close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

2014-06-17

код для вставки
LINGUISTICS
UDC 81
L.M. Mikhailova, E.A. Ischenko
Southern federal university
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
Redaction-el@mail.ru
JOSEPH BRODSKY
IN MODERN AMERICAN AND BRITISH CRITICS
[Иосиф Бродский в оценке современной
американской и британской критики]
The article is devoted to the consideration of Joseph Brodsky from the viewpoint of modern American and British critics. It is known that Brodsky was not accepted by many English-speaking readers and critics, as there was a failure in the information channel of intercultural communication. With regard to Brodsky's poetry, from all aspects of
Russian poems, the most translatable was only narrative. Hidden value in the originals is displayed on the surface of the
translation. Thus, the translation becomes a comment to the original. And the literal translation system destroys metaphorical poems, as in poetry to the fore associative connections of words rather than their pragmatic value. Therefore, in
the translations of Brodsky it refers to the author's metaphor than a metaphor of language.
Key words: Joseph Brodsky, translation, narration, poetry, metaphor.
Reviewers can be divided into several groups. The first group consists of individuals who
helped create Iosif Aleksandrovich author's personality «Joseph Brodsky». They are judged on creativity Brodsky's not the texts themselves, and for long-term friendship with the writer / poet and cocreation. This group includes: D. Uol¬kott - poet, translator, who so much admired Brodsky, devoting his essay. Walcott was involved in work on the collection «A Part of Speech»; WH Auden teacher Brodsky, the conductor in English poetry; D. Ueyssbort - friend and translator Joseph
Alexandrovich, who patiently helped him with translations of his own works. [8] The second group
of reviewers said Brodsky important figure in the cultural life of America and Europe, but not the
author of certain texts. They pay more attention to itself an international reputation Brodsky. They
admire his creative personality and willing to accept all the shortcomings and errors of Brodsky in
the works, as merit. This group includes Michael Hoffman.
The third group includes persons such as D. Bailey, S. Birkerts, Charles Simic - reviewers
who know Russian. For them, Joseph Brodsky and Joseph Brodsky - two completely different personalities, and the second person they perceive solely as an interpreter. Therefore, it is this identity
is their criticism. The fourth group of reviewers most critical of. They consider an external independent Joseph'a Brodsky from his Russian alter ego they perceive as the desire of the poet to be
read in English, in the context of the Anglo-American poetry, regardless of the Russian original.
This group includes such reviewers as Peter Porter, Donald Davie, Christopher Reid and Craig
Raine. They assert Brodsky himself got into his trap: Joseph Brodsky substitute for Joseph Brodsky
and casts doubt on its international reputation. According to these reviewers, not Joseph Brodsky, a
Russian poet deserved the Nobel Prize, but it becomes part of his biografiche¬skogo myth, getting
on the cover of its collections - and now heard accusations that the greatest literary prize got the
wrong address [1].
For example, in the auto-translation of the poem "That is not gaining Muse water in the
mouth" lines "and an eye pillow to the face / spreads like an egg on a frying pan ..." translated almost literally and, since the image of a purely author, do not lose the original meaning. Even, perhaps, in the English text a keen sense of the hidden tears metaphor here: «The face spills its eyes all
over the pillowcase» («person pours his eyes on the pillow"). But in the translation comparison
«like eggs in the frying pan» («eggs in a frying pan") looks unreasonable, because the Englishspeaking reader not to be associated due to the internal form of the Russian language ("egg in a fry-
ing pan" - "eggs" - "Eye ") in English and concepts« fried eggs »(« eggs') and «eye» («eye") are not
connected.
Also, in another poem, "I was a member instead of a wild animal in a cage ..." prison term
"klikuha" is replaced in the translation of the word «nickname», that does not convey the desired
coarseness and sounds, according to critics, quite gently [4] .
Brodsky often faced with many untranslatable Russian realities, and often he refused to recreate his work as part of another culture, even when the Russian realities have equivalents in the
language in which Brodsky makes translation. Thus, it has been criticized that he would rather go to
the nonequivalent language that gave rise rather than a new meaning of the work and its pointlessness. While some reviewers felt that many Taxpayers may be regarded as independent works written based on the original Russian [3].
Also, it seems that because of the difficulty of translating Russian realities that abound in the
poems Brodsky, author and translator knowingly permit communication failures, referring the reader to the original, rather than to give him a more or less complete literary text.
As a result, the reader is knocked out of the chain of communication: English-speaking readers not familiar with the tradition and reality features that are present in the texts, and Russian, with
the ability to see the cultural and real basis, not fluent in the language of the translation. Critics argue that Brodsky has created his own language on the border of Russian and English. Therefore, the
only full-fledged carrier of this language is the poet himself. Thus, readers will witness two cultures
dialogue between Joseph Brodsky and Joseph Brodsky.
Saving a large number of syllables in a line of doomed poet's verbosity, me and the ratio of
parts of speech: unlike the original, there are a large number of Publisher's epithets, which often
change the emotional tone of the poem. For the sake of rhythm and rhyme Brodsky made mistakes
in English grammar: Inaccurate use of temporary verb forms, articles, syntax, etc. [7].
Evaluation of the well-known literary critic and poet Donald Davie was the most negative.
Davey believes that the English poem Brodsky paths to failure overwhelmed, "hyperactive metaphors," a play on words. According to him, Brodsky so diligently trying to keep the size of the original poem in translation, keeping in mind that the strict parameters Russian poem entirely unacceptable in English poetry. "Our rhythms, even fractional desyatislozhniki Marlowe or Dryden, less
clear and more variability than the rhythm ternary meters, typical of Russian classical poetry. This
being so, the consequences are extremely important, because it means that the booming Russian line
safely controlled lumbering in her brilliant trails and "specific physical details" under the weight of
which is more easily English stumbles, stammers and confused. "
The use of transport in English poetry, according to Devi, also requires much greater sensitivity than Brodsky demonstrates in his AutoSuggest. Brodsky remained only metric and graphic,
but not music, intonation unity. Brodsky stanzas in translation look bulky and complex rhyme - artificial, forced. Donald Davie said that critics were quick with high marks the English-language
works of Joseph Brodsky, have rendered him a disservice, and Nobel Prize at age 47 was not just
premature, and destructive. As a critic thought of the writer / poet made "icon", before being able to
see him suffering person and good master [6].
A significant place in the review take arguments about the structural features of Brodsky's poetry. Walcott admitted: "When translated into English rhymed shestistopnaya structure common to
Russian poetry, risks triggering Association comic, parodic or ironic character. None of the modern
English or American poet will not take such a risk, as the use of a feminine ending in a very serious
context ... ". In his review of John Bailey heard serious comments. He believed that the works included in the collection «A Part of Speech» have typological similarity with the poetry of Auden
and Lowell are not inherent in the originals. Bailey concluded that Brodsky tried to give his translation of the English style, which is considered a great disadvantage. Also, translations of Brodsky
have journalistic style, designed for the public, so they hide the true essence of Brodsky's poems
[5].
George Tsirtes in his review published in the journal «Poetry Review» presented a analysis of
themes and motifs Brodsky (love, separation, time). He admired how Brodsky freely drawn with the
English language, admired the "iron structure" of his verse and flexible vocabulary, though noted
certain shortcomings. George Tsirtes believed swagger and rough slang in Brodsky's poetry were,
on the contrary, benefit, stylistic feature of translation rather than a disadvantage. Their criticisms
Tsirtes concludes with the following conclusion: "In the book« A Part of Speech »have annoying
shortcomings and mannerism, but do not make much sense for them to stop." Another reviewer
Derek Walcott says that this collection does not include such brilliant examples of "re-creation" of
the Russian poem in English, but is a whole - a book that have enriched the English language literature.
It is known that Brodsky Taxpayers were not accepted by many English-speaking readers and
critics, as there was a failure in the information channel of intercultural communication. With regard to Brodsky's poetry, from all aspects of Russian poems, was the most translatable only narrative. All the hidden value in the originals are displayed on the surface of the translation. Thus, the
translation becomes a comment to the original. And the literal translation system destroys metaphorical poems, as in poetry to the fore associative connections of words rather than their pragmatic
value. Therefore, in the translations of Brodsky refers to the author's metaphor than a metaphor of
language.
References
1. Volgina A.S. Publisher's Joseph Brodsky and their perception in the United States and Great
Britain 1972-2000 gg. Dis. . cand. Philology. Sciences: Moscow, 2005.
2. Ivanov V.V. Brodsky and metaphysical poetry // Lev Losev. Lots of great people. M., electronic textbook.
3. Kulle V. Notes // Brodsky I. God saves all. 1992.
4. Polukhina B. Introduction to the chapter “In England” // Joseph Brodsky: Works and Days.
M .: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 1998.
5. Bayley J. Not Afraid of Sounding Major // The New York Times Book Review. 1988.
6. Davie D. The saturated line // Times Literary Supplement. 1988.
7. Kyst J. Brodsky’s Bilingualism: Practice and Prehistory .University of Copenhagen, 2004.
8. Polukhina V. Joseph Brodsky: A Poet for Our Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
Литература
1. Волгина А.С. Автопереводы Иосифа Бродского и их восприятие в США и Великобритании 1972-2000 гг. Дис. . канд. филол. наук: Москва, 2005.
2. Иванов В.В. Бродский и метафизическая поэзия // Лев Лосев. Жизнь замечательных
людей. М., электронный учебник.
3. Куллэ В. Примечания // Бродский И. Бог сохраняет все. 1992.
4. Полухина В. Вступление к главе «В Англии» // Иосиф Бродский: труды и дни. М.: Независимая газета, 1998.
5. Bayley J. Not Afraid of Sounding Major // The New York Times Book Review. 1988.
6. Davie D. The saturated line // Times Literary Supplement. 1988
7. Kyst J. Brodsky's Bilingualism: Practice and Prehistory .University of Copenhagen, 2004.
8. Polukhina V. Joseph Brodsky: A Poet for Our Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
November, 12, 2014
Документ
Категория
Научные
Просмотров
7
Размер файла
76 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа