Creative Processes in the two French translations of 'Sirens'
Résumé
Creativity is a paradoxical notion when it comes to literary translation, but also an essential asset when translating a novel as stylistically and linguistically complex as Joyce’s Ulysses. Using the published versions of the 1929 and 2004 French translations, alongside examples taken from their genetic files, this paper aims at analyzing and comparing the creative processes at work in the translation of the eleventh episode of Ulysses. “Sirens,” in which “language is teased, twisted, inverted, perverted in order to create an acoustic surround” so as to “[redirect] our focus to the surface of language,” is an obvious challenge for translators, as the perennial tension between translating form or content is blatantly crystallized through Joyce’s play on the semantic, aural and written dimensions of language.
Creativity is first and foremost required when tackling “Sirens,” as the Joycean text itself poses an infinite number of translation problems that cannot be solved by only either word-for-word or sense-for-sense translation. Using the various syntactic, semantic and aural potentialities of the target language, translators must try to be as creative as the author to best render the effect produced by the original’s stylistic and linguistic innovations, sometimes escaping the prevalence of meaning and making the translation of “Sirens” akin to a form of constrained writing. The process set in motion by these necessary linguistic experimentations fosters another kind of creativity, closer to creation, which shines through a number of additions in the translated texts. The act of adding something that is absent from the source text questions the extent of the translators’ freedom within the double-bind that characterizes their activity. Can one add or transform elements, however in tune with Joyce’s aesthetic for the episode, and still remain faithful to the original? Where can the line be drawn between creativity and creation? How were these additions motivated, and how do they reveal the priorities of each team of translators?
The typescripts of the two translations are invaluable documents to reconstruct part of this creative process, especially pertaining to the collective endeavours that were both French translations of Ulysses. Mirroring each group of translators’ organizations (namely, a hierarchical, linear approach to the translation of the text in 1929, opposed to a more democratic, sequenced one in 2004), the genetic files also enlighten the specific creative strategies used by each individual within the group, as the revised passages enable us to better sketch the contours of a collective translation project. From successive corrections and the standardization of a translation fraught with 1920 slang to revision processes promoting discussion and the negotiation of form in 2004, the analysis of a few examples from the genetic files of the French versions of “Sirens” will underline how the process of collective revision could either curb or encourage the translators’ creativity.