As I argued in a post last week, U.S. copyright law has enabled Knopf, the original publisher of the English-language version of The Second Sex, to prevent any new translations from being published. This is a problem, because the English translation Knopf uses is both inaccurate and incoherant.
There is an online petition asking Knopf (and its owner, Random House) to allow a new translation to be published. So far, only 137 people have signed it; “Alas” readers should be able to double that easily. So please, as a favor to me, if you enjoy “Alas” at all; take 20 seconds and go and sign the petition.
* * *
I just ran across an excellent (but very long) article on the subject, “While We Wait: The English Translation of The Second Sex,” by Toril Moi. The article includes some examples of bad translation, many of which require a background in formal philosophy to appreciate. Some, however, are obviously outragious even to non-expert readers.
Literal translation: “One does not acquire virile attributes by rejecting female [feminine] attributes; even a transvestite doesn’t manage to turn herself into a man…she remains a transvestite.”
Knopf: “One does not acquire virile attributes by rejecting feminine attributes; even the transvestite fails to make a man of herself…she is a travesty.” (SS, 682″“83)
And here’s another one, from Knopf’s translation of de Beauvoir’s introduction:
Literal translation: “The legend that claims that the ravished Sabine women opposed their ravishers with stubborn sterility, also tells us that the men magically overcame their resistance by beating them with leather straps.”
Knopf: “In the legend of the Sabine women, the latter soon abandoned their plan of remaining sterile to punish their ravishers.” (SS, xxvi)
Moi, who has worked hard at talking to Knopf, also briefly discusses the publishing situation:
My understanding is that Gallimard, Beauvoir’s French publishers, want a new English translation.39 Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that they have the necessary legal grounds on which to challenge Knopf. In May 2000 Continuum/Athlone in London asked Gallimard for rights to do an academic edition of The Second Sex. In March 2001, the Modern Library (another division of Random House) in New York inquired about rights for a new translation. Neither publisher received a reply. At the moment, then, there simply is no way around Knopf and Vintage. Although they have full knowledge of all the evidence to the contrary, editors at both imprints continue to insist that there really is no need for a new translation. There is no need to elaborate on what this tells us about the state of commercial publishing in America.
* * *
On a mailing list I read, there’s a rumour going about that Knopf has reached an agreement to allow a new translation, but so far no one has been able to confirm the rumour. In the meanwhile, I’d encourage people to sign the petition anyway, since it certainly won’t do any harm.
Pingback: The Headpiece for the Staff of Ra
Pingback: derivative work
Pingback: SIVACRACY.NET
Pingback: feminist blogs
I signed it, but only in the hopes that a better translation will cause dissent and friction within the feminist community as old assumptions and settled battles have to be refought, thus advancing the cause of the patriarchy.
You didn’t say anything about having a good motive for signing!
That is so frustrating. I haven’t read the second sex, but I did buy a copy of it recently. Now i don’t really want to read it because it seems that I will not be reading what she meant. Do you still suggest reading it?
Just what we need, Robert. The old battles re-examined, the assumed certainties disinterred, people arguing with conviction and enthusiasm – et voila! – a reinvigorated feminism less easily silenced or pushed off course by miserable old gits. (Excusing your goodself from this tag, of course.)
This explains the rollercoaster feeling I had when I read The Second Sex (many years ago)– at times de Beauvoir seemed so on point and other times she sounded reactionary and out-of-touch with authentic feminism. I bet a lot of my negative responses to her had to do with mis-translation of her real ideas.
I wonder if Mme. de Beauvoire’s estate might have a legal case? Something about libelling her good name by publishing trash in her name? I mean, if the English version says things that are in direct opposition to what she said in the French, they could have a case for misquoting or something, couldn’t they?
Pingback: Word Munger » Simone a besoin de traduction!
Thanks for publishing the link to the petition. I just signed it and we’re now 3 signatures away from doubling the previous total!
“sounded reactionary and out-of-touch with authentic feminism”
It looks like the translation is not just “bad” in the sense of unsophisticated, inaccurate, etc, but “bad” in the loaded language of the time. The use of “travesty” for example, is probably some of both, because it is a common term (now pejorative) for transsexual in some romance language countries. Translating it – as a false cognate – directly gives it a different if no less pejorative meaning.
On the devil’s advocate side of things, I could see why the publisher would not be very interested in translating the book if there is not a big market. Translation is incredibly expensive, quality translation more so, and doing things like poetry and philosophy requires a huge amount of work.
French: c’est une travestie.
Literal: she remains a transvestite.
Knopf: She is a travesty.
But, of course, the word “travestie” actually does mean both. It is a fact of translation that English simply has more words than many other languages do, so a translator from French will have to make numerous decisions about which English word to translate a French one from dozens of possibilities.
Since all reading — even in one’s own language — is in some degree an interpretation, one wonders how much the original translation “got it wrong”, and how much is that a past reader would make different assumptions about meanings and intentions than a modern reader would.
It is entirely possible that the original author intended both of travesty/tranvestite in French, but there is no way to present the “pun” in translation, so a translator has to make a choice. Choosing “transvestite” is the more charitable choice, but not necessarily the only one.
I’m signature #329. I read and enjoyed Things of the Spirit before I even had any real idea what feminism was, so I’ll certainly buy and read a new translation of TSS if and when it appears.
Thanks, Amp, for bringing this to a wider audience.
Does anyone knowof there is a better english translation that can be purchased in the UK,canada,australia or india?
Hey there, do’t know where else to post this slightly off topic comment, but–partly based on your committment to this translation issue, I’ve just linked you up here at Historical Footnotes.
http://historicalfootnotes.blogspot.com/
Kudos to you.
(Am relatively new to the blogging world, so forgive my Net illiteracy!).
As a professional translator, I certainly appreciate your efforts.
I would contact Toril Moi (who is at Duke, I think?) and Margaret Simons and tell them about your petition. Both have worked a lot on de Beauvoir’s work and would probably be excited by what you are doing.
I am so thrilled that you are writing about this!
#382!
In regards to Bellamy’s points in #9, isn’t that what annotations and footnotes are for ?
BTW, babelfish gave an english-to-french translation of “travesty” as “parodie.” I was curious, so I tried it. For whatever reason, it didn’t translate “transvestite” at all. Same with “transexual.”
I’m certainly not a lawyer or an expert on contract law, but I thought when parties entered into a contract it is implied that they act in good faith. Surely there is a case to be made that the publishers have not acted in good faith, which renders the contract invalid. Or if the current translation is so inaccurate is there an argument to be made that a new translation is not in fact a breach of copyright, as it would essentially be a different book? Whatever the case, the current attitude of the publishers only serves to prove De Beauvoir’s point.
Pingback: derivative work » Blog Archive » copyright versus writers
“BTW, babelfish gave an english-to-french translation of “travesty” as “parodie.” I was curious, so I tried it. For whatever reason, it didn’t translate “transvestite” at all. Same with “transexual.””
That’s probably because “parodie” is invariable “Une parodie”, there cannot be a masculine version of it. While transvestite and transsexual can translate into both masculine and feminine form, depending on context (subject).
Too bad I can’t translate it myself, I’d violate their copyright laws or something. I’m fluent in both French and English, French being my first language.
For the record, a male-to-female transsexual would be called “transsexuelle”, while a female-to-male transsexual would be called “transsexuel”. The problem is that many people, including doctors, will inverse them (either maliciously, or by ignorance), causing unnecessary confusion on top of it all.
The most laughable thing that’s been said to me, by the government, employment section, is that my transition was understood as “a change of sexual orientation”, I just laughed out loud in her face.
Pingback: Smite Me! [.net] » Blog Archive » Borrowed Links