Kinga Rozwadowska

The ongoing digitization of our literary heritage, together with growing competition between publishing houses has led to a situation where the retranslations of works considered canonical have changed their form of extending from diachronic, linear development in time to a synchronic “explosion” of parallel texts, whose task is to win over readers/consumers with their individual novelty, distinctiveness and “inventiveness.” In fact, such translations gain a new function – they become a marketing tool for publishing houses. In my opinion the newest retranslations of Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita is one of the most interesting examples of the process described above. In recent years, new Polish versions of this novel have been published at a dizzying pace (five new translations between 2015 and 2018) and in overwhelming numbers (five editions were published in four different translations in 2018 alone). These new translations of Bulgakov’s novel have evoked a lively response from readers. All sorts of analysis, comparisons and opinions have been published not only in scholarly journals, but also in daily newspapers, internet forums and in comments on online bookstores. On the internet, professional translation criticism coexists with the personal opinions of internet users (often based on non-literary factors) and with marketing content, advertisements, and blurbs deliberately made to look like reviews. In this article I would like to discuss the new roles of professional translation criticism under the circumstances described above, analyse its presence on the internet and try to define its new objectives. On the one hand, its voice should be loud and clear enough to be heard within the virtual chaos of texts, whilst on the other hand it should be persuasive and lucid enough to assist readers with their decision-making regarding a particular translation and to perceive the literary value of texts hidden behind attractive covers of new editions.

* Originally published in Polish in “Przekładaniec” vol. 42/2021. Open access for this publication has been supported by a grant from the Priority Research Area Heritage under the Strategic Programme Excellence Initiative at Jagiellonian University.

The aim of the paper is to discussTheo Hermans’ approach to translation as a quotation, presented in his book The Conference of the Tongues (2007) in the context of Mikhail Bachtin’s polyphony theory.
Both concepts base on distinction between the voice of the reporter and the voice of the Other, and argue that the relationship between them is significant.

Hermans understands translation as a “picture” of the original work, which consists of framing and embedded utterance. Framing means all kinds of paratexts, all forms of translator’s or publishers’ comments attached to the particular translation and the embedded utterance is a translated text itself. This construction enables the author to draw a parallel between the translation and the reported speech. Hermans presents the model of eight types of reported speech, merging gradually from paraleptic omission into free direct discourse. He argues that the way the reporter presents words of the Other matters and shows his attitude towards reported ideas and values.

From this point of view translation is presented as an impure, polyphonic text, where translator’s voice is constantly confronting the values expressed in the original work and, therefore, forced to negotiate them. Theo Hermans’ concept reminds Bachtin’s idea of “dialogical word” where two voices meet and confront within one utterance. This proves that Bachtin’s polyphonic theory of a novel is functional in research in Translation Studies.

The aim of the paper is to discuss the book by Magdalena Pytlak on Polish and Bulgarian translations of Dostoyevski’s novel The Devils. Pytlak presents a diachronic analysis of the presence of Dostoyevski’s work in both contexts and singles out the canonical translations for each of them: Zagórski/Podgórzec for Polish and Rajczew for Bulgarian ones. Bachtin’s notion of narrative polyphony is the main methodological tool Pytlak uses. Conclusions drawn for the detailed analysis of translation series in both languages concern the level of trust on the part of the translator towards both the writer and the reader. The translator’s task is not to explain but let the reader decide for themselves as to the interpretation of the translated text. This controversial idea is an object of discussion in the present paper.

The ongoing digitization of the literary heritage together with the growing competition between publishing houses have led to a situation where translation series of works considered as canonical changed their form of extending from diachronic, linear development in time to synchronic “explosion” of parallel texts, which task is to win readers-consumers with advantages of novelty, distinctness, “inventiveness.” Such translations gain a new function – they become a marketing tool for publishing houses. In my opinion the newest retranslations of Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita is one of the most interesting examples of the process described above. In recent years, new Polish versions of this novel have been published at a dizzying pace (five new translations between 2015 and 2018) and in overwhelming welth (five editions were published in four different translations in 2018 alone). The new translations of Bulgakov’s novel evoke a lively response from the audience. All sorts of analysis, comparisons and opinions have been published not only in scientific journals, but also in daily newspapers, internet forums and in comments in online bookstores. In the Internet, professional translation criticism coexists with private opinions of Internet users (often based on non-literary factors) and with marketing content, advertisements, and blurbs deliberately formed as reviews. In this paper I would like to discuss new roles of professional translation criticism in circumstances described above, analyse its presence in the Internet and try to define its new objects. On the one hand, its voice should be loud and clear enough to be heard in the virtual chaos of texts, on the other hand – persuasive and lucid enough to help readers to become aware of decisions they make by choosing a particular translation and perceive the literary value of texts hidden behind attractive covers of new editions.

Translator and Taboo: Polish Versions of Leonid Andreyev’s The Abyss

This article presents a comparative analysis of three Polish translations of The Abyss by the Russian modernist Leonid Andreyev, prepared by Idalia Badowska, Henryk and Jan Zbierzchowski as well as Józef Mondschein. The analysis focuses on manipulation in translation, both cultural and socio-political. The Polish paratext – either in the form of translator’s preface or letters by main characters – reveals the translators’ intentions and strategies; moreover, it informs about the reception of Andreyev’s short story with its shocking topic and inventive form. These comments suggest also why the story had been chosen for translation in the fi rst place. It seems that the questions of taboo were important to the translators, who approached them differently. For instance, the female subject is ignored (Zbierzchowscy), objectifi ed (Mondschein) or sublimed (Badowska). In Andreyev’s short story, woman’s body is described in pre-expressionist terms, whereas the protagonists’ feelings are presented in an impressionist way. The article argues that the translation of such styles is also an important aspect of manipulation. What is more, the translators’ confrontation with the new-born aesthetics refl ects (in micro-scale) changes in the literary language of the Young Poland, where expressionism was hardly noticeable.