Commenting on Culture-Bound Elements in Fiction: Overcoming Social and Political Bias in M. Bulgakov’s “A Dog’s Heart”

This paper is focused on the analysis of translator’s notes and commentary, represented by meta- and paratexts, as an integral part of translation process. These are essential to help the foreign reader overcome the cultural bias in general, guiding them through its intricate culture-bound elements, and the space and temporal distance separating them from the source text, in particular. Our source text is M. Bulgakov’s satirical novella “A Dog’s Heart” (translated also as “A Heart of a Dog”) written at the very beginning of the Soviet social project. As no piece of satire can be fully grasped - neither in source nor in target language - without making sense of the social conflict described in it, we view comprehension and explanation as the basis for cognition; they constitute two main working procedures of our approach. This means that our attention is focused on the way culture-bound words relating to the facts of social and political life appearing in this tale are conveyed in translations and interpreted in meta- and paratexts. So, author’s in-tention is deemed crucial in text interpretation. And the unity of explanation and understanding is considered to be the basis of academic knowledge To establish what metatext relating to Bulgakov’s story should be like in accordance with an academic approach, we’ve attempted to identify the presuppositions necessary for its adequate perception by the readership. To this end, we have studied the following metatexts: 1) J. Meek’s Introduction to Bromfield’s translation; 2) Bromfield’s A Note on the Text to his own translation (pub. by Penguin Books, 2007); 3) Introduction to M. Glenny’s translation by the Ukrainian writer A. Kurkov (pub. by Vintage Books, 2009); 4) Note by M. P. V. Salgado to the translation by A. Bouis (pub. by KARO, 2020). We also added our brief research-informed notes to some concepts of the novella English versions made by: M. Ginsburg (pub. by New-York Grove Press with no preface provided), Glenny, Bromfield and Bouis. Our major conclusion is that commenting on the translation should become more text-oriented to enhance its academic and didactic quality. More importantly, the paper is to exemplify the kind of methodology that should underlie the research leading to creation of helpful translator’s notes. Pertinent academic notes should help foreign reader to understand his or her bias and to discover the relevant cultural background of the text without which it would seem commonplace and unremarkable.

Toward a Scholarly Edition of Beckett's Critical Writings

This essay outlines the case for a new, scholarly edition of Beckett's critical writings, one that would be complete and with critical annotation. For the most part these texts (critical writings, tributes, in memoria and epigraphs) have been published in a range of places. As well as in the magazines, newspapers, books and special-issue publications in which pieces originally appeared, a number were collected in Disjecta (Calder 1983 & Grove 1984). This volume, however, is not exhaustive; it misses out a number of important texts (not least Proust) and contains some textual inaccuracies. Furthermore, Beckett's critical writings are currently not available from the UK publishers Faber and the Grove Press Centenary Edition of Beckett's works, the fourth volume of which contains a section entitled ‘Criticism’, presents only three works of criticism by Beckett (Proust, ‘Dante … Bruno . Vico . . Joyce’ and ‘Three Dialogues’). In this essay, we give a brief (and far from exhaustive) overview of the publication history of Beckett's non-fiction prose texts, before outlining some of the editorial challenges they pose. Although Beckett tended to be dismissive of these works, they form an integral part of his canon.

Traduction (en)volée ? La traduction américaine de Journal du voleur de Jean Genet

Dans cet article, je rends compte de l’histoire de la publication de la traduction américaine de Journal du voleur de Jean Genet et je commente quelques différences entre l’édition qui a servi de base pour cette traduction (l’édition Skira) et l’édition qui est actuellement en vente en France (l’édition Gallimard). La première traduction en anglais de Journal du voleur (traduit par Bernard Frechtman) fut publiée à Paris, chez Olympia Press, en 1954. Sur la quatrième de couverture se trouvait la notice suivante : « Ne peut être vendu aux États-Unis, ni au Royaume-Uni. » Dix ans plus tard, en 1964, The Thief’s Journal parut cependant aux États-Unis, chez Grove Press. Si l’on regarde les péritextes de ces deux éditions anglophones, il semble s’agir de deux textes différents : le premier est traduit d’après la première édition publiée de Journal du voleur en France, l’édition Skira, tandis que le deuxième se baserait, selon la notice de droits d’auteur, sur l’édition Gallimard, qui a été remaniée par Genet. En réalité, il n’en est rien : la traduction publiée chez Grove Press est identique à celle publiée chez Olympia Press. L’histoire de la publication de Journal du voleur en anglais soulève plusieurs questions auxquelles je propose ici des réponses : pourquoi l’édition Olympia ne pouvait-elle être vendue aux États-Unis ? Pourquoi l’édition Skira n’est-elle pas mentionnée comme source pour l’édition Grove ? Et quelles sont les différences entre les deux éditions françaises ? S’ajoute à ces questions un événement curieux, dont je rends également compte : en 1965, le texte de l’édition Olympia est republié aux États-Unis chez Greenleaf Publishing company, qui est rapidement poursuivi en justice par Grove Press, Gallimard, Frechtman et Genet. Et pour une fois, Genet ne se trouve pas sur le banc des accusés, mais parmi les plaignants.