The Translator Conceit

[littlemanpoet]

I. As far as I can tell, this is a huge topic and can have many branches bearing equally worthy fruit, so don't fear taking this thread "off topic" on my account. There were multiple expressions of desire for having such a thread, so since nobody else started it, I did. I like starting topics, can you tell?

II. As Shippey says on one of the LotR DVD's, "[Tolkien] wasn't kicking a dead horse, he had a Darby winner!" A couple of points under that:

1. This thread reveals better than most that Tolkien did far more than create or re-invent the science-fiction/fantasy genre. He has written a completely different kind of fictional work. It's not a novel, and I dare say it's not really a romantic epic either, though Tolkien named it so. It's story cast as feigned history more persuasively than anyone had ever done, or may ever do.

2. Here are common readers discussing (to the best of our ability) what, until Tolkien's time, had been strictly the domain of philological and linguistic scholars. I find that to be an amazing development in itself.

III. I found the quotation on the Chaucer study to be absolutely fascinating, both in terms of what it revealed about the process of translation, and for how it may inform Tolkien's work on LotR.

I just noticed that I'm about to cross-post with Bêthberry, so I'll end this here and see what else is new....

EDIT: As for Tolkien doing self parody, I dare say it would be more likely to be found in Farmer Giles of Ham.

The comment about the dragon coming in like an express train certainly seems anachronistic! It's a wonder it didn't stand out to me this latest reading! It puts me in mind of an attempt I made in a certain rpg at these Downs to account for the fact that I was using an anachronism in my own description; to wit:

"You're not excusing yourself from me,' Falco yelled at Eodwine's receding back as he hopped off his chair and gave chase, his pipe puffing smoke so that, if there had been any in that time and place, those who looked on would have said the hobbit looked like a little steam engine. But there weren't any such things in that time and place, so nobody thought it; but it looked like it anyway.

Had I noticed that Tolkien had given me precedent, I wouldn't have attempted this flawed gem, as it were!

[davem]

Just a quick note. We have a couple of known excisions from the original Red Book - The Quest of Erebor in UT & the Epilogue to LotR in HoMe 12. So once again we see that the Translator has not given us everything he has in the volume published as LotR. The Epilogue is especially interesting in this context as (remaining within the secondary world conceit, remember) it exists in two very different forms. I wonder what a comparison of the two would tell us about the way the translator worked - if he can translate the same original document in two such different ways?

Anyone interested in Tolkien's approach to this issue of the way texts are transmitted & altered over time, especially in the case of manuscript books & translation (remeber some parts of the text were originally Elvish, translated into Adunaic, then Westron (then possibly Anglo-saxon) then into modern English) should get hold of Flieger's Interrupted Music.

[Lalwendë]

For myself, the conceit is one that is not strictly necessary to understanding Tolkien's work. The tales stand alone by themselves, and the fact that the conceit exists simply adds another dimension to them as being 'real' as opposed to being simply a story; the conceit is another helping hand as it were into the idea that this secondary world actually did exist. You could say, the conceit even helps us to acheive that sense of enchantment.

So if the conceit is not always necessary, then why did Tolkien use it? I've a few possible reasons:

To help us achieve that sense of enchantment. We are entering an entire world. LotR goes beyond simple story as it is so complex and has so many levels. As it is the life work of one man he has poured so many ideas into this that it in effect does exist on its own. To add in the idea that it is a discovered or translated work gives it the added air of authenticity, that we are indeed stepping into a document of a place which existed.

In addition to the above, Tolkien added layers of meaning by creating real etymologies for the languages he created. For such developments in language to occur, there has to be a history, a time frame for them to happen within. The notion of the texts being translated allows for this, and it also adds depth to the conceit.

Other works based upon mythologies are themselves created from translations, for example the Arthurian stories have been created from a whole range of older translated texts. As non-linguists most of us woud read texts such as the Eddas in translation. And Tolkien himself was a translator. So for him to use this conceit would be a quite natural act. Fully aware of the possibilities and consequences involved in translating myth, it must have seemed an interesting notion to have this concept as part of his own myth making.

There is also the incredibly convenient fact that if we know the work we are reading to be a translation, then we might be more prepared to allow for any inconsistencies! If a work is produced from a line of other texts, then like rumours, tales can change in the telling and re-telling. In something as complex as the work he was creating inconsistencies would be inevitable (and I'm always surprised there are not more), and the conceit of translated myth would allow for this!

This final possibility is rather a cynical one, I admit, so it is possible that this is more a convenient consequence of his using the conceit. I'm not sure Tolkien wished to exercise self parody, but at times he clearly does wish to intrude upon the story as there are instances where the text considers authorial issues and the nature of myth and story is discussed by characters. Having the conceit of a translation as part of his structure allows him to do this without it appearing that it is his voice we are hearing (even though in our logical mind, we know that it is him), and without such musings being intrusive. By way of contrast to the way Tolkien inserted his authorial voice, John Fowles did this in a deliberately intrusive manner in the French Lieutenant's Woman, building up a novel filled with historical detail only to bring it all crashing down.

So, I say that the conceit is not strictly neccesary to our understanding and appreciation of the text. If we are discussing what happened to X or why Y did what she or he did, then we do not always need to utilise the conceit in our arguments as the material is laid out for us and we have only to find it for ourselves (which is interesting as are we then acting as translators ourselves?). But, if we totally disregard the conceit then we are missing out on something important to the text, as it acts as a cement which holds together much of the detail, and clearly adds to the sense of enchantment.

[HerenIstarion]

I'm going to indulge in self-plagiarism, but can not stand the temptation of directing you to this piece of fun (Canonicity 79)

[littlemanpoet]

Good thoughts, Lalwendë. Quite the redaction, H-I!

I'd like to consider an alternate question: what things may not be reasons for the conceit?

I'd like to suggest a few answers.

First, I hope we don't just blithely accept the notion that the conceit completely wipes out any consideration of style inconsistencies. Whereas style variation may be an interesting aspect of the conceit, by no means does it wipe the slate clean in terms of the author's responsibilities regarding anachronism and style. My opinion as to what style is too high flown or not, is not the issue here. Rather, the conceit is not some kind of stain remover, if you take my meaning.

Second, I have my doubts that Tolkien pushed the conceit as far as some of us may be tempted to. Sure, it's there, but reading the Letters, I do not see Tolkien saying that it was a matter of translation from text G or E or whatever; rather, he defends his use of style, poetry, what have you, from an authorial ownership point of view.

So though the conceit may be there, I'd like to see us look at particular texts or contexts and evaluate the conceit's viability in terms of them. Otherewise, we're just thinking about angels and pinpoints in our ivory tower. Let's dig into the text, my friends.

Lalwendë's point is well to remember: one need not bother with the conceit at all to enjoy the book, or even become enchanted by it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

First, I hope we don't just blithely accept the notion that the conceit completely wipes out any consideration of style inconsistencies. Whereas style variation may be an interesting aspect of the conceit, by no means does it wipe the slate clean in terms of the author's responsibilities regarding anachronism and style. My opinion as to what style is too high flown or not, is not the issue here. Rather, the conceit is not some kind of stain remover, if you take my meaning.

That may be true (actually I think it is ) but it is valuable nonetheless, because it enables us to read the book without having the spell broken. In short, don't knock 'stain removers'!

Second, I have my doubts that Tolkien pushed the conceit as far as some of us may be tempted to. Sure, it's there, but reading the Letters, I do not see Tolkien saying that it was a matter of translation from text G or E or whatever; rather, he defends his use of style, poetry, what have you, from an authorial ownership point of view.

In fact the Sil (especially the version edited by CT) is pretty much precisely that.

Let's dig into the text, my friends.

What, & risk undermining the 'Tower'? Shouldn't we rather put away our spades, climb up & look at the Sea?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

What, & risk undermining the 'Tower'? Shouldn't we rather put away our spades, climb up & look at the Sea?

Me "hoist with my own petard" and all that, eh? Perhaps.

But what I'm asking for is evaluation (to the best of our abilities) whether the Translator Conceit functions at all in a given text or context; and if so, how; and what does it achieve; and what does it not achieve?

If that's tearing apart the tower to see its stones, I'm guilty, but I don't think it's the same thing (since you're only half kidding).