Home
Today I felt like interpreting two different translations of Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground. Lexical choice is at the heart of understanding and interpreting literature, as it is the subtle manipulation of words that ultimately determines how we perceive different literature. In this essay, we will examine how subtle differences in the diction and tone affect the reader's interpretation of a text through examining two different translations of the same story, Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground Man (the first two chapters), each translated respectively by David Magarshack and the team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.
An early noticeable difference we see between the two translations of Notes from Underground is the use of "wicked" and "wickedness", rather than "spiteful" and "spitefulness". The constant repetition of these words throughout the opening chapter of Notes from Underground makes this lexical choice particularly important for interpreting the text, just because of the sheer number of times they appear. Repetition seems to be a dominant instrument in Dostoevsky's writing. Pevear's choice of words carries connotations of evil, and a failure of moral values, while Magarshack's lexical choice carries connotations of self-harming rebellion and anger. The latter's use of words seem to be more coherent with the overall tone in which the Underground Man writes (so far), as he is constantly taunting the reader and guessing what he/she will say next, as well as refuting disagreements that the reader hasn't even voiced yet. Pevear's translation suggests that the Underground Man has these inherent moral and psychological faults which motivates him to not receive medical treatment and be hostile to others, while Magarshack's translation hints that the Underground Man has this grudge against all established order in the world, which translates into his 'spite', which is his method of rebelling against the norms in which he believes society has confined him to.
It is again lexical choice which alters our perception of Notes from Underground. The use of the words "fine gentleman", in contrast with "fops" demonstrates a dark humorous side to the Underground Man, as he clearly does not believe that the men who come into his office are 'fine' people. His use of sarcasm to characterize these men rather than bluntly describing them as 'fops' creates a feeling of levity in his writing through humor, and creates an almost comical tone, which prevents the reader from taking his writing too seriously. Pevear's lexical choice gives a feeling of blunt hostility and strong dislike, and generates a tone of arrogant disdain, and the Underground Man believes he is not excessively vain and concerned with outward appearances like these men. Again, Pevear's use of the words "speak" in place of "talk", and "swagger" over "show off" makes his interpretation of the Underground Man more refined and literary. Again, when the Underground Man states that he has "a terrible amour propre", rather than saying he is "very vain", the reader feels that the Underground Man is pretentious, and has a falsified eloquence to him, a feeling not evident in Magarshack's translation. Pevear parallels the Underground Man's personal vanity in writing with the vanity of the "fops", and creates a feeling of incoherency in the Underground Man's disdain, something very much evident in his philosophy also.
Through our examination of these two different translations, we see that the subtle manipulation of words can entirely alter the perception of the reader towards the literature being read. Although differences between Pevear's and Magarshack's respective translations were at times difficult to locate, they made for quite different readings of the same novella, and thus, we realize the power of translator in our interpretation of foreign literature.
An early noticeable difference we see between the two translations of Notes from Underground is the use of "wicked" and "wickedness", rather than "spiteful" and "spitefulness". The constant repetition of these words throughout the opening chapter of Notes from Underground makes this lexical choice particularly important for interpreting the text, just because of the sheer number of times they appear. Repetition seems to be a dominant instrument in Dostoevsky's writing. Pevear's choice of words carries connotations of evil, and a failure of moral values, while Magarshack's lexical choice carries connotations of self-harming rebellion and anger. The latter's use of words seem to be more coherent with the overall tone in which the Underground Man writes (so far), as he is constantly taunting the reader and guessing what he/she will say next, as well as refuting disagreements that the reader hasn't even voiced yet. Pevear's translation suggests that the Underground Man has these inherent moral and psychological faults which motivates him to not receive medical treatment and be hostile to others, while Magarshack's translation hints that the Underground Man has this grudge against all established order in the world, which translates into his 'spite', which is his method of rebelling against the norms in which he believes society has confined him to.
It is again lexical choice which alters our perception of Notes from Underground. The use of the words "fine gentleman", in contrast with "fops" demonstrates a dark humorous side to the Underground Man, as he clearly does not believe that the men who come into his office are 'fine' people. His use of sarcasm to characterize these men rather than bluntly describing them as 'fops' creates a feeling of levity in his writing through humor, and creates an almost comical tone, which prevents the reader from taking his writing too seriously. Pevear's lexical choice gives a feeling of blunt hostility and strong dislike, and generates a tone of arrogant disdain, and the Underground Man believes he is not excessively vain and concerned with outward appearances like these men. Again, Pevear's use of the words "speak" in place of "talk", and "swagger" over "show off" makes his interpretation of the Underground Man more refined and literary. Again, when the Underground Man states that he has "a terrible amour propre", rather than saying he is "very vain", the reader feels that the Underground Man is pretentious, and has a falsified eloquence to him, a feeling not evident in Magarshack's translation. Pevear parallels the Underground Man's personal vanity in writing with the vanity of the "fops", and creates a feeling of incoherency in the Underground Man's disdain, something very much evident in his philosophy also.
Through our examination of these two different translations, we see that the subtle manipulation of words can entirely alter the perception of the reader towards the literature being read. Although differences between Pevear's and Magarshack's respective translations were at times difficult to locate, they made for quite different readings of the same novella, and thus, we realize the power of translator in our interpretation of foreign literature.
