Loosed in Translation discussion

I'm reading Machado's The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas right now, translated by Gregory Rabassa. Curiously, the title is translated as Epitaph of a Small Winner in an older edition by William L. Grossman.

I have no opinion on the merits of these translations, but I just wanted to give a sample in case anybody was wondering.

As translated by Gregory Rabassa:

"But," you're probably saying, "how can you discern the truth of those times like that and express it after so many years?"

Ah! So indiscreet! Ah! So ignorant! But it's precisely that which has made us lords of the earth; it's that power of restoring the past to touch the instability of our impressions and the vanity of our affections. Let Pascal say that man is a thinking reed. No. He's a thinking erratum, that's what he is. Every season of life is an edition that corrects the one before and which will also be corrected itself until the definitive edition, which the publisher gives to the worms gratis.

As translated by William L. Grossman:

"But," you will say, "how can you reconstruct the truth as of that time and express it after so many years?"

Ah, my indiscreet and grossly ignorant beloved, it is this very capacity that makes us masters of the earth, this capacity to restore the past and thus to prove the instability of our impressions and the vanity of our affections. Let Pascal say that man is a thinking reed. He is wrong; man is a thinking erratum. Each period in life is a new edition that corrects the preceding one and that in turn will be corrected by the next, until publication of the definitive edition, which the publisher donates to the worms.

They both seem very competent to me, actually. Matter of preference?

The Rabassa seems much more awkward to me. Particularly the last sentence that you quote. I'd love to see more examples, though! P.S. I love this book.

I read the Grossman, but now I'm curious about the Rabassa, given his Cortazar translations.

As a portuguese speaker I can say that Rabassa's [R] is faithful. Grossman [G] not only moves grammar a bit, which is perfectly reasonable, but changes meanings of a few words and add some that are not there.

Comparatively:

— Mas, dirás tu, como é que podes assim discernir a verdade daquele tempo, e exprimi-la depois de tantos anos?
[R] translates as "dicern". [G] changes it to "reconstruct".

Ah! indiscreta! ah! ignorantona!
[R] makes a straighforward translation. [G], to preserve and tone down the meaning of "big ignorant" adds "beloved" ("and grossly ignorant beloved").
From my interpretation, there's no affection in the call, but I get that he was trying to keep a milder tone after inserting "grossily".

Mas é isso mesmo que nos faz senhores da Terra, é esse poder de restaurar o passado, para tocar a instabilidade das nossas impressões e a vaidade dos nossos afetos.
Mr. [R], again, makes a straighforward translation.
[G] adds a small redundancy of repeating "capacity" before and after the comma. He also chooses "capacity" in contrast to [R]'s "power" which, in my opinion, despite closer to the original world "poder", in this ocasion is best translated with the conotation of "capacity". Mr. G also picks "prove" insted of R's "touch". It is a choice analogue to that of "poder" in it's connotation, but in this case also generates ambiguity.

Pascal (...) Não; é uma errata pensante, isso sim.
[R:] No. He's a thinking erratum, that's what he is.
[G:] He is wrong; man is a thinking erratum.
[R] in his usual style. [G] changing the style. Feels to me that the latter is subduing the colloquial, erratic tone of the character, who's giving a first person account of his life.

(...) que o editor dá de graça aos vermes.
No comment on the seasons of life (yep, G changes to "period"), but a literal translation is "that the publisher gives [it] for free to the worms". Here for some mysterious reason (to avoid colloquiality?) both translators look for alternatives. I can't comment much on the english nuances of each choice. R just makes it weird, G's sounds alright.

In short, Mr. G changes it a bit, and sometimes I can agree with his choices, but it feels too arbitrary on ocasions to me. R could perhaps do better with minor flexibility, but is just closer in translation and tone.

Also, Machado's style is indeed a bit 'dry', so that may be part of reader's impressions.

PS.: I am clearly partial to Rabassa's translation, but it's not something so grave that Grossman wouldn't be a satisfactory choice, if the reader prefers his style.

Thanks; this is helpful.