In search of Stefan Grabinski

[Siderealpress]

Dear all, I have just begun the Gozzano volume and it is great stuff. He is a name totally unknown to me so I cannot comment on other translations or how accurate it is; but it certainly reads 'properly' (proper grammer and stuff) and one feels that the has a distinct 'voice'. The Connells have done a grand job with it. Congratulations to them and to Heiroglyphic. REGARDS! J

[Russell Nash]

I was told that Lipinski is referring to these ideas on his Grabinski's facebook page. Unfortunately, I don't have a facebook account (neither do I need one). He can read my comments here and post the answer on his facebook page. No problem with that.

After reading the word "aether" on his new translation, I was wondering what was Grabinski's concept of the world. Lipinski refers to a book by Maeterlinck, published on 1922, who was admired by Grabinski (he says so), in which Maeterlinck describes the word "aether". Aether is refuted by now, it was replaced by empty space, and recently by "dark energy" (that it's not aether). First of all, the book is from 1922, and the story is from 1918 (future ideas can't influence past ideas). Well, I know that we could possibly find a reference to a similar paragraph on a previous book by Maeterlinck, so I understand that Grabinski may be familiar with Maeterlinck's ideas. However, the fact that he was familiar with Maeterlinck's works does not mean he agreed with them. How many TLO users are Christians and, at the same time, read Ligotti's works, that suggest that no God exists. So, even if Grabinski knew, read, or was familair with Maeterlinck's works, that, in itself, proves nothing. Moreover, Maeterlinck was no Einstein, he was not a scientist. Einstein published his Theory of Relativity in 1905, which is based on Michelson-Morley's experiment (second axiom of Theory of Relativity: speed of light is constant). Also, by 1915, Einstein published another work, and I don't know how much did it impact on the average European citizen but it makes me think why 17 later than Einstein published his work, 35 after Michelson-Morley's experiment, Maeterlinck still refers to "aether" on his 1922 work. Perhaps ignorance? Was Grabinski Jewish? Antisemitic? It may be that, as others, Einstein's ideas were rejected because of his faith. This is how the world was and still is.

I wanted to know what Grabinski thought about the world itself. Did he believe in a mechanical Universe governed by blind laws like Lovecraft? By reading his stories, I get the impression that his concept of the world was rather limited. For example, probably regarding more important the work of Maeterlinck, a dramatist, that that of Einstein, a scientist. I have read a few of Maeterlinck's essays about death, but there is not much that I can get from them. I mean, he did not know more about death than any one of us. So, why if scientists were already refuting the concept of the world filled up with "aether", is Grabinski still using this obsolete concept by 1918? The answer to this question tells me a lot about Grabinski. Perhaps Grabinski had another concept of the world? Did he not believe on the scientific theories of contemporary scientists? Did he have not access to them? None of these questions detract Grabinski's stories, and it is not my purpose to do that. I welcome many more translations but I also welcome another kind of introduction to his future translations. "On the Hill of Roses" had many blank pages at the end so it couldn't cost much to fill up those blank pages with details about Grabinski's life. His material in English is so scant that any new book should add a little more.

The obsolete views or ideas of many writers from early 20th century sometimes makes it impossible to read them, from our present 21st century view. If you have a chance to read "Science Fiction by the Rivals of H. G. Wells" you will understand what I say.

Science Fiction by the Rivals of H.G. Wells: Thirty Stories and a Complete Novel by Alan K. Russell - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

Perhaps the less scientifically a writer writes his books the longer they last?

---

I found the following quote on "The Great Secret" by Maeterlinck, pg 120:

"It is true that the recent theories of Einstein deny the existence of the ether, supposing that radiant energy ivisible light, for example is propagated independently through a space that is an absolute void. But apart from the fact that these theories seem still to be doubtful, it should be noted that the scientific ether, to which our modern scientists have been obliged to resort, is not precisely the Hindu Akahsa, which is much more subtle and immaterial, being a sort of spiritual element or divine energy, space uncreated, imperishable, and infinite."

Therefore,

1) Maeterlinck knew about Einstein's theory but rejected it ("... seem still to be doubtful").

2) He thought it was Einstein's theoretical imaginings and not a previous proven experiment (1887, Michelson-Morley's) that refuted the existence of the ether ("... recent theories of Einstein deny the existence of the ether.").

3) Maeterlinck's ether is not the scientific ether we maybe discussing about ("... the scientific ether... is not precisely the Hindu Akahsa, which is much more subtle and immaterial, being a sort of spiritual element or divine energy, space uncreated, imperishable, and infinite."). Is this "Hindu Akahsa" what Grabinski refers to?

I'm even more confused now.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Derek John

Here is the first paragraph: Powaga translation: “I was still a young apprentice then, just like you, my boys, and the job simply burnt in my hands, Master Kalina--may the Lord take care of his good soul--he always said I would be the first to take the mastership after him, and in front of the others called me the pride of the guild. For indeed I had strong legs and could push my elbows up the chimney like no one else.” Lipinski translation: “I was a young journeyman at that time, like you, my dear boys, and I worked like a house on fire. Master Kalina—may the Lord shine on his worthy soul—frequently said I would be the first in attaining mastership following him, and he spoke of me as the pride of his profession. I don’t want to brag, but I had strong legs and could dig my elbows into a chimney like no one else” Google: “I was still a young apprentice, like you, loved you guys, and the robot was burning in my hands. Tinker Kalina--God rest his soul respectable--sometimes said that after the first bracket championship, and he called me before the other guild pride. In fact, I had strong legs and denied his elbows in the chimney like nobody else." Powaga seems to have translated literally and awkwardly a Polish idiom ‘the job simply burnt in my hands’ while Lipinski has found a reasonably close English equivalent 'like a house on fire’--although this phrase is perhaps more familiar in the expression ‘we got along like a house on fire’.

Personally, in this particular instance, I would favour "the job simply burnt in my hands". It is a temptation, in translation, to make use of cliches like "house on fire", since this gives the impression of something comfortably converted to English, but good writers are generally good because they don't use cliches, and if the original phrase was not a cliche, it should not be translated into a cliche. There is also a tendency among translators into English, to censor out any idiomatic way of speaking that is too picturesque. I also disagree with this, as it has a deadening effect on the prose. There's an instance that sticks in my mind: In A Strange Tale from East of the River, Seidensticker translates a certain sentence as, "I finished dinner and left the house" (when I have a bit of time, I can look this up, but it's something as blank as that). The original, however, is actually: "As soon as I laid down my chopsticks, I was out of the gate." I don't understand why so many translators these days try to iron out all the interesting bits of the language in this way.

[qcrisp]

By the way, I've read the first two tales in On the Hill of Roses. The title story reminds me that there were, indeed, some real masters of the uncanny in the early twentieth century. Using suggestion as the real focus of a story's potency seems to be something of a lost art. The title story certainly shows someone deserving of a high reputation in that art.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by brendanconnell

Well, thanks for ordering the Gozzano...

On page 140, line 16, we read: " My sixth sense - which is an amalgamation of sight, hearing and I don't know what other senses - allow me to see in the distance, through the wall, the soul that I am expecting."

I was wondering when was this story written. Also, I would like to know whether the expression "sixth sense" was commonly used in Italian at that time. ESP was coined by the 1930's, I think.

This is a strange definition by Gozzano about what sixth sense might be: "an amalgamation of sight, hearing, and other senses". Not a new sense but an amalgamation of other senses. But also "allow me to see in the distance, through the wall...." Well, anything else that can be elaborated from other Gozzano's writings about his concept of "sixth sense", or what was commonly believed by the time he published his story.

[brendanconnell]

“A Dream”, the story in question, was first published on March 26th, 1911. The term sixth sense (sesto senso) however was used in Italian long, long before. So, yes, it was a common enough term. I believe, however, that it was probably first used in France, possibly by Victor de Bonstetten. As for Gozzano's views on such things - I doubt he thought deeply about them. His personal thoughts seemed mostly to be concentrated on his health, the beauties of language, his mother, etc.

[Andrea Bonazzi]

In the Italian common language, the "sesto senso" is a sort of vague feeling that warns us that something is going to happen, or an ability to intuit what will happen. Only in a parapsychological context it would be used as an extention of perceptive senses.

But we are going now a bit off topic, in a thread about Grabinski!... In the next September, we will have the first Grabinski collection published in Italy, in my humble translation.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Andrea Bonazzi

In the Italian common language, the "sesto senso" is a sort of vague feeling that warns us that something is going to happen, or an ability to intuit what will happen.

Interesting! In Spanish, "sexto sentido" means (at least for me) intuition. We say: "My sixth sense tells me that we are going in the wrong direction". Or, "what does your sixth sense tell you? It tells me not to do it".

Given that I learned English as a second language I cannot but guess what sixth sense means in English. Obviously, I have no idea whether Bruce Willis' sixth sense reflect the true meaning of the expression. Or, since there is no scientific proof of any sixth sense, any meaning will do, and anyone can have his/her personal meaning. But, in this case, does it have any logic to use an expression in a given language that has as many meanings as people?

Quote Originally Posted by Andrea Bonazzi

But we are going now a bit off topic, in a thread about Grabinski!...

In fact, no. Previously, another TLO member commented on two different Grabinski's translations saying that he thought Lipinski's was closer to the true spirit of his writings. However, I still think that, since I don't speak Polish, I cannot say whether the better interpretation/translation done by Lipinski is the true Grabinski or his original Polish writings are rather unadorned and his translator touched it up a little bit to make it more attractive to readers. I cannot say.

Why is it that to translate Borges, for example, some publishing houses choose a native American English speaker instead of a Spanish speaker (from Buenos Aires)? So, errors like "Funes, His Memory" (as translated by Andrew Hurley, from "Funes el memorioso"), should be translated as "Funes who had good memory". The story is not about Funes' memory (His Memory) but the person who had good memory ("memorioso").

Sixth sense, sesto senso, sexto sentido, all could use similar grammatical structures but, do they mean the same in each language? It looks like not. Therefore, what we are reading, I repeat, is not Grabinski but Grabinski according to... in this case, Lipinski. And this is going to be Grabinski according to you, or to whoever later translates him to Italian. An Italian reader will depend on your interpretation of what Grabinski meant. That's why, while alive, Borges worked with his own translator, having a fluid conversation. Otherwise, we'll always depend on a given interpretation.

If we go back in time, what did Grabinski mean by "aether" in 1918? Or even before, long time ago, what did Christ's followers mean by "stars" falling from Heaven? Even if the interpretation of "aether", "star", are related to our 21st century languages, these words do not mean the same than when they were first used. So it is close to impossible to make a 21st century average person to understand that long ago people believed that space was filled up with a substance called "aether", now it is empty space. Or that, when they wrote "stars", they didn't mean "gigantic accumulation of Hydrogen and Helium" constantly converting mass into energy. They just meant a rock suspended from the crystal-like ceiling that was the concept of the sky used by the 1st century.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[brendanconnell]

I don't have but a few moments, so not a long reply, but I will say that I think "sixth sense" is used about the same in most languages. Often it is used merely in a figurative manner rather than scientific or pseudo scientific. As for translations: the translator should always be translating into their mother tongue, not out of it. The exception to this is someone who speaks the target language with the fluency of a native speaker, or very close. I would much rather read a translation that is in good English but might have some errors than something in broken English which clearly has errors as well. It is very rare that someone can write outside of their mother tongue beautifully.

[Russell Nash]

There is nothing wrong with preferring good English over broken English. However, if both translations are good English, which one would you prefer? I suppose that the one that is closest to the original meaning. Say, “Argentine”, CD by Ocora, Radio France. On page 34 of the booklet, the translator interpreted “Amor mío de una vez” as “My love that lasted for a day” (from a popular song, “Merceditas”). Is it good English? Yes? But, let’s translate it back to Spanish. “My love that lasted for a day” means: “My amor que duró un día”. Not similar, right? The original line means, “love (or my love) from long ago”. Is my translation still good English? The line doesn’t say that love lasted one day, perhaps it lasted twenty years, but it refers to someone who was loved long ago (for an unspecified length of time). So, it is not only good English we are talking about here but right translation (in addition to good English).

I loved reading Julio Cortazar’s two books of Poe’s tales in Spanish (some consider it to be the best translation out there). Believe me, nothing compares with reading Poe’s tales in English. I had to re-read Lovecraft’s complete stories in English (after having read them in bad Spanish translations). Also, I have lots of books by Argentine writers, such as Roberto Arlt, Ernesto Sabato, J. L. Borges, and even some others not so well known, but that had been translated to English. Just read this: “old goat” for a translation of “hija de puta” (sister of a prostitute). Does “old goat”, as the translator deemed it to be correct, mean the same as “hija de puta”? Of course, not. In fact, I think there is no English translation for “hija de puta”. Son of a bitch? It’s not the same. But I know many other idioms that cannot even be approximated from Spanish to English, or vice versa. How would you explain to an English speaker that in Spanish “el águila” (the eagle) is male, but its plural “las águilas” (the eagles) is female? When neither eagle nor eagles have sex associated with them in English. Can all these subtleties be translated from Spanish/Polish/Italian to English? Or vice versa?