The Thomas Mann Group discussion

This is for the discussion of translations of the various books by Thomas Mann.

Translations into any language can be discussed here.

Obituray on David Luke, and Oxfor Don and translator of Thomas Mann (I have just downloaded his translation of Death in Venice and other short stories.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obi...

Can somebody please confirm whether this particular edition is also a John E. Woods translation? - The Magic Mountain. Everywhere I come across this version, I can't seem to be able to find any mention of the name of the translator.

Samadrita wrote: "Can somebody please confirm whether this particular edition is also a John E. Woods translation? - The Magic Mountain. Everywhere I come across this version, I can't seem to be able to find any men..."

Samadrita,

I am afraid that one is not by Woods but by Lowe-Porter.

Check this out..

http://rhwidget.randomhouse.co.uk/fla...

originally from this page which lets you have a look inside.


http://www.vintage-books.co.uk/books/...

According to WorldCat, that is the Lowe–Porter.
http://www.worldcat.org/title/magic-m...

If I can get a second confirmation, I'll edit the book information to reflect that it actually is Lowe–Porter.

On translators of Der Tod in Venedig.

http://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/tr...

Thank you for clarifying Jason and Kall! I got confused because both the editions seem to have been published by Vintage classics and the publication year seems to be the same as well.

Kalliope wrote: "On translators of Der Tod in Venedig.

http://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/tr..."

Interesting that the article notes that there doesn't seem to be a great difference between many of the translations.

While reading DIV, I skipped between the translations by Clayton Koelb and Michael Henry Heim and I must admit that I didn't find much difference between them. Both seemed to favor a more or less American interpretation.

I just realized that I have another translation, the one by David Luke (that you mentioned earlier, Kalliope!) on my shelf. When I have time, I should probably look and see what that translation is like in comparison...

Here's a brief review from the NYT when Woods' translation of The Magic Mountain first came out: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/22/boo...

Traveller wrote: "Interesting that the article notes that there doesn't seem to be a great..."

it seems the differences are based on how explicit they are on the sexual aspects and whether they keep the long German sentences.

Somewhere else I read that the L-P was particularly bad for this work because she omitted something towards the end.. Will try and recover where I read that.

I have the David Luke now, and the original.. I may have time to read it before we begin TMM.

I got the Vintage from the library. The page numbers aren't the same as the one being used by Kris and others but I can follow by the chapters.

Kris wrote: "Here's a brief review from the NYT when Woods' translation of The Magic Mountain first came out: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/22/boo......"

Thanks for this Kris. Interesting.

AWW MAN (.....heh), I got the very nice new Vintage paperback (why is this not an ebook for Godsakes?) and there are NO NOTES. And all those long philosophical conversations with dozens and dozens of references....! Oy.

Moira wrote: "(why is this not an ebook for Godsakes?)"

Don't know where you live, Moira, so not sure if it's available where you are, but I found this, for one:

http://www.epubbud.com/book.php?g=W23...

Moira wrote: "AWW MAN (.....heh), I got the very nice new Vintage paperback (why is this not an ebook for Godsakes?) and there are NO NOTES. And all those long philosophical conversations with dozens and dozens ..."

just checked--no notes in my hardcover Everyman edition. Oh well I know there's a great introduction which I want to read before the book.

Teresa wrote: ", Moira, so not sure if it's available where you are, but I found this, for one:

http://www.epubbud.com/book.php?g..."

Thank you for this. It is the Woods translation, right?

Hmmm, I'm just now reading Sue's post regarding no notes in the Everyman edition. Do any of the other translations have them?

Kalliope wrote: "Thank you for this. It is the Woods translation, right? "

Sorry, I don't know. I haven't downloaded it, just found the site.

Teresa wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "Thank you for this. It is the Woods translation, right? "

Sorry, I don't know. I haven't downloaded it, just found the site."

I have just downloaded and YES, it is the Woods.

Thank you Teresa.... This is great for traveling, to have the eformat as well (no ribbon, but less weight).

I'm saving this Teresa. I will deal with all the conversions I have to do for epub later. I already have the hardcover anyway and enjoyed that for Buddenbrooks. thanks.

Sue wrote: "I'm saving this Teresa. I will deal with all the conversions I have to do for epub later. I already have the hardcover anyway and enjoyed that for Buddenbrooks. thanks."

Do you have calibre?.. it is wonderful for conversions....

Kalliope wrote: "I have just downloaded and YES, it is the Woods.

Thank you Teresa.... This is great for traveling, to have the eformat as well (no ribbon, but less weight)."

Yay! I'll probably use it too at times, like for reading in bed. I'm reading a 630-page leather hardcover right now and it's killing my hands at night.

Kalliope wrote: "Sue wrote: "I'm saving this Teresa. I will deal with all the conversions I have to do for epub later. I already have the hardcover anyway and enjoyed that for Buddenbrooks. thanks."

Do you have ca..."

I haven't got that yet but I saved the page that tells how to add it to my kindle fire. Eventually I'll do it.

I just downloaded this, and while the cover indicates that is is the Woods translation, it is in fact the Lowe-Porter version in the text. It is very confusing, but I checked it against my paperback copy and it is entirely different.

Oh, what a shame. Thank you Diane for checking this.

I'm completely ignorant when it comes to theories behind what makes for a good transaltion vs a bad translation.

When I read Buddenbrooks, I read the Lowe-Porter translation and I LOVED the novel, it is one of the best novels I've read in a while. Why does her translation seem to be held in such low regard? Is she mistranslating? Is she "breaking the rules" of translating texts?

Ultimately, I would like to read the Woods translation and do a compare and contrast, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Sue wrote: "just checked--no notes in my hardcover Everyman edition. Oh well I know there's a great introduction which I want to read before the book."

SIGH

I have no intro.....I also think there's an Afterword? by Mann which was helpful, which was in my paperback ed. (I think that was bright yellow, not hot pink; apparently mixed it up due to sheer size I guess with Motorcycle Maintenance).

Kalliope wrote: "Do you have calibre?.. it is wonderful for conversions...."

Calibre is FANTASTIC.

Dharmakirti wrote: "I'm completely ignorant when it comes to theories behind what makes for a good transaltion vs a bad translation.

When I read Buddenbrooks, I read the Lowe-Porter translation and I LOVED the novel,..."

I think there's a little about it in the link already dropped here http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/22/boo... I actually do like older translations a lot, but sometimes there's a real super-British Edwardian or even Victorian vocabulary that can be dreadful (a lot of early Chekhov translations are just Bad about this).

Moira wrote: " I actually do like older translations a lot, but sometimes there's a real super-British Edwardian or even Victorian vocabulary that can be dreadful
..."

Yes, older novels read better in earlier translations. The problem with older translations is that, earlier, translating was considered to be a much “freer” activity than we like to think of it now… This has happened with the translations of Russian or Arabic etc… when the translators would just write their own adaptations of the original (omitting, changing, adding) as they saw fit.

I haven't got the Lowe-Porter translation at hand. In his translation, does Lowe-Porter maintain the same sentence structure as our grand-master of the subordinate clause?

Ulrike wrote: "I haven't got the Lowe-Porter translation at hand. In his translation, does Lowe-Porter maintain the same sentence structure as our grand-master of the subordinate clause?"

A minor correction; her translation, not his: Lowe-Porter was a woman.

A link to her translation was given in an earlier post. Here it is again:

http://www.epubbud.com/book.php?g=W23...

I have downloaded it into Adobe Digital Editions (free), and it seems to be complete and read just fine.

Dharmakirti wrote: "I'm completely ignorant when it comes to theories behind what makes for a good translation vs a bad translation...."

D -- much is written about what makes a "good" versus a "bad" translation, and often that isn't even the issue between translations, so I won't even try to be thorough here, but one place to start is the article by Michael Cunningham at the opening of this translation of Death in Venice: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Venice-Mi... (Use the "Look Inside Feature," although the very first pages of Intro are missing, unfortunately.)

Perhaps no book more so than the Bible is fertile ground for discussions on the value, pros, cons, strengths, limitations of various translations. But one of the legendary battles was between Nabokov, translator of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin and critic Wilson, who, among other things, accused Nabokov of using arcane English in his attempt to render precise meaning in translation and in the process missing more vital aspects of the original. NYT did a series of articles in recent years on new translations of Tolstoy's novels, where a man and wife team describe their strategies and what they were trying to accomplish. If you don't get bored by the arcane, you are on an interesting journey that may never end. Language and the significance of its nuances will emerge and amaze.

There's also some interesting stuff about Lowe-Porter in Wiki (I know, I know -- but -- it's not bad!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._T._Lo... It mentions John C. Thirwall's In Another Language: A Record of the Thirty-Year Relationship between Thomas Mann and His English Translator, Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter, from 1966, which sounds amazing just from the title alone.

Thanks for all of this information. I'm going to have to set aside some time for this. I'll listen to the music while I read!

There's also this article in, of all places, Popmatters, which talks about the Porter/Woods translations, especially comparing the final sentence: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/m...

Here is an interesting article about Helen Lowe-Porter's translation.

"And Helen Lowe-Porter, Thomas Mann's lifelong English translator--and friend--has been maligned for errors and insensitivity to nuance, in particular for failing to understand certain idioms, old-fashioned in expression, and worse, having skipped lines that were seemingly too difficult for her."


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/19...

Thanks, GT!

Here's a nice piece in the Cambridge Companion to Thomas Mann where Timothy Buck essentially cuts Lowe-Porter a new one. John E. Woods doesn't get off scot-free either, though.

http://wikis.la.utexas.edu/deutsche_k...

Buck has some complaints about Woods' ability to translate Mann adequately, and lists some examples of his mistakes. Yeah, OK, whatever, but Woods' errors, of which there are only a few cited, are certainly less egregious than Lowe-Porter's.

Buck seems to have no problem whatsoever with Luke's translations. They were probably big buddies in real life.

Rod wrote: "Here's a nice piece in the Cambridge Companion to Thomas Mann where Timothy Buck essentially cuts Lowe-Porter a new one."

LOL. I'll be picking through that book this week, since I will not get MM for a few days.

Oh good! The green troll is here! We do not discriminate!

Green Troll wrote: "Here is an interesting article about Helen Lowe-Porter's translation.

"And Helen Lowe-Porter, Thomas Mann's lifelong English translator--and friend--has been maligned for errors and insensitivity..."

Oh, nice!

-- This part is hilarious:

As any student of German can testify, Mann is a formidable opponent for readers. His sentences are lengthy, ponderous and to some extent contrived. His vocabulary is vast. Worst of all, Mann is a heavy thinker. His novels represent a very large dose of literary profundity.

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING. I love him anyway.

Rod wrote: "Here's a nice piece in the Cambridge Companion to Thomas Mann where Timothy Buck essentially cuts Lowe-Porter a new one. John E. Woods doesn't get off scot-free either, though.

http://wikis.la...."

Oh, someone criticizes Woods? GOOD, because I'm tripping over some stuff in MM.

I actually liked Luke's translation of DiV best -- altho he also rips Porter a new on in his intro, heh.

Moira wrote: "Oh, someone criticizes Woods? GOOD, because I'm tripping over some stuff in MM."

I remember encountering a few things here and there where I also got tripped up, but overall I like Woods' translations of Mann. Some of the translations I've read that I thought were really great, some professor could come along and totally rip the shit out of it, making perfectly valid points, I'm sure. That's the nature of translation; it's an imperfect art, and everybody's going to do it a little bit differently. I try not to worry about it too much because if I do, then I start thinking, "Shit, I just won't read translated works anymore because I'll never know for sure if the translation is true to the original, and I don't have time to become fluent in another language." And that would be a shame.

Rod wrote: "I try not to worry about it too much because if I do, then I start thinking, "Shit, I just won't read translated works anymore because I'll never know for sure if the translation is true to the original, and I don't have time to become fluent in another language." And that would be a shame. "

Michael Cunningham (of all people, I LOATHE him) has a really nice intro to the Heim translation of DiV about how all literature is essentially a translation from the author's original idea -- he put it better, it was really neat.

Moira wrote: "Rod wrote: "I try not to worry about it too much because if I do, then I start thinking, "Shit, I just won't read translated works anymore because I'll never know for sure if the translation is tru..."

That's the translation I have (but haven't yet read). I'll be sure ti read the introduction.

Rod wrote: "Moira wrote: "Oh, someone criticizes Woods? GOOD, because I'm tripping over some stuff in MM."

I remember encountering a few things here and there where I also got tripped up, but overall I like W..."

On the other hand listing for Ulrike all the bits that annoyed me made it REALLY clear to me how much the "Spiffing!" and "Capital!" and "Tally-ho!"* ejaculations** are bugging me.

There is this rather charming interview with Woods: http://www.thelocal.de/society/201006...

His metaphor: “Here the author has created a beautiful meadow with a cow, a landscape worthy of a Dutch master, and what I give you is a very good steak.”


*OK, nobody actually said "Tally-ho!", but I wouldn't be surprised at this rate

**....what?

Sue wrote: "Moira wrote: "Rod wrote: "I try not to worry about it too much because if I do, then I start thinking, "Shit, I just won't read translated works anymore because I'll never know for sure if the tran..."

I actually really preferred David Luke's translation of DiV -- it read very smoothly, but also seemed pretty faithful. I wonder if he'd ever translate MM....

AUGH, I missed the message from Kalliope up top that he died. I GUESS NOT, THEN. Damn.

Moira wrote: "Rod wrote: "Moira wrote: "Oh, someone criticizes Woods? GOOD, because I'm tripping over some stuff in MM."

I remember encountering a few things here and there where I also got tripped up, but over..."

Well, I must admit I'm not a big fan of the translated "slang" you quoted either, it makes Hans sound like the caricature of an English upper-middle-class twit - rather than a patrician from Hamburg at the beginning of the last century.

Honestly, the use of "Capital!" I find really grating as I cannot picture anyone just pre-war using the terms unless they are performing a Dickensian play.

Why didn't they just translate it as "isn't that priceless!"? Or was that idiom not in use at the time?

What I noticed, though, is how current Mann's use of language/slang must have been at the time. Many of the phrases he endows the two youngsters with are the same that my grandparents used, and the book was written a decade before they were born.

Ulrike wrote: "it makes Hans sound like the caricature of an English upper-middle-class twit - rather than a patrician from Hamburg at the beginning of the last century.

It TRULY does. It makes him sound like a twit from that Monty Python sketch!

Why didn't they just translate it as "isn't that priceless!"? Or was that idiom not in use at the time?

I don't know if it was in WWI-era English, but it certainly is now. Jeez.

What I noticed, though, is how current Mann's use of language/slang must have been at the time. Many of the phrases he endows the two youngsters with are the same that my grandparents used, and the book was written a decade before they were born. "

.....OK, that makes me happy. That's awesome. It confirms my opinion that Mann was a real hawk of an observer. (Which just sort of makes it all the more sad that this supposed awesome translator is making his characters sound very stiff and dated....)