One for Bertrand!

DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSLATING ARTAUD

After reading the comments below on Artaud's language, as well as Rowell's question in 1996 that "if you're not French how can you understand Artaud?", I was led to wonder to what extent the meaning or message of Artaud's writings has been lost through translation. Any translated material is undoubtedly not an exact replica of the original, but with Artaud's unusual style of writing and less mainstream vocabulary, have the translations been taken even further away than normal from the genuine material? For example, using Billy's and Charlie's example, even simple alliteration (the repeated 'k' sound) can present a dilemma to the translator. One must prioritise either style or content. Do they struggle to find words in the new language of lesser accuracy to maintain the alliteration? Of course, content usually overrides, but then the tone of the language is lost, a crucial element in Artaud's violent and 'spitting' writing. Translating things too ‘literally’ is a common problem, leading to rather ugly sounding phrases unintended by Artaud, such as “hungering after life” from his Theatre of Cruelty.

According to the philosopher Wittgenstein and his notion of 'language games' (later used by the postmodern theorist Lyotard), one can only truly understand a language if you are part of what he calls the appropriate "form of life". For example, theologically speaking, one could only understand religious language, such as the concept of the trinity, if they themselves were religious. Can this idea be applied to the translating of Artaud's unusual writings? Is it necessary that, as readers, we must be part of a "wider form of life" in order to truly grasp the meaning? Or at least, be of the same understanding as Artaud?

In order to translate Artaud's work precisely, it would be essential to understand his personality and motives for writing, a near impossible task given his enigmatic nature. Furthermore, it is important for a translator to identify with the person and to have a motivation themselves to produce work as true as possible.

Interestingly, Artaud had an unusual relationship with the concept of translation. He had done a number of translations himself, most of them reluctantly (either in an asylum or when in desperate need of money, as in the case of Lewis' novel 'The Monk'). However, Artaud also strove to have some of his own writing translated and selected for the English magazine, Horizon (Barber). It is therefore interesting to consider what Artaud’s own opinions of his work being translated would be.