Peter Straub's Ghost Story is very different from Malory's book as the setting is the modern world. Still, there are some similarities. The violence is there, even though it is different from the violence found in Malory's book. In Ghost Story there are graphically detailed scenes of werewolves strangling people and ripping them into pieces etc. as in Malory's book, the violent scenes are also detailed, but the purpose of this is to give a detailed account on what happened and to make the heroes look more heroic, not to try to scare the reader as much as possible.
Both books include the supernatural element, although in slightly different forms. In Ghost Story it is something evil which threatens all people. In Malory's book it is usually represented by magic and miracles.
The format of Ghost Story differs from the format of Malory's book, because Ghost Story is a continuous story, in which the events are more closely connected to each other. This makes it a better example than PR for illustrating the effects of editing and making omissions related to each other (chains of omissions). From now on, I will refer to Ghost Story as GS and Kummitusjuttu as KJ.
According to Jones et al. (1988:243), Peter Straub is "probably regarded second only to his friend Stephen King as America's most popular horror novelist". His other books include "Julia", "If you could see me now", "Koko", and "Talisman", which he and King wrote together. Ghost Story has also been filmed in 1981 and there is an audio book version of the book, which is even more abridged than the Finnish translation.
The plot of the Ghost Story is simple: Don Wanderley arrives in Milburn to investigate his uncle's death, and meets his uncle's friends there. Don, the Chowder Society (consisting of his uncle's friends - John, Lewis, Ricky and Sears) and Peter, a teenager who gets involved with the case, encounter some nonhuman creatures, shapeshifters, who can take different shapes. One of these creatures, Alma Mobley, who uses many different names but always the same initials, is known to them all, but they all have a different name for her as she has appeared to each of them several times before, in different places and times. She has come to Milburn for revenge, because the Chowder Society once resisted her and killed her (although she did not die, she just changed shape). So Don and the Chowder Society must fight against her and her companions to save the town.
The translator is Matti Kannosto who, judging on what else he has translated, is an experienced translator. He has translated many science fiction books written by, for example, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, A. C. Clarke, Stanislav Lem, Robert A. Heinlein and C. S. Lewis. The list is quite impressive as these writers belong to the most famous science fiction writers. Before 1979, Kannosto had already translated about 30 books, including a couple of Asimov's and Clarke's books. So, it is probably safe to assume that he was a good translator of fiction already at that time.
The shortening of this book has been done in a different way than the shortening of Malory's book, and because of this, the categories I made up for Malory's book are not applicable to this one. Actually, the translation has been shortened very much as recommended by Klingberg. I have used two categories for describing the abridgements: abridgement and edition. Abridgement means that text has been left out, but the contents have not been changed in any other way. Edition means that the translator has changed the remaining text in some way, for example, by adding some text or moving text to another place.
First, I will present some general remarks on how the book was shortened and some remarks on the content, form and style. Then I will present some examples of abridgement and edition and how they affect the translation. After dealing with the techniques of making abridged translations the translator has used, I will see whether the deletions form any patterns, as was the case with the translation of Malory's book.
Mostly the deleted parts of the text are those describing the scenery, the characteristics of persons or some event that has no direct connection with Don or the Chowder Society. These may be considered unimportant as concerns the main events. However, their function in the source text is to get the reader to know the people and places, to understand the things that happen and their causes, and, of course, to entertain the reader, as that can be seen as the main function of the text.
These deletions may be considered as deleting the parts the readers are not interested in, as mentioned earlier (see chapter 3.2) in listing the reasons for shortening Klingberg gives in his book. The translator has been at least partially right, if he has made this kind of an assumption, as one of the most important aspects of the source text is to build up the suspense. The omitted descriptive parts are not all necessary in fulfilling this function, so if shortening must be done, these seem to appropriate parts to be left out.
This kind of deletion affects the speed of the events. When you describe the background of events and the people and places in great detail, the pace of the story is slower. When you delete the descriptive parts, the events speed up. There's no time 'wasted' in describing what might be called secondary matters. The events take place in fast succession without any significant breaks. The reader is given no time to lose interest on what's happening.
The other parts that have been deleted are mostly connected with certain people. In the source text the reader is introduced to various people other than the main characters, many of whom are described in more detail during the course of the events. In the translation, some of these people of minor importance are mentioned only briefly and some of them have been left out altogether, which is understandable, as describing them in more detail would place some emphasis on them, and this could be misleading, if they did not have an important part to play in the shortened version.
However, there are some quite important persons whose role has been considerably diminished. I will deal with these deletions under the heading "Emerging patterns" (chapter 5.4).
As this book is a modern novel translated for approximately the same type of a readership as the source text was written for, the requirement of not altering the content, form or style can be studied. First, I will explain the structure of the book, and then I will see what can be said about the content and style.
The book has a prologue, three parts and an epilogue. Each of the three parts (level 1) is divided into chapters (level 2), which are divided into numbered passages (level 3), which sometimes have their own heading. From now on I will refer to these parts with the level numbers I have stated above.
In the source text, each part at level 1 and 2 begins with a quotation. All but the first one of these quotations (at the beginning of the book) have been left out from the translation. In level 3, passages have sometimes been combined, which decreases their number. The reason for this is probably the overall shortening of the text. Some of the numbered parts could have become too short, if no combining had been done.
Example 9 shows one change in the structure of the book. Pages 299-339 of GS have the structure shown on the left, and the corresponding structure of KJ (170-187) is shown on the right:
|
9) |
|
|
6 Housebreaking, Part one |
5 Murto |
|
7 |
|
|
8 Housebreaking, Part two |
|
|
9 |
6 |
|
10 Housebreaking, Part three |
7 Murto, jatkoa |
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
8 |
|
13 |
9 |
It should be noted that only passages on level 3 are combined. The division of the book into 3 parts and the division of these parts to chapters has been retained.
The request for not damaging the content is not very practical when talking about abridged translations. Usually, the content differs slightly from the source text even in unabridged translations, so it is impossible not to 'damage' the content when deleting parts of the text. The same is true for the style as Oittinen points out in her criticism (see chapter 3.2). There are some changes in the style and content, which the translator has introduced to the translation and which may be considered unnecessary (see chapter 5.3.4).
There are several quite long deletions. The longest ones consist of several pages. Most deletions are much shorter, usually a couple of paragraphs or about one page. With the length of a deletion, I always mean the length of a continuous deletion.
A good example of a long passage, which can be safely omitted, is the story of Robert Mobley, the man Alma said to be her father, but who had never had any daughter (GS:424-427). This story is easy to leave out, because all references to it are in one place (GS:442-443) and the story is not significant for the plot as its function is to give more details about Alma's background and nature.
Other examples of very long omissions can be found in the description of doctor Jaffrey's party (4 pages omitted) (GS:138-142), and in part 2, chapter 3, where the first numbered part (5 pages) has been deleted entirely (GS:253-258).
The description of Jaffrey's party includes various people who can be safely deleted as they are not important as regards the main events. The latter omission is a description of various seemingly unrelated events taking place in the town during a two-week period. However, they all reflect the influence of Alma and the shapeshifters, but they are not essential to the story and mostly they are not referred to later. Perhaps the translator has chosen to omit these parts just because their main purpose is to provide some background information, which is not essential. Deleting other kind of passages of this length would probably present some serious problems with the logic of the text.
Deleting sentences within paragraphs is one of the methods recommended by Klingberg. The translator has used this method when not leaving out whole paragraphs, although some parts of the text have not been shortened at all.
Here is an example of shortening text by deleting sentences within paragraphs. The underlinings are mine, and they show which parts have been omitted. As can be seen from the translation, a passage can be just as coherent as the unabridged original, if you select the omission carefully.
10)
"Hang on," Don said, and went to his dresser and took out a bottle of whiskey. He poured an inch into a water glass and gave it to Peter. "Drink some of this and settle down. Then just tell me everything that happened. Don't waste time thinking that I might not believe you, because I will. And so will Mr. Hawthorne and Mr. James, when I tell them.
"'My older friends,'" Peter said. He swallowed some of the whiskey. "That's what he called them. He said you thought his name was Greg Benton."
"You met him," he said.
"He killed my mother," Peter said flatly. "His brother held me and made me watch. I think - I think they drank her blood. Like they did to those animals. And he killed Jim Hardie. I saw him do that, but I got away."
"Go on," Don said.
"And he said someone - I can't remember his name - would call him a Manitou. Do you know what that is."
"I've heard of it." (GS:399)
Don kaatoi lasiin pari senttiä viskiä ja antoi sen Peterille. - Juohan tuo. Ja kerro sitten kaikki mitä on tapahtunut.
- "Vanhemmat ystäväni", Peter virkahti. - Niitä sanoja hän käytti. Hän väitti sinun tuntevan hänet Greg Bentonina.
Peter värähti sanoessaan nimen. - Hän tappoi äitini. Hänen veljensä piteli minua käsistä ja pakotti katsomaan. Minä luulen - minä luulen että he joivat hänen verensä. Hän tappoi myös Jim Hardien. Ja hän sanoi että joku - en muista kuka - nimittäisi häntä Manitouksi. Mikä on Manitou?
- Eräs intiaanien taruhahmo, joka osaa muuttaa muotoaan. (KJ: 224)
The translator has also introduced changes to the text in addition to abridging it. Often the changes are small, for example, combining several sentences into one sentence. Sometimes the translator has moved a part of the text somewhere else than where it originally was. An example of this is a translated paragraph, which contains text from two separate pages of the source text. The first passage is the one that has been moved from its original place. It is part of a passage that has otherwise been omitted.
11)
Think of the initials. Anna Mostyn, Alma Mobley, Ann-Veronica Moore. That was playfulness - she wanted us to notice the similarity. (GS:422)
"Then these - these things you think exist - are even more dangerous. They have wit," Sears said.
"Yes they do have wit. They love jokes, and they make long-term plans, and like the Indians' Manitou, they love to flaunt themselves..." (GS:424)
- Jos näitä - näitä olioita on todella olemassa, niin ne ovat kaksin verroin vaarallisia sen takia että ne ovat älykkäitä.
- Niin ne ovat. Ja älykkyyden lisäksi niillä on myös huumorintajua - ajatelkaa samoja alkukirjaimia: Anna Mostyn, Alma Mobley, Ann-Veronica Moore - olen varma että hän halusi meidän huomaavan yhtäläisyyden. Ja intiaanien Manitoun tavoin ne ylvästelevät ja pöyhistelevät mielellään. (KJ:237)
The translator has probably transferred the text because it is important, but it would not have fit into its original place in the translation due to the omission before and after it. The combined translation fits the context, but the translator could also have included enough of the omitted passage to keep the text in its own place.
Another type of editing is adding text to make the translated text logical and cohesive. In the next example, the translator has moved part of the text and written two new sentences to fit the text into its new place. The text can be found in GS:237-238 and KJ:139-141.
The events start as Alma and Don arrive at the cabin owned by Don's brother. Alma starts to talk about their oncoming marriage and about her ex-lover. Don has difficulties in accepting that his feelings for Alma have changed. One night Alma is awake and Don asks her what is wrong, and Alma answers that she saw a ghost. Finally, Don and Alma return to Berkeley. Then Alma disappears as Don is trying to find her to tell her that it is all over. The next day Don sees a pale man. He is Greg Benton, the same man Don had seen with Alma some time ago.
In the translation, the part about Alma seeing the ghost has been transferred to the moment Don sees the pale man. When Don sees the man, he remembers what Alma said that night. The translator has added two sentences, first of them is:
12)
Syystä tai toisesta muistin miten Alma oli istunut Davidin mökillä tyylikkäässä asennossa sohvalla ja sanonut: (KJ:141)
After that follows the description of what she said at that time and what she said at night when she said she had seen a ghost. Then Don returns to the present:
13)
Tässä vaiheessa heräsin ajatuksistani ja näin silmissäni uudelleen Greg Bentonin. (KJ:141)
There is really no reason for this transfer, especially as it has required inserting new text into the translation. It would have been possible to keep the text in its original position by translating a couple of sentences from the parts that were left out of these events.
The translator has edited the text in a same way in some other places also. In the following example the relationship between father and son has become somewhat simpler, because of the editing. Between the two parts presented here, there is lengthy discussion that has been deleted from the translation, but as that is not relevant to the issue in question, I have not included it. The underlining is mine and it shows the added part.
14)
"Did he get wild Saturday night?"
Peter set down the glass and looked with feigned calm at his father. "No, weren't we quiet enough?"
Walter Barnes took off his glasses and polished them on his vest. "You're still trying to tell me you were here that night?"
Peter knew better than to stick to the lie. He shook his head.
"I don't know where you were, and I'm not going to ask. You're eighteen, and you have a right to your privacy. (GS:289)
I'm going to ask you a few questions, Pete. You didn't have anything to do with the Dedham girls' horse being killed, did you? (GS:290)
- Innostuiko hän liikaa lauantai-iltana?
Peter laski lasin pöydälle ja katsoi isäänsä rauhalliseksi tekeytyen. - Ei, me pelasimme korttia.
- Vastaapa pariin kysymykseen. Oliko sinulle mitään tekemistä Dedhamin tyttöjen hevosen kuoleman kanssa? (KJ:165)
The addition has been taken from an earlier passage in which Jim tells Peter what he must say. This is a logical solution as the earlier part has been included in the translation.
15)
- now listen, if anybody asks where you were tonight, you were playing poker with me, we were playing poker in your basement just like last night, right? (GS:285)
- Kuule nyt, jos joku kysyy missä sinä olit tänä iltana, niin sinä pelasit pokkaa minun kanssani, me pelasimme teidän kellarissa niin kuin eilenkin. Tuliko selväksi? (KJ:163)
One change involves an addition to the end of the text in example 10. In the original text Don says about Manitou: "I've heard of it." In the translation he says "Eräs intiaanien taruhahmo, joka osaa muuttaa muotoaan". That part of the text where Manitou is originally explained is deleted (GS:257), because it involves Stella and her lover, Harold (see chapter 5.4). So, the translator has decided to add the explanation to this part of the text. This seems to be a logical solution, if Harold must be left out.
Other changes to the text include the part where Lewis tells about what happened to his wife. For some reason the dialogue has been translated as narration.
16)
Mrs. de Peyser said 'Would you mind? She likes you very much.' Sure, I said, I'd be happy to say good night to the girl, but Linda stood up before I could and said, 'Darling, you're too tired to move. Let me go.' 'No,' said Mrs. de Peyser. 'The child wants him.' But it was too late. Linda was already going toward the girl's bedroom. (GS:373)
Rouva de Peyser ehdotti, että menisin katsomaan häntä, koska hän kuulemma piti minusta paljon. Minä vastasin, että menisin mielelläni sanomaan hänelle hyvää yötä, mutta Linda nousi ennen kuin minä ehdin ja sanoi menevänsä puolestani, koska minä olin liian väsynyt. Rouva de Peyser vastusteli ja sanoi lapsen haluavan nimenomaan minua, mutta se oli jo myöhäistä, Linda oli jo menossa. (KJ:208)
Minor change showing adaptation to the target society is changing a television program's name from 'Starsky and Hutch' to 'Kojak' (GS:328, KJ:182). Both have been shown in Finland, but I'm not sure whether Starsky and Hutch was shown before or after 1979. Also, a reference to Van Helsing, the vampire hunter who can be found at least in the Vampirella comics magazines, has been removed (GS:195) although the magazine was published also in Finland in the 1970's.
A pattern, which is just the opposite of what could be found in "Pyöreän pöydän ritarit", is present in KJ. GS is a horror story, both originally and in translation, and it seems that the translator has chosen to systematically omit peaceful, non-violent parts from the text rather than horror and excitement. A good example of this is the fact that the nightmare scene (GS:85-88, KJ:57-60), which is one of the most horrifying parts of the book, has not been shortened at all. The phenomenon is really the same - choosing certain kind of parts and deleting them - but I doubt if it can be called censorship as there is nothing inappropriate in the omitted parts. Maybe it could be called "selection on the basis of function".
The acceptability of this can be questioned just as the acceptability of censorship as this also changes the proportions of different types of events, that is, it changes the style. However, the function of the translation may justify this change. The question is when does a valid reason for making selections on the basis of function become censorship, which is not acceptable, at least according to Klingberg. You could argue that in PR there is no censorship, but the translator has selected the omitted parts on the basis of function just as the translator of GS has done.
Chains of omissions are inevitable in this kind of translation. If you want to keep the text logical, you cannot avoid these as you need to delete references to persons or events which have been left out.
The omissions of persons and events are so interrelated that I have not studied them separately. Only in a few cases a person has been omitted totally. Usually it is a question of omitting certain persons from certain situations and thus diminishing their role.
Diminishing a person's role can be done in varying degrees depending on the importance of the person in the story. Even though the translator has not done it, it could also be possible to mention a person only in connection with the event from which the person cannot be left out. When doing this, additional explanations could be required (for example, explaining why the person is important in this connection).
An example illustrating some of the problems caused by diminishing a person's role concerns Stella, Ricky's wife: The affair Stella had with Harold has been removed. In the source text, there are many references to this relationship and also Harold is described in more detail (GS: 58, 140-142, 257, 272, 347). In the translation the affair is mentioned only once, when Stella is leaving him (GS:366-371, KJ:204-206). This scene reveals some important facts about Stella: she had had an affair with Harold for months, this was not the first time she had had an affair, and Ricky was more important to her than any of the other men.
So, the most important points are told, but the problem is the fact that this is revealed so late. In the source text, the reader is aware of this part of Stella in a relatively early stage. One aspect that is left out of the translation is that Ricky knew about Stella's habit of having affairs with other men and had accustomed himself to it.
Also, leaving Harold out almost entirely causes some problems as regards Manitou. As was mentioned earlier, Manitou was explained shortly in page 244 of KJ. The original, and longer, explanation of Manitou was given by Harold on page 257 of GS, and some additional text on page 272 of GS. In the translation, Harold is mentioned without any references to Manitou, and this makes the remark of the werewolf called Gregory slightly confusing. He says to Peter:
17)
A man named Harold Sims who knows your older friends would undoubtedly say that I am a Manitou. (GS:377)
Muuan Harold Sims, joka tuntee joukon vanhoja ystäviäsi, sanoisi epäilemättä että olen Manitou. (KJ:211)
In the original, it is clear why this is so, but in the translation, this remark has no explanation. On the other hand, it could not have been left out, as the idea of shapeshifters having different names in different times and among different people is an important one.
Often the chains of omissions are such that the first omission and references to it are located close to each other. The sheriff's phone call to Ricky (GS:480-482) is a good example of this and of omitting a person from a certain situation: The sheriff called Ricky. Stella was sitting on chair and Don squatted on the floor beside it. Don looked at Ricky while he was talking. After the sheriff hung up, Ricky said that the sheriff had lost his mind. Stella started to cry and Ricky said that he was the only one left of the Chowder Society. The three of them put their arms around each other for consolation. In the translation (KJ:269-270) there are only Ricky and Stella - Don is not mentioned. The passage ends to Ricky's words about him being the last one of the Chowder Society.
An example of an easily executable chain of omissions can be found from the story of Eva Galli. Also in this case, all related omissions are close to each other: within three consecutive pages. The underlines are mine and show the omitted parts.
18)
"And to talk about her," Ricky said. "Do you know that Ernest Dowson poem: 'I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion'? Lewis found it and read it to us. That poem went through us like a knife. 'Thy pale lost lilies.' It certainly called for more applejack. 'Madder music and stronger wine.' What idiots we were. Anyhow, she turned up one night at Edward's apartment." (GS:413)
"We were speechless," Sears said. "There was our unattainable goddess, cursing like a sailor and raging...acting like a whore. 'Madder music and stronger wine.' That's what we got all right. (GS:414)
"She tried to seduce Lewis."
"He was the worst possible choice," Sears said. "Lewis was only a boy. He may have kissed a gal before that night, but he certainly had done no more than that. We all loved Eva, but Lewis probably loved her most - he was the one who found that Dowson poem, remember. And because he loved her most, her performance that evening and her hatred stunned him." (GS:415)
As I already mentioned in chapter 5.3.1, omissions may affect the speed of the events. For example, Don's relationship with Alma in Berkeley is considerably shorter in the translation than in the source text.
Don had a lecture on Hawthorne and Professor Lieberman asked him to give a lecture on Stephen Crane in two months' time (GS:212). The same day Don met Alma and asked her to go with him to a movie the following night (GS:217). For 10 days Don was with Alma always when he was not teaching (GS:224) and even after the first weeks he spent less time on teaching than he had before (GS:225). The lecture day drew nearer and Don had to work for a couple of evenings (GS:226) and he went to his apartment in which he "had spent very little time during the previous month and a half" (GS:227). After the lecture Don and Alma went to Don's brother's cottage for a weekend (GS:236) and two months after that Alma disappeared (GS:239) In all, Don had known Alma for six months as he states in his story (GS:214).
In the translation, the Crane lecture is in one month's time (KJ:123). Don asks Alma to movie the same night he meets her (KJ:126). There is no mention about the first weeks or, later, the previous month and a half. The weekend on the cottage is mentioned (KJ:139), but nothing about the following two months. Then Alma disappears. All this shortens the length of their relationship considerably. Originally it lasted six months, but in the translation it would probably be less than two months.
Perhaps the translator has made these changes, because there could be too many gaps in their relationship, if its time span was the same as in the source text.
Omitting some parts of the text may change the interpretation of events or people's character. One example of this has already been presented. It is example 14 in which the relationship between father and son has changed in translation. The following story about Sears and Fenny (GS:66-67, KJ:48-50) shows how person's motives may change when something is left out.
In the source text, Fenny and his sister Constance stopped coming to school. On Sundays Sears went to church and after a while he decided to talk to the minister about the situation, but did not do it yet. Then the children returned to school and because Fenny's appearence frightened Sears, he went to talk to the minister. In the translation, the children stopped coming to school and then finally came back. Then it is mentioned that Sears went to church on Sundays and decided to talk to the minister and did it right away.
In this case the motive for the discussion has changed. Originally, Sears was frightened of Fenny and that is why he finally went to talk to the minister. In the translation he just got the opportunity and used it. Also, the time between the decision and the actual discussion with the minister is shorter than in the source text.
Shortening seems to work better for this kind of book as this is one continuous story. It is probably easier to select the relevant parts when you have a clear division between main characters, those near them and other characters, who have only minor roles.
The translator has succeeded in keeping the text logical for the most part. The shortening does not show: it is difficult to say which parts of the text have been shortened without comparing the source text and the translation. The story is continuous without any noticeable gaps and the translation fulfills its function. This could probably be seen as criteria for good translation as the story should be complete even in a shortened form.
The translator has had the possibility of keeping the style as close to the original as possible. He has made some changes, which can be considered unnecessary as the text could have been translated in a slightly different manner in order to avoid these changes. Considering Klingberg's requirement of unaltered style and Oittinen's criticism, one could argue that the translator has no right to introduce unnecessary changes or additions, but he can edit the text when there are justifiable reasons to do it.