Ivan Bunin's story in different translations

One story in three translations:Ivan Bunin’s V Parizhe

                         --Akella Charumati Ramdas

Ivan Bunin (1870-1953) was the first Russian writer to be awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1933. Bunin had migrated to Paris soon after the Great October Revolution of 1917. In 1920 he left his motherland never to come back again.

Consequently, Bunin’s works could be classified into two categories: those written before 1920 (in Russia) and those written as an immigrant till his death (in Paris).

Bunin, though not very famous in Russia at that point of time, had a class of his own fans and readers. The readers were enchanted by his slow, classic, lyrical style and his love for description of minute details, depiction of the inner and outer worlds of not only human beings but those of animals and nature as well. In fact, Bunin's prose reads like poetry, what with rhyming jewels of words and universal generalisation and abstraction. Hence translating Bunin is a big challenge. How can one translate a picture, a portrait!

This particular story, V Parizhe "In Paris", was written in 1940 when Bunin had long settled in Paris. His love for minute details of everything that surrounded him makes the story unique. It reflects the psychology and life of immigrant Russians settled in Paris. So, Bunin, the master painter of life, includes both the Russian and the French socio-cultural elements in the story. In fact, it can be termed a bilingual story freely using French words, expressions and proverbs making it even more challenging for the translator, who might not be familiar with the French language and the French culture.

The present paper is an attempt to analyze three direct translations of V Parizhe into English, Hindi and Marathi. While the English translation is a commissioned one (by Olga Shartse, published in 1988 by Raduga Publishers, Moscow), the Hindi (by Prof J P Dimri) and the Marathi (by Prof V S Totawar) versions are the outcome of a workshop on Translating Bunin held at the CIEFL, Hyderabad, in 2002. These translations, published in 2003, are products of a collective effort.

1. A quick look at the story:

V Parizhe could be termed as an episode in the life of Nikolai Platonovich, who is a lonely Russian, deserted by his wife long back, settled in Paris.

The story opens on a gloomy note in the backdrop of late autumn. Throughout the story this gloom persists and it clears up only with the death of the protagonist in spring, when everything else is promising a young, everlasting life.

On a Thursday in autumn Nikolai Platonovich [For brevity, we will use NP hereafter] meets Olga Alexandrovna [OA hereafter] in a Russian restaurant. On Monday, they go to a movie and from there to Nikolai Platonovich’s flat from where Olga Alexandrovna never goes back. She quits her job and starts living with him. In winter he persuades her to take a locker (strongbox) in her name at the Lyons Credit Bank and deposit in it all the money he had earned.

On the third day of Easter, Nikolai Platonovich dies in the metro. He had been reading the newspaper, and then suddenly threw back his head and died…

The story ends on a sad note: Olga Alexandrovna, while cleaning the flat after the funeral, finds his old army great coat, she presses it to her face, and pressing it even closer sinks on the floor, jerking and shuddering from her sobs, begging someone for mercy.

In this paper an attempt is made to analyze the three translations in terms of a) proximity to the source text, b) translation of socio-cultural specificities of Russia and France, c) translation of linguo-cultural peculiarities like French- and Russian-specific words / expressions / proverbs, d) transliteration of proper nouns and e) the narrative style of the translation.

2. Proximity to the Source Text

All the three translations are very honest to the ST and have tried to stick to the style of the original, but the English version seems closer to the ST. The very first sentence of the story, which consists of six printed lines, tells about the approach of the translators:

ST:# Когда он был в шляпе, - шел по улице или стоял в вагоне метро, - и не видно было, что его коротко стриженные красноватые волосы остро серебрятся, по свежести его худого, бритого лица, по прямой выправке, высокой фигуры в длинном непромокаемом пальто, ему можно было дать не больше сорока лет.

Please note that this is just one sentence! Now let us have a look at the translations:

E:  When he was wearing a hat, walking down the street or standing in the car of the metro, and you could not see the silver threads in his cropped reddish hair, you would say he was not more than forty, judging by the freshness of his lean, clean shaven face and his tall, lean figure in the long mackintosh.

The English version has retained the length of the single sentence and properly retained the cause-effect relationship. The cause is wearing of a hat and the effect is looking young.

H: जब भी वह हैट पहनता, सड़क पर चलता या मेट्रो के डिब्बे में खड़ा होता, पता ही नहीं लगता कि उसके छोटे कटॆ हुए ललछौंहे बाल तेज़ी से सफ़ेद हो रहे हैं. हजामत किए चेहरे की ताज़गी और लम्बी बरसाती में लिपटी सीधी, दुबली-पतली क़द-काठी को देखकर उसे चालीस से अधिक का नहीं कहा जा सकता था.

Here the original sentence is split into two, and the reason for the hero's looking young too is lost. Here is another option suggested:

जब भी वह हैट पहने सड़क पर चलता या मेट्रो के डिब्बे में खड़ा होता और उसके कटे ललछौंहे बालों में चांदी के तार नहीं दिखाई देते तो हजामत किए उसके चेहरे की ताज़गी और लम्बी बरसाती में लिपटी सीधी, दुबली-पतली क़द-काठी को देखते हुए उसे चालीस से अधिक का नहीं कहा जा सकता था.

M: Interestingly, the Marathi translation, though done independently, follows a very similar pattern:

तो हैटमध्ये असो, की सडके वरून जात असो, की मेट्रोच्या डब्यात उभा असो, त्याच्या बारीक कापलेल्या लालसर केसांवरची स्पष्ट चंदेरी झाक लक्षात येत नसे. ताज्या, दाढी केलेल्या त्याच्या नाजुकशा चेहर्‍यावरून व मेणकापडाच्या लांब रेनकोटमधील सरळ, सडपातळ आणि ताठ अंगकाठीवरून तो अगदी चाळिशीच्या आतलाच वाटायचा. Here, the first part of the sentence is ‘whether he would be wearing a hat, or walking down the street or standing in the car of a metro, you could not notice the silver threads in his hair.’ Obviously it has deviated from the ST: the emphasis is on the non-visibility of silver streaks, while the ST clearly states that due to his hat, when the silver streaks were not seen, he looked much younger.

The breaking of the long sentence has resulted in the separation of cause and effect (when…then).  Such translation phenomena can be observed at many places in the two Indian translations: more in the Marathi version and less in the Hindi version. Obviously, the style looks deviating from the original. Bunin’s descriptive, painting-like style has been rendered nearer to explanatory narration thereby diluting the crisp, concise nature of narration of the ST.

3. Translation of socio-cultural specificities of Russia and France

As mentioned earlier, V Parizhe is a story written by a Russian writer settled in France. A good part of the action takes place in a Russian restaurant in Paris. The characters of the story are pretty familiar with French culture and use a lot of French words in their speech. These words and expressions are given in French in the ST, making it a bilingual story as mentioned earlier.  However, the Hindi and Marathi translators used a Soviet edition of Bunin's collected works,# in which all French expressions are explained in Russian in footnotes by P.L. Vyacheslavov.

In addition, there are many words specific to the Russian culture as well.

All the three translators have expressed these culture-specific words as per their own preferences.

The English version of V Parizhe gives French words in Roman script, without giving any explanation for them; but when it comes to the Russian words the translator has given their English translation, and, if the English equivalent is not available she has written the Russian word in Roman script, but has not provided any explanation.  In effect, the English version by Olga Shartse has become a trilingual story!

The Hindi translation gives the French words in Roman script and each word is explained in footnotes. The Russian words are expressed through their Hindi equivalents.

The Marathi version is inconsistent in this respect. Sometimes it gives French words/expressions in Devanagari transliteration, explaining the meaning in endnotes; sometimes it gives only a Marathi translation for the word. For Russian words, the translator gives their transliteration, which is not very accurate as exemplified below, and, their meaning - rather in too much detail - in the endnotes.

Here are a few examples:

3.1 ST: Вроде гастрономического

E: Delicatessen of sorts

H: प्रोविजन स्टोर सा "a sort of provision store" M: गस्त्रोनोमवजा "a sort of gastronom" … The explanation given in the endnote is: खाण्या पिण्याच्या वस्तू विकत मिळण्याचे ठिकाण, गिर्‍हाइकाची इच्छा असल्यास या दुकानात बसूनही खाता येतं "a place selling food and drinks; if the customer so desires, he may even sit and eat in this store". Instead of such an explanation, simply ‘Food Stores’ would have been better.

3.2 ST: Рябиновка

E: Ash berry Vodka

H: ऐशवृक्ष की बेरियों से बनी ब्रान्डी "brandy made from the berries of ash tree"

M: रिबीनफ्का "ryabinovka"… (रिबीना नावाच्या आंबट गोड छोट्या रानफाळांपासून तयार केलेली दारू (वोद्का)) "liquor (vodka) made from small sour-sweet berries named ryabina"

3.3 ST: Блины

E: Pancakes

H: पैन केक "pancakes" M: ब्लिन्ई "bliny" (मैद्याची धिरडी. ही सहसा लोणी, जैम वा मुरांब्या सोबत खातात) "pancake made of maida. It is generally eaten with butter, jam or jelly" One more example, where the three versions differ significantly from each other:

3.4 ST: щи флотские

E: Sailors’ Schi

H:  श्ची "shchi" (foot-note: बंद गोभी, चुकन्दर तथा माँस के टुकड़ों से बना सूप) "soup made from cabbage, beetroot and meat pieces")

M: खलाशांचं आवडतं सूप "sailors' favourite soup"

3.5 ST: Борщ

E: Borsch (No explanation)

H: बोर्श्च "borsch" (बंद गोभी से तैयार किया गया सूप) "soup made of cabbage" M: बोर्श "borsch" (बीटरूट घालून केलेलं एक प्रकार चे सूप) "a kind of soup made with beetroot"

3.6 ST: Рассольник

E: Kidney Soup

H: खट्टे खीरों का सूप "(lit.) soup of sour cucumbers" (No mention of kidney … only  pickled cucumbers)

M: रस्सोल्निक "rassolnik" (endnote: खारावलेल्या काकड्या, मांसाचे तुकडे वगैरे घालून करण्यात येणारे आंबटसर चवीचे रशियन सूप "sour-tasting Russian soup made by putting pickled cucumbers, meat pieces etc." )

3.7 ST: Bonsoir, monsieur.

    (Добрый вечер, сударь.)

E: Bonsoir, monsieur.

    (No explanation given.)

H: Bonsoir, monsieur.

शुभ संध्या, श्रीमान! "Good evening, sir!" M: बों सुआर् म्स्यो. गुड इविनिंग, सर "Good evening, sir" Interestingly, the Marathi version gives the meaning in English, written in transliteration in Devanagari, but maintains no uniformity in this regard. Another example will illustrate this:

3.8  ST: Мерси

    (No explanation given.)

E: merci

    (No explanation given)

H: मेर्सी (Transliteration in Devanagari)

    धन्यवाद (फ्रेंच) "Thanks (French)". The explanation is given in the text of the story itself and not in the footnotes.

M: धन्यवाद "Thanks" (No transliteration, just translation given in the text of the story itself.)

One more example:

3.9 ST: caviar rouge, salade russe…deux chachlyks (Shashlik is a Russian word which is retained in this French expression).

    (красной икры, винегрета...два шашлыка.)

E: caviar rouge, salade russe…deux chachlyks

    (No explanation is given.)

H: caviar rouge, salade russe…deux chachlyks.

    लाल कैवियर, रूसी सलाद और बोटी कबाब (फ्रेंच) "red caviar, Russian salad and boti kabab (French)" (Interestingly, the Hindi translation does not say that it is two kababs that are ordered.) M: काविआर रूज्ह, सालाद र्‍यूस...द्ओ षाषलीक (Transliteration in Devanagari, but the meaning of this expression is not explained. Only caviar is explained in an endnote: कावियार–स्टर्जन माशाची अंडी. गाभोळी, लाल व काळ्या अशा दोन रंगात मिळणारी. ही अंडी रशियातच नव्हे तर संपूर्ण यूरोपात अतिशय खास पक्वान्न समजली जातात.) "caviar - eggs of the sturgeon-fish. Embryo and available in two colours: red and black. These eggs are considered an extremely special delicacy not only in Russia, but in entire Europe."

  

4. Expressing French- and Russian-specific words/ expressions/ proverbs

In the original, Ivan Bunin mentions that the protagonist Nikolai Platonovich had spent a few years of his immigrant life in Provence, heard more than an earful of biting Provencal jokes and, when in Paris, liked to insert them in his always-concise speech.  To be precise, there are six French proverbs in the ST. The translators have dealt with them differently.

The ST gives them in French (Roman script) and their meaning is given in footnotes in Russian.

The English version too gives them in French itself but explains the meaning of only four of them in English in the footnotes.

The Hindi version follows the same pattern of giving the French proverbs in Roman script and explaining their meaning in Hindi in footnotes. All the proverbs are explained.

The Marathi version just gives a translation in Marathi.

But it is interesting to see how the proverbs are translated. Quite a few variations are observed in the process. We will quote four of them below:

4.1. ST: Rien n’est plus difficile que de reconnaître un bon melon et une femme de bien.

    [Нет ничего более трудного, как распознать хороший арбуз и порядочную женщину.]

E: Rien n’est plus difficile que de reconnaître un bon melon et une femme de bien.

    [Nothing is more difficult than telling at a look if a water melon is ripe or a woman is virtuous.]

H: Rien n’est plus difficile que de reconnaître un bon melon et une femme de bien.

    [एक अच्छे तरबूज़ और शालीन महिला को पहचानने से मुश्किल काम दुनिया में और कोई नहीं है (फ्रेंच) "Nothing is more difficult in the world than to recognise a good melon and a decent woman"]

M: (Only a translation is given) चांगले टरबूज़ व चारित्र्यवान स्त्री ओळखणे याहून कठिण दुसरे काही नाहीं "Nothing is more difficult than to recognise a good melon and a woman with character"

So we see that un bon melon and femme de bien have been rendered as хороший арбуз and порядочная женщина in Russian; ripe water melon and virtuous woman in English, अच्छा तरबूज़ and शालीन महिला in Hindi and चांगले टरबूज़ and चारित्र्यवान स्त्री in Marathi. Of the three translations, the most appropriate are the adjectives used in Hindi.

4.2. ST: L'eau gâte le vin comme la charrette le chemin et la femme - l'âme.

    [Вода портит вино так же, как повозка дорогу и как женщина душу.]

E: L'eau gâte le vin comme la charrette le chemin et la femme - l'âme.

    (Water spoils the wine as a cart ruins the road, and a woman the soul.)

H: L'eau gâte le vin comme la charrette le chemin et la femme - l'âme.

    पानी वाईन को उसी तरह ख़राब करता है जैसे गाड़ी सड़क को और औरत दिल को.     "Water spoils the wine just as a vehicle spoils a road and a woman spoils a heart."

M: (No French version is given; just the translation is given)

मद्याची चव जशी पाण्याने कमी होते आणि गाड्यांच्या रहदारीमुळे जसा रस्ता खराब होतो, तसं स्त्री मुळं चरित्र डागाळतं. "Just as wine's taste becomes weaker with water and the road's condition deteriorates with the movement of vehicles, deeds too get blemished due to a woman".

The construction has become passive and the word चरित्र which is the Hindi version of ‘character’, in Marathi actually stands for "actions, deeds, exploits, achievements, esp. of gods / heroes".चारित्र्य is the word for ‘character’ in Marathi.  But, there is a more serious deviation here: the main clause has been replaced by a subordinate one and vice versa.  In the Marathi translation, water spoiling the wine and vehicles spoiling the road are only examples to illustrate how a woman taints one's deeds (the latter has now become the main statement).  In the other 4 versions (the original French, Russian footnotes and the other two translations), the main clause is Water spoils the wine, which is exemplified by the other two.

It may be noticed that l'âme is given as душа in Russian (both of which mean "soul, spirit"), soul in English, दिल "heart" in Hindi and चरित्र in Marathi. It could have been आत्मा in Hindi as well as in Marathi.

Alas, a very important feature of the original has been missed by the modern translators: the wonderfully poetic harmony of the French expression with its rhyme, resonance and melody.  The one which comes closest to it is in the Russian rendering, which can be roughly transcribed as follows: [vada: po:rtit vino: ta:g zhe, ka:k pavo:ska daro:gu i zhe:nshchina du:shu].

4.3. ST: Le bon Dieu envoie toujours des culottes á ceux qui n’ont pas de derrière.

    [Милосердный господ всегда дает штаны тем, у кого нет зада.] Curiously, the Russian version says дает "gives" in place of the original envoie "sends".

E: Le bon Dieu envoie toujours des culottes á ceux qui n’ont pas de derrière.

    (No explanation is given.)

H: Le bon Dieu envoie toujours des culottes á ceux qui n’ont                           pas de derrière.

    परमात्मा पतलून उसे देता है जिसके कि चूतड़ न हों "God gives pants to the one, who has no bottom" M: (No French proverb is given but its meaning is conveyed through some other proverb in Marathi.)  चणे आहेत तर दात नाहीत, दात आहेत तर चणे नाहीत. "If there are nuts, there are no teeth, and if there are teeth, there are no nuts".

This replacement may appear suitable for the target readers, but a literal translation could have given the readers information about the French proverb. (More about this follows below.)

4.4. ST: Qui se marie par amour a bonnes nuits et mauvais jours.

    [ Кто женится по любви, тот имеет хорошие ночи и скверные  дни.] ["He who marries for love has good nights and vile days"].

E: Qui se marie par amour a bonnes nuits et mauvais jours.

    (He who marries for love has good nights and bad days.) [A competent translation]

H: Qui se marie par amour a bonnes nuits et mauvais jours.

    जो प्रेम विवाह करता है उसकी रातें तो अच्छी होती हैं लेकिन दिन बुरे.(One who marries one's love has good nights, but bad days.) [Again a competent translation of the French original]

M: (The French proverb is not given, only its translation is given.)

    रात्री रंगीन आणि दिवस ओंगळ वाईट घालवायला आवडतात म्हणून लोक लग्न करतात.  (People marry because they like to spend colourful nights and bad vile days.)

It can be clearly seen that this is a translation of Vyacheslavov's Russian footnote. It reads as: [Бывает, что женятся из-за того, что нравятся хорошие ночи и скверные дни.] This calls for a critical comment. The original French expression is "He who marries for love has good nights and vile days", but Vyacheslavov has inexplicably turned it into "It does happen that people marry just because they like good nights and vile days".

Our Marathi translator, who actually knows French, has failed to see that the cause and the effect have been turned back to front. Several words have been added and, what's more, the all important information about 'love marriage' has been omitted.

5. Let us now see some other examples of misrepresentation.

5.1 ST: Он опять взглянул на нее: очень красив белый передник с прошивками на черном платье, красиво выдаются под ним груди сильной молодой женщины.

E: He looked at her again. The white pinafore with lace insets looked very pretty on the black dress, and beautifully shaped the breasts of the robust young woman. (A competent translation.)

H: उसने फिर उस महिला पर नज़र डाली: लेस से सजा हुआ एप्रन काली फ्रॉक के ऊपर बहुत अच्छा लग रहा था और उसके नीचे से सुडौल जवान औरत का ख़ूबसूरती से उभरता वक्षस्थल. "He glanced at that woman again: the apron embellished with lacework was looking good on the black frock and (as also) the beautifully emerging breastline of the robust young woman from under it."  The underlined से "from" could have been avoided here.

M: त्यानं परत तिच्याकडे बघितलं, लेसवजा भरतकाम केलेला पांढरा एप्रन काळ्या फ्रॉक वर फारच शोभून दिसत होता आणि फ्रॉक खालून त्या धिप्पाड तरुण स्त्रीचे उन्नत उरोज मोहकपणे बाहेर डोकावत होते. "He looked at her again. The white apron with lace-like embroidery was looking very attractive on the black frock, and, from under the frock, the high breasts of that tall and strong young woman were attractively peeping out."

It can be seen that the Marathi translation is rather too free.   Firstly, लेसवजा भरतकाम means lace-like embroidery; there is some avoidable addition here.  Secondly, धिप्पाड "tall and strong" does not convey Olga Alexandrovna's robust youth, on the contrary makes her somewhat masculine in appearance.  Similarly, the adjective उन्नत "high, tall; lofty" has been used for her breasts, whereas the original has no such qualifier.

5.2 Another example of misinformation:

When Olga Alexandrovna asks Nikolai Platonovich whether he too, like her husband, had participated in the White Movement, he answers:

ST: Да, участвовал и в великой и в гражданской войне.

E: Oh, yes, I fought both in the First World war and in our civil War.

H: हाँ, मैंने प्रथम विश्वयुद्ध एवँ गृह युद्ध में भाग लिया था. "Yes, I took part in the First World War and the civil war."

M: होय, मी ही घेतला होता. मी दुसर्‍या महायुद्धात व यादवी युद्धात पण भाग घेतला होता. "Yes, I too participated. I took part in the Second World War and in the civil war too."

Here मी ही घेतला होता "I too had taken" is extra.  दुसर्‍या महायुद्धात "in the Second World War" is wrong and exemplifies the pitfalls that every translator must scrupulously avoid. The story was written in 1940 and Russia was involved in the Second World War only after June 1941!  So, the translation should have been either महायुद्धात "in the world war" or प्रथम महायुद्धात "in the First World War". 5.3 Yet another pitfall for translators is mixing up dialogues, which may result in hilarious, if not outrageous, gender-swapping etc.

Nikolai Platonovich invites Olga Alexandrovna to a film on a Monday, which is a holiday for her. The dialogue goes like this:

ST:    -Ну вот и пойдем в понедельник. Нынче что? Суббота? Значит послезавтра. Идет?

    -Идет. Завтра вы, очевидно, не придете?

    -Нет, еду за город, к знакомым.

E:    “Well then, let’s go on Monday. What’s today? Saturday? That means the day after tomorrow. Agreed?”
    “Agreed. I take it you’re not coming here tomorrow.”
    “No, I’m going out of town to visit friends…”

H:    तो फिर सोमवार को चलेंगे. आज कौन सा दिन है? शनिवार? इसका मतलब-परसों. ठीक है?

    ठीक है. लगता है कि कल आप (यहाँ?) नहीं आएंगे?
    नहीं, मैं कल अपने परिचितों के पास शहर से बाहर जा रहा हूँ.

M:    तर मग सोमवारी जाऊया की! आज वार कोणता? शनिवार का? म्हणजे परवा जायचं. चालेल?     चालेल.     उद्या, अर्थातच, तुम्हीं कामावर येणार नाहीं.

    नाहीं. मी आमच्या ओळखीच्यांकडे चालली आहे जवळपासच्या एका गावात.

As can be seen, the Marathi version inexplicably split the second dialogue (rendered in E as “Agreed. I take it you’re not coming here tomorrow.”) into two and apportioned each of the two parts to the two characters. The result is that it is not Olga Alexandrovna, who is asking whether Nikolai Platonovich will not come the next day, but the other way round. And, it is she who is replying that she will be going out of town to visit some acquaintances! And, to accommodate this comedy of errors, the Marathi translation is forced to use the feminine ending of the verb for her: चालली! As if this were not enough, an extra word has been added to NP's question, implying that OA will not come to work the next day, leaving the Marathi reader to understand that she is going to the country to visit her acquaintances - and not NP - whereas the ST mentions just the opposite.  Similarly, the expression जाऊया की! (with an exclamation mark and an additional की!) which can be roughly translated as "Come on, let's go!" expresses NP's thrill which is not the case with the ST.

In addition to the above, a close look at the three translations reveals as follows:

Bunin's очевидно 'obviously' has been rendered in English using 'I take it that …', in Hindi using लगता है कि "It seems that…" and in Marathi using अर्थातच "obviously".

Another instance when the Marathi translation is more appropriate than the other two is in the case of NP's question and OA's positive reply: "Идет? Идет". The English version used "Agreed? Agreed." and the Hindi version rendered it as "Is it alright? It is alright."  The Marathi version, on the other hand, makes use of an exact equivalent: चालेल? चालेल. "Will it go? It will go."  In Hindi too, it could have been चलेगा? चलेगा.

The English translation replaced Bunin's знакомые "acquaintances" with 'friends', while the other two retained the original word.

Curiously, all 3 translations have converted Olga Alexandrovna's question, whether Nikolai Platonovich will not come the next day, into a statement!

While doing so, the English translator has added the modifier 'here', whereas the Marathi translation has interpolated a confusing "to work", as described above.

5.4 Let us now look at another example:

ST: Бывший участник белого движения

E: He was an officer in the white movement

H: श्वेत आंदोलन के भूतपूर्व सदस्य "a former member of the White movement". This is an exact translation and श्वेत आंदोलन is explained in the footnotes as गृह युद्ध के समय क्रांति विरोधी आंदोलन "an anti-revolution movement during the civil war".

M: ते व्हाइट आर्मीचे सदस्य होते व त्यांनी व्हाइट चळवळीत भाग घेतला होता. "He was a member of the White Army and had taken part in the White movement". व्हाइट आर्मी "White Army" is explained in the endnotes as रशियन क्रांति व कम्युनिस्तांविरुद्ध लढा देणारी रशियन झारशाही व सरंजामशाहीची पुरस्कर्ती संघटना. या संघटनेचे बरेचसे सदस्य रशिया सोडून निघून गेले किंवा लाल सैन्याकडून मारले गेले "the leading Russian tsarist and state service force that fought against the Russian revolution and the communists. Many members of this force left Russia or were killed by the Red Army". Many such details are poured into the text as well as the endnotes impeding clarity and readability.

5.5 Here is another example of mistranslation:

NP and OA meet at the metro station. OA is wearing a long evening dress. They decide to go to a restaurant. While going in a taxi NP notices her knees outlined by the evening dress. The extract:

ST: Он увидел её крупные колени под вечерним платьем.

E: He saw her knees outlined by the black evening gown.

H: वह देखता रहा काली इविनिंग ड्रेस के नीचे उसके सुडौल घुटनों को. "He went on looking at her strong knees under the black evening dress." Here, the perfective aspect of the original verb has been replaced by the imperfective aspect, turning a one-time action into a long process.

M: इविनिंग गाऊन खालून तिचे जाडजूड गुडघे दिसत होते. "Her fat knees were visible from under the evening gown."

6. Transliteration of proper nouns

It is rather easy to render Russian proper nouns in English since both Cyrillic and Latin scripts are alphabetical in nature and the transliteration can be almost letter-to-letter.  Not so with Indian scripts, which are syllabic in nature. Devanagari, which is used for both Hindi and Marathi, is an especially difficult script in this respect. To represent the Russian soft consonants, the stressed and unstressed vowels, the short vowel at the end of a word, etc. in Devanagari is a formidable task for the translator.   

The English version of V Parizhe accomplishes the task rather easily, giving a phonemic transliteration of Russian proper nouns.   The Hindi version too sticks to the conventional phonemic transliteration, though it represents a distinctly distorted pronunciation, e.g.  ओल्गा अलेक्सान्द्रोव्ना, निकोलाई प्लातोनोविच, एकातेरिनोदार.

Perhaps keeping in mind the above mentioned problems and/ or perhaps in the interest of achieving precision, the Marathi translation under consideration tries to give a phonetic rendering of not only Russian proper nouns, but also French words / proper nouns, e.g.

ओल्गा अलिक्सांद्र्व्ना, निकालाइ प्लातोनविच, एकाचेरिनादार्स्कच्या मुलीला;  बों सुआर् म्स्यो, आमी! फाम द मेनाज्ह

Unfortunately, this only creates a new set of problems. The transcription given is not always accurate (e.g. the last consonant in सुआर् should be silent, the town एकाचेरिनादार्स्क does not have any affricate in its name at all, the name निकालाइ should not end in a vowel at all). In any case, the pronunciation still remains far from satisfactory, and, the readers are most likely to long to revert back to the phonemic rendering: they were at least used to it!

7. Narrative style

Although Ivan Bunin's writings are a century old, his narrative style and language are as modern as any.  Of course, whenever necessary, Bunin uses different registers to bring out the various traits of his characters.  The translator needs to be alert to such usage and translate in the most appropriate way possible.

While the English and the Hindi versions have to a large extent succeeded in maintaining the style of the ST, the Marathi version falls short of it. In an attempt to convey Bunin's use of certain outdated expressions, the Marathi translation took recourse to slang, which defeats the purpose.

Here is an example:

7.1 ST:    -Как вас величать прикажете?

    "lit. How would you order me to address you by your patronymic? = What is your patronymic?" (In Russian, a combination of the first name and the patronymic is the most respectful form of address.)

    -Ольга Александровна. А вас, позвольте узнать?

    "Olga Alexandrovna. And you, let me know?"

In using the outdated величать "call by patronymic" and прикажете "you will order", NP is trying to impress upon OA that he only has the greatest respect for her and no mean intentions at all.  And OA too is responding suitably by using a highly formal позвольте узнать "permit me to know".

Unfortunately, this has proved a hard nut to crack for all the three translators, cf.  

E:    May I know your name?

    I am Olga Alexandrovna. And you?

     This is rather too informal and completely fails to convey Bunin's use of a special register.  In fact, NP's use of величать прикажете is precisely to avoid such a mundane question as "May I know your name?"; he wants to show to OA that he is placing her on a high pedestal of respect.

H:    आपको कैसे पुकारूँ? "How shall I call you?"

    ओल्गा अलेक्सान्द्रोव्ना. और आपको? "Olga Alexandrovna. And you?"

    This is syntactically closer to the ST, but far from satisfactory from NP's point of view: he really does not want to say, Как вас звать? "lit. How to call you? = How should I call you?"

M:    आपणास कोण्या नावानं बोलवावं गरिबाने?

    "lit. By what name should a poor fellow call you(r majesty)?"

    ओल्गा अलिक्सांद्र्व्ना. आणि आपलं नाव सांगायची कृपा कराल?

    "Olga Alexandrovna. And will you do the favour of telling your name?"

    This turns out to be a concoction of registers and has the potential to belittle both NP and OA in each other's eyes as well as the readers'. For one thing, NP never intended to be thought of as a 'poor fellow', much less call himself so. Slang forms like कोण्या and बोलवावं precisely defeat the purpose for which NP is avoiding the usual, though standard, replicas.

To conclude, it must be said that all the three translations have attempted as close and faithful a rendering of the ST as possible. However, the Marathi translation turned out to be more free than the other two, mainly because of overreaching.

Take for example the proverb "The good Lord always sends pants to those who have no rear" rendered in Marathi as दात आहेत तर चणे नाहीत, चणे आहेत तर दात नाही "If there are teeth, there are no nuts; if there are nuts, there are no teeth".  The liberty taken by the translator here is completely uncalled for.  Not merely because it is nowhere close to the ST whether in meaning or in rhyming. There is a far more important reason. The intelligent, witty, philosophical, bitingly sarcastic and poetic (!) proverb of the ST has been replaced by a mundane utterance that sounds like commonplace whining. The result is gross injustice to the author, Bunin, and his protagonist, NP. Recall how Bunin had - just a few minutes earlier! - told us that NP  had learnt some biting / pungent Provencal / French jokes / proverbs and would habitually insert them in his always-concise speech.  The Marathi translation has lost all that satire and the Marathi reader is left wondering whether the complaint about teeth and nuts is the kind of pungent French proverbs that NP learnt.

The important lesson to learn from this is that, before attempting any liberties from the original, especially when it is literature (as opposed to scientific-technical texts), to which the translator really wants to be faithful, she must acquaint herself thoroughly with the author's intentions, the very plot of the story, its background, the characterisation of the protagonists, the 'reference to the context' et al.  The point is that no translator should misrepresent the original author. Otherwise, the translation ceases to be a translation.

Adding up all the changes made, the elaborate explanations given and the extraneous words inserted and considering the detailed endnotes, it can be seen that the Marathi translation is more like classroom teaching of literature rather than translation.  In the process, Bunin's precise, concise style is lost.        

A point to note is that the process of translation seems to get greatly influenced by the professional background as well as the gender of the translator.  The Hindi and the Marathi versions have been produced by male translators, who are both linguists by profession with little experience in translating literature. Their translations tend towards a 'scientific' (read word-to-word) account of the episodes, robbing the story of its artistic charm and cohesion.  The English version has come from an experienced female translator. Not much is known about her professional background, but her experience in translating literature can be seen throughout the story.  Being a woman, she could beautifully convey the scene depicting OA's first meeting with NP as also that of her first visit to NP's apartment.     And, she made no mistake in understanding and conveying how OA's dresses are made and what they reveal and what they cannot!

References

1. БУНИН И.А., 1986, Легкое Дыхание (Повести и рассказы). Изд. Саратовского Университета,

2. BUNIN IVAN,1988 Light Breathing and Other Stories. Tr. by Olga Shartse, Moscow, Raduga Publishers,

3. BUNIN IVAN, 2003, लुब्ध वियोग (Lubdha viyog), selected stories in Marathi, Pune, Rohan publishers.

4. BUNIN IVAN, 2003, चुनी हुई रचनाएँ. Selected works in Hindi, New Delhi, Prakashan Sansthan.

Discussion on M&M- 02

Hi!
So far I have posted 5 chapters...starting chapter 6 soon.

Except for chapter 2, the remaining chapters deal with Ivan Bezdomny and Berlioz. Chapter 2 deals with a new theme, dealing with  Yeshua and Pontius Pilate. Please pay attention to the characters described in chapters abt Bezdomny.  How can you describe his life? One more important character is being introduced in chapter 6. Try to recognise him on the basis of description of his poetry.

Shall get back on this soon.

About Vladimir Mayakovsky

Vladimir Mayakovsky – The Person

“Let the storms hit us

Let the heat burn us,

O, let the hunger too –

We shall look into its eyes,

Shall appease her,

By the foam from ocean alone,

But we are the Masters here!”

Who would believe that the author of these lines, who calls upon the masses to face the difficulties bravely, to put on a confident countenance in the times of trial, himself would be the possessor of a very delicate, tender, gentle heart behind the mask of a lion! This heart would easily get hurt even at the smallest pretext – like the careless ruffle of someone’s dress, the smallest sense of indifference from friends and so on and so forth.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky was a very sensitive person. The love, affection and reputation that he got during the early years after the Great October Revolution made him even more sensitive. He just could not tolerate when he noticed that he was being let down by the powerful members of the RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) and also by the authorities. The times were such that everyone wanted to gain favour from the authorities. This was the case with the intelligentsia too. In order to prove that they are serving the cause of the Revolution, they tried to paint an anti revolutionary picture of the genuine ones and Mayakovsky was one such gem who suffered at the hands of these opportunists. He would come back tired and gloomy from the office of the GOSLITIZDAT (Government Publishing House) – having waited there for ages for someone important (!) and tried to convince him what did not require any proof – throw himself on the bed and would virtually wail, “I – can’t – any…more…!”

In 1930 Mayakovsky organised an exhibition to mark the 20^th anniversary of his service to literature. The exhibition was called “20 years of Work”. IN one of the meetings of the LEF (Left Front of Arts) a committee was constituted to work out the details of its organisation. During the last two months of 1929 Mayakovsky was very busy collecting the material for this exhibition, arranging them in a proper order for the occasion. He was too much involved in this, was too optimistic and enthusiastic about the results of the exhibition – but then started the chain of his misfortunes. First thing that dampened his spirit was the design of the tickets that were printed for the exhibition and were distributed on 29^th January 1930. The very repulsive sight of these tickets was enough to drive people away from the exhibition rather than attracting them. Vladimir Vladimirovich was disturbed. He wanted that everything connected with the exhibition should have a great aesthetic sense – and here everything was being done in just the opposite manner by the organisers who were none other than boys from REF (Revolutionary Front of Arts).

Next day, i.e. on 30th of January someone wrote on the showcase of newspaper Kiosks: “Mayakovsky is beyond the reach of masses”. The organising committee had not met even once and the exhibition proved interesting only thanks to the materials displayed there in (which, obviously, Mayakovsky himself had collected alone).

The exhibition was inaugurated on 1^st February 1930. Lots of people visited it – but these included mainly youngsters. None of the Party leaders, government officials or great men of letters of that time visited the exhibition. As a result of this Vladimir Vladimirovich was deeply distressed.

Mayakovsky had attached a great importance to this exhibition. He wanted recognition from those who were in power. He wanted the Party leaders and government officials to visit the exhibition and say that He – Mayakovsky is a good poet. By this time Vladimir Vladimirovich was tired of struggle, quarrels, scandals, polemics etc. and wanted a decent settlement for himself in the society – enough money and a little comfortable life for his literary pursuits. He had been observing that all sorts of ‘liars and rogues’ live a much better life than him and Mayakovsky felt that he has a right to obtain a few comforts as well as recognition. In order to achieve this goal he had organised this exhibition.

But he did not succeed in his aim. He got nervous, felt humiliated and got converted into just the opposite to the kind of Mayakovsky whom people were used to seeing – the fighter, the fiery orator, the brave writer. This insult, combined with his failure in various love affairs together constitute an atmosphere, where in the person of his kind could not live – and he chose to finish his life.

Vladimir Vladimirovich was basically a very sensitive person who loved life in all its forms – he loved the revolution, arts, his work, women, sunrise, sunset and also the air which surrounded him. His tremendous energy helped him cross all the obstacles in his way. But the indifference shown by whosoever it might be and the fear of old age were the two things which he just could not face.

Vladimir Vladimirovich was very popular among women. Around the World War I he fell in love with Elsa Triolet who was only about 16 at that time. Vladimir Vladimirovich loved with a sense of dominance over the object of his love and demanded complete dedication from her. Soon after his acquaintance with Elsa Triolet’s sister Lily Brik – wife of famous futurist poet Osip Brik – Vladimir Vladimirovich started paying less attention to Elsa Triolet and got emotionally involved with Lily Brik. This intimacy with Lily Brik and dedication to her continued till his death – although a few parallel love affairs also went on simultaneously. He had written:

Love into days we don’t divide,

And never change the names of the beloved.

And when Elsa Triolet commented that though he writes such things but he, on the contrary, is always surrounded by new and new women, he quipped with anger, “I have never been unfaithful to Lilichka. And remember I shall never be!” Without being unfaithful to LIlichka, he demanded from other women that absolute love for him, which he could never give them. But when the woman, knowing that he would not leave Lily Brik and destroy her little life, would not stake her for him, he would become a beast. But if, by chance, someone would bestow upon him her unbounded love – he would run away from her.

This happened with Tonya. Tonya was an artist – simple, ordinary, strong, special, accurate…She just adored Mayakovsky…but due to some reason she threw herself out of window and finished her life.

Mayakovsky moved from one woman to another. He needed them all – but at the same time he longed for a single, dedicated, permanent love.

In 1928, in Paris, Vladimir Vladimirovich had a stormy affair with Tatyana Yakovlevna. Tatyana was fascinated by the great poet, but she was equally afraid of him. Mayakovsky proposed that Tatyana should come back to Russia and he had decided to marry her. But Tatyana was not at all that faithful to him. Firstly, she was scared of the hardships she would face in the new Soviet capital and secondly, she was simultaneously continuing her love affair with her would-be husband. Once Mayakovsky, by chance, saw this and that was the end of it. He was angry, depressed, humiliated. Came back to Moscow and met an actress Veronica Polonskaya, who used to work in theatre. Veronica Vitaldovna gave him that love which he was looking for throughout his life. He wanted to marry her…she too agreed. Mayakovsky insisted that she should leave the theatre, her husband, her rehearsals and should remain devoted to him. She said ‘yes’ to all his demands, but said she would quit the theatre only after completing the assignment she had in hands.

That day – on the 14^th of April 1930, Lily and Osip Brik were in Berlin. Veronica Polonskaya left for rehearsal; Vladimir Vladimirovich was alone in his room. The loneliness, of which he was so scared, took possession of him – and he shot himself down.

What were the reasons which led Mayakovsky to commit suicide? One of the most important reasons was the feeling that he was lonely – though he had friends and he was loved and honoured by them. He wanted to get recognition from the Party bosses, from RAPP: The love and admiration that he used to receive at his poetry recitation sessions were not enough for him. It was like a drop in the ocean for a person who had a ‘hungry thief hiding in his heart’, who demanded that he should be read by those who don’t read him; should be heard by those who don’t visit his poetry sessions; should be loved by that woman who does not love him. He wanted absolute recognition, absolute love, absolute praise and absolute fame. All this was very essential for a sensitive person like Mayakovsky who looked at things in his own way: ‘Someone is late for a game of cards with him, it means that he is not needed by anyone; the girl did not give him a ring, when he was waiting for her call means – nobody loves him. And if it is so – the life is meaningless – and there is absolutely no need to live such life.’

Such casual bouts of depression often tried to lead him to a catastrophe – and a thought about suicide always accompanied Vladimir Vladimirovich like a chronic disease. Even in 1916 he had once attempted to shoot himself. Early in the morning he called up Lili Brik and said: “Good bye, Lilic. I am finishing this life.” She shouted: “Wait for me!” And on reaching there she found the pistol on the table: “Missed the first shot, could not gather courage for a second one,” said Vladimir Vladimirovich like a child, who was caught while committing a mistake. Lily Brik hurriedly removed the pistol from the table, brought Vladimir Vladimirovich home and after a few hours Mayakovsky came our of the melancholy mood. But Lily was scared that Mayakovsky would shoot himself down at the slightest provocation. In 1920 Roman Jakobson had commented: “I can’t imagine Vladimir Vladimirovich in wrinkles. How would he look them?” and Lily Brik answered, “He will never get old…he will definitely commit suicide. He had already attempted once…and one is not always lucky to miss the aim.”

And it turned out that Lily was right. Mayakovsky feared old age like anything. He would always say: “In 35 years one already gets old. I would live for 30 years and then finish myself.”

And all these factors – failure of his play ‘Bath House (it was done systematically by those who wanted to degrade Mayakovsky); marriage of Tatyana Yakovlevna; inability on the part of Veronica Polonskaya to marry him at once; catastrophe with his exhibition, ‘20 years of work’; indifference shown by the Party and the RAPP members; inadequate recognition; negative criticism in newspapers and Lily Brik’s absence from Moscow during that time together constituted the climax – which Vladimir Vladimirovich – that sensitive, gentle, tender poet – could not face and he choose to finish his life rather than living the life with a sense of dejection, depression and humiliation.

*******

B.Pilnyak’s Golyi God

B.Pilnyak’s Golyi God

ORDYNIN HOUSE : MICROCOSM OF SOVIET SOCIETY OF EARLY TWENTIES OF LAST CENTURY

1. Charumati Ramdas

Russian literature has always been reflecting socio-political conflicts very effectively, be it the era of romanticism, modernism, socialist realism and so on. The writers always found ways and means of depicting a true picture of society. The most challenging period for such brave, outstanding writers were the decades of twenties and thirties of the last century, when the ‘purges’ were looming large over the country, when people used to disappear suddenly not to be seen ever again in the society. But the Russian writers had, soon after the Great October Revolution, in spite of strictest possible censure and threats of liquidation, started presenting a true picture of society, of which family is a microcosm.

Boris Andreevich Pilnyak was probably the first Soviet writer, who described the Great October Revolution, as he saw it. The first significant panorama of this Great Upheaval was presented by him in an impressionistic way. Unlike some of his contemporaries like Isaac Babel, who in his work Red Cavalry described the Revolution as one who demands blood, Alekxandr Blok, who expressed symbolically the shock and horror experienced both by the opponents and propagators of the Revolution in his poem The Twelve; Evgenyi Zamyatin who predicted the formation of a post-revolutionary society of identical people who are identified not by names but by numbers in his novel We, Pilnyak in his short story Ivan and Maria wrote, “ I think that the whole Revolution…The Whole Revolution! – smells of sexual organs.”

The very form of the novel Golyi God is anti-western. The traditional components of a novel like character development, plot structure etc., were not acceptable to Pilnyak, as they were not able to reflect the chaos and confusion which the author wanted to express. So Pilnyak chose such a form, which would portray the chaotic, as well as anti-western nature of revolution. Thus the first reading of the novel gives the impression of an unsystematic collection of random jottings, disjointed or unrelated montage of violence and disorder. It seems as if the reader is watching a song sequence on STAR TV. The characters do not develop in the ‘normal’ way – they are presented in an impressionistic manner. They have little or no psychology and appear only to portray different view-points of the revolution, or as the various aspects of pre- and post-revolutionary society the author wishes to portray at a given moment.

In order to depict the social life, PIlnyak describes the lives of a few families – but we can’t still say with guarantee, who are the central characters or which family constitutes the essence of social life. There is the Ordynin family symbolising degenerating noble class; family of communist Arkhip Arkhipov who is the proud representative of future communist society; family of Ivan Koloturov – President of village committee, Olga Kuntz and Laitis, then there is a small village family, which is the symbol of purity for the author, various unconnected, unrelated characters whose lines of action and fates do not at all influence each other. But taken together they succeed in portraying the confusion and chaos that prevailed in the country; it is enough to have a glance at each family and the whole country stands before the readers.

The Ordynins live in a big and strong house which stands as a monument to the past that has now been swept away by the forces of history. The conflict of personalities within its walls represents the ideological conflict outside. For a hundred years the house has stood as a symbol of Tsarism in Russia, just as now its decaying walls and syphilitic inhabitants symbolise both the destructive power unleashed by the events of 1917 and the rotting condition of the society which is on the verge of self liquidation.

Ordynin household consists of two branches – Ordynins and Volkoviches. Volkoviches had only one survivor left – Andrei Volkovich who had joined Bolsheviks after revolution. Ordynins had Prince and Princess Ordynin, their three sons, three daughters and two grand children in this house. A servant maid Marfusha also lived in the house. Out of the three sons Boris was suffering from syphilis, Yegor was a drunkard, Gleb – the youngest was a truth seeking artist, who was celibate and pure. It is obvious, thus, that there will be further expansion of Ordynin family. Out of the three daughters Lydia, an actress, and Katerina, the youngest were also syphilitic. Natalya was a doctor, a Bolshevik, the only hope for future. Boris describes her like this, “Gleb is degenerate, Katerina is degenerate, Lydia is degenerate – Natalya’s the only human being.”

The Princess still clings to her grand routine of distributing the maids’ duties and the old Prince is retreating more and more into a world of make-believe. He has wrapped himself in the overcoat of religion so as to protect himself from the icy winds of revolution.

But the children don’t approve of their parents. Natalya goes to stay in the hospital; grandson Anton Nikolayevich joins the association of young communists; Boris shoots himself; Lydia and Katerina are also on the path of moral degradation.

Then there is the family of Arkhip Arkhipov. This young communist, who wears leather jacket, writes an order to shoot his father, as he is considered enemy of the working class. Father, at the same time, comes to know that he is suffering from cancer and before the CHEKA could shoot him, he shot himself in the mouth.

Natalya and Arkhip Arkhipov finally get married, thus suggesting that they will produce a new line of healthy children. Here Pilnyak introduces another of his favourite notions – the need for the nobility to regenerate itself through intermarriage with the lower classes.

Olga Kuntsova, the soviet young lady, who works in the Peoples’ Polise Department prepares arrest warrants through a copier. She goes to theatres, flirts with influential people, signs search and arrest warrants against whomsoever she wants. She, after an affair with the Head of the Peoples’ Police Department, Ian Laitis, signs arrest warrant against him. But Laitis proves more powerful than Olga Kuntsova and arrests her. Through these characters the general portrai of young soviet women and abuse of power by bureaucrats are reflected. This abuse leads them to their end.

Boris Pilnyak probably suggests that the Revolution has cleaned the society of its vices and a new society of healthy, honest citizens is in the making. But it is not this conclusion or the fates of various characters which is the highlight of the novel. Most astonishing is the form and style of the author.

Before discussing the stylistic characteristics of the novel, let us have a quick look at the arrangement of chapters and their titles. The novel consists of three parts, namely Introduction, Exposition and Conclusion. Further, Introduction consists of two sections : Ordynin Town and China Town. Pilnyak has used similar introductory sections in his novel Mahogany too. While ‘Ordynin House’ traces back the history of Moscow since eighteenth century, undermining apparent stability of capitalist Moscow, the constant symbolic references to China Town, which peeps around the corners at night like soldiers’ buttons, anticipate the return to a consciousness of Oriental antiquity, jolted by the Revolution.

Exposition consists of seven chapters. Chapter I has three sub-sections – ‘Tomatoes sold here’ describes the life in Ordynin Town, depicts the various households, and of how they interact with each other; ‘Olenka Kuntz and the Warrant’ tells about misuse of power and arbitrariness of bureaucrats. This chapter ends with the section ‘The Death of old Arkhipov’.

Chapter II, entitled ‘The Ordynin House’ deals in detail about the members of Ordynin household, their philosophies their way of life in the four sub-sections named, ‘Without a Title’, ‘Two Conversations’, ‘The Old Men’ and ‘Denouements’. In this chapter children of Ordynin family express a genuine, though confused interest in the events going on outside. The conflict between the Old and the New Russia is highlighted. Gleb, like PIlnyak, is unclear in his mind about his attitude to the Revolution. Both welcome it as the destroyer of the capitalist world, but both realise as well that Western influence has actually been enhanced by Revolution. Author emphasis on resurrection of the Oriental past.

For personal interpretation of Revolution, author uses the technique of Skaz in chapter III. Starting from the assumption that the Revolution brings ‘Freedom’, PIlnyak describes in detail how the different characters look at this freedom. Use of Skaz enabled the author to express certain feelings or ideas about the events of the story from the viewpoint and in the speech style of one of the characters. Pilnyak often tells not in his idiom but in that of a vulgar town character, a peasant, a criminal or a news paper. This made possible the inclusion of critical or satirical comments on soviet life for which the author would not have to take responsibility. ‘Through the Eyes of Andrei’, who seeks his freedom among anarchists, freedom means depriving others of their freedom. For Natalya, freedom means being allowed to lead the academic life of an archaeologist, supporting the Revolution, but not actually taking part in it; while for Irina ‘Freedom’ implies arrogance, survival of the fittest, liquidation of the weak. This chapter beautifully reflects the doubts in the author’s mind about the nature of Revolution and whether or not to welcome and support it.

But most telling ic Chapter VII which is about a title and consists of only three single nominative sentences:

Russia

Revolution

Snow Storm

Author probably wants to predict that after the Revolution there will be snowstorm which would destroy everything.

The whole work, as said earlier, lacks continuity in episodes. The reader gets the impression that a few separately published scenes are put together in a haphazard manner. The author has also tried to create some confusion by various other devices. He uses the same names for Bolsheviks and religious sectarians, for doctor Natalya and archaeologist Natalya, one of whom dies and the other marries Arkhip Arkhipov. Pilnyak’s manipulation of time and nature is also striking. Through manipulation of time the author wants to create the impression that though time has moved forward, a new Soviet State has been created – but in fact nothing has changed.

Pilnyak frequently suspends the narrative at a critical point by inserting a depiction of natural phenomena. Various passages of this type emphasise that man is inseparable from nature. He is in fact a part of nature.

In spite of all its confusing and incomprehensible nature, it is clear that through his novel Boris Pilnyak wanted to portray the chaotic state of the country, for which he uses three families and through the fate of these families he succeeded in predicting a healthy future which would be created by joint efforts of Bolsheviks and a few active sympathisers from the old noble class.

*********

Discussion on M&M

Hi!
Hopefully by tomorrow I shall complete uploading Chapter TWO.
This chapter has key to many things...
I know It is not easy to read chapter 2, in that case after chapter ONE, you can go to Chapter 3.
Significance of the theme started in Chapter TWO...I shall tell later.
Good reading!

Shall we discuss M&M here?

Hi! I am uoloading M.Bulgakov's Master and Margarita in Hindi on the blog

http://masteraurmargaritahindi.blogspot.com

So far posted about two chapters. As each chapter is pretty big, decided to split it into small units of 2-3 pages.Read the first chapter and pay attention to the following:

Who are the characters introduced in this chapter?
Where is the action taking place?

Is there any indication of time, space?

Is anything worrying the characters? What are they discussing?
Description of the stranger.

If you want, you can send me answers to these questions. We shall go slowly...when one chapter is uploaded, we shall take it up. Pl don't miss the link. Every thing is important in Bulgakov's works.

Shall respond to your queries if any. 

Two Boys

Two Boys, Two Authors, Two Solutions to Problems

                                                                A.Charumati Ramdas

Children seldom occupy centre place in a literary work. Literature often moves around the elder members of the society. But recently two short stories, dealing with the dreams and ambitions of two eight year old boys, have appeared in fat literary journals. The aspirations of these two boys vis-a-vis the support/opposition they receive from their parents are depicted in two entirely different ways by the authors.

The first among these stories which is going to be discussed here is called Chasyi (The Alarm Clock) written by Elena Olegovna Dolgopyat (b. 28.12.1963). It appeared in the journal Druzhba Narodov, No.8/2004. And the second one is Anton by Nina Victorovna Gorlanova (b.23.11.1947). It appeared in Zarubezhniye Zapiskyi, No.14/2008.

It won’t be out of place to have some information about the two authors:

Elena Olegovna Dolgopyat was born in Murom of Vladimir region in the family of a military officer and her mother was a teacher. She completed the Moscow Institute of Transport Engineers and also a course in Script Writing from Vladimir Institute of Cinematography. She is being published in various journals since 1993.

Nina Victorovna Gorlanova is comparatively much elder to Elena Dolgopyat. She was born in a village in the Perm province and is presently stationed at Perm, along with her husband Bukur, who is also a well known writer and in whose co-authorship Nina Victorovna has written a few works. She was even nominated for the Russian Booker Prize.

Nina Gorlanova completed Philology Faculty of the Perm University in 1970. She worked as a junior scientist in Perm Institute, then as a librarian and also methodologist in the House of Pioneers and School Children. She has won many awards; but in spite of that her financial condition is very miserable. She lives in a community flat, her husband is very sick and she too has always been a sickly person. Her neighbour gives her a lot of trouble. All these problems of life get reflected in her works. Having a very thorough knowledge of the child psychology, she, along with her husband, has written Roman Vospitaniya. In the short story, Anton, which is going to be discussed in this paper, one gets a clear glimpse of Gorlanova’s understanding of a child’s inner world.

Coming to the plot of the two stories:

Elena Dolgopyat narrates the story of eight year old Sashka whom his mother has sent to get some bread and sugar. As  Sashka is about to enter the Departmental Store, a very dirty, poor, badly suntanned man in just a coat wrapped over his body stops him and offers an angry alarm clock for money. Hesitatingly, Sashka gives him all the money, that his mother had given him and takes possession of the Alarm Clock.

Sashka comes home. His mother is busy watching a detective movie on the TV. She asks from there itself, “Have you brought?” Sashka answers in the affirmative. During the breaks (when they are showing ads there on the TV) mother enters the kitchen and finds out that Sashka has used the money for clock. Obviously Sashka is scolded and then the mother relents. The clock is placed on the shelf in the kitchen, near a flower vase and mother again goes back to watch her detective.

Sashka tries to bring down the clock and breaks the flower vase. Thanks to the loud chase of cars on the TV, mother does not hear the sound. Sashka gathers the pieces of the broken vase and throws them into the dust bin. He starts examining the angry clock. He notices that instead of the customary two keys, it has a third one as well, which Sashka could move only in the anticlockwise direction. As soon as this extra key is moved, a strange man appears in front of Sashka and asks for his ‘command’. Sashka understands that this man is the ‘genie’ of the alarm clock and asks him to get for himself some bread and sugar, but the man says that his job is only to correct an event in the past.

Sashka first asks him to restore the flower vase…this is done and the man disappears.

Sashka again winds the key and calls him, but suddenly the mother enters the kitchen. Sashka introduces the man to his mother as “he stays in the next building.”

Mother goes back to watch her movie without paying any serious attention to him. And then, Sashka tells the man, “Look! Last year I had broken my leg and so, I could not go for skiing along with other boys. They all went there: Petka, and Seryozha, and Tanka. Taking advantage of my absence Tanka got friendly with Petka, though earlier she was my friend. I don’t care about it at all, but is it possible to do like this, that my leg is not broken and then I would go with others for skiing?”

The man closes his eyes, mutters something in lips, then he opens his eyes and says, “If the fracture in your leg is removed from your past, many things will change in your present. And all the more, Tanka will not be there at all!

“How come?”

“You will be living in another house, will be studying in another school, your mother will get married.”

“How come?”

“This is how….You will go for skiing. She will go to visit her friend; there she will meet a person whom she will marry eventually. You will go to live with him. His flat will be much bigger and better than yours. He will teach you how to drive a car.”

This car, this temptation, does the trick. Though the man tells him that this change will be last change in Sashka’s life; he will not remember anything from his past life, and, of course, the angry clock will also not remain with him, Sashka agrees to everything.

Everything happens as narrated by the man, and in the last scene, Sashka is seen alighting from the car to buy chocolate for his mother. The new father is also there. And the same strange man appears again and offers him the clock for money, but Sashka refuses to accept it even for free and the man vanishes into darkness.

Nina Gorlanova’s Anton is from a more familiar background. Anton’s parents find it difficult to manage everything that their four children would expect.

Here, the mother is complaining that she is unable to buy herself a new purse, while Anton, the eldest of the four children is demanding a bicycle. He argues that it helps in improving the mathematical capabilities of children.

Anton’s classmate Timoshin gifts him his old bicycle which immediately breaks down as Anton’s sisters and their friends recklessly ride it.

The very next day Timoshin gifts it to another boy Gladkov, and so, the bicycle is taken back by Timoshin. It was a heartbreaking episode for Anton, but then the parents buy him the children’s logic kit and using it Anton is able to tell the character of a person. Bicycle could not be purchased for him, but in the month of August, a bicycle is hired for him for one whole week.

Coming to the comparison of the two protagonists:

Anton comes from a very ordinary family. He has three sisters and when his mother complains that she is unable to manage things for all the four children, Anton quips, “You should have thought well about your means and strength before producing the fourth child!”

The mother again complains that she banked upon Anton’s help and here is Anton, driving her mad with his mischief.

When papa does not allow Anton to have an apple at night, Anton shouts and says that he won’t give them any apple in their old age! Papa starts cutting apples into pieces and saving them in a big carton for their old age!

In short, it is a happy family, in spite of non-availability of comforts. They love each other; they fight with each other and live for each other.

This warmth is missing in Dolgopyat’s story. Sashka is a loner. The mother seems least interested in him. While requesting the ‘genie’ to change his past, Sashka does not deem it fit to consult his mother. His mother’s prospective marriage too is not going to make any difference to him, as he is delighted by the thought of getting a car!

Both these children are of the same age…about eight years. In both stories the action starts in the evening. In Alarm Clock it gets over within that evening, while in Anton it lasts for a few more months.

Both the children get what they long for: Sashka gets a car and Anton- a bicycle; in two spells; once as a gift for a day and then, on rent for one whole week! Probably he won’t feel the urge for it later. A very practical solution!

Both the authors have shown fulfillment of their dreams. Dolgopyat uses the magical device which gives instant result; Gorlanova, on the other hand, goes about it in a more practical way, which is easily accepted by the readers. Dolgopyat goes the escapist way, while Gorlanova believes in struggle to achieve the goal.

Gorlanova writes in a very simple, day-to-day manner. The reader feels that he has become a part of Anton’s family, sharing their small joys, small grieves!  Dolgopyat’s description, on the other hand, is like a script for a film. The reader remains a spectator, is eager to know what will happen next.

Gorlanova’s story seems complete in itself, but it still ends with the mention of the bicycle which was broken and repaired and not returned by Timoshin to Anton. The reader understands that this bicycle is not going to find a place in Anton’s future life.

“The Alarm Clock” has an open end. The story ends exactly as it had begun: The same strange man is seen offering his alarm clock to Sashka; but this time Sashka refuses to accept it, thereby indicating that there would be no place for miracles in Sashka’s life in future.

Thus we can conclude that children are slowly finding a place in literature- may be , to a limited extent, and the authors are trying to study their problems, their psyche and making an attempt to fulfill their ambitions in their own way, again depending on their social background and approach to life.