Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts
Department of English
and American Studies
English-language Translation
Petra Coufalová
Translation of the Theatre of the Absurd
Master's Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Filip Krajník, Ph.D.
2019
/ declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Author's signature
List of abbreviations
O - original by Vaclav Havel
B - Translation by Vera Blackwell
N - Translation by Jan Novak
Contents
Introduction 1
1. Translation of Drama 3
1.1. Specifics of Theatre Texts 4
1.2. Speakability, Performativity, Playability 13
2. Theatre of the Absurd 23
3. Vaclav Havel and the Theatre of the Absurd 32
4. Translations of The Garden Party 36
5. Analysis of Translation Solutions 41
5.1. Absurd Estrangement: Wordplays, Phrases and the Language of Nonsense 43
5.2. Repetitiveness 57
5.3. Performability 68
Conclusion 75
Works cited 77
Introduction
This thesis will focus on the translation of the Theatre of the Absurd in The Garden
Party (1963) by Vaclav Havel. It will analyse the translation solutions of two translators,
Vera Blackwell, who first translated the play in 1967 (published in 1969), and Jan Novak,
who adapted it as Office Party for American audience in 2006. This play works with the
concept of the language that has lost its function as a communication tool and became
rather the means of misunderstanding. This loss of meaning of words creates two main
translation problems on which this Thesis will focus on. First, there is the paradox
between the need to transfer into the target text the meaning of the source text, which
distinctively works with meaninglessness of the language. The second problem stems
from the way this use of language affects what happens on the stage - the less is said by
words, the more is expressed by how they are uttered on the stage. The thesis will take up
and react to similar bachelor's thesis of Pavla Stejskalova, who focuses on the linguistic
aspects of the same translations, hopefully extending the analysis beyond this sphere.
The thesis will introduce the genre of Theatre of the Absurd as characterized by
Martin Esslin in his book of the same name. In order to understand the contrast between
the need to translate the meaning of words and the loss of meaning and communicative
function of the absurdist plays, it will describe the new possibilities of language use this
genre offers; it opens a room for experiments with its repetitiveness and meaninglessness,
as well as nonsensicality. Thesis will also summarize what is typical for the translation of
dramatic texts. It will keep in mind that Esslin defines The Theatre of the Absurd as
"pure", having abstract scenic effects. This reflects its non-literary approach, its turn from
the language as a tool of communication. Absurdist plays are meant primarily to be
performed, reading them does not have the same effect, because the action on stage often
expresses more than the language could. This corresponds with the notion of
1
performability, which is hard (or even impossible) to fathom or define; many
theoreticians feel that there is something more than just the plain text in plays - they come
to life on stage, by being not just said out loud (than they could be easily compared to
poetry), but also performed. The thesis will introduce various stances toward this concept,
as well as the related notion of speakability.
In the analytical part, the thesis will examine the translations to discover how
various translation strategies work. It will foreshadow some characteristic problems the
translator might encounter when dealing with the specific use of language in Havel's play.
It will describe these strategies and their effect, evaluating their influence on the overall
impression. Firs part will focus on various wordplays that are typical for The Garden
Party, such as contamination of idioms or empty phrases. The second part will focus on
repetition of phrases and situations, which is also a typical feature that can be seen in
multiple plays by Havel. In the third part, the thesis will consider some problems that
arise from the notions of speakability, touching upon the related notions of readability
and performability. It will discuss whether certain translation solutions have the potential
to have the same effect on the target audience as the original had, considering relevant
cultural, historical and political differences between English/American and Czech
audience. The thesis will examine what translation strategies enable the transfer of the
specific way Havel uses language in his plays and how the concept of performability
projects into translators' solutions.
2
1. Translation of Drama
It may seem that the dramatic text is just another type of literary text that shares
many similarities with other text types, such as novels or short stories. It can be performed
on stage as well as simply read; but even though one can understand and study a play
merely by reading it, Esslin claims that "theatre is always more than a mere language.
Language alone can be read, but true theatre can become manifest only in performance"
(329). The first chapter of this thesis will focus on some elements that are specific for
drama, inspecting the differences between the act of reading a theatre text and watching
the performance. The following subchapter will deal with this topic in general, examining
some of the problems these characteristic features of theatre texts pose for translators.
The second subchapter will introduce the issues of speakability, performability and
playability, discussing their history and relevance for theatre translators.
3
1.1. Specifics of Theatre Texts
Translator of theatre texts must be aware of the specifics of drama in order to be
able to create a translation that is fit for the stage. This chapter will closely examine the
aspects of dramatic texts that make these stand out compared to other forms of literature.
It will focus on what problems the translation of drama poses because of these aspects,
highlighting certain consideration the translator must take into account when approaching
drama.
Susan Bassnett indicates that there is a different approach in reading a play, as
opposed to other literary texts, since "it is read as something incomplete, rather than as a
fully rounded unit," {Translation Studies, 120). In one of his articles, Havel talks about
his current situation in which he writes plays for reading only. He could not write for
Czech theatres since his plays were not allowed in communist Czechoslovakia, and
although some of these plays were performed in foreign countries, he could not leave the
country to see them.
Hry nejsou na čtení, ale na hraní; lidé je většinou číst neumějí (a proč by to také
měli umět?) a já si až příliš často a až příliš bolestně musím uvědomovat - když
se svými čtenáři mluvím -, kolik nejrůznějších a zcela zbytečných nedorozumění,
od těch nejbanálnějších až po ta, jež se dotýkají samotného smyslu hry, vzniká z
toho, že si nedokážou "přimyslet" k mým textům jejich divadelní provedení a že
svůj čtenářský zážitek si neumějí v duchu nahradit kolektivním (a už proto
radikálně jiným!) zážitkem divadelním.
[Plays are not meant for reading, but for performing; in most cases, people are not
able to read them (and why should they be?) and I have to realize overly often and
overly painfully - when talking to my readers - how many different and often
completely needless misunderstandings, from the most trivial ones to those that
4
touch on the very meaning of the play, arise from the fact that they cannot
"surmise" to my theatrical texts their performance and that they cannot substitute
their reading experience with the collective (and therefore radically different!)
experience of the theatre.] (Daleko od divadla 638, Own translation)
Havel sees the reading of dramatic text as a challenge and a possible source of
misunderstandings. Readers must interpret every sentence, stage direction or description
themselves, which results in many different interpretations by many different readers. Of
course, in the theatre, much of the interpretation has already been done, mostly by the
playwright and the director, but also by actors, producers or even light technicians, and
all of these interpretations affects the way the viewers interpret the work for themselves.
Readers, it may seem, are influenced only by the interpretation of author or a
translator, but at the same time, they are deprived of many theatrical properties and nonverbal
aspects, since the text can only provide the reader with a narrative description. As
pointed out by Mark Batty, the text itself is only one part of a performance as a whole:
"[P]laywright only provides the material for a first register in performance (that
of the imaginary; the narratives and messages embedded in the linguistic structure
of the text) but relies upon others, through a translator-like operation, to find and
apply a second register (that of mimesis; the collection of symbolic structures that
contain and aid the transfer of information from stage to auditorium) and it is
usually considered the director's task to find an appropriate balance between the
two registers." (68)
Keir Elam, in studying the semiotics of theatre and drama, indicates that "[t]he
written text, in other words, is determined by its very need for stage contextualization,
and indicates throughout its allegiance to the physical conditions of performance ... and
its ability to materialize discourse within the space of the stage" (209). This fact might be
5
why readers might end up interpreting the play in a very different way than the author
intended. Readers can read the stage directions, but they do not see the actual movement
of the characters, they do not see their costumes, hear the music in the background, they
can only imagine the gestures of the actors. Zdeněk Hořinek compares the reading of
dramatic text to an inner theatre: the reader must imagine what is otherwise performed on
the stage, he or she must perceive the action as a sequence of situations in which the
perspectives of various characters blend together. Without this "scenic imagination", the
reader perceives the text inadequately as a mere sequence of alternating lines of characters
(71).
On the other hand, viewers in theatre will have an extra difficulty regarding focus.
It can be argued that the focus of the reader is guided mainly by the order in which the
text and non-verbal aspects present themselves, which is a linear process; as the reader
first reads which character speaks, then with which tone or emotion, then what is said,
and which actions other characters perform. Spectators, however, will see and hear
everything happening at once. Especially in scenes where many things happen at the same
time, different spectators will focus at different characters and happenings on the stage,
which causes members of the same audience to experience the play in different ways. As
Havel points out:
Divadlo je ze všech uměleckých žánrů nejtěsněji vklíněno do konkrétního
prostoru a času; je do něho vklíněno doslova fyzicky: existuje buď 'Tady a
ted"(respektive 'tam a tehdy') - anebo vůbec; (...) Tahle triviální pravda má
ovšem mnohem hlubší důsledky, než se na první pohled zdálo a než si leckdos
uvědomuje: nejenže tak či onak - jednou přímo a jindy velmi zprostředkovaně ovlivňuje
nejrozmanitější aspekty divadla, ale je přímo klíčem k pochopení
estetické specifiky toho, co je obvykle jeho základem, totiž divadelní hry.
6
[Out of all artistic genres, the theatre is the one most wedged to a particular space
and time; it is literally physically wedged to it: it exists either "Here and now" (or
"there and then") - or not at all; (...) But this trivial truth has far deeper
implications than it seemed at the first glance and than anybody realizes: not only
that it, in one way or another - sometimes directly and sometimes very indirectly
- influences diverse aspects of theatre, but it is actually the key to understanding
the aesthetic specifics of what is usually its foundation; the play itself.] (Daleko
od divadla 635, Own translation)
Readers have one extra layer of interpretation compared to audiences, but
spectators will have to decide on which part of a scene they should focus on, which causes
readers to experience the play differently compared not only to an audience in general,
but also compared to specific members of that audience. During a performance, members
of the audience only have one chance to see and remember everything that happens on
stage. When discussing the attention of the audience, Esslin also points out that "[d]rama
builds its representation on reality in a non-linear, non-systematic manner: the spectator
has to be alert to pick up the basic elements of the 'exposition' and the subsequent
concatenation of events, and to integrate them into a total picture. If the attention flags or
is distracted, an essential link in the chain may be missed and the whole structure fails to
cohere, to 'make sense.'" (The Field of Drama 129).
The written text influences the stage performance, and the fact that the work is
written to be performed influences the writing process of the text. This balance is
determined further by Esslin, while discussing the signs of drama: "in texts originally
created for performance a proportion of the verbal element will remain obscure without
an imaginative reconstruction of the performance that the text was destined to evoke"
(79-80). Theatre theoretician Milan Lukes (13-15) claims that theatre is directly and
7
indirectly involved in the genesis of a theatre text. He claims that the experience with
theatre is a crucial part of the complex experience of an author of dramatic text. He talks
about the importance of the passive and active knowledge of theatre, referring to the fact
that many playwrights work in a theatre as actors, directors, but also technicians, as was
the case for Havel. This experience encourages their creativity and talents, some are even
creating the plays for the specific ensemble or an actor. In such cases, the text can generate
freely, using a combination of the text with improvised action. Just as it is crucial for the
playwrights to have this connection to and experience with theatre, it is equally important
for the translator of dramatic text, especially if he or she is a part of the production and
works closely with its director. Alinne Balduino P. Fernandes comments on this subject:
In order to ensure that the translated play functions in the way that a translated
play can - speaking of there, of the source culture, as well as of here, of the target
culture -, the translator can and should play an active role in the production of the
play - a role that is as important as the considering of issues of cultural transfer in
the actual process of translating. This affirmation, in a way, refers back to
Bassnett's concept of collaborative translation. However, the main difference lies
in the fact that what I want to propose that the translator can undertake an active
role in the overall production of the play, and that this active part refers to
understanding the mechanisms of the theatre (127).
Fernandes also claims that translated text is asymmetric in relation to its original,
which can be seen as a result of the fact that "a translated play is not the exact reflection
of its original, that is, it does not equal its original because it is crafted for a different
purpose and for a different audience" (127). The translator can choose his strategy for
dealing with the original: "the translated playtext can easily foreignize or domesticate a
play depending on the translator's choice of location, rhythm and cultural milieu" (127).
8
Because of the fact that in theatre, the language is only one constituent among various
others that promote meeting of different cultures, which is why "instead of linguistic
encounter, theatre translation could be described as cultural encounter" (127).
It is the translator's choice whether to foreignize or domesticate as a method of
his translation. Sirkku Aaltonen explores why these strategical choices are accepted in
some cases and criticised in others. She believes this to be due to the fact that the text is
performed in framework of various contexts that surround it: "the literary context (the
whole theatrical tradition of the country where the play has been written), the social
context, the moral context, the cultural context in the widest sense, and the geographical
context (...) In consequence, foreign theatre texts which have been transported from
another framework of contexts need to be adjusted to be able to respond to their new
environment, and take part in the discourse of the target society" (75). As a result, there
is no such thing as a complete equivalency of the translated text and the original.
Aaltonen also talks about the cultural asymmetry, claiming that the relationship
of the source culture and the target culture in unequal, due to the fact that the source
culture is often perceived as source of "desirable cultural goods" and is often considered
superior to the target culture (73).
Apart from this, problems can also arise on the level of ideology, universe of
discourse or poetics, and the translator must choose an appropriate strategy for dealing
with different levels of problems. Lefevre suggests the following hierarchy for solving
them "in descending order of importance: (1) ideology, (2) poetics, (3) universe of
discourse, (4) language" (87). He goes on to say that this order might seem contrary to
what translation is usually considered to be - mere substituting of a word or phrase in
source language for a word or phrase in target language, but Lefevre strongly disagrees
with this prejudice. He also claims that theatre translator must regard the cultural
9
difference between the audience: "[c]ertain features of the authors universe of discourse
may have become unintelligible to the target audience, either because they no longer exist
or because they have acquired different meanings. Translator must either substitute
analogous features from the target cultures universe of discourse or try to re-create the
authors universe of discourse as best they can..." (Lefevre 87).
Theatre translator must not only define and address the target audience, he is also
faced with a challenging task. Carole-Anne Upton and Terry Hale point out that: "the
form [of theatre] itself demands a dramaturgical capacity to work in several dimensions
at once, incorporating visual, gestural, aural and linguistic signifiers into the translation"
(2). When considering all these elements, the process of translation is closely linked to
raise en scene.
Mark Batty claims that all mises en scene need to be ideotextual to a certain
degree. This is due to the fact that a dramatic text is essentially the product of a particular
culture at a particular time in its history.
"Any act of enunciation of a non-contemporary or foreign play will always
involve, therefore, the act of finding equivalencies for the intended and encoded
thematic and dramatic material in the arena of the target audience's cultural
vocabulary. (...) [A]s translators, we seek to transcribe a dramatic work into a
target language by finding linguistic equivalencies to the material of the source
text and attempt to group these in a manner that evokes the same or similar
theatrical potential of the original. Out of necessity we are producing an original
work of art." (Batty 69)
This, of course, brings out the question of how far we can divorce the text from
its prescribed form. In the context of this thesis, we might ask ourselves whether an
adaptation, such as Office Party, is set in and American corporate culture, will have the
10
same effect on American viewer as The Garden Party had on a viewer in communist
Czechoslovakia; but simultaneously, we might question its effect on contemporary Czech
reader.
Another specific attributes of theatre translation are discussed in Pavel Drábek's
České pokusy o Shakespeara. Drábek (54-69) introduces five criteria; the first two are
literary and cultural one, which are typical for all literary translation and therefore were
often discussed elsewhere. He expands on acoustic, actor and stage criteria: Acoustic
includes the tempo of the speech, euphony and cacophony, or a poetic function; Actor
criterion includes speakability, breathability or rhythm; and finally the stage criterion is
a sum of the above, which creates new categories, such as theatre acoustics or irony or
situational determination.
Rhythm is another critical feature one must focus on while translating a dramatic
text. In connection with the translation of theatre, we can talk about the rhythm of the
dialogue. Jiří Levý characterizes theatre dialogue as a "particular instantiation of spoken
language; therefore it is in functional relationships (a) with the general spoken norm i.e.
colloquial style, (b) with the listener (addressee), i.e. the other characters on stage and the
audience, and (c) with the speakers, i.e. the dramatic characters" (129). Translator must
always keep in mind that theatre dialogue is primarily a "spoken text intended for oral
delivery and aural reception (...) sequences of sounds which are difficult to articulate and
which the audience may mishear are unsuitable" (Levý, 129). Anthony Vivis claims that
the rhythm is "a complex and living organism (...) Variations in rhythm alter emphasis,
pace and through them, at times, meaning" (39). The rhythm not only greatly affects the
placing of words in the most effective order, it must also work between lines within a
scene as well as between multiple scenes (40). André Lefevere also emphasizes the
relationship between the rhythm and syntax: "Syntax affects readers by regulating not
11
just the sequence in which they are given information and exposed to the illocutionary
power of the text but also the rhythm at which both information and illocutionary power
are dispensed" (78).
Another interesting issue concerns the life span of a translated dramatic text.
While the original, it might seem, can be performed without any major changes to the text
essentially indefinitely, Bassnett estimates that a translation is only performable for 25
years at the most and then it needs to be replaced by a new translation (The Case Against
Performability 111). On the other hand, Levy believes that the translation "retains its
validity within a specific linguistic and culturally homogeneous epoch (...). The more
rapidly the language changes the sooner translations become dated" (74), adding that
recently, English evolves slowly, as opposed to rapid changes in some Slavonic
languages. For this reason, there is a constant need to translate theatre texts, or to at least
bring the existing translation up to date.
Two very important aspects of theatre translation are performability and
speakability. These two notions are very complex and have been often discussed by
theatre translation theoreticians. The history of these notions and various attempts at their
definition will be introduced in the following subchapter.
12
1.2. Speakability, Performativity, Playability
Translation theoreticians took a great interest in investigating the particular
characteristics of dramatic texts which differentiate them from other types of literature in
order to discover their effect on the translation process. The most famous and often
discussed of these characteristics are performability and speakability. These conceptions
are often considered essential and typical of dramatic texts, and they depict oral/acoustic
and gestic/action dimensions. For more than forty years, there was a lively debate about
this issue, and it still remains a source of many disagreements today. Many theatre and
translation theoreticians undertook to define the character of the relationship between the
written text of a drama and the gestic facet of it that emerges during the performance.
Susan Bassnett argued that theatre has so far been disregarded by the translation
studies, calling it "one of the most neglected areas" (Translation studies 120). In this
context, Drábek calls it "the Cinderella of translatology". Bassnett believed this this was
due to the fact that it was common to translate plays using the same methodology used
for any other kind of prose. But these cannot be treated the same way, for one must
approach even the act of reading differently, as something incomplete; Bassnett finds this
completion only in the performance. She poses that the central problem for the translator
of drama is "whether to translate the text as a purely literary text, or to try to translate it
in its function as one element in another, more complex system", and she is quick to assert
that "the linguistic system is only one optional component in a set of interrelated systems
that comprise the spectacle (...) it is impossible to separate text from performance"
(Translation studies 120). Bassnett also brings the reader's attention to the fact that this
artificially created distinction resulted in the written text to be perceived as more
significant, which was pointed out in an article by Anne Ubersfeld. Thanks to the higher
status of the written, Ubersfeld believes that the performance is often perceived as a mere
13
'translation' into reality. She explains the problems of approaching the text as more
important than the performance; in other words, when using the text as the starting point
for translation:
The task of the director, therefore, is to 'translate into another language' a text to
which he as a prime duty to remain 'faithful'. This position is based on the concept
of semantic equivalence between the written text and its performance; only the
'mode of expression' in the Hjelmslevian sense of the term will be altered, the
form and content of the expression will remain identical when transferred from a
system of test-signs to a system of performance-signs, (qtd. in Bassnett,
Translation studies 120-121)
Bassnett supports Ubersfeld's view by indicating that the result of
Ubersfeld's argument would be that "when a literary text acquires a higher status than its
performance counterpart, there results the misconception that there is a single right way
of reading, and hence performing, the text, in which case the translator is bound more
rigidly to a preconceived model than is the translator of poetry or prose" {Translation
studies 121). As a result, any deviation from the written text by either the director or
translator is seen as an offense to the sanctity of the original text. Bassnett points out that
the written play is only a part of the process that constitutes theatre as a whole. She
indicates that certain features of the written dramatic text are distinctive, referring to Jifi
Veltrusky, who pointed out that dialogue "unfolds both in time and in space and is always
integrated in the extralinguistic situation" {Translation studies 121).
The relationship between the dialogue and the extralinguistic situation is intense
and reciprocal. The situation often provides the dialogue with its subject matter.
Moreover, whatever the subject matter may be, the situation variously interferes
in the dialogue, affects the way it unfolds, brings about shifts or reversal, and
14
sometimes interrupts it altogether. In its turn, the dialogue progressively
illuminates the situation and often modifies or even transforms it. The actual sense
of the individual units of meaning depends as much in the extra-linguistic situation
as on the linguistic context. (Veltrusky, qtd. in Bassnett, Translation studies 121)
The dialogue is characterized by components that will probably not manifest by a
mere act of reading the isolated text, such as "rhythm, intonation, patterns, pitch and
loudness, all elements that may not be immediately apparent from a straightforward
reading of the written text" (Bassnett, Translation studies, 122). According to Nikolarea,
Bassnett was one of the first scholars to point out that because of this, "theater translator
must meet two criteria more than the translator of prose or poetry. The first criterion is
that of playability or performability, and the second is that of the function of the text
(translation) itself (Nikolarea II. 1). Bassnett believes there is a gestural patterning
encoded in theatre text that renders it performable, and theatre translator must be able to
recognize it:
A theatre text, written with a view to its performance, contains distinguishable
structural features that make it performable [and] the task of the translator must
be to determine what those structures are and translate them in to the TL, even
though this may lead to major shifts on the linguistic and stylistic planes.
(Translation studies 122)
She also adverts to another issue that accompanies performability: the concept of
theatre, our definition of what constitutes a performance, changes over time - acting style,
playing space, the role of the audience. They can also differ considerably in various
national contexts, and translator must consider these temporal and local specifics of as
well (Translation studies 122-123).
15
Bassnett concludes that because of the fact that the dramatic text is only one of
the elements that constitute the complex theatre discourse, the problems of theatre
translation "take on a new dimension of complexity" (Translation studies, 132). She
claims that the language of the written dramatic text functions as a sign, referring to the
network of auditive and visual signs of a Polish semiotician Thadeus Kowzan. His system
followed the teachings of the Prague Linguistic school and he tried to establish and define
the categories of signs used in theatre. Firstly, he divided signs into two groups, natural
(those are manifested involuntarily) and artificial (which are results of volitional efforts
to signal or to communicate).
Nikolarea suggests that Kowzan's proposed model for determining the constituent
parts of theatre, which he created by establishing thirteen sign systems as the basic
components of theatre and which he divided into two categories, auditive and visual, can
be further divided into five categories:
1) Auditive signs, which, being part of the spoken text, are emitted by the actor
and exist only in time. Such signs are word (system 1) and tone (system 2).
2) Visual signs, which, classified as "the expression of the body," are located in
the actor and exist in both time and space. Such signs are mime (system
3), gesture (system 4) and movement (system 5).
3) Visual signs, which, codified as "the actor's external appearance," are also
situated in the actor but exist only in space.
4) Visual signs, which, called "the appearance of the stage" (...), are placed
outside the actor and exist in both time and space. Such signs are props (system
9), stage scenery (system 10) and lighting (system 11).
16
5) Auditive signs, which, classified under "inarticulate sounds" (...) can be
found only outside the actor and exist only in time. Such signs are music (system
12) and sound effects (system 13). (Nikolarea, 1.3, emphasis changed)
These elements are always the same in any given theatre text, and they change
only after one interprets them in some way; either in the process of reading or staging a
play. Because of this system of signs, the dramatic text "contains within the undertext or
what we have called the gestural text that determines the movements an actor speaking
the text can make" (Bassnett, Translation studies, 132). As a result of this, the language
of the play contains a "coded gestural patterning" within itself, and the translator must
take this added plane into consideration in order to avoid any risks. Theatre translator
must consider not only the text itself, but the function of it as well:
One of the functions of theatre is to operate on other levels than the strictly
linguistic, and the role of the audience assumes a public dimension not shared by
the individual reader whose contact with the text is essentially a private affair. A
central consideration of the theatre translator must therefore be the performance
aspect of the text and its relationship with an audience, and this seems to me not
only to justify modifications (...) but to suggest that the translator must take into
account the function of the text as an element for and of performance."
{Translation studies 132)
The previous paragraphs summarized Bassnett's early stance on performability
and translating theatre texts. These changed drastically in 1985; regarding the issues of
performability, she declared:
The term 'performability' is frequently used to describe the indescribable, the
supposedly existent concealed gestic text within the written. (...) It has never been
clearly defined, and indeed does not exist in most languages other than English.
17
Attempts to define the 'performability' inherent in a text never go further than
generalized discussion about the need for fluent speech rhythms in the target text.
What this amounts to in practice is that each translator decides on an entirely ad
hoc basis what constitutes a speakable text for performers. There is no sound
theoretical base for arguing that 'performability' can or does exist. (The Case
Against Performability 102)
In the same article, Bassnett elaborates on the idea of a gestic text. The translator
is being asked to treat a written text that is part of a larger complex of sign systems,
including paralinguistic and kinesic signs, as if it were a literary text created for the page
and read as such. The gestic text only comes to life in performance. But the task of
translating a priori incomplete source text containing concealed gestic text into target
language text, which also contains concealed gestic text, would call for a superhuman
translator; for he or she must imagine what normally only performers create. And even
though the theatre text is an incomplete entity, translator is somehow supposed to
transform an unrealized text, which is by itself almost impossible task. But in spite all
this pressure, he or she is still often perceived as inferior to directors and actors.
This economic, aesthetic and intellectual inferiority of the translator is often a
problem, but in theatre translation it is even more obvious, because very often, the credit,
and also much of the income, goes to playwrights and directors. Therefore Bassnett
believes that the economy is the key factor, rather than the ethics of translation: "ethical
considerations are diminished; texts are cut, reshaped, adapted, rewritten and yet still
described as 'translations'" (even though she admits that sometimes the word "version"
is used) (Case against Performability 102). She claims that the notion of performability
as something that describes the concealed gestic text only causes problems; it is
18
impossible to define, and this may contribute to excusing the previously mentioned
practices above.
Bassnett (Case against Performability 103) believes that this generalizing and
oversimplifying notion of performability, whose criteria change over time with each
culture and language, came to existence because of naturalist plays, mainly because of
the fact that there was nothing like fixed text and detailed stage notes in pre-naturalist
plays. The actors improvised and created plays with only a 'rough' guidance by the script,
but there is now a tendency to remake these plays in a naturalistic way. Naturalism saw
an increase in author's fame, rendering him more important. She also points out that stage
notes became more often and detailed, but questions for whom they were meant and
whether theatre text is incomplete without these. She claims that performance itself is
always a certain interpretation of the play, a translation into material reality by the artists,
and it may betray the author's original design. But on the other hand, there is a high degree
of fidelity to the text on the stage, for even the actions and costumes of characters are
present in the notes, which often makes actors servants of the dramatic text. Bassnett
believes that the theatre translators were in the same position as servants to the original,
which is why they came up with the idea of performability, which created a room for their
interventions into the text and justified them.
Bassnett's radical stance toward the notion of performability led other
theoreticians to reflect on this issue. For example, Eva Espasa examined the notion from
various perspectives, asserting that "from a textual point of view, performability is often
equated with 'speakability' or 'breathability', i.e. the ability to produce fluid texts which
performers may utter without difficulty" (49). She also claims that the terms
performability, theatricality and theatre specificity are interchangeable, as pointed out by
Patrice Pavis: "theatricality is sometimes synonymous with theatre specificity, a notion
19
which is aesthetically and ideologically loaded, and about whose definition it is
impossible to agree" (qtd. in Espasa 49). Given this interchangeability, Pavis's definition
of theatricality can be applied on performability as well:
Theatricality does not manifest itself (...) as a quality or an essence which is
inherent to a text or a situation, but as a pragmatic use of the scenic instrument, so
that the components of the performance manifest and fragment the linearity of the
text and of the word. (qtd. in Espasa 52)
Espasa points out that the concept of performability is usually analysed from a
textual or a theatrical viewpoint. According to Basnett, this concept applied to:
1) (From a textual viewpoint) the intention of underlining the fluency of the
translated text, so that performers can utter it without unwanted effort. As
mentioned above, this is often equated with 'speakability' or 'breathability';
2) (From the viewpoint of the mise en scene) a whole set of strategies of cultural
adaptation, such as replacing dialectal features of the source language by others
of the target language, or omitting passages which are considered to be too rooted
in the cultural linguistic context of the original (...) Thus, from the viewpoint of
theatrical practice, playability, or actability, are used as synonyms for
performability. (qtd. in Espasa 50)
As emphasized by George Wellwarth, because of similarities between the
translation of poetry and drama, the sense of rhythm is essential for these types of
translation. Translator must take into consideration the rhythm of speech patterns and take
into account "speakability (...), the degree of ease with which the words of the translated
text can be enunciated" (qtd. in Espasa 53). For example Landers perceives speakability
as an essence of theatrical translation, and he favours the performable, acoustically
suitable means by stating that "[e]ven style, which is by no means unimportant in dramatic
20
translation, sometimes must yield to the reality that actors have to be able to deliver the
lines in a convincing and natural matter" (104).
Joseph Che Suh adverts that the issue of the performability and speakability of the
theatre text simply cannot be jettison as promoted by Bassnett in her later works. He
quotes Cameroonian playwright and scholar Bole Butake: "the ultimate aim of writing a
play is usually to see it performed even though it is not always that a play script which is
even published finds its way on stage for a number of reasons" (qtd. in Suh 174). Suh
refers to Sophia Totzeva, who believes that drama is "a text conceived for possible
theatrical performance'" (qtd. in Suh 175). She explains the issue of theatrical potential:
In a dramatic text this semiotic relation is already to some extent present as a
concept through given theatrical codes and norms, although the performance does
not need to follow it. (...) Theatrical potential (TP) can be seen as the capacity of
a dramatic text to generate and involve different theatrical signs in a meaningful
way when it is staged. (...). The problem for translation as an interlingual
transformation of the dramatic text is therefore how to create structures in the
target language which can provide and evoke an integration of nonverbal
theatrical signs in a performance, (qtd. in Suh 175).
But rather than to continuously examine the notions of speakability or
performability and the (impossible?) efforts at their definitions, the best thing to do for
theatre translators and translation scholars might be to inspect and analyse closely the
specific theatre practices typical for each country or culture.
This subchapter introduced the concept of performability and speakability as one
of the most widely discussed issues of theatre translation. It provided an overview of
various stances of scholars, as well as their attempts at defining or disproving these
21
concepts. The following chapter will focus on the history and specifics of the Theatre of
the Absurd.
22
2. Theatre of the Absurd
The Theatre of the Absurd is a term first used by Martin Esslin as a collective
name for a genre that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. Since it is not easy to provide a
clear definition of what this genre includes, this chapter will closely examine the specifics
of absurdist theatre in order to understand distinctive textual aspects and, consequently,
how these might have influenced the strategies of Havel's translators.
British journalist, dramatist, translator and critic Martin Esslin was the first one to
inquire into plays of several playwrights across Europe who shared similar traits in their
works. In 1961, he published The Theatre of the Absurd, coining the term a year earlier
in an essay of the same name. It was the first book to identify this new avant-garde style
and given the fact that his theory was not surpassed ever since, it is considered one of the
most influential theatrical texts and crucial dramatic work for anyone studying The
Theatre of the Absurd. Although it was a relatively young genre which was, at the time
of Havel's beginnings as a playwright, still developing and discovering its limits and
possibilities, being approached differently by each of the authors, it is possible to define
the aspects characteristic to this genre.
Before further exploring absurdity in drama and defining the Theatre of The
Absurd, let us first introduce the historical circumstances of its creation and its
predecessors. The first plays in which absurd elements may be noticed are the nineteenth
century plays by Henrik Ibsen, August Strindberg, and most notably Alfred Jarry. His
puppet play Ubu Roi (1896) is often considered a predecessor of the Theatre of the
Absurd. According to Esslin, Jarry "created a mythical figure and a world of grotesque
archetypal images", and he describes Ubu as a "savage caricature of a stupid, selfish
bourgeois seen through the cruel eyes of a schoolboy (...) He is a terrifying image of the
animal nature of man, his cruelty and ruthlessness" (357). The surrealists expanded on
23
Jarry's experiments in the 1920s and 1930s, drawing inspiration for their artistic theory
in Freud's teachings, especially his emphasis on the role of the subconscious mind.
James Joyce and Franz Kafka are also considered as predecessors of this genre by
Esslin. Joyce's Nightgown episode from Ulysses in the form of a dream play and his
preoccupation with language and "its attempt to penetrate to the deeper layer of the mind"
in Finnegans Wake anticipate some of the characteristic features of Theatre of the Absurd
(353-354). Kafka's short stories and novels, which Esslin describes as "meticulously exact
descriptions of nightmares and obsessions - the anxieties and guilt feelings of a sensitive
human being lost in a world of convention and routine" (354), are famous for absurd
situations and they were an inspiration for many of absurdist playwrights. Esslin even
considers the dramatization of Kafka's novel The Trial "the first play that fully
represented the Theatre of the Absurd" (356). It opened at the Theatre Marigny in 1947
and it deeply stirred its public, since his vision of the world as absurd and irrational was
proved a highly realistic assessment. Esslin claims that the play "anticipated many of their
[absurdist's playwrights] scenic inventions and united the traditions of clowning, the
poetry of nonsense, and the literature of dream and allegory" (356).
Kafka was not the only one who pursued the idea of absurdity. As pointed out by
Stejskalova in her thesis, Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard took a different stance
than Kafka1
when he saw the absurd as being synonymous with "the religious level of
existence" and incompatibility of rationality with religious belief (Darrow hi).2
In the
context of Theatre of the Absurd, the term absurd was not understood as ridiculous as its
common usage would suggest. Esslin provides a definition made by Eugene Ionesco, a
1
Their different views are discussed in: Darrow, Robert Arnold. Kierkegaard, Kafka, and the Strength of
"The Absurd" in Abraham's Sacrifice Of Isaac. 2005. Wright State University, Master's Thesis.
2
For more information about Kierkegaard's notion of absurd (in contrast with the philosophy of absurd of
Albert Camus) see: Bixler, Julius Seelye. "On Being Absurd!" The Massachusetts Review [online], vol.
10, no. 2, 1969, pp. 407-412. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25087871?seq=l#page_scan_tab_contents.
24
Rumanian author and one of the first absurdist playwrights: "Absurd is that which is
devoid of purpose ... Cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots,
man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless" (qtd. in Esslin 23).
Kierkegaard and Kafka influenced forthcoming philosophical school of
existentialism. Esslin compares the genre of the Theatre of the Absurd to dramas of
existentialist authors, such as Sartre or Camus, in that they share „a similar sense of the
senselessness of life, of the inevitable devaluation of ideals, purity, and purpose" (24).
But Esslin claims that while these plays express similar notion of "irrationality of the
human condition in the form of highly lucid and logically constructed reasoning" (24),
absurdist plays express „sense of the senselessness of the human condition and the
inadequacy of the rational approach by the open abandonment of rational devices and
discursive thought" (24). And while existential drama uses classic theatrical means,
absurdist playwrights take it a step further and abandon the form and rational devices:
"The Theatre of the Absurd has renounced arguing about the absurdity of the
human condition; it merely presents it in being - that is, in terms of concrete stage
images" (Esslin 25, author's emphasis).
Additionally, Esslin indicates that the Theatre of the Absurd "tends toward a
radical devaluation of language, toward a poetry that is to emerge from the concrete and
objectified images of the stage itself. The element of language still plays an important
part in this conception, but what happens on the stage transcends, and often contradicts,
the words spoken by the characters" (26). The language of absurdist plays often
contradicts the action on the stage and abandons "discursive logic for the poetic logic of
association or assonance" (406), it loses its communicative function and becomes
meaningless. According to Ionesco, "the words themselves must be stretched to their
utmost limits, the language must be made almost to explode, or to destroy itself in its
25
inability to contain its meaning" (qtd. in Esslin 191). Esslin (408-409) also talks about the
language used in the totalitarian countries, which applies to communist Czechoslovakia,
where people know "most of what they are told is double-talk, devoid of real meaning",
which is why they learn to "read between the lines" and guess "the reality the language
conceals rather than reveals. Language is shown as unreliable and insufficient, it loses its
value as a means of communication.
For example in Becket's Waiting for Godot, Niklaus Gessner has observed ten
modes of disintegration of language, ranging from "simple misunderstandings and
double-entendres to monologues (as sign of inability to communicate), cliches,
repetitions of synonyms, inability to find the right words, and 'telegraphic style' (loss of
grammatical structure, communication by shouted commands) (...) and the dropping of
punctuation marks" (Esslin 87). Esslin claims that one of the ways in which absurd drama
disintegrates language is by "transcribing reality with ruthless accuracy" (301), since vast
majority of real human conversations is incoherent, ungrammatical, illogical and
elliptical, which is why absurdist drama incorporates the genuine speech with all its flaws.
As Jan Culik summarizes in his article:
By ridiculing conventionalised and stereotyped speech patterns, the Theatre of the
Absurd tries to make people aware of the possibility of going beyond everyday
speech conventions and communicating more authentically. Conventionalised
speech acts as a barrier between people: in order to come into direct contact with
reality, it is necessary to discard the false crutches of conventionalised language.
Objects are much more important than language in absurd theatre: what happens
surpasses what is being said about it. The hidden, implied meaning of words
assumes primary importance in the Theatre of the Absurd over what is actually
being said. (I.)
26
This anti-literary attitude, the "turning away from language as an instrument for
the expression of the deepest levels of meaning" (Esslin 328), is connected with another
aspect typical for the Theatre of the Absurd - the element of 'pure' theatre. Esslin claims
that plays can be manifested only in performance and that the Theatre of the Absurd goes
back to the abstract scenic effects that have deep, even metaphysical meaning and are
able to express more than a mere language ever could. In this context, Esslin points out
the similarities between absurdist drama and performers such as jugglers, acrobats,
tightrope walkers, animal trainers and especially clowns, all of the above being artists
who do not use words in their performances.
Clowning, fooling and mad scenes are other traditions in which absurdist
playwrights drew their inspiration from. These traditions often overlap, clowning relies
on abstract scenic effects and verbal nonsense. Last of these traditions that Esslin lists is
"the literature of dream and fantasy, which often has a strong allegorical component"
(328). Derived from these traditions of miming, the silent film comedy emerged in the
twentieth century. Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton and their gags were one of the
decisive influences on the Theatre of the Absurd. Esslin explains that the grotesque
comedy of the silent cinema had fundamental impact on the Theatre of the Absurd,
because it of its following characteristics:
It has the dreamlike strangeness of a world seen from outside with the
uncomprehending eyes of one cut off from reality. It has the quality of nightmare
and displays a world in constant, and wholly purposeless, movement. And it
repeatedly demonstrates the deep poetic power of wordless and purposeless
action. (335)
Esslin explains that after the introduction of sound to the cinema, the tempo
changed, but there remained some sources for inspiration, such as Laurel and Hardy or
27
Marx Brothers, who Ionesco admitted had the biggest influence on his works. As
Stejskalová pointed out, even Václav Havel inquired into the structure and formation of
a gag in this context in his article Anatomy of a Gag (Anatomie gagu 1963). He claims
that gag "je složen nejméně ze dvou základních fází, které samy o sobě nemusí být ani
komické, ani absurdní, které však začínají probouzet pocit absurdity a smích v okamžiku,
kdy se setkají"3
(Anatomie gagu 170). He illustrates this on the following example:
Když honí strážník Friga, není to gag. Když stojí strážník a Frigo na přechodu a
čekají, až bude volno, také to není gag. Když ale honí strážník Friga, Frigo
přiběhne na přechod, zastaví se, strážník se zastaví půl kroku za ním, oba klidně
čekají, a jakmile dostanou od dopravního strážníka pokyn, honička divoce
pokračuje, je to gag.4
(Anatomie gagu 170)
The first phase is a police chase, the second one a pedestrian safety, and as we can
see, these two situations only work in contrast with each other. The two joint situations
make each other peculiar and that makes them seem absurd.
But despite the fact that many absurdist playwrights incorporated this clash of
contrasting situations into their plays, these create only micro-situations. According to
Zdeněk Hořínek, there are two ways in which the Theatre of the Absurd achieves its
absurdity: either the starting point is an ordinary situation, which becomes more and more
absurd through the course of the story, or the characters are thrown directly into an absurd
situation and must face it (O divadelní komedii 115-116). Overall, absurd plays typically
lack dramatic conflict and plot. The Theatre of the Absurd does not intend to tell a story,
but rather to communicate a pattern of poetic images. Unlike in most well-made plays, it
3
"is comprised of at least two elementary phases, which themselves might be neither comic nor absurd,
but which begin to evoke a sense of absurdity and laughter once they encounter" (own translation)
4
"When the Officer is chasing Frigo, it is not a gag. When the constable and Frigo stand at the croswalk
and wait for it to be free, it is also not a gag. But when the Officer is chasing Frigo, Frigo sprints up to the
croswalk, stops, the Officer stops half a step behind him, both calmly waiting, and as soon as they are
instructed by the traffic guard the chase wildly continues, it is a gag." (own translation)
28
does not aim to present a line of development, but to make in the spectator's mind a total,
complex impression of a basic, and static, situation (Esslin 403). Absurd dramas are
essentially lyrical statements:
abandoning [of] psychology, subtlety of characterization, and plot in the
conventional sense, gives the poetical element an incomparably greater emphasis.
While the play with a linear plot describes a development in time, in a dramatic
form that presents a concretized poetic image the play's extension in time is purely
incidental. Expressing an intuition in depth, it should ideally be apprehended in a
single moment, and only because it is physically impossible to present so complex
an image in an instant does it have to be spread over a period of time. The formal
structure of such a play is, therefore, merely a device to express a complex total
image by unfolding it in a sequence of interacting elements. (Esslin 404)
Theatre of the Absurd works with the presupposition that not all human behaviour
is motivated. It depicts world that is senseless, lacks a unifying principle and "expresses
the anxiety and despair that spring from the recognition that man is surrounded by areas
of impenetrable darkness, that he can never know his true nature and purpose" (Esslin
425-426). Esslin (403) also explains that Theatre of the Absurd lacks objectively valid
characters, so there is no place for a dramatic conflict, it cannot show clash of opposing
temperaments or study human passions locked in conflict. Many plays have circular
structure and end in the same situation as they began. Whatever the characters do and
however they act, nothing changes in their existence. According to Marketa Goetz
Stankiewicz, "the characters are presented as having become prisoners of a social reality
which has emptied them of all but irrational, automatic responses" {The Metamorphosis
58). Esslin claims that since absurdist plays pursue a different goal than traditional theatre,
they must use different methods than traditional plays. And since Esslin describes this
29
difference so strikingly accurate, his entire description of the essence of absurdist theatre
will be presented here:
If a good play must have a cleverly constructed story, these have no story or plot
to speak of; if a good play is judged by subtlety of characterization and motivation,
these are often without recognizable characters and present the audience with
almost mechanical puppets; if a good play has to have a fully explained theme,
which is neatly exposed and finally solved, these often have neither a beginning
nor an end; if a good play is to hold the mirror up to nature and portray the manners
and mannerisms of the age in finely observed sketches, these seem often to be
reflections of dreams and nightmares; if a good play relies on witty repartee and
pointed dialogue, these often consist of incoherent babblings. (Esslin 21-22)
Despite his meticulous effort in identifying the characteristics of the Theatre of
the Absurd, Esslin was often criticized for his selection of authors. Even though he states
in the very introduction of his book that Theatre of the Absurd is not self-proclaimed or
self-conscious movement or school of thought, many of the listed authors objected to their
works being called absurd. According to Trtilek, Samuel Beckett refused to talk about his
dramatic text in connection with the Theatre of the Absurd and had taken a negative stance
towards Esslin's work. Ionesco was leading countless discussions with Esslin, but his
stance was not as reserved as Beckett's (16). That is why he delimits himself from the
criticism in the introduction to the new edition from 1968. He claims that the term was
coined only to "describe certain features of certain plays in order to bring out certain
underlying similarities" (12), but he wishes it would not be used as a term describing
some organized movement. He perceives it as simply a working hypothesis, a helpful
device that allows for a discussion of present works of many dramatists by identifying
some shared features.
30
This chapter introduced the genre of Theatre of the Absurd and its history,
discussing some of its predecessors and mental roots. It provided overview of the most
distinctive attributes as characterized by Martin Esslin. The following chapter will focus
on the life of Vaclav Havel and his relationship to Theatre of the Absurd, especially with
the focus on the genesis of The Garden party. It will also describe the political and cultural
context of his work with focus on his absurdist theatre.
31
3. Václav Havel and the Theatre of the Absurd
Václav Havel is surely the most famous absurdist playwright in Czech Republic,
and this chapter will focus on his attitude toward the Theatre of the Absurd. It will
describe Havel's background and his journey to theatre and authorship, as well as the
position of the Theatre of the absurd in Czechoslovakia with respect to the communist
regime.
Václav Havel was born on October 5, 1936 in Prague to a well-situated and
educated family. He was a famous playwright, experimental poet, dissident, and later the
first president of Czech Republic. Given the intellectual tradition of his family, it was not
surprising when he pursued writing, but as Libor Vodička states in his monography about
Havel's work, he primarily considered himself to be a poet and wanted to write poetry or
philosophical essays, and he later inclined towards film (13-14). Since he was not
admitted to Academy of Performing Arts (AMU), he had to enrol in the military service,
where he co-wrote his first play, Život před sebou (1958), with his friend Karel Brynda.
He made his debut as a publicist in 1956 in a magazine Květen, and he later published his
articles in other, mostly literary and theatre magazines, such as Divadlo, Host do domu or
Literární noviny. After he was released from the military, Havel started to work as a stage
technician in theatre Divadlo ABC after he was not admitted to A M U for the second time.
In 1960, after one season in Divadlo ABC, he transferred to Divadlo Na zábradlí
(Theatre on the Balustrade) as a stage technician, but he slowly took on another creative
tasks. When director Jan Grossman became art director there in 1962, Havel was already
working as dramaturge and assistant director, not just in Theatre on the Balustrade, but in
other theatres as well - most notably with Alfred Radok. The same year, he was also
finally admitted as a student of dramaturgy to A M U . In 1963, Theatre on the Balustrade
hosted critically successful premiere of The Garden party, Havel's first play and one of
32
the most famous Czech plays of the genre. It later produced another absurdist plays, but
Havel states in his interview with Karel Hvízdala that "absurdní divadlo jako takové, totiž
jako určitý směr v dramatické literatuře, nebylo bezprostředním uměleckým programem
žádného z malých divadel šedesátých let, dokonce ani ne Divadla na Zábradlí, které
k němu mělo asi nejblíž"5
(50).
Absurdist plays became rather popular in Czechoslovakia, and Havel assumes that
the reason behind the positive reception was the fact that „Absurdní divadlo bylo něco
nového, něco, co se přesně strefilo do nervu té doby (...) Najednou pojmenovávalo věci
pravými jmény a bylo schopno říci, že všichni čekáme na Godota a všichni čekáme
marně, protože Godot není"6
(qtd. in Žák 199-200). This applies to other countries of the
Eastern Bloc, where the Theatre of the Absurd reflected the totalitarian communist
regime. Unlike their western counterparts, who focused mainly on the existential
dimension of the absurd, authors from communist countries draw their inspiration from
the reality they lived in, and as a result, their plays became much more realistic in this
political context. As Markéta Goetze-Stankiewicz noted, this genre deals with the
"burning questions confronting men who have been denied the truth, whose minds have
been choked with slogans, and who have to comply with absolute values which dictate
their lives although they are beyond their comprehension" (The Metamorphosis 55). This
brilliantly describes the man trapped in communist regime and proves that this genre was
very fitting for the time. As Havel reflects on this topic, he reveals his attitude towards
and the importance of Theatre of the Absurd for his work:
5
The absurd theatre itself, as a certain movement in dramatic literature, was not an immediate artistic
program of any of the small theatres of the 1960s, not even of the Theatre on the Balustrade, which
probably came closest to it. (Own translation)
6
It suddenly called things by their real names and was able to say that we are all waiting for Godot and
we are all waiting vainly, because there is no Godot. (Own translation)
33
Ostatně na absurdním divadle si nejvíc cením právě toho, že dokázalo zachytit to,
co je 've vzduchu'. Neodpustím si dokonce trochu provokativní bonmot: mám
pocit, že kdyby absurdní divadlo neexistovalo už přede mnou, musel bych si je
vymyslet.
[After all, what I really appreciate about the Theatre of the Absurd is its ability to
capture what is 'in the air'. I cannot help myself but add a slightly provocative
witticism: I feel that if the Theatre of the Absurd did not previously exist, I would
have to invent it.] (Havel and Hvížďala 50)
As pointed out by Pavel Trtílek, "[pjoetika absurdního divadla se neztotožňovala
s kulturním směřováním tzv. reálného socialismu, které propagovala tehdejší
československá totalitní vláda"7
(126), which is why Havel became one of the censored
authors after the Prague Spring was supressed. But as Havel explains, theatre is a form
that reflects its time and place, the here and now, and therefore "jestli všechno lze dělat
do šuplíku, pak divadlo určitě nikoliv, a spoléhat na budoucí osvícenější generace je v
jeho případě nonsens. Své věčnosti dosahuje výhradně svou aktualitou, historického
uznání jen prostřednictvím uznání okamžitého, všeplatnosti jen skrze platnost místní"8
{Zvláštnosti divadla 807-808). He also explains that as a result of this, theatre is
fundamentally political in its essence, it is a concentrated expression of its time that
reflects the current political and social issues.
This reflects the very complicated position Havel found himself in as a dramatist,
because his plays were inherently political, they could not be published and performed in
Czechoslovakia, but they were still published and performed abroad, often having
7
The poetics of the Theatre of the Absurd did not identify with the cultural direction of so-called real
socialism, which was promoted by the totalitarian Czechoslovak government. (Own translation)
8
If everything else can be written for the drawer, then theatre certainly cannot, and to rely on the future,
more enlightened generation is a nonsense it the case of theatre. It reaches its eternity solely through its
topicality, its historical recognition only through its immediate recognition, its universal effect
exclusively through its local effect. (Own translation)
34
premiere there, but he was not allowed to see them and to see the reaction of the audience
and the critics, which was very important for him as an author. But it must be mentioned
that given his fame and hallmark of a banned, curbed author, his plays were translated
rather quickly. The following chapter will focus on the English translations of The Garden
party and the circumstances of their origins, as well as the lives of its translators and their
relationships with Havel.
35
4. Translations of The Garden Party
This chapter will introduce Vera Blackwell, who translated Havel's plays into
English between 1963-1985. It will describe the collaboration between Blackwell and
Havel and focus on the origin of the first translation of The Garden party into English, as
well as some issues Blackwell had to face. It will also introduce the author of the second
translation that was adapted for American audience, Jan Novak.
Vera Blackwell, nee Jakes, was born in Czechoslovakia, but she became a political
emigrant when she came to Germany in 1952. She started working for Radio Free Europe
in Munich, and she met her husband, Lane Blackwell, an American television producer.
She started to translate Czech plays for BBC radio at the request of Martin Esslin,
originally intending to translate other Czech authors as well, but ultimately translating
only plays of Vaclav Havel in the following twenty years. (Woods 34, 78-89)
Blackwell claims she never wanted to become translator, but she changed her
mind after reading The Garden party. Havel's play took her by surprise, since she did not
believe anything of the sort could have originated from the communist Czechoslovakia
in 1960s. She felt she had to translate Havel's plays herself, since there were not many
Czech native speakers able to do them justice:
I honestly don't believe anyone in the US (any more than in England) could find
another translator who could do justice to Vaclav's plays. This is (perhaps an
unfortunate) fact, not a boast. (...) I translate Vaclav's plays only because I like
Vaclav, I like his plays and I'd hate to see them distorted by hacks. (Blackwell,
qtd. in Woods 78)
Blackwell was not only translating the plays, as Woods points out, she also took
it upon herself to promote them among English speakers, exchanging letters with
producers and publishers and creating other materials, such as introductions in theatre
36
programs and articles (79). She eventually returned to Czechoslovakia (with American
citizenship) and met with Havel in person. She was however forced to leave after the
Soviet invasion and labelled as a spy by communist government. Havel's plays were
banned in Czechoslovakia, but were still published and played in foreign countries, many
of them having their premiere there, and he was entitled to collect foreign royalties. In an
effort to thwart the distribution of his plays in English speaking countries and to deprive
Havel of this income, Blackwell was added on the "Index" of forbidden authors, among
other things. She eventually managed to keep translating Havel's plays with the help of
their mutual friend, Karel Just, who was not deemed as dangerous by the communist
regime and let them use his name in any future contracts. (Woods 89-93)
The cooperation between Havel and Blackwell ended in 1985, most likely because
of frequent complaints of literary agent Klaus Juncker, who represented Havel until 1989.
From the beginning, she had an agreement with Havel that they will split the earnings in
half, which seemed fair to them, but Juncker considered 50% to be too much for a work
of a translator. (Whether or not this is the case is not in the scope of this work, although
it is an interesting question worth discussing.) Juncker also deemed her translations to be
"linguistically inadequate" and blamed her for the lack of success of Havel's plays in
English speaking world (Woods 35).
Let us now focus on the genesis of English translation of The Garden Party, which
was at the beginning of this twenty-year long relationship. Blackwell was first asked to
translate only few pages of it by John Roberts, director of The Royal Shakespeare
Company. He had seen the play in Czech and wanted to understand it, but he feared that
the reception of the play in the Anglo-Saxon environment could suffer due to internal
allusions that only Czechoslovak viewers could decode. The partial translation confirmed
his fears, but he decided to produce the play anyway and asked Blackwell for a complete
37
translation, with the condition that "it should be given a universal meaning and not be
either a play about Czechoslovakia, or even to be set in that country" (qtd in Woods 58).
He even wanted her to write to Havel and explain to him that: "so long as local references
are left out, an English audience will find his tilts at bureaucracy extremely funny and be
able to identify them with our own administration" (qtd. in Woods 58).
Woods claims that Roberts misjudged the situation when assuming the play
should not take place in a specific country and contain specific political or geographical
references. As Marketa Goetz-Stankiewitz points out when talking about the issue of
relevance of contemporary theatre:
It is fair to say that most critics and scholars, eager to point out Havel's
incontestable political relevance, have tended to shortchange the wider
implications of his plays and pay insufficient attention to his artistic qualities.
Even those who seem aware of the universal appeal of his work have - quite
understandably - been side-tracked by the surprisingly original way in which he
expresses his criticism of a systematized society (...) that they have spent their
energies on the political (though Havel might call it antipolitical) aspects of his
work (...) none has really tried to formulate the relevance of Havel's work for a
Western democracy. (The Silenced Theatre 39)
Another one of Roberts conditions was that Norman Simpson, British playwright,
will assist Blackwell with the translation, which pleased neither Blackwell nor Havel.
Blackwell realized that the play must be adapted, especially in the area of cultural
references, but tried to prevent the changes from affecting the final result too much.
According to Woods, Roberts wanted the play he had seen, without understanding a
single word of it, and which he perceived mistakenly as political farce, hiring a
professional farce writer (59). But neither of them understood the universalism in the
38
original play and the role of the language as a main character, as a deconstructive force;
Simpson worked with mere puns. This resulted in a strong adaptation of Havel's original,
in fact, a completely new play was created: The Centre, which was not staged in the end.
The premier of The Garden Party in English was staged by and amateur ensemble of
Coulsdon Youth and Social Centre in 1970, using Blackwell's translation. (Woods 57-61)
Although the British adaptation did not become established, there was another
attempt to translate Havel's play in 2006, almost 50 years after the premier of The Garden
party. The author of this second (and as of now most recent) translation is Jan Novák,
established writer, screenwriter and translator who emigrated from Czechoslovakia in
1969. This was not the first time Novák translated one of Havel's plays; he translated two
plays from the Vaněk trilogy, Audience and Unveiling, in 1986 and Protest in 2006. He
also made two films about Havel: Občan Haveljede na dovolenou (Citizen Václav Havel
Goes on Vacation) about his persecution by police, and a documentary film Občan Havel
přikuluje (Citizen Havel Is Rolling Barrels).
Novák's adaptation of the The Garden Party, also known as Office Party, is a
slightly updated version of the original play, tailor-made for the American corporate
culture. As the new title implies, Hugo is no longer a guest of a garden party of the
liquidation office. Instead, he attends a party of American business company, which
emphasises bureaucracy as well as capitalistic ideas, so the shift away from the
communism is rather substantial. This "radical transposition", as Novák calls it, is
changing the frame of reference of the communist regime, which is outdated even in
Czech republic and hardly understandable for a culture that was not affected by the
communist regime, such as the American one, and replacing it with references known to
a wider audience. Despite the fact that his adaptation is set in a very different time and
place, it works surprisingly well, since it holds up a mirror to the American corporations
39
in the same way Havel did for the communistic regime in Czechoslovakia, proving once
more that his play is more than just a political farce only Czech people understand. It is
timeless and universal in its core, because it points out the meaningless and uncertainty
of existence, which was of course relevant in the times of communist regime but is
applicable in other contexts as well. In his foreword to Office Party, Novak says about
the corporate culture:
[information is power, so you hoard as much of it as possible, and then you wink
and bluff to pretend that you know even more. You always suck up to your
superiors, adopting their diction whenever possible. You are never sure of
anything, because nothing is ever definite, so you endlessly qualify everything
you say, never sticking your neck out. Your job is not fully clear, not even to
yourself, so you are in a permanent state of anxiety and never cease checking
which doors the latest corporate drafts may be about to slam. And you're always
shaken up by any display of independent thought or confidence. (10-11)
As we can see, there are many similarities to be found with the communism,
nevertheless, apart from this change of setting, Novak stays faithful to the original
throughout most of the text, preserving Havel's style. Unlike Simpson, Novak understood
the way Havel uses language and aimed to update only necessary references while
keeping the universal message of the play the same, making his characters prisoners of
the language that governs them. His adaptation was staged by the New York's Oracle
Theater in the Brooklyn Brick Theater in the fall of 2006.
This chapter introduced both translators, describing the circumstance of the origin
of the first translation of The Garden Party, as well as the context to which the second
one, Office Party, was put into. The following chapter and its subsections will focus on
analysis of said translations from various points of view.
40
5. Analysis of Translation Solutions
Theatre of the Absurd works with language in a distinctive way, as was pointed
out earlier. It often uses language of nonsense and its characters tend to contradict
themselves, use empty phrases without any informative value and repeat themselves. The
language of the Theatre of the Absurd loses its communicative function, it becomes the
bearer of misunderstanding.
In order to analyse the translations of The Garden Party, one must understand the
way Havel uses language. As Paul Trensky explains, it is the most important part of the
play, since, "lacking a real plot, conflict, and a set of characters, the play rests on a highly
complex verbal structure, and it is actually the language which is its primary moving
force" (44). Language has lost its main function, since it is unable to communicate or to
formulate meaningful thoughts and it "points up not only the impossibility of
communication between people, but the very corruption of the intellect by language.
People cannot understand each other because they simply do not say anything" (Trensky
44). Havel himself admits that his use of language and its meaning changes depending on
the specific play. In some cases, it only functions as necessary means of communication,
while in other cases it plays a primary role, as is the case for The Garden Party. His
characters often talk in standard language that can be for example found in newspapers,
and if they resort to the use of slang, it has justifiable meaning; usually to emphasize
automatized and estranged folksiness and joviality.
Havel talks about his work with language and his authorial style in the interview
with Karel Hvízdala, and he explains some of his techniques and approaches. One of the
most important features is phrase:
"Zajímá mne fráze a její význam ve světě, kde verbální zhodnocení, včlenění do
frazeologického kontextu, jazyková interpretace jsou mnohdy důležitější než
41
skutečnost sama, a stávají se tudíž samy tou hlavní skutečností(...) Fráze
organizuje život, fráze vyvlastňuje lidem jejich identitu, fráze se stává vládcem,
obhájcem, soudcem i zákonem."9
(Havel and Hvízdala 167)
He also talks about his tendency toward analogous structure of dialogues: rotation
of lines and their repetition, borrowing line of one character by a different character and
their reciprocal exchange, reverse or counter-running dialogues, emphasizing the
rhythmic alternation of conversational motives (Havel and Hvízdala 166). This results in
what he describes as 'mechanization of dramatical form'. This is related with the
repetitiveness, which is one of the means as to how achieve said mechanization. Another
characteristic of his plays that manifests itself the most in The Garden Party is the loss of
identity. Hugo goes to the party to find himself, and on his journey, he encounters the
phrase as a central principle. He learns and adapts from the phrase, becoming more
important as he masters the phrase, and finally losing himself in it (Havel and Hvízdala
170). It is therefore important to realize the role this atypical use of language has in order
to understand and to be able to translate Havel's plays. Aside from that, Havel's plays
also contain communistic phraseology; void and clichéd language of the establishment of
power that was used in communistic Czechoslovakia.
9
1 am interested in the phrase and its meaning in the world where verbal evaluation, incorporation into
the phraseological context, and linguistic interpretation are often more important than the reality itself,
and thus become the ultimate reality (...) Phrase organises life, it dispossess people of their identity,
phrase becomes the ruler, advocate, judge and the law. (Own translation)
42
5.1. Absurd Estrangement: Wordplays, Phrases and the Language of
Nonsense
This chapter will focus on various uses of wordplays and phrases in Havel's
original, examining the way they operate in order to create an absurd impression and
nonsensical language. It will comment on selected translation strategies of both
translators, as well as some mistakes they commit. Hopefully, this chapter will outline the
way Havel uses language in The Garden party and how these pose certain challenges for
their translators.
According to Grossman (311), the phrase is the main character of The Garden
party. But it is not the man who governs the phrase, rather the phrase governs the plot
and ultimately the characters themselves10
, which must be taken into consideration by the
translator. The phrase engineers and complicates the plot, it moves the storyline, it creates
and enforces its own fresh reality. Grossman claims that phrase takes on various shapes
and forms: "Vznikají celé frazeologické kompozice a schematizují - paradoxně skutečnost
tím, že ji zamotávají do nepřehledných, fiktivních a přitom logicky
promyšlených vztahů" (315).11
It is important to realize that phrases in The Garden Party must be approached
differently, since they are not used in a way that makes any sense. Kačer identifies that
the use of phrases in Havel's original is parodical (220). As pointed out by Stejskalová
(39-40), the characters utter these phrases with great confidence and gravity in order to
induce the impression that they contain some meaning within. They seem to be real, but
there is no real meaning or logic present behind them, they are completely fictious. In
order to strengthen their seeming authenticity, Havel uses semantic actualisation or
1 0
Translation by Rambousek, 162.
1 1
Whole phraseological compositions are created and they - paradoxically - schematize the reality by
entangling it in confusing, fictitious, and yet logically thought-out relationships. (Own translation)
43
contamination. This term by Cechová means "směšování nebo ještě lépe křížení dvou
frazeologických jednotek tak, že se uplatní z každé frazeologické jednotky jedna část: z
jedné první, z druhé druhá část (...) Užitím kontaminovaného frazému se může zdůraznit
nelogičnost určitého postupu"12
(181). As we can see, Havel not only created new
phrases, he made them even more absurd by combining them into units that made even
less sense (Stejskalová 39-40).
In this respect, Kačer talks about 'absurd estrangement', and he claims that this
element might be considered a distinctive device of semantic composition of The Garden
Party (219). In his article "Notes on Translation of Václav Havel's Plays", Jiří
Rambousek concludes:
None of these puns, trivial as they may seem, are superfluous in the text. They
support the feeling that the whole play is language-driven: the development of a
dialogue is determined by random similarities between words rather that the logic
of conversation. (...) With such texts, losses are inevitable in translation, though
they can be minimized by a thorough study of the source text and its cultural and
linguistic references. (...) [T]he text retains its message as long as the main
function of the wordplay is recognized and preserved: the distortions in
communication are more important than the actual puns themselves. (165-166)
We can demonstrate Havel's strategy on the following example from the second
act. Plzák is introducing himself for the first time, and he wants to give the impression of
an ordinary guy, a man of the people.
O: [J]sem totiž docela obyčejnej člověk z masa, krve a mlíka - (23)
1 2
Mixing, or even better crossing of two phraseological units by applying one part of each phraseological
unit: one part of the first one, second part of the second one (...) By using a contaminated phrase, one
may emphasize the illogical nature of a particular procedure. (Own translation)
44
B: You see, I am quite an ordinary chap made of flesh and bones, milk and
blood... (13-14)
N: I'm just your regular Joe, your meat'n potatoes'n milk man - (33)
Here, Havel combines two Czech idioms, "člověk z masa a krve" ("man of flesh
and blood") and "holka krev a mlíko" ("girl like blood and milk", used to describe chubby
girls). Blackwell operates with words that are parts of English idioms, such as "flesh and
bones" or "flesh and blood", and Novák uses only one idiom "meat and potatoes", but
both translators decided to translate the milk part as well, even though it carries no covert
meaning in the target language. But Havel does not only use combinations of two phrases.
In the following example from the same line, we will focus on a phrase which draws its
absurdity by mere swapping of words:
O: [V]íte, mně fakticky nic cizího není lidské! (23)
B: You know, really, nothing foreign is human to me. (14)
N: Nothin' that's human's foreign to me! (33)
As we can see, Blackwell translated this wordplay well, while Novák translated
its original, unchanged meaning of "nic lidského mi není cizí". This is important, because,
as is typical for this play, these phrases often repeat, so Novák should be consistent with
his decision. But for some reason, when Hue starts to take over Slug's phrases, he
translates the original wordplay as intended: "nothin' that's foreign is human to me!"
(50). But to be impartial, it must be mentioned that Blackwell also sometimes fails to
understand the failed logic behind Havel's phrase. For example, when she translates "Čím
ukázněněji se zařadíte, tím dříve budete na řadě." (21) as "The sooner you start queuing,
the sooner you get in." (12). This assumption is logical, but Havel works with the idea of
moving as fast as disciplined one is, which creates the sense of absurd.
45
Plzak proclaims that he hates phrase-mongering and rejects all sterile cant
(translation by Blackwell, 13). Despite this declaration, he is actually a man of phrases,
as Rambousek points out, he is "incompetent - he does not know what is really going on"
(164), Havel's work with his speech is supposed to characterize him as a stupid, but very
flexible man. In the examples above we can see that Novak often uses contracted forms
for Slug' utterances. As a result, he manages to make him sound very simple. This way,
Novak substituted for the misuse of grammar in the original, rendering his translation
more befitting to the character than Blackwell's version.
On the other hand, I feel like it must be mentioned that he also uses these
contracted forms in the speech of the parents, which can be sometimes problematic,
especially when concerning phrases Hue later repeats since, as we can see, he does not
contract it in Hue' line:
O: Pludek: Obrokje obrok a hrachje hrach (19)
N: Ollie: Horse feed's horse feed is horse feed and pea's a pea (28)
O: Hugo: Obrok je obrok a hrach je hrach
N: Hue: Horse feed is horse feed is horse feed and pea is a pea (29)
It is true that the use of contraction helps with situating the parents to the middle
class, but it sometimes makes the parents sound different than in the original; when Hue
repeats this line without the contracted form, it creates a sense that he is more intelligent
and educated than his parents - and even though this might have been the intention of the
translator, it is certainly not depicted in such way in the original.
Let us now pay attention to the way translators changed names of the characters,
since it is often an important part of some wordplays and situations. As pointed out by
Stejskalova (44-45), Novak chose to work with the name Mark because of the idiom he
used to substitute Havel's Czech original:
46
O: Pludková: Petr je černá ovce v rodině!
Plůdek: Černý Petr! (11-12)
B: Mrs Plůdek: Peter is the black sheep of the family.
Plůdek: The blackguard! (3)
N: Bea: Mark's the black sheep of this family.
Ollie: He's the black Mark! (16)
While Blackwell decided to translate this wordplay using the name of the game
that Havel refers to, Novák replaced it with an English idiom.1 3
Let us now explore
another translation solution by Novák. He chose to name the male executive Jim Daly, as
can be seen in the third act, when he repeatedly introduces himself to Hugo (72). Havel
named him Josef Doležal, and Novák made a mistake in one instance by giving him
another name. At the end of the second act, after the two secretaries had gotten close
together, Havel uses Czech hypocorism for the name Josef:
O: Tajemnice: (smutně) To je všechno, Pepíku, co mi teď řekneš?
Tajemník: Buď ráda, že je zase klid! A pojďte likvidovat, ať nepříjdem
pozdě! (36)
N: Exec. 2: (Sadly) Is that all you have to say to me now, Joey?
Exec. 1: Be glad everything is quiet again! And let us go downsize, we do
not want to get there late! (53)
Not only does Novák's translation lack the change in their relationship, which is
radically cooled down when 'Pepík' regresses to 'vous' form, he confuses the reader,
since Jim and Joey are both hypocorisms of English names, James and Joseph
respectively, which gives impression there is another character. We have outlined the
situation in Novák's translation, so let us continue in this line of thought and advert to
1 3
For detailed analysis of this translation choice, see Stejskalová 44-45.
47
one missed opportunity. In the third act, Exec. 2 and CEO recite the lyrics of a song,
which is substitutes for a Czech poem in the original:1 4
O: Tajemnice: Anebo: Slyš ty mne, čtyřlístku, slyš ty mne, jeteli Ředitel:
Nyní mu nesmím už říkati příteli Tajemnice:
Ach bože! (Rozpláče se) (39)
N: Exec. 2: Or: hey, Mr. bartender, one Bourbon, one Scotch CEO:
And one bill!
Exec. 2: (Breaks into sobs) Oh, my God! (58)
The female secretary, or Exec. 2, is clearly having trouble getting over her feelings
toward the male secretary, which is demonstrated multiple times throughout their
conversation (even though Stejskalová incorrectly interprets her burst of emotions as
feelings for the CEO, author of this thesis believes that they are the culmination of the
relationship she had with Exec. 1, as is suggested in the previous example as well). Given
the cultural appropriation chosen by Novák for his translation, he missed a huge
opportunity. He could have been working with the name William deliberately from the
start, the same way he did with Mark, in order to retain the reasoning behind the emotions
of the female secretary. While in Novák's translation, her reaction seems unjustified, it
would be understandable if she would break down crying because she was reminded of
her love interest. This is of course because the hypocorism of the name William is Bill.
In this context, it should be also mentioned that Novák's decision to translate both
secretaries as genderless Exec. No. is felicitous, because it does not impose any
differences in their occupation, while Blackwell' Clerk and Secretary can suggest a
different position. The word 'secretary' can be translated as 'tajemník' and would
For detailed analysis of the translation of this culturally specific reference, see Stejskalová 61-62.
48
therefore suffice, but in contrast with 'clerk', it might suggest a less prestigious meaning
of' sekretářka'.
One demonstration of Havel's ability to combine two situations into one is
famously shown in the gag with telegrams that Amálka brings and reads to the Plůdek
family. Instead of the mere contents of a telegram in a form of capital letters without any
diacritics, Havel also includes personal (and sometimes even intimate) details from
Kalabis's life, allowing us to "overhear" what was said in his office while dictating it to
his secretary, who unconsciously wrote down these words Kalabis addressed to her. Kačer
says that "[v] těchto telegramech se tak vlastně prolínají dva významově spolu vůbec
nesouvisející jazykové kontexty (...) ozvláštňují se tím však nikoliv tyto kontexty
samotné, ale jejich společný nositel - František Kalabis - a jeho prostředí - úřad" (221).15
These fragments of personal conversation are written in a normal manner, in small
letters and with diacritics:
O: Amálka: (čte) MILY OLDŘICHU, NEMUZU K TOBE PRIJIT, MUSIM
DNES VEČER N A ZAHRADNÍ SLAVNOST LIKVIDAČNÍHO
URADU. Máte to, Aničko? Není vám zima? Proč? Aha. V půl osmé, ale
určitě! Můžu dál? MRZI M E TO A DOUFÁM, ZE SE SEJDEME JINDY.
Moc! Dělají vám krásnou postavu! Jak vždycky vystupovala paní
Kantůrkova, na tom rohu. Věčně zpívají lesy. A v neděli bychom mohli do
Nespek na borůvky, co říkáte? ZDRAVÍ TE TVŮJ - No tak! Přece nejste
z porculánu! - FRANTA KALABIS. (17)
The difference between the normal or the capitalized record can be only observed
by the reader, but the diacritic is important for the stage performance. Unfortunately, this
1 5
[I]n these telegrams, therefore, two meaninglessly unrelated language contexts actually intertwine (...)
but this does not make these contexts alone peculiar, it tells us something about their common bearer František
Kalabis - and his environment - office. (Own translation)
49
vital part of this gag is untranslatable, given the lack of diacritics in English, and neither
of the translators managed to come up with a compensating solution. As pointed out by
Stejskalova (53), Blackwell decided to differentiate the part addressed to the Pludek
family by making it rather formal in tone, unlike in the original, while the conversation
with the secretary is informal and more colloquial, using contracted forms and phrasal
verbs. This way she was able to create two parts that are more distinguishable from one
another:
B: Amanda: (Reading) M Y VERY DEAREST ALBERT, YOU CANNOT
IMAGINE HOW VERY PLEASANTLY I WAS SURPRISED B Y THE
NEWS THAT YOUR HUGO - Only yesterday he had a full drawer of
carbons! I didn't eat them! What? You'd be wanting a mink coat next!
Carry on, will you! - WAS ASSIGNED THE EXTREMELY
HONOURABLE AND IMPORTANT TASK OF CONSTRUCTING ON
THE RUINS OF THE FORMER LIQUIDATION OFFICE..." (48)
Of course that it seems impossible to substitute this use of language in any way in
a language without diacritics, and it is good that Blackwell tries to draw the attention
toward a difference in register of the two contexts in which Kalabis "talks". But if she
was to follow Havel's pattern, she would have to switch the registers in this last telegram
that is quoted above, since in its last instance, Havel once again mixes up the order of
things which he himself set by adding the diacritics to the text of the telegram and
removing it from the words addressed to the secretary (while the capitalization is
preserved the way it was in the previous telegrams). Given the content of the conversation
between Kalabis and his secretary, who start to fight about her alleged pregnancy, it seems
unimaginable for Kalabis to use a formal registry in such situation, and if Blackwell
50
indeed made this turn, the result would most definitely had impact on the meaning of the
play.
Let us now focus on the translation of Novák - and in continuity to this, let us start
from the last telegram. The two contexts climax in alternation of friendly goodbye and
insults:
O: TVŮJ STARÝ - Lharko! - VĚRNÝ - Devko! - FRANTA. - Kaceno! (59)
B: YOUR OLD - Liar! - FAITHFUL- Whore! - FRANK. - Silly goose! (49)
N: "Your old" - Liar! - "Faithful buddy" - Slut! - "Frank." - Bitch! (89)
While Novák uses arguably more modern insults, his addition of the word 'buddy'
totally undermines the point, since it is wedged between two words that are supposed to
contrast one another. As we can see, he abandoned the idea of capitalized text altogether
and he uses quotation marks to differentiate the two contexts. He also chose to change the
telegram for an e-mail in an effort to make the play more current, which may seem as a
good idea. But there are some logical problems, the first being that he decided change the
method of the recording, instead of dictating to his secretary, Kanabis dictates his message
to a modern device, possibly a mobile phone with voice recognition. Said device than
inserts a note: "Dictated, but not read", but despite that, the device manages to mark the
two contexts by adding quotation marks to the parts meant for Plůdek, which is
unrealistic. One could argue that Havel's original is also unrealistic, since a telegram
would probably be written in capital letters as a whole, but in the case of the original, we
can at least see the reference the author made to a real-word phenomena and the way he
works with it, I would argue, excuses this logical lapsus of the original. Plus, in the
original, it makes sense that some parts of the conversation refer to the process of writing
the message down, for example: "Máte to, Aničko?" (17). After these questions, the
speech usually turns to another topic as Kalabis gets distracted. But in Novák's
51
adaptation, it no longer makes sense to keep this part in there. Novák also mistranslates
one part of their conversation that is important for the development (or at this point, rather
the downfall) of their relationship, when Kanabis says that "He'll never agree to a
divorce" (86), when he is more likely referring to his wife and argues why he will not
leave her for the secretary: "Chápej - mám děti!" (57).
Also, Alma would probably not bring them an e-mail in the first place. Of course,
that this might be the reason for Novák to mention later on that she is a daughter of an
alderman who has high-speed internet. But in the last act, she is with Mark in the pantry
"sorting e-mails" in the dark, even though "the light bulb popped", which does not make
any sense, since the display of any modern reading device would suffice her not only as
a source of light in a dark room, but it would also enable her to read in a room without
other sources of lighting. In the original, Havel of course uses this to insinuate about the
relationship between Amálka and Petr and what was actually going on in the dark, which
is why Mrs Plůdek exclaims: "Žárovka! Jestli si Petra nevezmete - " (57).
There is also a very interesting moment, when Amálka brings the telegram, all
characters exclaim in expectation of the word letter. This is given by the fact that Havel
uses structure which rhymes with "psaní", and the characters, who have been tensely
waiting for the whole day, cannot hold their excitement:
O: Pludková: Co tady děláte?
Amálka: Paní, nesu vám Všichni:
Psaní!
Amálka: Ne, telegram! (17)
B: Plůdek: Is something the matter?
Amanda: There's nothing the matter. Here is a All:
Letter!
52
Amanda: No, telegram! (9)
N: Bea: What are you doing here?
Alma: Ma'am, I'm bringin' youAll:
A letter!
Alma: No, an e-mail! (24)
While Blackwell tries to translate the word play by creating a rhyming structure,
she than misappropriates the guestion to Mr Plůdek. Novák does not try to translate this
wordplay, instead, he compensates for this loss in a previous line, when he translates
Havel's "Petře, do špajzu! Kalabis je tady!" (17) as "John, get into the mark! I mean,
Mark, get into the John! Kanabis is here!" (24). But since he did not translate the original
word play, it no longer makes sense for all to exclaim " A letter!", given that in the
original, it is a rhyming game.
Havel also very often works with the use of 'tu' and 'vous' forms. As Levý points
out, "[a] special study could be devoted to (...) the way relationships between characters
are defined according to the choice of 'tu' and 'vous'" (159). In the following scene from
the third act, these forms are used in what is essentially a power play for dominance
between Hugo and Ředitel:
O: Hugo: Vždycky jsem rád, když se setkám s někým, kdo mi je tak nějak
názorově I pocitově příbuzný! Klidně mi tykejte! Kouříš?
Ředitel: Ne, děkuji. A ty?
Hugo: Ne, děkuji, taky ne. A ty?
Ředitel: Ne, děkuji. A ty?
Hugo: Není zač. Víš, klidně mě chápej tak nějak jako svého tátu!
Ředitel: A ty mě zase jako svou mámu! (43)
53
B: Hugo: I'm always glad to meet somebody who's sort of close to me. I mean
in the way of opinions and emotions. Go on, call me Hugo! Do you smoke?
Director: No thanks, Hugo. And you? Do call me Ernie!
Hugo: Thanks, Ernie, neither do I. And you?
Director: No thanks, Hugo. And you?
Hugo: Not at all. Listen, Ernie, why don't you think of me as sort of your
father!
Director: And you of me as your mother! (34)
N: Hue: I'm always happy to run into somebody who is, so to speak, a relative
of mine in terms of opinions and emotions. So you can call me Hue! Do
you smoke?
CEO: No, thank you. And you?
HUE: No, thank you, I don't either. And you?
CEO: No, thank you. And you?
HUE: You're welcome. You know, you may view me as a kind of a father
figure, if you want!
CEO: And you can view me as your mother! (65)
In Blackwell's translation, the offer to use 'tu' form was substituted by getting on
first-name basis, whereas Novak only introduces Hue. Both translations are sadly missing
the moment when Hugo offers 'tu' form usage to Reditel, but he himself uses it without
permission, which is considered rather rude. Perhaps, this could have been achieved by
him calling the character of the Reditel by his name in the first line, for example: "Hugo:
You can call me Hugo! Do you smoke, Ernie? - Director: No thanks, Hugo. You can call
me Ernie. Do you smoke?"
54
This exchange is preceded by another one in which Havel uses and interesting
grammatical wordplay:
O: Ředitel: (...) Kouříme?
Hugo: Ne, děkujeme. Brzy to opravdu bude tak nějak náš druhej domov,
myslíme. Vy nemyslíme?
Ředitel: My souhlasíme. Kouříme?
Hugo: Nekouříme - víme?
Ředitel: Provedeme! (41)
B: Director: (...) [D]o we smoke?
Hugo: No, thanks. Soon this'll be sort of our second home, we believe. Am
we right?
Director: We am. Do we smoke?
Hugo: No, we don't.
Director: Oh!" (32)
N: CEO: [D]o we feel like smoking?
Hue: No, we thank you, though. This place will soon become a home away
from home for us, we imagine. You - don't we imagine that?
CEO: We agree. Do we feel like smoking?
Hue: We don't smoke - don't we know?
CEO: We'll implement it all completely! (61-62)
Instead of second person singular and first person singular, the characters use first
person plural, and in one case even a combination of second person singular with first
person plural. Blackwell manages to translate this grammatical wordplay extremely well,
especially "Am we right?", but she left out the last part where Hugo insinuates to director.
Novák's translation seems a bit less impactful, especially with the way he decided to
55
formulate the question. In the original, the question is clearly relating to the characters
being smokers or non-smokers, which is later used as a gag. But Novak's translation can
be interpreted only in relation to the temporary desire to have a smoke. Unlike Blackwell,
Novak translated Hue's insinuation, but the reaction of CEO is too long and specific, it
might be better in some more vague, shorter form, such as "Roger that!" or "Will do!".
These were some examples of the way Havel works with language in creating
wordplays and phrases. With some exceptions that are analysed above, it can be
concluded that both translators generally managed to translate most of the wordplays. It
is especially important that they understood the way Havel works with phrases, and they
tried to convey the essence of the play. In the following chapter, we will focus on the
repetitive structure, another important aspect of Havel' plays which sometimes merges
with the use of phrase.
56
5.2. Repetitiveness
One of the characteristic features we can often see used in The Theatre of the
Absurd is repetitiveness - whether it is a repetitiveness of lines, activities or initial
situations. It can be frequently used as either the means or an expression of another typical
attributes of The Theatre of the Absurd that were introduced before. Since one of the most
distinctive element of absurdist theatre is the language that has lost its meaning as a tool
of communication and became rather the source of misunderstanding, this following
chapter will focus on the way repetitive sequences and lines create a certain atmosphere
in the original, discussing various translation solutions used. This chapter will also focus
on the Chiastic structure, which is a phenomenon often found in Havel's plays, focusing
on whether the translation solutions stay true to the original intent.
The first act begins with a famous scene in which Hugo plays chess with himself
while his parents wait for their friend Kalabis, who is supposed to help Hugo find a good
job, since he holds a high function in and unspecified institution. The situations repeat
themselves, as well as the dialogue: The parents try to hide their second son, Peter, as to
not cause a stir in front of Kalabis, while trying to inform Hugo about his impending
arrival.
While Hugo plays chess, his parents wonder whether Kalabis will arrive and
ruminate on the various reasons why he might have gotten delayed. In this exchange,
which is repetitively used in the first act, they follow a given pattern. Havel uses the
following structure: Suggesting he met X - suggesting the common background of
Kalabis and X - refusal of the suggestion for he had no such background - twisting the
explanation. We can demonstrate this on one of the scenes:
O: Plůdek: Třeba někoho potkal a zapovídal se Pludková:
Ale koho?
57
Plůdek: Přítele z mládí Pludková:
Víš přece, že mládí žádné neměl!
Plůdek: Mládí neměl, ale měl v mládí přátele! (13-14)
B: Plůdek: Well, he might have met somebody and forgot to watch the time.
Mrs Plůdek: But whom?
Plůdek: A childhood chum.
Mrs Plůdek: You know very well he had no childhood!
Plůdek: He had no childhood, but he had childhood chums. (5)
N: Ollie: Maybe he ran into somebody, got to talkin' Bea:
Like who?
Ollie: Like some ol' buddy from his younger days Bea:
But you said he ain't never been young Ollie:
He ain't never been young, but he had buddies back then! (19)
Blackwell translated the point about "having no childhood" more appropriately,
given the pattern that Havel chose. Her point is much clearer and has the same intended
effect. Novák, on the other hand, translated the first line more appropriately, and his style
of speech is consistent with the way he decided to characterize the parents, providing
them with a colloquial, less formal language.
Hugo seems interested only in his play of chess, and each time the parents think
they heard the doorbell ring, they ask him about his game. Hugo changes places each
round - each time his mother asks him, he is on the winning side, while when father asks
him, he is on the losing one. At the end of his game, both parents ask him who won, but
thanks to the way Havel phrases the question, both translators mistranslated this part:
O: Plůdek: Prohrál?
Hugo: Ne, vyhrál.
58
Pludková: Vyhrál?
Hugo: Ne, prohrál. (15)
B: Plůdek: You lost?
Hugo: No, I won.
Mrs Plůdek: You won?
Hugo: No, I lost" (7)
N: Ollie: Did he lose?
Hue: No, I won.
Bea: Did he win?
Hue: No, I lost. (22)
From the context it is obvious that in the original both parents ask about the
opponent and Hugo gives them an answer that also refers to his non-existing opponent.
Blackwell changes the subject in all the sentences, shifting the focus to Hugo. As a result,
this translation is inconsistent with the previous action, but at least it makes sense. Novák
translated the questions of both parents correctly, but he changed the subject in Hue's
answers. As a result, this exchange of lines does not make sense, since one of the parents
ask the question, to which Hue says no, treating it as a false presupposition, only to
subsequently confirm its validity. The missing logic behind this solution is even
emphasized by Novák's decision to accentuate Hue's wining position by translating
Havel's "Výborně, mami" (15) in much modern and informal way: "I'm kicking ass,
Mom!" (22) right before his check mate.
In the second act, Hugo gets to the garden party, where he observes two
secretaries, one female and one male, who are forced by Plzák to interact 'as humans',
which makes these strictly bureaucratic characters obviously uncomfortable. In an effort
to compliment the female secretary, the male one repeats various phrases and awkward
59
compliments. Havel emphasizes his nervousness by mixing up various sayings. Havel for
example takes the phrase "oči jako dvě studánky" (eyes like two wells), but he uses it in
context of the secretary's breasts:
O: Tajemník: A ňadra máte Tajemnice:
Já vím!
Tajemník: Jako dvě - dva - jako dva ty - dvě studánky - totiž promiňte,
míče - jako dva míče jsem chtěl říct - promiňte Tajemnice:
To je dobrý Tajemník:
A oči jako dva - dvě - jako dvě ty - dva míče - totiž ne míče ale
blatouchy - (27-28)
Both translators decided to keep this Czech saying, Novák translating it as springs
and Blackwell as founts. But the question is whether these solutions will have any effect
on the target reader or audience, given that neither of these translations carry the same
associations for the target culture. As the character of male secretary sinks into repeating
these compliments, his tongue often slips. As we can see in the following example,
Blackwell tries to compensate for a loss in her translation in a previous segment by mere
switching of letters (which creates only one real word and the other one is just
nonsensical, which is not necessarily bad). Novák on the other hand substitutes the verb
using the same principle as Havel:
O: Tajemník: Povídám: vrabci letí - mech kvete - louky čumí - (27)
B: Clerk: I say, sparrows are flying - the boss mlossoms - the meadows are
a-humming - (B18)
N: Exec. 1: I said: sparrows are flying - moss is blooming - the prairie is
fuming - (39)
60
The insufficiency of Blackwell's solutions however transpires in the following
section, in which two repetitive structures merge; the one discussed above with a dialogue
about the family, children and spouses of both secretaries (neither of whom seem to have
any). This culminates in a nonsensical exchange of phrases:
O: Tajemnice: A co doma? Co doma?
Tajemník: Ale to víte - příroda - respektive pomněnky Tajemnice:
A co míče? Zlobí? Zlobí?
Tajemník: Ani ne - ani ne - kvetou Tajemnice:
Vy nejste vdán?
Tajemník: Totiž šumí - ne vrabci - mech - mech čumí jako dva - dvě dva
pomňouky - totiž ty - Hergot! (28)
B: Secretary: How are things at home?
Clerk: Well, you know - nature - I mean, forget-me-nots Secretary:
How about the footballs? Quite a handful, eh?
Clerk: Not really - they blossom - you know Secretary:
I see, you're not married!
Clerk: I mean they are humming - No! Sparrows - moss - boss - like two
- two - To hell with it! (18)
N: Exec. 2: And how's the family? How's the family?
Exec. 1: Well, you know - nature - or rather the forget-me-nots Exec.
2: And how are the balls? Causing trouble? Causing trouble?
Exec. 1: Not too bad - not too bad - they're blooming Exec.
2: Are you not married?
61
Exec. 1: I mean they are humming - I mean sparrows - I mean moss moss
fuming like two - two - forget-me-balls - I meant to say - Damn it!
(40)
We can see that Blackwell failed to translate the culmination of this situation,
while Novák manages to stay faithful to the original when he creatively translates
pomňouky as forget-me-balls.
But Novák often does not follow the structure of Havel's original as meticulously,
which may lead to the loss of the impression of repetitive patterns. For example when the
character of Plzák forces the secretaries into a repetitive discussion about the technology
and art, Havel strictly follows a sentence structure: "Jako bychom neměli například v
takové technice ještě celý pytel setsakramentsky palčivých problémů!" (30). While
Blackwell keeps the structure intact when repeating this sentence, Novák changes the
verbs, first: "Like we didn't have a shitload of problems with technology already!" (43)
and then: "Like we ain't got a shitload of problems with technology already!" (44).
This turn from repetitive sentence structures is quite frequent in Novák's
translations. For example in second act, Plzák says "Copak nejsme, sakra, všichni tak
nějak z jedny český mámy?" and later Hugo and the director repeat that phrase. But
Novák's translation weakens the repetitiveness by using different verbs, 'share' and
'come from'. He does the same in Hugo's final monologue, where instead of the Czech
verb 'být', he uses either 'to be' or 'to exist'. Another example of this tendency can be
seen when Mr and Mrs Plůdek argue whether Hugo should have accepted the job in the
fourth act, Havel uses exclusively verbs 'přijmout' and 'odmítnout', while Novák uses
verbs 'turn down', 'refuse', 'take on' and 'accept', seemingly at random. His strategy
leads to omission at the end of this exchange:
O: Pludková: Měl to odmítnout -
62
Plůdek: Naopak: měl to nepřijmout!
Pludková: Naopak: měl to neodmítnout!
Plůdek: Neměl to zároveň přijmout a neodmítnout?
Pludková: Spíš odmítnout a nepřijmout!
Plůdek: V tom případě radši nepřijmout, neodmítnout, přijmout a
odmítnout!
Pludková: A kdyby to zároveň odmítl, nepřijal, neodmítl a přijal?
Plůdek: Těžko říct. Co myslíte vy?
Hugo: Já? No takjá bych řekl, že to měl nepřijmout, neodmítnout, přijmout
a odmítnout a zároveň odmítnout, nepřijmout, neodmítnout a přijmout.
Anebo naopak. Nezvonil někdo?
Plůdek: Ne. (56-57)
N: Bea: He should've refused it right off the bat Ollie:
Nah, the other way around: he shouldn't've accepted it!
Bea: Nah, the other way around: he shouldn't've refused it!
Ollie: Maybe he should've accepted it and not refused it at the same time!
Or the other way around. Hey, didn't I just hear the door bell?
Ollie: No. (85)
As we can see, this omission led not only to the loss of the repetitiveness and
nonsensicality of the original, but also to erroneous assignment of replicas, resulting in a
situation in which Ollie asks about the door bell and answers himself. This is not the only
instance Novák failed to assign a corresponding line to a character as a result of his
omission. Novák for example also lets the character of Mark enter twice without ever
leaving by a mistake, adding stage directions on page 19 and correctly translating the
63
same directions on page 24. But he is not alone in doing so, Blackwell also rearranged
the order of lines in the following repetitive sequence:
O: Pludková: Chápejte - žena tím nechtěla říct, že by oba úřady neměly být
ve zdravé míře zachovány Plůdek:
A zároveň oba ve zdravé míře zlikvidovány Pludková:
Ukáže-li se to strategicko Plůdek:
Taktické Hugo:
No tak všichni Plůdek
a Pludková: No tak - copak? (58)
B: Mrs Plůdek: Please try and understand, my husband didn't mean to say
that both institutions shouldn't be in good measure preserved Plůdek:
And at the same time both in good measure liquidated Mrs
Plůdek: Or the other way round Plůdek:
If this turned out to be Mrs
Plůdek: Good strategical Plůdek:
Tactics Hugo:
Well, we all Mrs
Plůdek: Well - what? (48)
Although she added two lines, she did not change the overall meaning of the
original, In this context, it is even harder to understand why she decided to appropriate
the last line to Mrs Plůdek only, when in the original, both parents say it at once. Another
deflection from the original is the mistranslation of 'my husband'. In the original, this
incorrect denomination is just another one of the ways in which Havel plays with
language in repetitive sections. Firstly, both husband and wife are used to describe the
64
corresponding sex, but in this last instance he intentionally changes the denominator that
has meanwhile lost its meaning as a result of constant repetition of empty phrases.
As pointed out by Stejskalová, another repetitive situation that poses a problem is
when the director and the female secretary talk about norms and forms in the third act
(46). In the following situation, speakers are acting mechanically as if they were
computers who use these words according to a certain formula (Kačer 222).
O: Tajemnice: Ale soupis likvidačních forem je bez soupisu delimitačních
norem neplatný!
Ředitel: A to by nestačil soupis likvidačních norem podložený soupisem
delimitačních forem?
Tajemnice: To by zneplatnilo likvidaci.
Ředitel: Není to trochu formální norma?
Tajemnice: Naopak: je to zcela normální forma. (50)
B: Secretary: But the list of the liquidation forms is invalid without the list of
the delimitation norms!
Director: Wouldn't a list of the liquidation norms supported by a list of
delimitation forms be enough?
Secretary: That, I'm afraid, would make the whole liquidation invalid.
Director: Goodness, isn't this norm a bit formal?
Secretary: On the contrary, it's a perfectly normal form. (29)
N: Exec. 2: But the list of the downsizing forms is invalid without the
summary of the delimitational norms!
CEO: But isn't the list of the downsizing forms enough if it's based on the
summary of the delimitational norms?
Exec. 2: That would invalidate the entire downsizing.
65
CEO: Isn't that a bit of a formal norm?
Exec. 2: On the contrary! It is a perfectly normal form. (21)
Stej skálová claims that when translator considers this formula, translation of these
wordplays should not pose any difficulty. She points out that while Novák, unlike
Blackwell, preserved the parallel construction of phrases of the original (adjective +
noun), which accentuates their contrast, he did not variate and combine them the same
way as the original, which for a change Blackwell managed to achieve (47). If we take
into consideration the overall impression these translation solutions will make on a
spectator, Novák's solution seems to have a bigger impact, since it seems next to
impossible that any viewer would be able to notice this slight change, while for a reader,
it is more realistic to register this in Blackwell's translation.
In the third act, Hugo and the male secretary meet in the director's office and they
introduce each other, and they do so repeatedly. While Novák stays faithful to the original
and translates these repetitions, Blackwell either leaves them out or translates them in a
slightly different context. This happens at the end of their joined speech, where instead
of them introducing all over again, she interprets their names as attesting to their
agreement with what was previously said by adding "Signed" in front of their names (39).
From our analysis, it can be deduced that while both translators were aware of the
importance of the repetitive structures, they were not always able to create the same effect
as the original. They often chose different attitudes toward translation of the situations,
and as was shown, sometimes they manage to transfer only parts of what was originally
intended. It can be said that Novák has often problems with consistency of his solutions
when it comes to repeating certain word that Havel deliberately uses in his repetitive
structures. At times, both translators are lost in the meaning of some repetitive exchanges,
66
and in rearranging them, they miss some point or wordplay of Havel, and at times even
put the reader in a confusing situation when the characters speak out of turn.
67
5.3. Performability
The concept of performability, or playability, is rather complicated and this is
highlighted by its necessity to adapt to changing concepts of performance. Not only has
the translator have to treat the dramatic text differently than any other type of text, he or
she must also consider the intention of the original, and to do so, they must understand
what makes the genre in question characteristic. Bassnett claims that this added criteria
of performability and its phenomena can influence the final form of the text rather
fundamentally on the language level. "The difficulty of translating for the theatre has led
to an accumulation of criticism that either attacks the translation as too literal and
unperformable or as too free and deviant from the original" (Bassnet, Translation studies
123). The translator must deal with this criticism as well as with the difficulties that the
concept of performability poses. According to Robert Corrigan "the translator must hear
the voice that speaks and take into account the 'gesture' of the language, the cadence
rhythm and pauses that occur when the written text is spoken (qtd. in Bassnet, Translation
studies 122).
Translators must take into consideration the actors, who often criticized the
speakability of translated plays. As Havel explains, "bez herce není divadlo. Herec je to
nejdůležitější. Na divadle je strašně zajímavé to, že přežilo film a přežilo televizi a
existuje pořád. A jeho existence spočívá v osobním kontaktu"16
(in Žák 109). As pointed
out in Stejskalova's thesis (10), the speakability is very important for the actor, because,
as Steve Gooch explains, it is very important for them to feel good in the text: "[T]he real
point is that the actors must be able to wear the language of the play like clothes. They
1 6
There is no theatre without the actor. The actor is the most important part. What is very remarkable
about theatre is the fact that it survived movie and television and still exists. Its existence resides in the
personal contact. (Own translation)
68
must be able to put the text on and feel they can breathe in it, move around freely and find
its physical expression from within themselves" (17-18).
In her translation, Blackwell often tends to prolong the lines by opting for an exact
translation of the original and all of its meaning, instead of focusing on one component.
This can be demonstrated on the following example:
O: Tajemnice: Vášnivě nesouhlasím! (28)
N: Exec. 2:1 totally disagree! (41)
B: Secretary: I do disagree! Most empathetically! (19)
As we can see, Novák's translation suffers from a certain loss, but it serves its
purpose and is easier to enunciate. Blackwell's solution, on the other hand, sounds very
formal and is significantly longer than the original. Another example is seen in the part
where Secretary and Clerk discuss their personal life:
O: Tajemník: Tak co doma? Co děti? Zlobí? Zlobí?
N: Exec. 1: So how is the family? How are the kids? Causing trouble? Causing
trouble? (33)
B: Clerk: Well, how are things at home? What about the children? Quite a
handful, eh? (14)
Both translations result in a much longer line. The important thing is that Novák
maintains the repetition and his question also follow the pattern of the original. This
pattern is later used again, in a merging of two previously individual and unrelated
situations, as is typical for this play, and the word choice of Blackwell results in a very
formal feeling in what was supposed to be a forced small talk, and also in prolonging each
following repetition.
Blackwell also very often prolongs the lines by adding various filler words, such
as 'well', which can also be seen in the previous example. She also very often uses
69
exclamations, such as 'Goodness', 'For God's sake!', 'Oh God', 'Heaven forbid', for
example when she translates: " A nepřej si, aby ses toho strašného dne dožil!" (17) as
"Heaven forbid that you should still be about when that terrible day arrives!" (8).
Especially these religion-related exclamations are of no additional value, quite the
opposite; their excessive usage decreases their effect in instances where they were used
in original. In contrast, Novák' translation of "Ježíšmarjájozef!" (54) in the last act as
"GoodGodAllmighty!" (81) has much more impact, because he did not overuse these
exclamations the way Blackwell did, he only translated these when they occurred in the
original.
At the beginning of the second act, Hugo is greeted by two secretaries who
represent characters that are bound by their obsession with rigid bureaucracy and
bureaucratic conservatism. Havel achieves this impression by describing the organisation
of the garden party in a very formal matter: there are various sections for various types of
social activities, and there are strict rules about joining them:
O: Tajemnice: Máte-li zájem o použití rozmarných rekvizit, jako papírových
kloboučků, veselých lepenkových nosů a podobně, můžete si je
vyzvednout přes tajmeníka vaší sekce v sekčním skladu a veselit se s nimi
můžete v okruhu Malého parketu C. (21)
B: Secretary: If you are interested in making use of Aids to Amusement, such
as paper hats, gay papier-máché noses, etc., you may pick them up via the
Head of your Section in the Sectional Warehouse and then you may go and
amuse yourself with them within the area of Small Dance Floor C. (12)
N: Should you be interested in merry-making with humor boosters, such as
funny hats, fake noses and so on, you may pick these up in the sectional
warehouse, provided that you have consent form from your sectional
70
superior, and you may put these humor boosters to any use in and around
the Small Dance Hall C. (30)
We can see that Blackwell chose a strategy in which she translated the important
passages, such as Aids of Amusement or Sectional Warehouse, in a manner that they give
the impression of a very formal institution, highlighting them for the reader by
capitalizing them the same way Havel did with the dance floor. Her use of 'etc' suggests
either that the text is primarily meant for reading, but it can be also a tool that accentuates
a formal style in the spoken version, but this might be arguably a problem for the
performer, since it is commonly read as etcetera, and by uttering it, one would go against
this possible intent of translator. Novák, on the other hand, chose a slightly less formal
translation, making it easier for the actor to deliver, but at the same time, the bureaucratic
formality has a lesser impact.
In this example, let us point to the translation of 'veselých lepenkových nosů'.
Blackwell translates it very faithfully, although it could be argued that the use of word
gay seems too formal nowadays and probably would not be used, her translation is exact,
if not too formal. Novák translates it as fake noses, which seems insufficient, since the
original intends to put these 'boosters' in contrast with the formality of the rest of the
dialogue, as well as the real nose is in contrast when worn on stage. In addition, Novák
translates it in the stage notes as a clown nose, which is something different and therefore
might have different impact on the viewer (but arguably not such a big one on the reader).
It is also worth mentioning that, when describing various events taking place at the office
party, Novák leaves out the details about different sections of the Downsizing Office
taking turns at the dance hall in specific times:
O: Tajemník: Opatříte-li si povolení organizačního výboru, můžete si
zatančit, a to na Velkém parketu A mezi půl dvanáctou a dvanáctou a pak
71
mezi tři čtvrtě na jendnu a půl druhou. Předtím je totiž Velký parket A
vyhrazen likvidačně metodické sekci, mezitím komisi likvidátorů z lidu a
potom delimitační subkomisi. (21)
N: Now if you obtain the permission from the Office Party Committee, you
can go and dance in the Large Dance Hall A between eleven thirty and
twelve o'clock, and then again between twelve forty-five and one thirty.
But when Hue suggest transferring the dancing to the Smaller Dance Hall C, he
refers to these sections even though they were not mentioned before in his adaptation:
O: Proč tedy nepřesunout zábavu s rozmarnými rekvizitami na Velký parket
A a tanec sekcí na Malý parket C?
N: [S]o why don't you transfer the levity with humour boosters to the Large
Dance Hall A, and why don't you put the sectional dance into the Small
Dance Hall C? (31, emphasis added)
Let us now return to the issue of speakability. In contrast to the overtly formal
language used by the secretaries, there is the character of Plzák, whose lines "překypují
rozšafností, bodrostí (...) často používá fráze 'člověka z lidu' (Štěrbová, 17).17
Štěrbová
also claims that Havel deliberately questions the denotation possibilities of a language by
disturbing the postulate of a normal communication. In such instances, the situations that
are realized contain contradictory relationships between the characters and the validity of
information that they communicate to one another. But in Havel's Garden Party, the
dialogues have no foundation in the psychological difference of characters, which is why
the emphasis in such dramatic text shifts away from the relationships of character and is
instead placed on the relationship of utterances. Havel almost mathematically rhythmizes
1 7
are overflowing with jolly and joviality (...) he often uses the phrases of the 'man of the people' (Own
translation)
72
the dialogue using semantic twists which are once again intended for the sphere of the
utterances. (Štěrbová, 17)
In the following example from the second act, Plzák is trying to get some
information from Hugo and he is very friendly and casual in his speech. Hugo, on the
other hand, is very vague and evasive:
O: Plzák: A jak jsi uvízl na Likviďáku? Křivda minulosti?
Hugo: To tak někdy vítr člověka zavane Plzák:
Nebo úkol?
Hugo: Každý máme své úkoly - (33)
B: Falk: Goodness gracious, how did you get stuck in the Liquidation Office?
Some injustice from the past?
Hugo: Well, you know how it is, one gets blown this way and that Falk:
Or an assignment, perhaps?
Hugo: We all have our assignments - (23-24)
N: Slug: So how'd you get stuck in Downsizing? Got some issues in your
background?
Hue: Sometimes the current carries you along to some place that Slug:
Or were you sent there on assignment?
Hue: We all have our assignments - (48)
As we can see, Plzák is the one who deduces something from Hugo's vague
answers and Hugo does not disprove any of his assumptions. Both translations failed to
render the connection Plzák deduces from Hugo's answer. They also tried to transfer the
joviality of Plzák, Blackwell in the way Plzák insinuates in the second line and Novák in
the first line by "abbreviating" and leaving the word office. Perhaps Novák compensates
73
for this loss when he manages to transfer the tone of Plzak's querying in the following
exchange:
O: Plzák: Chápu, nechci vyzvídat Hugo:
Klidně vyzvídej
N: Slug: I hear ya. It ain't like I wanna be nosey, or nothin' Hue:
Go ahead, be as nosey as you want - (49-50)
B: Falk: I see. I don't want to pry Hugo:
Pry away On
the other hand, Blackwell's translation stays true to the original and I feel that
the choice of the verb 'pry' is much better in this case.
As for the general impression of the translations and their speakability, it must be
noted that Blackwell's version is slightly disadvantaged by being older, and as pointed
out by Bassnett, translations tend to age faster. Her language is predominantly more
formal than the language of Novák's adaptation, which at times seems more natural. On
the other hand, given the nature of the play, Blackweh" s use of formal language is at times
more fitting, for example in the bureaucratic characters of Secretary and Clerk. The same
applies for Novák, whose use of modern language sometimes has different connotations
than the original. On the other hand, it is very befitting for the character of Slug, where
Novák goes above and beyond in trying to create the notion of him as a simpleton hidden
behind the empty phrases.
74
Conclusion
This thesis focused on the translation of the Theatre of the Absurd in The Garden
Party by Vaclav Havel, analysing translation solutions of its translators, Vera Blackwell
and Jan Novak. In the first chapter, it focused on the differences in reading a dramatic
text and its performance, and how these may affect one's perception of the work. It
pointed out that it is important for the playwright to have experience with theatre, and
that the same applies to the translator of dramatic texts. It also discussed the asymmetric
relation of the translated text to its original, explaining how the translator must consider
the target audience and culture, and why rhythm is important for the staging of the play.
It introduced some of the approaches towards translating for the theatre and proposed
how to prioritize various planes of the dramatic text. The chapter also dealt with the issue
of limited life-span of a translation, as proposed by Bassnett.
The second subchapter introduced the issues of performability and speakability,
focusing on the historic development of the academic debate. It concentrated mainly on
the stances of Susan Bassnett, translation scholar whose stances on these issues radically
changed over time. It also presented attitudes of other scholars, such as Pavis, Espasa or
Totzeva, and their attempts at defining what constitutes a performable text.
Second chapter introduced the genre of the Theatre of the Absurd as characterized
by Martin Esslin in his book of the same name. It introduced the historical context of its
genesis, as well as some predecessors of the genre. It discussed the specifics of the genre,
especially on the use of language as a means of misunderstanding for absurdist characters
who are lost in their existence, and the way absurdist playwrights use it to create this
atmosphere. It also commented on the relationship of communist regime to the absurdist
drama. Lastly, it focused on the lack of plot and character development and also the
circular structure and repetitiveness, which are also typical for absurdist plays.
75
The third chapter inquired into the life of Vaclav Havel, focusing on his
beginnings as a writer, his journey to theatre and on the genesis of The Garden Party. It
also discussed the political and social circumstances of the communist Czechoslovakia
and his reception in the time of totalitarian regime. The fourth chapter introduced the
translators, Vera Blackwell and Jan Novak, both Czechoslovakian emigrants. It described
their cooperation and relationship with Vaclav Havel, focusing mainly on the genesis of
the first translation by Blackwell and its historical circumstances.
In the analytical part, the thesis focused on solutions of selected issues, often
comparing different approaches of both translators and their results. Both translators
understand the way Havel works with language, and they managed to convey the essence
of the play. Some of the solutions that were pointed out were naturally problematic; both
Novak and Blackwell sometimes fail to transfer the intentionally distorted phrase
correctly, and they instead provide a logical, non-nonsensical solution. Novak tends to
use more informal language, especially for some characters, but in some cases, it can
backfire, as was shown in the case of Hugo's parents. Blackwell often prolongs the lines,
which can be problematic in repetitive structures. To remind reader of this thesis of
Rambousek's important note: "losses are inevitable in translation [of such texts], though
they can be minimized by a thorough study of the source text and its cultural and linguistic
references. (...) [T]he text retains its message as long as the main function of the wordplay
is recognized and preserved: the distortions in communication are more important than
the actual puns themselves." It is important to emphasize that both translations work well
as a whole, each having different virtues.
76
Works cited
Primary Sources
Blackwell, Vera, translator. „The Garden Party." Selected plays, 1963-83. By Václav
Havel, Faber & Faber, 1992. Print.
Havel, Václav. "Zahradní slavnost." Hry 1. Brno: Větrné mlýny, 2010. Print.
Novák, Jan, translator. Office party: a play in four acts. By Václav Havel, Prague:
Bookman, 2010. Print.
Secondary Sources
Aaltonen, Sirkku. Time-sharing on Stage: Drama Translation in Theatre and Society.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000. Print.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies: Revised Edition. London: Routledge, 1991. Print.
—. "Translating for the Theatre: The Case against Performability." TTR: traduction,
terminologie, redaction, vol. 4, no. 1, 1991, pp. 99-111, DOI: 10.7202/037084ar
Batty, Mark. "Acts with Words: Beckett, Translation, Mise en Scene and Authorship."
Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation, Edited by
Carole-Anne Upton. St. Jerome Publishing, 2000, pp. 63-72. Print.
Culík, Jan. The Theatre of The Absurd: The West and The East. 2000. Online,
https://blisty.cz/video/Slavonic/Absurd.htm
Cechová, Marie. "Dynamika frazeológie". Naše řeč, vol. 69, no. 4, 1986, pp. 178-186,
http://nase-rec.ujc.cas.cz/archiv.php?art=6639.
Darrow, Robert Arnold. Kierkegaard, Kafka, and the Strength of "The Absurd" in
Abraham's Sacrifice Of Isaac. 2005. Wright State University, Master's Thesis.
Drábek, Pavel. České pokusy o Shakespeara: Dějiny českých překladů Shakespeara
doplněné antologií neznámých a vzácných textů z let 1782-1922. Brno: Větrné
mlýny, 2012.
77
Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1980.
Print.
Espasa, Eva. "Performability in Translation: Speakability? Playability? Or just
Saleability?" Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation,
Edited by Carole-Anne Upton. St. Jerome Publishing, 2000, pp. 49-62. Print.
Esslin, Martin. The Field of Drama. London: Methuen Drama, 1987. Print
—. The Theatre of the Absurd. 3rd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1961. Print.
Fernandes, Alinne Balduino P. "Between Words and Silences: Translating for the Stage
and the Enlargement of Paradigms." Scientia Traductionis, no. 7, 2010.
dx.doi.org/10.5007/1980-4237.2010n7pll9
Goetz-Stankiewicz, Markéta. "The Metamorphosis of the Theatre of the Absurd or the
Jobless Jester." Pacific Coast Philology, vol. 7, 1972, pp. 54-64. JSTOR,
www.jstor,or g/stable/1316533.
—. The Silenced Theatre: Czech playwrights without a stage. University of Toronto
Press, 1979. Print.
Gooch, Steve. "Fatal Attraction." Stages of Translation. Edited by David Johnston.
Scarborough: Absolute Classics, 1996. Print.
Grossman, Jan, "Uvedení Zahradní slavnosti." Analýzy. Edited by Terezie Pokorná and
Jiří Holý. Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1991. Print.
Havel, Václav. "Anatomie gagu." O divadle, edited by Anna Freimanová, Prague:
Knihovna Václava Havla, 2012, pp. 170-182. Print.
—. "Daleko od divadla." Eseje ajiné texty z let 1970-1989: Dálkový výslech. Edited by
Jan Šulc, Prague: Torst, 1999, pp. 635-643. Print.
—. "Zvláštnosti divadla." Eseje ajiné texty z let 1953-1969. Edited by Jan Šulc, Prague:
Torst, 1999, pp. 801-830. Print.
78
Havel, Václav, and Karel Hvízdala. Dálkový výslech: (rozhovor s Karlem Hvížďalou).
Prague: Melantrich, 1989. Print.
Hořínek, Zdeněk. Drama, divadlo, divák. Brno: Janáčkova akademie múzických umění,
1991. Print.
Hořínek, Zdeněk, Ivan Vyskočil, and Jan Dvořák. O divadelní komedii. Prague: Pražská
scéna, 2003. Print.
Kačer, Miroslav. " K významové stavbě dramatické grotesky (Václav Havel: Zahradní
slavnost)." Struktura a smysl literárního díla. Prague: Československý spisovatel,
1966, pp. 215-228. Print.
Landers, Clifford E. "Translating for the theatre." Literary Translation, 104-106.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001.
Lefevere, André. Translating literature: practice and theory in a comparative literature
context. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1992. Print.
Levý, Jiří. The art of translation. Translated by Patric Corness, edited by Zuzana
Jettmarová, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011. Print.
Lukeš, Milan. Umění dramatu. Prague: Melantrich, 1987. Print.
Nikolarea, Ekaterini. "Performability versus Readability: A Historical Overview of a
Theoretical Polarization in Theater Translation". Translation Journal, vol. 6, no.
4, 2002, https://translationjournal.net/journal/22theater.htm
Rambousek, Jiří. "Notes on Translation of Václav Havel's Plays." Drama Translation
and Theatre Practice. Edited by Sabine Coelsch-Foisner and Holger Klein.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2004, pp. 159-170.
Suh, Joseph Che. "The Performability and Speakability Dimensions of Translated Drama
Texts". InTRAlinea. 2011, vol. 13, http://www.intralinea.org/archive/article/1671.
79
Stej skálová, Pavla. The Issues of Translating the Theatre of the Absurd in Václav Havel's
The Garden Party. 2015, Palacký University Olomouc, Bachelor's Thesis.
Štěrbová, Alena. Modelové hry Václava Havla. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2002.
Print.
Trensky, Paul I. "Václav Havel and the Language of the Absurd." The Slavic and East
European Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, 1969, pp. 42-65,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/306622.
Trtilek, Pavel. Specifika francouzského absurdního divadla. 2011. Brno: Janáčkova
akademie múzických umění, PhD Thesis.
Vančura, Zdeněk. "O překládání divadelních her." Slovo a slovesnost, vol. 3, no. 4, 1937,
pp. 232-236, http://sas.ujc.cas.cz/archiv.php?art=221.
Vivis, Anthony. "The Stages of a Translation." Stages of Translation. Edited by David
Johnston. Scarborough: Absolute Classics, 1996. Print.
Vodička, Libor. Vyjádřit hrou - podobenství a (sebe)stylizace v dramatu Václava Havla.
Praha: Brkola, 2013. Print.
Woods, Michelle. Censoring Translation: Censorship, Theatre and the Politics of
Translation. 2012, Continuum. Print.
Žák, Jiří, and Václav Havel. Hovory s V.H.: autentické svědectví o divadle, o kultuře, o
letech šedesátých. Prague: X Y Z , 2012. Print.
80