Various planes of retranslation: J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye in Russian and Latvian

ABSTRACT

The translations of J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye (1951) into Russian and Latvian are analyzed in this article in the context of the political circumstances and censorship of the Soviet regime, the impacts of a canonical translation on subsequent translation versions, and the centralized translation instructions enforced upon Soviet Latvia. The first Russian translation of the novel included substantial lexical changes and given its canonical status, this impacted later Russian versions. Moreover, centralized instructions for translations into the languages of the Soviet republics compromised the quality of translation. It is also argued that the revised Latvian translation of the novel was produced in the shadow of the authoritative first translation.

KEYWORDS:

• literary translation
• retranslation
• revised translation
• censorship
• canonical translation
• translation quality
• Soviet Latvia

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The translation by Makhov published in 1998 was translated before 1991, as the translation was criticized by the translator Nora Gal’, who died in 1991; the precise year of her review is not available (see Gal’ 2007, 368). The translation by Nemtsov and Selindzher (2017) was first published in 2008.

2. Evidence of the daring editorial spirit of Inostrannaya literatura beyond politically and ideologically acceptable limits may also be provided by the dismissal in 1963, when the Thaw period ended, of chief editor (since 1955) Aleksandr Chakovskii. It should, however, be noted that the Russian translation of The Catcher in the Rye (and the publications of the English original in Moscow; see endnote 11 could have been made possible by the critical discussion of the novel in the West. Some critics advocated a reading, which provided evidence for Salinger’s awareness of class inequality, social hypocrisy, and the impact of capitalism (see Petrenko 2009, 48; Graham 2007, Ch. Critical History), thus favorably placing Salinger’s text in line with the Soviet criticism of the West.

3. When, in 1960, rumors were spread that the Party had also banned bonfires, a part of the traditional ritual, Arvīds Pelše, First Secretary of the Communist Party of Latvia, explained the political position as follows: ‘We don’t ban them, but we don’t support them either’ (Kruks 2012, 37).

4. For quotations from e-book versions of the publications the chapter title or number is specified for reader’s convenience; as there is no uniform page number structure in e-books, e-book citations do not include page numbers.

5. In the early 1960s, Glavlit played a secondary role in ensuring political and ideological control (Blium 2005, Ch. 1). Regarding censorship in Soviet Latvia, Raimonds Briedis noted that in the mid−1950s, Glavlit, due to its limited authority, often consulted the Party’s Central Committee; in the early 1960s, the grip of censorship again became stronger. Censors complained that it was more complicated to identify ideological issues in literary texts as they had become more implicit. Consequently, censors were asked to apply more creative techniques, in order not to miss the ideological flaws in literary texts (Briedis 2010, 130–131).

6. ‘The technology of censorship control underwent little change compared to the 1930s and 1940s…. As before, any text was filtered at the stages of preliminary and subsequent control (not to mention editorial and so-called “self-censorship … .” Not a single printed work could pass the preliminary censorship and be published without permissive endorsement. … Any slightest deviation from the original submitted for control was resolutely rejected even when it came to stylistic editing or correction of errors and typos’ (Blium 2005, Ch. 2).

7. There was another category of publications that was marked ‘Distributed according to special list No. 9,’ and made available exclusively for the upper stratum of the Party’s elite. In this way, Inostrannaya literatura published Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls in 1962.

8. Rachel May (1994, 12), who noted that this phenomenon has proven particularly strong in Russia, made a more general observation: ‘It is because we tend to assume that translations are imperfect that we behave as if they were not.’ Therefore, we read these ‘true’ or ‘unmediated’ versions as if they were the original texts. She also commented that a canonical status has been similarly assigned to the English translation of Russian literature by Constance Garnett. Moreover, May (1994, 37–38) referred to a review that stated, ‘taken as a whole her [Garnett’s] translations were … easily the best.’ Consequently, the translator readers are familiar with is also the one they trust. It seems that Russian readers employ a similar ‘bulk translation’ assessment method with regard to Rait-Kovaleva.

9. In 1968, the English text of the novel was published in Moscow (Progress; circulation of 50,000 copies). Although we only possess specific parts of this publication, we obtained the next English publication by the same publishing house, Progress, in 1979 (circulation of 85,000 copies). We were unable to identify any changes compared to the original English text; likewise, we were unable to identify any discrepancies between the two English texts published in Moscow. Moreover, extensive explanations of specific English words and idioms are included followed by a list of lexical items which feature deviations from the phonetic norm (Salinger 1968, 248). No specific data are available about sales of both English publications in the Soviet Union, but we should emphasize that at that time the general English language abilities of Soviet citizens were usually quite low (see Poltoratskaya 1961). Apart from methodological issues, Soviet citizens also lacked motivation to study foreign languages as contacts with foreigners were very limited. The context regarding translations as ‘truth-telling’ literature was additionally explained by Brodsky (2011): ‘Books became the first and only reality, whereas reality itself was regarded as either nonsense or nuisance … . If we made ethical choices, they were based not so much on immediate reality as on moral standards derived from fiction.’

10. Broadly-speaking, this view usually also applies to the general understanding of the phenomenon of retranslation.

11. The next paragraph featured another Russian pejorative ‘pederast’ for the English word ‘flit’ (in the 1960, 1965, and 1983 publications of the first Russian translation), one more instance of unreasonable translation variation.

12. Borisenko (2009), however, noted that Rait-Kovaleva reportedly asked for permission to include the Russian word ‘govnyuk’ (‘shithead’ or ‘motherfucker’), but the editors deleted it.

13. In this regard, we should again refer to Borisenko (2009), who admitted that in her translation, Rait-Kovaleva was likely to be able to do almost everything she wanted.

14. Homosexuality was also a criminal offense in the United States until 1962 and was only decriminalized in the United Kingdom in 1967.

15. The novel was censored in the United States (see Bloom 2007, 16–18).

16. This sentence is, however, included in the Latvian translation: ‘Par pederastiem un lezbietēm’ (Bauga and Selindžers 1969, 134).

17. Latvijas Nacionālais arhīvs – Latvijas valsts arhīvs (hereafter LVA), 478. f., 11. apr., 53. (Vol.1), 54. (Vol. 2) l. State Publishing House Liesma fond.

18. This may also explain why the edited text version available in the LVA and the published text show no differences which could be associated with censorship impact. As to potential censorship notes in texts, however, we point to an important note: ‘Should a censor have objections regarding the text, they inform the publishing house or editors orally.’ Instruktsiya o poryadke tsenzorskogo kontrolya (1955, paragraph 17).

19. LNA LVA, 478. f., 11. apr., 53. l., 91. lp.

20. LNA LVA, 478. f., 11. apr., 53. l., 44. lp.

21. LNA LVA, 478. f., 11. apr., 53. l., 51. lp.

22. LNA LVA, 478. f., 11. apr., 54. l., 230. lp.

23. LNA LVA, 478. f., 11. apr., 53. l., 175. lp.

24. Significantly, the respective items also lacked extratextual gloss in the 1960 and 1965 publications of the Russian translation.

25. LNA LVA, 478. f., 11. apr., 53. l., 140. lp.

26. It should, however, be emphasized that typical (and important) elements of Holden’s speech, ‘or something’ and ‘and all,’ which are featured throughout the text, were, without any apparent reason, sometimes disregarded by Rait-Kovaleva, as confirmed by the translation of the ST unit ‘No kidding, they better for sex and all?’ (Salinger 2010, Ch. 9) and Chuvstvoval ya sebya preparshivo (Rait-Kovaleva and Selindzher 1960, 61).

27. In her review, Gal’ (2007, 368) made a specific note of the preferred approach regarding the source-text units in italics. She reproached Makhov that in most cases italics were retained mechanically, without making a prosodic emphasis in the Russian utterance. She added that such an emphasis meant that it was not necessary to use italics in the target text.

28. Similarly, the new Latvian translation of Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights by Dagnija Dreika, which was published in 2012 (the previous translation by Helga Gintere was also republished in 2012) featured certain more specific or old-fashioned words and expressions compared to the first translation by Helga Gintere in 1960 (Veckrācis 2021, 117). The Brontë translation by Dreika (Brontē 2012) also demonstrated that the margin between revised translations and retranslations is often vague: although the translator claimed to have updated the translation and to have included the missing elements, the new text appeared to be more like a considerably revised version of the translation by Gintere (Veckrācis 2021, 104).

29. The use of lexis in Latvian translations should, however, be assessed by taking into account that the typical mission of Latvian translators is to employ all the resources available in the language and enriching texts, and thus expand the vocabulary of readers with specific, rarely used words.

30. See Latvijas Nacionālā digitālā bibliotēka (National Digital Library of Latvia): www.periodika.lv

31. As noted by Justīne Vernera (2018, 8), the Russian title may also implicitly refer to Marxist ideology and its concept of an abyss between the rich and the poor.

32. Other retranslation studies also demonstrated that ‘different versions often live side by side in the literary system, and the new one does not necessarily push the others aside’ (Koskinen and Paloposki 2019, 33). In addition, Wardle (2019, 235) noted that when several translations are available, most readers are influenced by combinations of ‘external’ factors, such as availability, marketing strategies, price, prominence, the distribution network of the publishing companies, star ratings, and levels of appreciation registered by fellow consumers.

33. When the article’s author translated a story without knowing that the collection of stories had already been made available in Latvian by another translator 20 years previously, she expressed confusion regarding the reasons involved in the retranslation and quoted a famous Latvian movie character: ‘Well, I’m still alive.’ Some participants in the related online discussion on Facebook suggested checking whether the new translation was a case of plagiarism, which is apparently a common issue in retranslations, while others noted that a new version was a welcome event.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jānis Veckrācis

Jānis Veckrācis is an Associate Professor and Leading Researcher in Linguistics at Ventspils University of Applied Sciences.