2/24 Readings - Olsson

In listening to Laurence Senelick’s lecture on the translations of Chekov, I was surprised by his insistence on limiting the amount of interpretation by the translators of the play, especially given his experience as an actor and director. In my time in theater, it was very common in English plays for directors to make choices (such as stage directions, scenery, costuming, and props) that would significantly influence an audience member’s view on the play. I don’t find literary translation to be all too different from those sorts of choices. In Jeremy Tiang’s lecture, he provides a plethora of examples of the opening lines to Chekov’s play The Seagull, from the deeply literal to the hyper-modern Stupid Fucking Bird. In each example, the playwright/translator team (because I agree that they should be considered a team) seek to pinpoint the essence of Chekov’s meaning while still appealing to their intended audience—mainly, English speakers. I find the idea of the playwright “leaving a mark” on the text to not be a betrayal of Chekov’s intent, but an attempt to convey that intent to a variety of possible audience members. Especially in theater, this tinkering with the original is crucial—Frayn sums it up best when they say “every line must be immediately comprehensible…there are no footnotes in theater.”