Recenzija – kritikos alfa

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SANDAROS INVESTIGATIONS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXVI (1987) KAZIMIERAS AMBRASAS-SASNAVA REVIEW —CRITICS ALFA In correcting the J. language ne defects, Balčikonis has once touched on various mų value gaps. Here, let's say, reviewing L. Valkūnas's iš Greek k. translation of the book is marked by a number of lexical errors and other funny mistakes?. ir Ne Once the author of ir this article himself had to blush and sit on his chair while he was ir speaking of the Pot of Jars, when the si professor, already lying in his bed of severe illness, took my translated book and calmly, powerfully, slowly erased words, sayings, sentences that did not ir suit his taste, the spirit of the language and the requirements of the native language*. I didn't even dare to say a word to the demanding reviewer, but with a nod of my head, I agreed with everything. Such a constant attention of the professor not only to the original, but also to the translated Word, prompted him to take a closer look at the reviews of our translated books, which today sometimes (and how many translations, even excellent works remain without receiving such an appreciation!) are the only opportunity to get acquainted with this kind of critical Word in the press. Not so long ago, R. Gamzatov wrote: “Translation is not created by the hands alone, without soul, without heart, it requires sincerity, individuality- *4. What can we say about the works of criticism, and first of all about the review? This requires double attention, sincerity and individuality. After all, in a certain sense, in this case the work of not one, but several persons – participants in the communication process – the author, translator, editor and others is evaluated. So, in fact, what is that review of our translated books? Translation literature can be analyzed and evaluated in various ways. A scholar or a critic may examine it from a literary or purely linguistic, semiotic or structural point of view. An interesting critical analysis could even be in a philosophical aspect: whether, say, a philosophical conception has been preserved.” Literary: whether the images of the original, the characteristics of the characters, the whole mood of the work, the author’s individual style, his worldview are accurately conveyed.” Each reviewer can find such points of view, ku1 Longas. Daphne and Chloe /Translated from Greek by L. Valkūnas. —V., 1958. —191 p. 2? Balčikonis J. Selected Writings. V., 1978, vol. 1, pp. 331-332. 3 Especially carefully and carefully J. Balčikonis underlined with a pencil and he himself loudly pointed out many of the “shapes and leaves” of the speech to J. "The Boat That Cried" (1967) (DVD). It is a pity that I did not write down those corrections at the time and I hid the book he gave me with those corrections somewhere. Now they would be an invaluable asset and an obvious memory of a discerning reviewer. 4 Tam3atos P. Beicokue 3Be3/0651. —Jilureparypuas rasera, 1983, 24th century. 5 Prustas M. Time lost in searching. On the Swan side. — V., 1979. $ Dante A. The Divine Comedy. A hairdresser. — V., 1970. 83 rie, in his understanding, the most relevant for one or another translation. On the contrary, he is extremely skilled in reading the writings of those who are just ready for such work. In the review "From the origins to the present day" the reader is introduced to American novels?. The aim was to emphasize as much as possible, more objectively, the selection principles followed by the compiler of the collection L. Vanagienė, to look at the idea-thematic purpose of the translated novels in the broader context of American literature, to highlight their essential features. However, there is no mention of the quality of the translation or their artistic value. J. Kunčinas writes about T. Četrauskas' translated book?. Of the 186 lines, only five are devoted to translation: “It remains to be said that the translator T. Četrauskas, who had to deal with both the variety of style, the differentiated vocabulary and the abundant terminology, coped beautifully with the difficult translation.” Indeed, perhaps not one reader will be interested to find out some of the facts of the author's biography, the brief content of this work, the characteristics of the characters, the intrinsic meaning of the work. These lines will also satisfy those readers who wrote in Literatūra ir menas several decades ago: “None of the reviews published in Pergalė about new translated books deepened or expanded the impressions that we, ordinary readers, received directly from the book we read. We learned almost nothing about the author, about the place of the work in Soviet literature, about the weight of the artistic achievements of the book. It is clear that neither the editors nor the reviewers care to give a deeper, more serious examination of the new translated book. From those cold reviews written in an indifferent tone, which do not even reveal the content of the book, it is clear that writing about translated books is considered a third-rate duty in the magazine- ’s editorial staff.” * What direction have these kinds of reviews taken over the past two or three decades? In evaluating the Latvian stories*?, the reviewer writes: “what about that prejudice —is it satisfied and justified, did you feel comfortable, wisely guided through Latvia with its thoughts, people and states, or were you hindered by professional attitude- ?”* These questions are covered on almost three pages of the Journal. If there were not a footnote, publisher and year of publication at the bottom of the page, one could think that this is an original book, because the author did not even mention the word “translation”. Here Latvian and Lithuanian works, themes and problems are compared, more interesting ideas are emphasized, the advantages and weaknesses of the selection are mentioned, and in a few words the importance of the work that has come into Lithuanian literature is described. Today, Lithuanian periodicals more or less differentiate the bars of their activity: “Naujos knygos” promotes and advertises the production of our publishing houses, “Literatūra ir menas” with “Pergalė” looks at it from a thematic-ideological-critical point of view, for books to be translated, perhaps only occasionally, “Mūsų kalba” has a kind of “hotbed” of language. 7 Plg. Kuosaitė- -Jašinskienė E. From the origins to the present day. —Pergalė, 1981, No. 7, p. 176—178, 8 American novels. —V., 1980, 520 p. 9 Kunčinas J. Between reality and fiction. —Pergalė, 1981, Nr. 3, p. 178—179 (Rec.: Anderšas A. Vinterspeltas. —V., 1980, 419 p.) 10 Krasauskas V., Jurevičiūtė J. A serious review of a translated book. —Literature and Art, 1950, Dec. 10. 11 Green sails of illusions. —V., 1983, 517 p. 12 Aputis J. Amalas on the Latvian side. —Pergalė, 1983, No. 8, pp. 182–184. 84 However, neither newspaper nor magazine gives translations a constant critical, objective, deserved, nė objective evaluation, a careful look. But now, when you read a book of original literary criticism, you can easily compare it with a review of a translated ją su book. Analyzing literary processes, the creative turns of original works, interesting assumptions, meaningful comparisons, reasonable bold conclusions, obvious indicators of literary ir growth, essential features of artistic searches, freshness of abstraction of thought, analytical conciseness of convincing syntheticity ir appear. ir ko After all, it is here that the reviewer's horizon, the influence of his opinion, intelligence ir t. t.13 A completely different approach to į a translated book: a pinch of biographical facts, a section of the plot, a piece of analysis of the ir composition of the o characters’ characters, if we add the place of the work in the literary development, the idea-artistic ar content of the interaction of literary — relations, ir this is the whole amplitude of the review. All this, of course, is necessary, maybe even interesting for many, but years years, decades decadesiš iš This to should not happen again. In fact, there are reviews ir worthy of their purpose and purpose. One of iš these — J. Leibniz's word about "The German translatiį on of "The Year" by Donelaitis". Iš the usual framework of traditional, standard ji review is distinguished by specific ir objectiveness. This briefly but accurately tells the history of the translation of the work, objectively evaluates ir previous translations of „Metų“, sets out the theoretical approach of the translator to the principles of į translation. ir į “Artisticity is creativity, along with ir accuracy, Budenzig’s most important — pursuit,” the reviewer admits. — He clearly emphasizes the problem of adequacy: not a single line is omitted, the national nė specificity of the original, the author’s individuality, many figurative verbs, the idea-thematic content, the characteristics of the gentlemen, the most characteristic features of the language of Donelaitis are quite perfectly conveyed. The essential shortcomings are not forgotten: the lyricism of the original has not been preserved, there are some prosodic errors, hyperbole and inaccuracy of comparisons, especially lexical, semantic, proofreading and other errors. Of course, this is not the ideal of a review, but it is already a serious evaluation of a translated book, comparable in value to another similar review about the translation of Faust!®. It begins with the beginning of the journey of the Latvian Faust, not the Lithuanian one. It is immediately apparent that the reviewer’s intention is not to satisfy the curious reader in a quick way, but to look at this work more broadly: to show why Goethe’s work crossed our threshold much later than in Latvian, Russian, Ukrainian, Finnish, Armenian, Georgian, Serbian and other languages. The first translation attempts, critical opinions, the influence of the German poet’s work on Lithuanian literature and authors are carefully reviewed, and even the reasons for which the translator A. Churgino’s enormous professional work of several decades was not dared to be objectively evaluated are mentioned. V. Kubilius has a problematic view of translation. The reviewer is not satisfied with the one-sided evaluation of the translator’s work18. —Pergalė, 1981, Nr. 4, p. 167—171; Girdzijauskas J. Brandi’s theoretical thought, —Pergalė, 1981, Nr. 6, p. 167—171. 14 Lebedys J. New translation of K. Donelaitis's "Metai" into German. —Pergalė, 1966 No. 10, p. 120—129; in Lithuanian Studies bars. V., 1972, pp. 48-61. 15 Kubilius V. „Faust“ keliauja į Lietuvą. —Pergalė, 1980, No. 3, pp. 133—154; Meeting with J. W. Goethe. - Kn. : Lithuanian literature and the process of world literature. V., 1983, p. 220translation is viewed by all 256. 85 tinimu, o į A.. The amplitude, mood, lyricism of Churgino’s original poetic work "I" on the scale of experiences. This is one of the most fruitful, but at the same time the most ir difficult methods of translation analysis, which we so often find in ir reviews, even in monographne s! *. V. Kubilius, taking into account the į previous A. Churgino translations, accurately ir and carefully evaluates the professionally performed works: although they are done by talented personalities of great experience, phenomenal ir memory, but the translator has always ne succeeded in preserving the individual thinking of the characters, conveying the psychology of the characters, intellectual tension, sometimes overemphasized The roughness of Mef o istofel, the gentleness of Margarita is "shaken" by a harsh word. In the opinion of the iš reviewer, even the main leitmotifs of the philosophical work have left the — canonical shores, the Lithuanian Faust no longer has the naturalness, courage, simplicity of the spoken German language. Translation signs of ir classical poetry modern The stamp of European lyric thinking. Bringing together two great poetic personalities — Adomo Mickevičiaus ir V. Mykolaitis-Putinas's work, — in a distinctive, timely and ir insightful way, has written a review I. Kostkevičiūtė! ". The sensitive ir soul of the reviewer with a sound mind managed to present on one page of the weekly a mixture of the creative interaction of two poetic personalities in the translation aspect. There is no lack of ir examples, ir consideration of the problem of ir adequacy, specific analysis of how Putin has been successful in translating Mickevičius’ works. Probably not many people can analyze and evaluate the work of great talents so subtle, literary, sensitive and at the same ir time objectively careful. Maybe ne everyone will succeed in writing as J. Lebedys, V. Kubilius ar I. Costco. First of all, it should be remembered that the Latin word recensio means evaluation, k. review, verification. — Thus, in a review, we should focus primarily on light ne statements, comments, but on evaluation, criticism. Critical works of this genre should be diversified considerably. Not to adhere to the obsessive, stenciled sayings, uncritical criteria ir established over so many years, triumphantly ir walking through the pages of weekly magazines. As suggested by a Czech professor ir our literature į translator to Czech E. Parolek, it would be useful to take into ar account, the translator has figured out “what aesthetic ethical ir evaluations of modelled reality we find in the author’s work. Ką he loves ir ko hates, ką exalts as beauty ir ką aesthetically discredits, to o whom he is indifferent. Sometimes the author himself comments and speaks openly ir about his views, but most often he does so indirectly, through hints”“**. Some call this modelled reality the key of the creation, others the mood, — others the spirit of — the creation. Iš In essence, as the aforementioned Czech scholar points out, in order to feel the reality ir of the author’s view, it is not į necessary to carefully study neither manuscripts, nor memoirs, nor letters other archive material of ar the writer, poet. These signals can be found in the work itself: various epithets, combining incompatible signs, repeating leitmotifs, many other details, ir internal emotional, moral aesthetic evaluative signals ir 16 Eruasapsnu A. It's not x safe. — Epesan, 1979. 17 Kostkevičiūtė I. Putin ir Adam Mickevičius. — Literatūra ir menas, 1969 augpj. 23.(Rec.:) Mykolaitis-Putinas V. Writings. — V., 1968, t. 9. 18 Passwords E. Evocation of the World Artistic Model in Translation (About what is actually iš translated). — Victory, 1981, No. 24, p. 148—157. 86 shows how the author assessed the environment, characters, ir events other in his work describedrmą eality. J. In Lebesgue’s review we find the ir following assessment: “Budenzig recreates the folk worldview of the poem, the treatment of people, environment and nature to the smallest nuances. What is condemned and despised in the ir original, is exalted in the translation, trying to ir maintain the same moderation, degree, tą shade! ?, If any translator needs to translate German, English, Spanish into another language į ar V. Jasukaitytė- 's short story "The Ballad of the Woman on the Bridge"? ?, it is worthwhile to read well to feel her favorite repeating leitmotifs: ir “I am happy. I'm happy, I'm happy, I can repeat: I'm ir happy." Thus, these repetitions testify that the writer, having erupted from everyday iš life, paints reality in a romantic way, with some abstract outbursts. Her understanding of the world is — unusual, as if detached from boredom, everydayness. This would be a ir specific task for the translator, the key o to the — critic’s review. In order to avoid defining what a review of a translated book should be today, we should once again remember V. Krasausko ir V. In the words of Jurevičiūtė: “A serious review of a translated book is needed, which would reveal the ir ideological content of the book, ir the meaning of ir jo the work, the characteristics of the thought. We need a review written in an incendiary style, in pure language, we need an artistic review." Here should be supported A. Merkytei, who, in order to show how books should not be reviewed, was forced to write even about one review!” write a full article antireview?2. — There is one thing to note here: “A review is — probably only a demonstration ne of erudition, ingenious quotes are constantly reminiscent of the science of ir traductology, but a serious approach to the original and translated ir texts, a specific analysis is a į sincere effort to raise the overall level of our translations.” jų ir Thus, in order for the works of our translators to be properly and objectively evaluated, it would be useful for the editorial offices not only to carefully select, but also to train and ne educate reviewers, to publish review ir competitions, to organize a broader discussion in the press, to use special questionnaires to sociologically investigate which reviews are most needed, which are the most read and most relevant to the needs of today. PELEH3HA ir — AJIb®A KPHTHKH I'm not B going to let you in. MOMBITKA OIEHHTH COCTOSHHe perieH3Hit ItepeBOJIHEIX Kaur, Ha ocHOBAHHH m3y4enms crarei FO, JieGenaca, Kyčnunroca, B. KocrkaBHutoTre H. H IPYTHX BBIIBUTAI0TCst TpeOOBaHHS H K JIDYyTHM CTaThAM, MOMEIIaeMBIM B IEPHOTHKE, KOTOPHIE HE OTIHYAIOTCS pa3HOO0Gpa3HOCTELIO, HAYYHOCTHIO. B CTaThe mpe/yiaraeTcss OCHOBATEJILHO YAYYIIATE Ka9€CTBO IryOJHKYEMbIX pelĮeH3Hit, OpTAHH3OBATb KOHKYPC Ha JYYIIYIO DpelĮeH3HIO IIO MEePEeBONY, B CONHOJIOTHHECKOM ACITEKTE HCCIIEJ[OBAT5 AKTYAJIBHOCTb DEINEH3HI! H APYrHe BOMPOCHL. 1 Lebedys J. New K. Donelaičio Translation of į "The Year" into German. — Kn. : Lithuanian studies in bars, p. 50—51. * Jasukaitytė V. A ballad about a woman standing on a bridge. — Victory, 1981, No. 6, p. 12—57. #1 Petrauskas on the side of V. Prust. —Pergalė, 1981, No. 4, pp. 126–142. ? ** Merkytė A. The way to Prust's side. —Pergalė, 1981, No. 10, pp. 150—160. 87