Kafka Translations

[Rores28]

Who is the best English translator of Kafka?

[kiki1982]

This is a first. Harman's translation of The Castle is much too idiomatic to be Kafka. So that's a no-no.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Anyone else have thoughts? I've have the B&N Classics version of his shorts which seem fine, but I'm wondering if there's better.

[dfloyd]

translated by Willa and Edwin Muir. The LEC books are high-end books so they usually have the best translations of the time. This 40 some page short story was published in 1986.

[kiki1982]

I am sorry, Dfloyd, but I have looked at Amerika by the Muirs and the first paragraph is shoddy to say the least. Far too fluent, too much interpretated and not enough Kafka. It rather reads very fluently like Dumas, not like Kafka. Kafka is bland, straight to the point and he sees the Statue of Liberty in 'strong sunlight' and not 'in a new light'.

[kiki1982]

It turns out that it is difficult to find a good one. Still looking...

[mal4mac]

Edwin Muir is an important English novelist and poet, so should not be dismissed out of hand. But the Oxford Guide to English Literature in Translation does give warnings about some lack of accuracy and the German manuscripts they used have been superseded (some by less coherent versions!) The Muirs get high praise for their English style & introductions.

I read "Metamorphosis and other stories" translated by Hofmann recently, in Penguin, and thought it was superb. He's translated most of Kafka recently, using the original manuscripts.

I've been looking for a good translation of Goethe's Faust, and have just about decided to go with John Williams in Wordsworth - I also noticed that he has translated some of Kafka's works. I compared some editions of the Trial and rather like his Kafka.

Kiki, you might like Williams' translators notes, you might like some things he does, like maintaining the formal German mode by using "Herr K.", and some things bad, he makes the text more "reader friendly", he breaks up the text into shorter paragraphs and replaces commas with semi-colons, Kafka is (in)famous for structuring by using strings of commas.

The Oxford Guide gives some praise to at least 12 different translators, and doesn't mention many who show up in Amazon - Kafka is popular! Choosing "the best" is impossible. Everyone will have different ideas of "the best" - e.g., Kiki prefers the most literal, I prefer "easy to read if accurate to sense".

Searching for a Kafka translation could quickly devolve into a Kafkaesque procedure, a never ending search through forums and Amazon book reviews that means you never get to read Kafka and spend your life in a frustrated, angst-ridden, crawl around the internet. Solution - just read whatever is in your library, or read the first few pages of the recommended translators that have been mentioned so far in this thread and plump for the one you like - escape from this thread now or you may never escape from the never ending LitNet translation discussions. Run away now. Read Kafka. :) (?)

[kiki1982]

Edwin Muir might be a respected novelist, his translation of the first paragraph of Amerika was shoddy. Too poetic and not bland enough.

Replacing commas with semi-colons might be easy to read as well, but it is still not Kafka. Commas reproduce the effect of breathlessness, quick consecutive sentences that follow one another as if they are connected, but they are not or just may be, it depends how one sees it. 'The street lay deep in snow, it was colder now, K walked more easily' (like it says in The Castle or something of the sort), produces a totally different effect than when it is done in separate sentences or with semi-colons. It is dry, it is quick and it does not leave one time to think. Yet, one can think that it is because it is colder that the snow is denser and that K walks more easily, but it could also be that K just walks more easily just accidentally, nothing to do with the cold whatsoever. Or could it be that the snow has come because it is colder and that K walks more easily just because there is more snow? Who will say it? There is a part in one chapter of The Castle that is a dialogue, written almost alone with commas. One can almost feel his feverish state, possibly, as Kafka was writing it when he was in the final stages of his tuberculosis. He wrote as therapy, and it is written in a passionate way, differently to other chapters, almost as if his thoughts came faster than his pen went. I believe he did not check it afterwards, or he would have noticed.

As it happens Kafka absolutely loathed people who interpreted his work too much and did not take it as it was.

Germans have the same problem with Kafka's commas so they should not be taken away, only in cases where German grammar prescribes a comma and where English does not, for example in subclauses. Only then, in my mind, it should be permitted.

Some of his sentences are several lines long and are absolute examples of masterful writing. They should not be broken up in separate sentences or the purpose of Kafka's prose is lost. Prose is words, a lot of words, and the purpose of words is a text, no more no less. The strength of Kafka is not poetry or clever words, not even general wisdom (a rounded text that has a message), as Emrich said, but it is his images. How is 'a different light' connected with 'strong sunlight', may I ask? Where do we end up if an image is already too difficult to just merely evoke?

http://www.kafka.org has got translations on their website for free in English. Johnston, I think, was the best for me.

[mal4mac]

I'm not sure about Johnston. Take the first sentence:

"In the last decades interest in hunger artists has declined considerably."

"In the last decades" - that's just not English (it might be American! Should British readers choose British translators?)

Hofmann has:

"In the last few decades, the interest in hunger-artists has suffered a marked decline."

That "few" is needed, but it's a bit wordy, maybe "has suffered a marked decline" is too British :)

Helmuth Kiesel seems to strike a happy medium:

"In the past few decades the interest in hunger artists has declined considerably."

[kiki1982]

Sorry to say, but my husband, a Brit and teacher of English in a pretty prestigious place, even to advanced translators who work professionally, does not agree with you. The expression, if it is one, 'in the last decades' seemed completely normal to him as meaning 'up till now, this point in time, through a number of years that is a multitude of ten', did not seem American at all to him. Johnston I believe is Canadian.

So the word 'few' is not at all needed, though not really false, although one should have a look at how many decades are meant really. Because it might as well be 'couple' instead of 'few' that needs to be put in the sentence, if needed at all.

On top of that 'has suffered a marked decline' has nothing to to with the sentence at all. The verb 'suffered' means that the writer, allegedly somewhat regrets the fact that that has happened. The German sentence reads literally what Johnston put there. 'has declined' ('ist zurückgegangen', 'has gone back' literally). Suffering has nothing to do with it, nor regret from the writer that any such decline is the case.
A better translation would even have been 'has declined very much', 'very much' being the 'sehr' in there, though 'considerably' maybe sounds that little bit more official, which Kafka would probably have approved of.

[mal4mac]

Sorry to say, but my husband, a Brit and teacher of English in a pretty prestigious place even to advanced translators who work professionally, does not agree with you.

OK, English is a pretty loose language, and I'm willing to accept your point, given that another English person is willing to accept it. But, if it is English, then it's not very good English, in my opinion, so that's still a black mark to Johnston, from me, if no one else.

"In the last decades..." gets me thinking (as well as the intended meaning): "What last decades are these? The last decades before the end of the Earth? Is this science fiction? ...

""In the last few decades..." simply gets me thinking the intended meaning: "...'last few decades up to the present'."

It's subtle, and maybe I'm being overly finicky, but there is a difference, at least for me, and I want the translator thinking about me :)

[kiki1982]

You could understand it like that yes, but the present perfect here clearly denotes that we are talking of something that has its origines in the past, though has its effect now, at the point we are speaking. Like 'I have eaten my breakfast' means that I have had it on a plate, which is now empty and that my stomach was empty, but is now full. Probably I am still sitting at the table as I would rather say a few hours later, 'I ate (my) breakfast this morning'.

If it were sience fiction, the sentence would read, 'in the last decades the interest in hunger artists will/will have decline(d)' (future or future perfect, depending on what you are going to say afterwards). If it were ancient history, the sentence would be, 'in the last decades (of the RR, f.e.) the interest in hunger artists declined/had declined' (simple past or past perfect depending on what you are going to say afterwards).

[mal4mac]

If it were science fiction, the sentence would read, 'in the last decades the interest in hunger artists will/will have decline(d)' (future or future perfect, depending on what you are going to say afterwards). If it were ancient history, the sentence would be, 'in the last decades (of the RR, f.e.) the interest in hunger artists declined/had declined' (simple past or past perfect depending on what you are going to say afterwards).

The narrator might be someone in the future speaking in "the last decades".

What is the literal translation of the German here? Maybe Kafka wanted some ambiguity.

Thinking again, maybe Kafka/Johnstone is trying to stress that this is in the "last decades" of the hunger artists.

There's a great discussion about different translations of Metamorphosis here:

http://iluvwords.blogspot.com/2009/02/franz-kafka-metamorphosis.html

The literal translation of the key event is: "transformed in his bed into a monstrous vermin." This is the phrasing used in the David Wyllie translation and Joachim Neugroschel.

But this, to me, is insufferably unwieldy. Johnstone is longer, but at least gets the bug - "monstrous verminous bug" Many translators use "insect" instead of "monstrous vermin", some use "bug". Hofmann, interestingly, uses "cockroach" - everyone's idea of a monstrous verminous bug. That's the approach I like - domesticating, easy to wield, but containg the necessary meaning.

A literal translation should be produced for the experts, with a note beside "monstrous verminous bug" saying everything in the iluvwords link... but for me, the general reader, I want a good, quick, apposite translation - like cockroach. Hofmann looks like the front runner, for me.

[kiki1982]

The narrator might be someone in the future speaking in "the last decades".

What is the literal translation of the German here? Maybe Kafka wanted some ambiguity.

Thinking again, maybe Kafka/Johnstone is trying to stress that this is in the "last decades" of the hunger artists.

The phenomenon of hungerartists began in exactly 1888 in America and ended with the very last hunger artist in 1950 with one slight imitator in 2003 for a modern art installation. However, the surge came at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20ieth and had considerably declined when Kafka wrote his story.

Even if the narrator were to find himself in a different era, he would still use the same grammatical construction (present perfect) at any rate.

The literal translation is as Johnston translated it, maybe instead of 'considerably' 'very much'. Nothing more. There is no possible ambiguity in the sentence. I would not be surprised if Kafka got that sentence as a whole or in part from a newspaper.


The literal translation of the key event is: "transformed in his bed into a monstrous vermin." This is the phrasing used in the David Wyllie translation and Joachim Neugroschel.

But this, to me, is insufferably unwieldy. Johnstone is longer, but at least gets the bug - "monstrous verminous bug" Many translators use "insect" instead of "monstrous vermin", some use "bug". Hofmann, interestingly, uses "cockroach" - everyone's idea of a monstrous verminous bug. That's the approach I like - domesticating, easy to wield, but containg the necessary meaning.

The term 'a vermin' is definitely used even by commonplace writers on the internet like you and me.

'Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungeziefer verwandelt.'

I would put it:

'When Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from restless dreams, he found himself changed into an enormous vermin in his bed.'

Although there is something to say for 'monstrous', 'enormous', I think, was meant by Kafka. He is always so delightfully simple that I don't think he wanted Gregor to sound like a monster straight away. However, just imagine a life size, human size, cockroach or something. You'd think it was a monster, wouldn't you, though Gregor as the giant vermin is a rather sympathetic character and we kind of curse the family for being like that, however knowing that we would do the same.

One could even go further and say:

'When Gregor Hamsa awoke one morning from restless dreams, he found himself lying in his bed, changed into an enormous vermin.'

'In his bed' is a little bit of a problem as German permits any stuff to go in the middle of the sentence as long as it is in the right place behind the indirect object. You have a little bit of a problem here with that.
Putting an extra word is not very nice as it ruins the flow of the sentence and takes its simplicity away, but still it sheds a light on the next problem Gregor is to face: how to get up.

'Cockroach' might seem the quintessential verminous bug, but is that term 'Ungeziefer' (vermin) not rather chosen to be something general, rather than something defined and is the behaviour that Gregor shows really cockroachy, or are there features which a cockraoch does not have?

[mal4mac]

I would put it:

... he found himself changed into an enormous vermin in his bed.'



Vermin seems too general - is he a rat? According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis#Lost_in_translation

Ungeziefer literally means "unclean animal not suitable for sacrifice" [2] and is sometimes used colloquially to mean "bug". Although my small German dictionary does have it as "vermin".

Note - Kafka definitely had some kind of insect in mind, as he mentioned in a letter to his publisher. So perhaps "verminous insect" is the best almost-literal translation? But that seems wrong.

An English person having a giant, horrible insect fall on them, half seen, in the twilight, in the bathroom wouldn't shout out "There's a verminous insect!". They would scream, ay "Monster cockroach! ... beetle, ... something...". And scream again. Surely Kafka is going for that kind of effect?

Interesting article here, both criticising and praising Hofmann's 'poetic' translations:

http://www.nysun.com/arts/kafka-lightens-up/72361/

' "Cockroach" will appeal to new readers; it is muscular, it is precise, but it is other than what Kafka says." '

[kiki1982]

Correction, we are talking Middle German here, which was the medieval version of German. My Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch defines 'Ungeziefer' as follows:

Tier, Schädlinge u. Schmarotzer (bes. Insekten, auch Ratten u.a.), die Menschen, Tiere, Pflanzen, Stoffe, Vorräte angreifen [< mhd ungezibere, zu ahd. zebar, Zepar "Opfertier", altengl "Opfer"; also urspr. "alles, was nicht als Opfertier eignet"]

Animal, vermin and parasites (esp. insects, also rats and others), which attack people, animals, plants, material, reserves [from Mittel Hoch Deutsch 'ungezibere', from Alt Hoch Deutsch zebar, Zepar "sacrificial animal", Old English "sacrifice"; also orig. "all animals which are not fit for sacrifice]

The link with sacrifice I think is interesting here. It really blots out any possible translation with insects alone. Although Kafka intended it to be an insect, which he also writes to his publisher, it is clear that he did not picture it as a cockroach, nor like any other insect really. The term 'Ungeziefer' with which the story is started, which is then further developed in Ungeziefer being an insect of some sort, not really identified (as he is also called a dung beetle at some point by the house maid, though never by the narrator) points to me as being of importance in the spectrum of being expelled from society, as Jews were. It is a theme that regularly comes back in his work. Not only the Jews in general, but possibly also the relationship with his father made him choose such themes.

Though Kafka did not approve of any interpretation, he does put hints forward in his immages, though they never add up to only one interpretation, and the term 'Ungeziefer' does not call up the image of an insect straight away, only the second sentence makes him such a thing.

No, someone who was standing in his bathroom would not call it a 'verminous insect', but that is hardly the point. Kafka would also not have shouted 'ein Ungeziefer', as that is equally stupid. That is hardly the point. Written language is another medium than speech. I doubt whether Kafka went for the horrible effect. The first sentence is rather strange than anything horrible and the rest of the first part is hilarious. It is not gothic novel.

Vermin is still the best choice, as it has also been a term for 'noxious people' sinds the 16th century and it has its origins in Latin 'vermis' as 'worm'. Not a bad choice at all. 'Cockroach' is far too easy and 'verminous insect' far too clinical.

[LMK]

How about David Wyllie's translation?

I have read some of the Muirs' translations of Kafka, but of course, not having the ability to read the original I am in no position to recommend a translator.

As I understand it, translating Kafka is not an easy task as his punctuation and sentence structure did not follow the standards of the time, so I would be careful in criticizing a translator's choice of same. This is only my opinion.

It is a constant concern of mine when I read a work that has been translated because I know I am at the mercy of the translator and hopeful that they were true to the original author as well as can be.

[kiki1982]

The problem with his punctuation is that it is chiefly commas which he uses. Partly because in German all subclauses have to be separated from the main clause by commas (all whens, ifs etc), so they need to go in English (though not all, depending on which 'which'-sentence you are using, limiting or extra information) and partly because he does not so much use semi-colons. The effect of this is that he reads fast, almost too fast at some points. Sometimes, his sentences turn into a wood of words, which is admirable if you look back, but you need a second time to understand. He can make these sentences which are just amazing because he contradicts his initial statement and then contradicts the contradiction he has made of the initial statement, and then contradicts the contradiction of the contradiction. Not in The Metamorphosis, but in others. Simply admirable and great skill in language.

I have looked at David Wyllie's translation of The Metamorphosis and it is not bad. Though he breaks the thing up in more sentences, which is a little bit of a shame regarding what I said above, and he also takes away the sections where Kafka uses a string of adjectives. Like in the second sentence of that work in which he describes Gregor as the insect he turns out to be:

'Er lag auf seinem panzerartig harten Rücken und sah, wenn er den Kopf ein wenig hob, seinen gewölbten, braunen, von bogenförmigen Versteifungen geteilten Bauch, auf dessen Höhe sich die Bettdecke, zum gänzlichen Niedergleiten bereit, kaum noch erhalten konnte. Seine vielen, im Vergleich zu seinem sonstigen Umfang kläglich dünnen Beine flimmerten ihm hilflos vor den Augen.'

'He was lying on his armour-like hard back and saw, when he lifted his head a little, his brown, arched stomach, divided by stiff curves on whose level the blanket, prepared for complete sliding off, could barely still keep itself. His many legs, in comparison to the rest of his size so pitiously thin, flickered helplessly before his eyes.'

The bold sections in English should really be:

'arched, brown, divided by stiff curves stomach' (the thing about the curves does not work, though the brown arched one does).
'many, in comparison to the rest of his size so pitiously thin legs' (could work, though does not read smoothly)

It is also weird that Kafka makes every little thing responsible for its own actions. The blanket does not have a will, still it cannot get itself to stay on Gregor's stomach and is ready to slide off at any moment. Still, it will depend on Gregor himself. If he moves about too much, the blanket will slide off... 'Flicker' has to do, I think, with the light which shines into the room and which is obstructed with the legs waving about in front of Gregor's eyes, producing a flickering effect. Different from 'waving about'.

But I think you see a difference between Wyllie and the above in terms of reading speed. Still, on the whole, Wyllie wasn't bad. He did break the sentences up, but that is really the only thing you can say, apart from the long series of adjectives. At least he is not too poetic or anything which is a definite no-no.

If you are looking for a translation of Kafka, look for something non-idiomatic. Kafka did not use a lot of idioms. He only compares ('as if', 'like', etc). The strength is in his images, not in his words. He was a doctor in law, so he was to the point, but he had strong images which say a lot. His language is bland, but because of that extremely hilarious in places.

[mal4mac]

Well, obviously, *too* poetic is a no-no. But is *as poetic as Hofmann* a no no?

Here's Hofmann's translation of the second sentence:

'He lay on his tough, armoured back, and, raising his head a little, managed to see - sectioned off by little crescent-shaped ridges into segments - the expanse of his arched, brown belly, atop which the coverlet perched, forever on the point of slipping off entirely. His numerous legs, pathetically frail by contrast to the rest of him, waved feebly before his eyes.'

To me, Hofmann reads far more smoothly.

'Flicker' doesn't scan well, in English at least. Hofmann's "waved" is better - water waves flicker so the allusion (distant, admitted!) is there.

I think it's far more important to keep to the spirit of the original, and convey that spirit in fluent English, than to keep to the letter - at least for me, the general reader.

Here's someone else praising Hofmann:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2007/jun/07/whyaregoodtranslationssor

"With the uncanny prescience of someone with an acute, laser-like artistic vision, Kafka anticipated the future of civilisation - not Orwell's boot forever stamping on a human face, but tiny minds not so much bending the rules to suit their ends, as using the very idea of rules to grind down their victims to the point where humanity can be plausibly denied. That Kafka's penal colony, like Guantánamo, is located in the tropics, makes him seem more of a clairvoyant than a fabulist. Of course, the beauty of Kafka's work is that it is open to various interpretations. Make up your own minds." - Nicholas Lezard

[kiki1982]

'He lay on his tough, armoured back, and, raising his head a little, managed to see - sectioned off by little crescent-shaped ridges into segments - the expanse of his arched, brown belly, atop which the coverlet perched, forever on the point of slipping off entirely. His numerous legs, pathetically frail by contrast to the rest of him, waved feebly before his eyes.'

To me, that English sounds like English from an earlier century and not English from the 20ies. We must remember that Kafka did not write in the nineteenth century although some of his situations seem to originate in such a time, indefinite as that time is... For example in The Castle.

Still, I think Hofmann is doing great work as a prose artist, but he is making his own version rather than taking over the very bland and hilarious tone of Kafka's writing who makes it seem like any old thing that is happening. Gregor does not manage to see, he sees when he lifts his head; he does not see the 'expanse' of his belly, but he just sees his belly, as one would see it normally; his legs are not frail, but thin. Frail in German would be 'schwach' or something of the sort, not plainly 'dünn' ('thin'). His legs did not wave (which does work better although they do not give the impression of coming and disappearing as they do in German, like there is that flashing effect you get when a hard rock band is performing) feebly, but they move about helplessly.

They do indeed. I recently had an animal of the sort in my library, lying on its back, and indeed, I saw Gregor Samsa flash in front of my eyes. The animal was there (I was afraid of it so to take it outside was not an option) helplessly trying to get off its back, waving its legs about for hours.
Of course that is pathetic, but Kafka never made that insinuation by himself, so it should not be made by the translator either.

I grant you that it reads smoothly, but it is far too flowery to have anything to do with Kafka. He was lawyer and writes like one, clear and to the point. The description is a truthful and neutral description, not one that has much emotion in it. Hofmann is maybe rather suited to do older stuff.

[mal4mac]

I've been trying to argue for Hofmann as being clearer, and less literal, at least compared to the examples given. Now here is someone arguing the opposite, about Hofmann's Amerika:

"Edwin Muir's translation of Brod's edited version has had, as Hofmann says in his useful introduction, enough time to weather and settle. Hofmann aims to give us something altogether less mellifluous, closer to Kafka's rough drafts. This puts a special onus on him as a translator, rather than letting him off the hook. One or two things caught my ear: I'm not sure the literalism ''he was so surprised he forgot to make himself heavy'' (idiomatically, ''to brace himself'') works terribly well..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/books/take-the-new-york-to-boston-bridge.html?pagewanted=2

That "forgot to make himself heavy" is awful! So much for Hofmann being the enemy of literalism and hero of colloquial English that I was trying to show him to be, and that he seems to be at the beginning of Metamorphosis. Maybe Hofmann is trying to escape categorisation? Maybe he's sick of being called 'easy to read' and so decided to become 'hard' in "Amerika". Very Kafkaesque.

[.Kafka]

Learn German, Foolish Englishmen.

[kiki1982]

"Edwin Muir's translation of Brod's edited version has had, as Hofmann says in his useful introduction, enough time to weather and settle. Hofmann aims to give us something altogether less mellifluous, closer to Kafka's rough drafts. This puts a special onus on him as a translator, rather than letting him off the hook. One or two things caught my ear: I'm not sure the literalism ''he was so surprised he forgot to make himself heavy'' (idiomatically, ''to brace himself'') works terribly well..."

Now that is exactly what I thought about Muir. Too sirupy. Kafka did not write lyrically, not even in his letters.

I am not sure whether 'to make oneself heavy' does not work in English. It does not mean 'to brace oneself' here, but it means literally to totally relax so one becomes very heavy so as to make carrying very difficult for someone who wants to do that with you. Like a child really that puts itself on the ground when it does not want to come with one.

Here is the sentence (3rd chapter: Ein Landhaus bei New York/A mansion around New York:

'Und wirklich umfaßte sie ihn und trug ihn, der verblüfft sich zuerst schwer zu machen vergaß, mit ihrem vom Sport gestählten Körper fast bis zum Fenster.'

'And she really put her arms round him and carried him, who, surprised, firstly forgot to make himself heavy, almost to the window with her for sports hardenend body.'

'To brace oneself' means prepare for a blow/misfortune. That is not what he is trying to do, or should have done. Maybe there is another word for it, though.