Friday, October 16, 2009
More details on the Verniana article: more thoughts on Adaptation and Abridgement within Translation Studies
The article which I am currently finalising for 'Verniana', presents three different abridged versions of Verne's celebrated
novel 'Around the World in Eighty Days'. One is a Ladybird Children's Classics
retelling, in simple language, with numerous illustrations; another is an
abridged version for adolescent readers, while the third is a version written
to meet the language learning needs of non-native students of English as
a Foreign Language.
I consider the patterns of abridgment and adaptation of the original novel,
and offer many examples of the actual, empirically observed features of these
shortened versions, e.g. simplified language in some cases, simplified or altered character
portrayal, altered narrative technique, and so on. I ask what are the underlying,
multiple causal influences of the changes? What are the functions and effects
of these adaptations (skopostheorie and reception theory). The skopos or
goal of the adaptation, as the final cause, may be a primary cause of the
forms of abridged translations, but other multiple causes are also at work,
e.g. the agency of the individual translator/adapter, norms of appropriate
content, language level, and so on.
Can these adapted versions be regarded as 'translations' in the same way
as the more conventional, complete and unabridged, inter-lingual renderings
of original works? Thus, the ontological debate as to what constitutes 'translation'
is brought into sharper relief when we consider the question of abridgment
and simplification for particular segments of readers ('superaddressees')
with well-defined needs and expectations.
I ask also whether simplified versions of classic literature are a useful,
welcome, valuable means of introducing younger readers to celebrated authors
such as Jules Verne,
and to his now canonized works of literature? Or are they 'unfaithful' 'deformations'
of such great literary works? This speculation is fundamental and long-standing
within Translation Studies and Comparative Literature: are adapted versions
entropic, or could they rather be, to use Cronin's (2006) term, 'negentropic',
i.e. is there translation 'gain' rather than 'loss' when an original (source)
text as written by Verne, is re-presented in a new, different, diverse form?
The question of negentropy
can be applied to all types of adaptations, e.g. film versions of novels,
television adaptations, and generally, to all translation, even when it is
claimed to somehow traduce, or be inferior to, a great original. If literary
translations in general have been, in the past, misprized by some literary
comparatists, then adaptations have been particularly frowned upon. I argue
in this paper that not alone is conventional literary translation a legitimate
and valuable means of accessing an original work, but also that abridged
literature, be it intra- or inter-lingually adapted, contributes something
new and original to the source text/source author.
These Verne adapted versions,
for instance, give younger readers their first introduction to Verne's work,
and, when they are older, they may be enticed by these simplified versions
to read the complete original, be it in the source or a target language.
I thus see adaptation as a positive phenomenon. It creates new cultural forms.
It fosters diversity. It does not involve 'transformative loss' (Cronin,
2006: 127) but, rather, initiates younger readers to the joy of literature.
Diversity is welcome. It does not devalue, but enhances the original, which
gains, not loses, through its adaptations. A similar role of initiation,
diversity and gain is performed by film versions, stage musical adaptations
of classic novels, and so on. Adaptation 'keeps the classics alive' (Oittinen,
1993: 87) and builds a bridge between the source text and diverse groups
of readers/consumers.
Finally, I will consider proposals by translation scholars such as Delabastita
(2008), that the time may be opportune for Translation Studies to reconsider
its sometimes fixed, static conceptions of its object of study. I argue that
the study of abridged versions and of other, non-traditional/non-prototypical
forms of translations, may help our discipline to open up its object(s) of
enquiry to a much wider variety of textual manifestations of inter- and intra-lingual
transmission. Thus, all sorts of textual versions such as retellings, rewritings,
cinematic adaptations, theatrical versions, and so on, seem to merit the
ongoing attention of translation scholars, in tandem with film, literary
and cultural studies scholars. These texts include the three Verne
abridgments which are put under the microscope in this paper. I will argue
and seek to show by examples that they are indeed valid Verne 'translations',
notwithstanding
the differing status labels attached to them, and despite their various features
and possible origins. Furthermore, I argue that adaptation and 'conventional'
translation (unabridged) should not be seen as separate issues: they both
involve similar trends of simplification, concision, reduction, omission
and interpretation. The distinction (between adaptations and prototypical
translations) is quantitative rather than qualitative.
novel 'Around the World in Eighty Days'. One is a Ladybird Children's Classics
retelling, in simple language, with numerous illustrations; another is an
abridged version for adolescent readers, while the third is a version written
to meet the language learning needs of non-native students of English as
a Foreign Language.
I consider the patterns of abridgment and adaptation of the original novel,
and offer many examples of the actual, empirically observed features of these
shortened versions, e.g. simplified language in some cases, simplified or altered character
portrayal, altered narrative technique, and so on. I ask what are the underlying,
multiple causal influences of the changes? What are the functions and effects
of these adaptations (skopostheorie and reception theory). The skopos or
goal of the adaptation, as the final cause, may be a primary cause of the
forms of abridged translations, but other multiple causes are also at work,
e.g. the agency of the individual translator/adapter, norms of appropriate
content, language level, and so on.
Can these adapted versions be regarded as 'translations' in the same way
as the more conventional, complete and unabridged, inter-lingual renderings
of original works? Thus, the ontological debate as to what constitutes 'translation'
is brought into sharper relief when we consider the question of abridgment
and simplification for particular segments of readers ('superaddressees')
with well-defined needs and expectations.
I ask also whether simplified versions of classic literature are a useful,
welcome, valuable means of introducing younger readers to celebrated authors
such as Jules Verne,
and to his now canonized works of literature? Or are they 'unfaithful' 'deformations'
of such great literary works? This speculation is fundamental and long-standing
within Translation Studies and Comparative Literature: are adapted versions
entropic, or could they rather be, to use Cronin's (2006) term, 'negentropic',
i.e. is there translation 'gain' rather than 'loss' when an original (source)
text as written by Verne, is re-presented in a new, different, diverse form?
The question of negentropy
can be applied to all types of adaptations, e.g. film versions of novels,
television adaptations, and generally, to all translation, even when it is
claimed to somehow traduce, or be inferior to, a great original. If literary
translations in general have been, in the past, misprized by some literary
comparatists, then adaptations have been particularly frowned upon. I argue
in this paper that not alone is conventional literary translation a legitimate
and valuable means of accessing an original work, but also that abridged
literature, be it intra- or inter-lingually adapted, contributes something
new and original to the source text/source author.
These Verne adapted versions,
for instance, give younger readers their first introduction to Verne's work,
and, when they are older, they may be enticed by these simplified versions
to read the complete original, be it in the source or a target language.
I thus see adaptation as a positive phenomenon. It creates new cultural forms.
It fosters diversity. It does not involve 'transformative loss' (Cronin,
2006: 127) but, rather, initiates younger readers to the joy of literature.
Diversity is welcome. It does not devalue, but enhances the original, which
gains, not loses, through its adaptations. A similar role of initiation,
diversity and gain is performed by film versions, stage musical adaptations
of classic novels, and so on. Adaptation 'keeps the classics alive' (Oittinen,
1993: 87) and builds a bridge between the source text and diverse groups
of readers/consumers.
Finally, I will consider proposals by translation scholars such as Delabastita
(2008), that the time may be opportune for Translation Studies to reconsider
its sometimes fixed, static conceptions of its object of study. I argue that
the study of abridged versions and of other, non-traditional/non-prototypical
forms of translations, may help our discipline to open up its object(s) of
enquiry to a much wider variety of textual manifestations of inter- and intra-lingual
transmission. Thus, all sorts of textual versions such as retellings, rewritings,
cinematic adaptations, theatrical versions, and so on, seem to merit the
ongoing attention of translation scholars, in tandem with film, literary
and cultural studies scholars. These texts include the three Verne
abridgments which are put under the microscope in this paper. I will argue
and seek to show by examples that they are indeed valid Verne 'translations',
notwithstanding
the differing status labels attached to them, and despite their various features
and possible origins. Furthermore, I argue that adaptation and 'conventional'
translation (unabridged) should not be seen as separate issues: they both
involve similar trends of simplification, concision, reduction, omission
and interpretation. The distinction (between adaptations and prototypical
translations) is quantitative rather than qualitative.
No comments:
Post a Comment