Can I just mention at the start of this posting that my email address is kieran.odriscoll3@mail.dcu.ie and not the former gmail address cited by Blogger.com, which i'm trying to get changed.
I spoke briefly about applications for jobs in a previous posting. In late 2009, graduates generally, across all disciplines, are seeking work in a difficult economic climate. Jobs in my own chosen field of lecturing and research in Translation Studies/Languages are as thin on the ground as in any other profession you care to mention.
I currently have applications submitted for French lecturing posts to such colleges as Dublin Institute of Technology in Kevin Street; the Universities of Manchester, Leeds, Middlesex and Bangor, Wales, having failed to be shortlisted for interview in such universities as Hull, Stirling, Queen Mary London, Edinburgh and DCU. I've also applied recently for a post as English Language Checker with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, plus a good many TEFL jobs, principally ones based in France (the latter type of jobs have brought not a single positive outcome so far!)
How are other graduates, across the world, and in all disciplines, faring with their job searches? I would love to hear your experiences.
Moving on to the topic of translation, one area of Translation Studies which I would like to hear people's views on is that of adaptation, e.g. abridged versions of classic novels, not originally necessarily intended for a child readership, which have been shortened and simplified for younger readers, and perhaps also simultaneously transferred into a language other than the original, e.g. a Ladybird Book version of Jules Verne's Around the World in Eighty Days.
But adaptation is not only an inter-lingual, translational and/or textual phenomenon; thus, we have stage musical and film versions of Hugo's classic novels such as Les Misérables, and regularly occurring new screen adaptations of the novels of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, to name but two favourites from the BBC and ITV stables (these TV serials would be intra-lingual and inter-semiotic adaptations, as opposed to the more conventional concept of translation as inter-lingual).
In the future, I imagine that J.K. Rowling will give her consent to new adaptations of her Harry Potter novels, so that I, for one, look forward to seeing significantly abbreviated and richly illustrated Ladybird book versions of the Harry Potter stories, together with new film and TV serialized versions. These adaptations are all likely to be still going strong in future centuries, just as Verne, Dickens, Austen, the Brontes and other nineteenth-century classic authors continue to be adapted in the twenty-first century.
Dirk Delabastita, the Belgian translation scholar, believes that Translation Studies should significantly and unashamedly broaden its remit to include the study of, among other textual phenomena, adaptation. I agree with this view. I found that adapted versions of Verne's 80 Days were even more interesting a translation study than the conventional, complete translations. For instance, Joyce Faraday's 1982 Ladybird version of the adventures of Fogg and Passepartout, displayed some interesting changes which she made to Verne's original.
For example, she transformed the taciturn, phlegmatic Phileas Fogg into less of an unemotional automaton, so that he was seen to become concerned or angry when obstacles threatened his progress. I was unable to contact Faraday herself to interview her on her adaptational strategies. But I hypothesize that transformations such as the foregoing alteration to Fogg's character, help to make this mysterious, enigmatical personage more understandable to the intended child readership of a Ladybird book. Thus, the intended purpose and target readership of this adapted version of Verne's classic story, are the primary cause of the adapter/translator's strategies. Technically, in the terminology of causation, the purpose, goal or function of a target text is known as the skopos (plural skopoi) of the text, and the purpose of a translation, including an adaptation, is part of the causa finalis of the translation. Other noteworthy features of this Faraday target text include, not surprisingly, copious illustrations and simplified language, and obviously, a much-shortened narrative, plus other changes to narrative sequence and structure which, I feel, make the narrative technique cognitively simpler for the intended readership.
However, Faraday has not chosen to omit some of the darker elements of Verne's original, e.g. references to Aouda's being 'burned alive' or to Fogg's suicide, the latter being, admittedly, more obliquely mentioned, and not in the main body of the adaptation. In children's literature generally, darker references are indeed sometimes to the fore. For example, the stories of Perrault in French in the late 1600s have several references to cannibalism, usually with young children on the menu, often planned to be eaten by their grandparents, e.g. an ogress in Sleeping Beauty (La Belle au Bois Dormant) decides she wants to eat her two grandchildren. As you do. At least this is what happens in Perrault's original, if not in the Ladybird and other adaptations of this story which I read as a child.
I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on how far Translation Studies should go to broaden its areas of interest; for example, is adaptation as discussed in this posting, a suitable/worthwhile area of Translation Theory research? Should film and musical versions of a classic novel be studied by Translation scholars, even if there is no shift in language?
And what is the value of adaptation? I consider that adapted versions of a classic literary work can be a good way to get new readers - not just child readers, adults too - introduced to, and maybe hooked on, a classic work and author. Readers of an interesting literary adaptation, viewers of a stage musical or film version of a classic novel, may be enticed, sooner or later, to read the original, if they've had their appetite whetted by a much-loved adaptation.
For instance, I loved the film musical version of Oliver! starring Mark Lester in the title role (Mark was most recently in the news for apparently being the biological father of one (two?) of the children of the late Michael Jackson). I had the LP recording, and I was involved in a number of school productions of this musical as a child. It was this musical version of the Dickens novel that enticed me to eventually read the full original, and, later, to read other works by Dickens. Lionel Bart's musical adaptation of Oliver! made the Dickens characters more alive and likeable for me as a child and teenager, than they would have been if viewed through the dusty, yellowing pages of my father's rare edition. But I could appreciate those ancient folios so much more, having come to them indirectly, through screen, colour, song and dance, via Lionel Bart, Mark Lester and Ron Moody.
I therefore feel that popular adaptations are a useful way to spread the 'memes' of the original work to new audiences. And with adaptations, questions of faithfulness to the original don't need to be as rigorous as in conventional translation, where accuracy in transferring the detailed 'facts' of the original is a dominant norm. Hence it's 'okay' - perhaps even necessary - for Faraday to make Fogg a less complex, perhaps more likeable character, in her own reworking of the Verne original.
What are other people's thoughts on adaptations, their value, and their relevance to Translation scholars?
In a way, I think that even 'normal', complete translations of classic novels are adaptations in their own right. The translator inevitably brings her own style of writing and her own interpretations to the original.
Speaking of Verne and 80 Days, I see that last Saturday's (10th October, 2009) Irish Independent contained a children's book adaptation by Disney of this Verne novel, with Donald Duck in the Phileas Fogg role. I must try to get my hands on a copy; i'm not a regular reader of the Indo.
In one of the recent reprintings of William Butcher's acclaimed 1995 translation of 80 Days, the cartoon characters Wallace and Gromit appeared on the cover of the (Oxford University Press) edition, to represent Fogg and Passepartout. There have been many film versions and TV cartoon versions, plus some musical versions, of this novel over the decades. My own favourite film version is the 1956 Oscar-laden version by Mike Todd (then husband of Elizabeth Taylor), with David Niven as Fogg.
So that's enough about adaptations and (job) applications! PS One of the comments by my external examiner on my PhD thesis is that my writing style is 'extremely prolix'. He advised me to use one adjective instead of my usual five! I was horrified to read the Collins dictionary definition of 'prolix', viz. 'so long as to be boring'.
But it's an absolutely fair comment. I bore myself most of the time! (lol).
No comments:
Post a Comment