[Forgot to post this one last week, I seem to keep pushing "save" in this blog format, thinking that posts it and will still allow me to edit it later, when in reality it saves it as a draft, so here is the expanded/revised version of that post]
One of the early challenges of rather open ended project such as this is developing a clear and specific research question. Too broad, there is too much information available and perhaps more importantly you are covering territory that has been discussed frequently, in some cases ad-nausea. If you really feel you have something to add to that established dialogue, that is one thing, but when you're exploring a topic that you're interested, but not yet focused, you risk just adding your name to the stack of same opinions.
Sort of to that affect, when exploring pre- revolutionary Russian literature, specifically (in all likelihood but without guarantee) the work of Anton Chekhov it is worth being cautious and not simply jumping upon the first question that comes to mind in regards to the work. To provide an example, the recurring theme of stasis is quite common throughout Chekhov's plays and short stories, a reminder which was given to me when I recently re-watched Vanya on 42nd St. While addressing the issue of stasis and utilizing it as lens through which to view Chekhov's work, as well as the world in which he wrote is a worthwhile endeavor and one I'm sure countless new pages of material could be dedicated to, I find myself trying to strike out upon different ideas. While it is tempting to say that there is nothing new to be said, the reality of the situation is quite the opposite. The difficulty will come about in find the right framework question and focusing it and I will use this space here to try out a few, though I feel there is still more to be done in this regard and that something still needs to click.
In that vein I have found myself less interested in stasis and more interested, having now read a number of Chekhov's short stories, in the incomplete nature of much of his work. His stories only rarely have a beginning, middle and end, and I believe there is something to this. His stories often end very abruptly, and the one exception I can think of to this rule (that I have read thus-far) being The Black Monk. For this, and my interest in the strange, terrifying nature of the story, The Black Monk has, for at least the time being become the focal point of my research. I go forward researching The Black Monk, as well as the incomplete nature of Chekhov's writing.
A quick thought on Translations:
While I've been warned now to steer clear of this topic to a degree, as it is a veritable black hole the likes of which I might never escape if I get too caught up over issues of translation. However, I do feel that it warrants being addressed, at least in passing. Russian is not my first language. As a matter of fact, Russian is not my 2nd language, and I'm still very much a early stage learner. The issue then comes into focus when one considers just how prolific Chekhov's work is. Though from what I can tell, he did not imagine that he would have much in the way of staying power, history has proved otherwise and then number of translations of his various works finds itself numbered in the realm of almost endless. I have already found differences in translations of the short stories that I have read thus far, some of which could prove problematic. And while I do not wish to fall into this trap, it is not an issue which I feel I can fully ignore. At this point, perhaps the issue is best resolved by utilizing some of the resources put before me, my Russian professor Maria Georgevna, and my Soviet era history professor, Dr. Stavrou - and seeing what their opinion might be in regards to the closest to ideal translator for a complete works.
[Update]
I went to Maria and discussed with her my project and the issues of translation and in some regards she just affirmed my concerns over issues of translation. She discussed Pushkin as an example of how poetry and poetic language can be lost through translation even by some of the best translators. However, disregarding that (as since I am not fluent in Russian I have no other option), she confirmed for me that the Oxford translations would be a good place to start at least, given that they are revised on occasion, and that through my reading of criticism (which will necessarily quote from texts), if I find a translation that more suits what I am thinking about a text, I can dig it up.
до свидания,
- Эрик (Erik)
No comments:
Post a Comment