Mouse Or Rat? : Translation as Negotiation [Paperback]

To judge by its premise, the respected Professor Eco wrote one of the most brilliant books. Many authors before him (George Orwell, e.g.) and including him (Eco, 'On Literature') attempted to answer the question 'how I write', but hardly anyone asked themselves 'How am I being translated into foreign languages, and what do I think about it?'. Admittedly, to ask this question one needs to be able to answer it, and without Eco's knowledge of foreign languages it is impossible. If, however, like him, a reader knows at least one more language, apart from his native one, then 'Mouse or Rat?' will be an engaging, at times merely hilarious, reading. Bearing in mind Eco's long-standing research into semiotics of language, literature and philosophy, this monograph of his is at times a curious self-assessment of Eco the linguist, philosopher, writer and, in fact, translator.

This 'personal' aspect must always be remembered. In spite of drawing general conclusions, the book is often an analysis of Eco's own experience in engaging with professionals who translated his works. Eco argues - powerfully and convincingly - that translation is a negotiation between two cultures, and not merely two linguistic systems, which thesis cannot, of course, be regarded as the new word in Translation Studies. Strictly speaking, he does not attempt to formulate any new ideas, and shows great respect to Steiner's `Before the Babel'. His main goal is therefore to illustrate the application of different translation techniques (ekphrasis, rewriting, foreignising and domesticating of the source text, adapting for screen, etc.) to a variety of texts and then to analyse the results from the point of accuracy and equivalence.

As I indicated above, if a reader commands at least one foreign language, then Eco's book will be an interesting reading, not to mention the fact that the reader's awareness of the limitations and opportunities of his first and second languages may become more acute. However, bearing in mind his belonging to the so-called Joycean tradition in literature, one cannot help thinking at times, how much each of Eco's readers benefited from the author's availability for consultation and advice, as it is evident how many gems of the Master's unrivalled erudition could be lost (or, indeed, were lost).

Among the book's most inspirational and engaging passages are the analysis of Joyce's extract from 'Finnegans Wake' and its translation into French and Italian; the analysis of a poem `A Silvia' by Leopardi and its rendering into French; the exploration into the pains of a translator working on Dumas's novels, etc. The only problem the reader may encounter is the layout of the book, mainly the alteration between regular and bold fonts and italics, for purposes of highlighting various instances of translation.

Nevertheless, for an unexperienced reader 'Mouse or Rat?' will possibly be one of the best introductions to Translation and Language Studies, and even to Litetary Criticism. Despite its complexity and the monstrous abundance of examples, its basic idea is terribly simple - besides the knowledge, the key to a successful translation (and, in fact, writing) is one's sensitivity to language. This ability to 'sense' the opportunities and limitations of the source language and of the target language, so as to achieve the best possible equilibrium, makes a translator a true diplomat, a messenger between his own cultural milieu and that of the source text.

Those who expect some new insight or a deeper understanding of translation will be disappointed. This book mostly states the obvious - what everyone with some translation experience already knows, for instance that translation is not just about languages, but it takes place between texts and involves cultures and negotiation between them. Among other trivial aspects discussed are problems posed by ambiguities in the source text and the role of homonymy, world schemata and the importance of the context for the choice of the right word (e.g. "topo" is an adequate translation of "rat" in "Hamlet", act III, scene iv, but not in Camus's "La Peste" where "ratto" would better fit the context). The main value of this book consists in the numerous examples offered, which, however, are only drawn from French, Spanish, English and - much more rarely - German. It would have been quite interesting to examine some Non-Indo-European language associated with a cultural background markedly different from our own, but unfortunately no such example is provided.

The value of some praised solution is at least debatable (e.g. the "translation" of dialect, invented or not) and most exegeses presented by Eco are merely hypotheses, even if plausible ones, which the author however often fails to pursue in more detail, others are simply speculative or outright wrong as the example taken from Rev. 4:6 (pp. 163-165).

Intertextuality plays a major role in Eco's books and poses quite a challenge to the translator. This is the most interesting topic discussed in the book. However, here too the solutions presented are sometimes, to say the least, debatable. What is more, the downside is almost never discussed appropriately, e.g. the rendering of Latin quotations in Church Slavonic in the Russian version of "The name of the Rose". Surely, it has much to commend it, as Latin words would not carry any religious connotation to the Russian audience, but how are Western monks living in Italy in the Middle Ages supposed to be familiar with Church Slavonic? The characters in "The Island of the Day Before" indirectly quote pieces of Italian Baroque poetry while the Spanish translation uses literature of the Siglo de Oro. In defence of this approach Eco affirms that although the references are to Spanish and not Italian poetry "the story takes place in a historical period where Northern Italy was largely under Spanish influence" and that the Spanish material was poorly known. But if so and if the translator "made a collage of different texts, so that it was difficult even for Spanish readers to identify the sources" what's the meaning of this "partial rewriting", as Eco calls it. The American translator's approach who "translated the original verses literally" seems more sensible to me.

The presentation of the material is not organised from a translator's point of view, but rather stems from literary categories, e.g. the problems discussed under the heading hypotyposis are not in any way directly connected to it, but simply refer to the difficulty of finding a translation which adequately brings out details playing an important role in a given context. The flow of the argument is at places difficult to follow because of numerous asides and because the authors jumps from one topic to the next without a seemingly clear connection.

German and Russian words are often misspelled (e.g. Predigter for Prediger or ostrannenija instead of ostrannenije) and the references are not always correct (e.g. the reference to H.C. Conklin, note 9 on page 193, is not Southern Journal of Anthropology ii (1955), pp. 339-42 but Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11 (1955), pp. 339-44.

I guess that every professional translator has an author whose books he/she would love to translate. I have always felt such a desire regarding the books of Umberto Eco. As far as his novels are concerned, "Mouse or Rat?" managed to kill this desire once and for all.
The book does not only tell us a lot about translating, but about the author, too. It is a great book insofar as it makes it clear that translating is a skill, an artform, and bloody hard work, because you really have to weigh your words. Translating is not only about languages and being able to manage at least two of them, it also requires a profound knowledge of the civilization, culture, and everyday life these languages are inseparably connected with. The book makes it clear that translating is not something which virtually everyone can do (you wouldn't believe how many expat housewives with kids who can't get a job in the country their husbands have been sent to start working as so-called "translators" as soon as they have a smattering of the language of their new home country!), but that it should be left to the experts. This revelation alone should make the book compulsory reading for everyone who wants to use the services of a translator.
I found Eco's comments about his own work, especially his novels, most fascinating. Nobody who reads them can ignore the fact that he pours an awesome lot of knowledge into these books and that he secretly hopes that the reader will not just read and enjoy the story for its own sake but recognise the book as a kind of roman-à-clef. In "The Island of the Day Before" the characters indirectly quote pieces of Italian Baroque poetry ("spot the poem") and every chapter has the title of a 17. century book ("spot the book") - a challenge not only to the reader of the original but also to every translator. (To be fair: Eco seems to offer support to his translators, but even so their task is a daunting one.)
"Sometimes I ask myself if by chance I write novels purely in order to put in hermetic references that are comprehensible only to me. I feel like a painter who, in a landscape, puts among the leaves of the trees - almost invisible - the initials of his beloved. And it does not matter if not even she is able to identify them."
I am not sure how seriously this comment of Eco's should be taken, but it put me off his novels. I do like a challenge, but as a translator I fervently believe in making a text comprehensible to the reader; I am not sure that Eco would want me to do this and I doubt that I would enjoy trying to do it in the case of his books.