This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Beaucoup d'air brassé et de condescendance comme d'habitude sur Proz... Merci à tous ceux qui ont apporté des commentaires utiles. Quant aux autres,....
Absolutely! And I think that's what I said... all I wanted to emphasize was that the translator's interpretation needs to take into account the cultural background of the original text, and not seek to read it with 'modern' eyes. I think we're saying exactly the same thing!
that this cannot be discussed/dissected without seeing it in the time and context it was written. It cannot (or should not) be removed and transposed into a different time or context and can't really be interpreted from our own personal perspective, unless it's just for our own interest.
While I agree that "misogyny is not the issue" per se, I do think it is vitally important to take this aspect into account when translating — as is, of course, an awareness of the cultural backdrop and Sacha Guitry's work.
The point being, at least in part, that a text may have been written at a time when something was not considered offensive that would be so considered today; and one needs to take into account the 'record' of the writer. For example, one writer 100 years ago might have quite innocently said something that sounds misogynistic today, but wouldn't have raised an eyebrow back then; while a 'known' misogynist like Mr. Guitry could well have set out to shock, or at least jolt, with his deliberate misogyny. Now of course it can (and should!) be argued that the translator's role is not to 'sanitize' quotations from the past; but at the same time, no translator is an island, and one has to be aware of the way in which present-day readers are going to read ones translation (as distinct from, say, a contemporary translation from the writer's day). However, all this just to say that I feel it is vital for ones interpretation to be informed by the cultural background.
I think that in this case, the idea of "deceitfulness" (the deliberate art of concealing the truth) for "etre menteur" (sorry no accent) captures everything... men in robes, lawyers, priests, women... (as well as the irony, of course!)
I do agree, but my only concern is that the word one chooses for 'menteurs' should MISrepresent his mild misogyny; in other words, if he says 'ladies tart themselves up a bit', we don't want to mistranslate that as 'all women are liars'; that was the point I was really trying to make. As John has identified, the real problem is with 'robes', since the pun simply doesn't work in EN as it does in FR.
While I think that one can excuse Sasha Guitry for having shared and wittily expressed the prejudices of his time, it does seem strange for a modern woman to "love" a misogynist quotation. Of course, those same prejudices are still common, the difference between now and then is the general awareness of the harm they do.
peer agreement (net): +4