraphernalia of an
entirely different sort of culture, less emotional, more rigidly
self-defined. The various registers of the English language are
more clearly distinguished, but they spill into each other in
literary texts more often than they do in Romanian;
consequently, they require a more acute ear for nuances, styles,
attitudes. On the other hand, I suspect, as few people in
Romania speak Turkish, the translation from that language is a
job for the specialist – and, even, the Pamuk specialist, as is
the case of Luminiţa Munteanu;on the principle that everybody
speaks English nowadays (after all, we hear it on
television all day long!), translations from the English are
often done by people whose actual knowledge of the language is
rather less than specialised.
Having said that, and having lamented the conspicuous
detrimental effect that poor translations have on the standing
of brilliant contemporary British writers in Romania, in
fairness to truth it must be emphasised that this is not the
case of the book under survey here. Dana Crăciun’s rendering of
Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses is a timely and honouring
addition to the prestigious panoply of history-making novels
currently translated for Polirom Publishing House. Carefully
researched and accompanied by a helpful set of footnotes, the
translation finally brings to Romanian readers not only one of
the longest-awaited western publishing phenomena, but also a
novel notoriously inventive and imaginative from the linguistic
point of view. Dana Crăciun matches Rushdie’s virtuosity almost
point for point, juggling registers and rhythms and bringing to
life, along with a rich and vital mythology, an entire lore of
lachrymose and overwrought Bollywood musicals whose
post-colonial satire resonates with Romania’s own post-communist
carnival. The memory of communist times, when such
cinematographic productions were the fare of many a
culture-starved cinema goer, and whose travesty of cultural
values bears a close resemblance to the resistant and selective
appropriation of western-style cultural consumerism by the
Orient, is relevant to the tale of two actors turned angel and
demon respectively. The book speaks to its Romanian, largely
Christian public in unexpected tongues.
A world upside down, whose sky delivers miraculously surviving
prisoners of the exploding Bostan (a jumbo jetliner whose name
alludes intertextually to classic eastern representations of the
gardens of Paradise as much as to the Orient’s geopolitics) and
whose very origination becomes open to interpretation,
reconstructs some semblance of coherence from latter-day
re-enactments of the tales of the Koran. Reality and normality
mutate and proliferate, as do the languages in which people
attempt to grapple with them. The enviable ability to control
“the languages that mattered: sociological, socialistic,
black-radical, anti-anti-anti-racist, demagogic, oratorical,
sermonic: the vocabularies of power,” which are also the
“language[s] of desire” (Rushdie (Henry Holt & Co., 1988) 290),
has been lost. In its stead, a celebrative nostalgia has been
instituted: at one extreme, the acknowledgement that “Language
is courage: the ability to conceive a thought, to speak it, and
by doing so to make it true” (290); at the other, the
unconscionable babble of inept pop songs or the celestial gazals
“in a language he did not know to a tune he had never heard” (9)
that save lives and work the “God stuff” (17). This is the
language that the translator must render in a culture to which
neither English nor Hindi nor Islamism bear much relevance
beyond Mircea Eliade’s erudite incursions into Indian culture
and the history of religions, and the Bollywood dervish-like
sarabands mentioned above. It is a language which shares in the
twentieth-century Indian’s compulsion to “push against
frontiers” (55) and has the energy to recreate itself with every
transfer, with the avatar of every foreign rendition; a language
for the age of globalisation.
On the whole, the translation captures the volatile spirit of
the source text: it is flexible, quick-paced, humorous,
invariably clever and, at times, elatingly creative. A fabulous
cast of colourful characters with improbable names and
borderline identities is brought to life with gusto and
exhilaration to straddle every fracture of postmodern
experience: between the mythical and the actual, dream and
consciousness, id and superego, east and west, fiction and
reality. It is, after all, a daring experiment in translation
whose successful completion stands proof of the capacity of the
Romanian language, when deftly handled, to appropriate and
render the linguistic subtleties of other cultures, thereby
instituting a productive intercultural dialogue. It is also a
laudable tour de force of 640 pages, whose narrative pace
does not settle into complacent mannerism but keeps up with the
alert discursive metamorphoses of Rushdie’s magical realism. The
compulsion for formal expression is largely kept at bay, the
Romanian prejudice according to which the language of literature
is a privileged discourse governed by erudite and correct
diction being only betrayed by the occasional awkward overtones
indicative of the difficulty of finding direct equivalents for
Rushdie’s incontinent, inventive prose.
The “Rushdie affair” has naturally received a triple airing on
the occasion of the publication of this translation: the Islamic
community in Romania wisely avoided reiterating it, as its
leader only urged discernment in reading the novel; more vocal,
the Romanian Orthodox Church found it opportune to protest the
publication of the translation in the name of some tenuous
solidarity with those whose religious sensibilities it might
offend; lastly, it was unearthed by every book reviewer who
greeted the Romanian edition of the novel. Regrettable as the
1988 incident was on all sides, I will therefore refrain from
addressing it, except perhaps to question its relevance in a
country whose very limited familiarity with and understanding of
the Koran and Muslim culture is more likely to benefit from
Rushdie’s charismatic allegorical transposition. At any rate, as
was probably anticipated by the publishers, rather than deter
readers, the showcasing of the religious controversy acted as an
effective publicity stunt. The novel, which is the latest in a
series of nine Rushdie books recently translated for Polirom,
was given a larger circulation than most novels and sold out
within a month, being followed by a quick reprint and promising
to become, along with Ian McEwan’s Atonement, an all-time
bestseller in Romania.
The publication of this translation is a good
opportunity, it seems to me, for a call for rigorous,
professional translations of literature. With recent fiction in
the original scarce and expensive, there is a lucrative market
for literary translators in Romania. The mirage of the financial
profit seems however to have obliterated the standard of
quality: in the heat of publishing the Romanian version in real
time, translators occasionally neglect to read the book first or
look words up in the dictionary. That the translation of a novel
so provocative and profuse in cross-cultural implications as
The Satanic Verses avoids these petty pitfalls is a plea for
good old-fashioned translation practitioners that take their
time to consider the needs and quirks of the original, aiming to
recreate in the receiving culture the kind of reader-text
dialogue that was achieved in the source culture. The clash of
two cultures, British and Indian, that have for so long
cohabited too close for comfort, shocks the reader into
awareness of the risks inherent in the unexamined blurring of
distinctions and the resulting schizophrenia of our postmodern,
globalised condition. Literary translation must, under the
circumstances, become increasingly aware of its role as mediator
in intercultural exchanges and consequently stake out its
deontology more rigorously.
ANA-KARINA SCHNEIDER
Lucian Blaga University, Sibiu
|