Tolkien’s Way to Russia:

There and Back Again

“‘Eye of Sauron' finally appears in Moscow sky – but shares spotlight with holiday goodness”

It took the Fellowship of the Ring three books and three films to take down the

Eye of Sauron. The Russian Church needed just a couple of days," a joke on

Twitter

“Arda out in the Sticks”

VII Тolkien Seminar, St. Petersburg, 28 January 2012 Co-sponsored by St. Petersburg Tolkien Society

and the Philological Department of St. Petersburg State University

WikiPalantir

“One does not simply walk into Mordor…”

- What are you doing?- Making some RDX. Why?

The ‘Goblin’ translations

“Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story... The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.”

— from a letter by J. R. R. Tolkien

Survey (41 responses)

How old were you at your first introduction to Tolkien?• 5-6 years old - 2 people • 7-8 – 6 people • 9-10 years old – 12 people • 11-13 years old лет – 6 people • 14-15 years old лет – 5 people • 16-18 years old лет – 3 people • In their 20s – 3 people • In their 30s – 3 people

How were you first introduced to Tolkien?Book – 36 people

Film – 3 people Animation film (The Hobbit) – 2 people Comic books – 1 person Really well read; only one person read the books partially; all others – at least The Hobbit and LOTR, quite a few – Silmarillion and other books, essays, even letters

2 people first read Tolkien in English; the rest – in Russian

P.S. One person: ‘Lion, Witch and Wardrobe’

• The Fellowship of the Rings – 2• The Lord of the Rings trilogy – 15• The Hobbit – 23 (some combinations)

The Films

Do you like the films?• Yes, very – 17• Yes, fairly – 14• Could have been better – 4 • Not very – 2• “LOTR – yes; Hobbit – no” – 2• “LOTR – yes; ‘The Hobbit’ only

retains the title; nothing else remains from the book”

“The first was ok, the rest – not really” “I don’t watch them because I find such things boring”

“I would give ‘The Hobbit’ an F. The spirit of Tolkien is absolutely lost. In LoTR Peter Jackson was able to (so to say) combine Tolkien’s ideas and his narrative style with new technologies and massive battles, but in ‘The Hobbit’ he failed completely. If you just look at it purely as a stand-alone film, Part 1 would earn a B, the rest only a C. In the last film even the battle seems fake, everything is a lie, not a drop of truth”

The Films

Do you think these films made Tolkien more popular?

• Yes, and I think it’s great – 28

• Yes, but it’s not really Tolkien – 8

• No, he was popular already – 3

• No, they only repelled those who could have loved Tolkien’s books – 1

Smb’s own response: Yes, but “The Hobbit” film is really not Tolkien

“The Hobbit”Natalia Rakhmanova Zinaida Bobyr’V. Matorina (V.A.M.) S. LikhachevaK. KorolyovA. GruzbergL. YakhninI Togoyvea N. ProkhorovaS. Stepanov & M. KamenkovichV. Bakanov & E. Dobrokhotova-Maikova

Natalia Rakhmanova

1969 1976 1989 1989 1990…

“Queer Lodgings” (“The Hobbit,” Ch. VII)The quarterly magazine “Anglia” (= “England”), published for the USSR by the British Foreign Office

Planned for 2015

+ «Сильмаррилион», «Дети Хурина», «Легендариум», «Приключения Тома Бомбадила», etc, etc,..

https://fantlab.ru/autor19

Natalia Trauberg(1928 – 2009)

“I am truly a rare exhibit because I read Tolkien in 1970, in the very end of 1970, when only about three people [in Russia] had read him. Here is how it happened: Vladimir Muraviyov, who worked at the Foreign Literature Library, read it and went completely wild about it. … He gave it to Andrei Kistyakovsky and a few others... About five of us read it and were enthralled…” (“Tolkien and Non-Violence”)

"I myself create it, edit it, censor it, publish it, distribute it, and get imprisoned for it.“ – Vladimir Bukovsky

Samizdat

“You had to have some very serious reasons to dare to do that. And, by the way, it also meant spoiling the lives of your family, relatives, friends, and colleagues.” – Evgeniya Smagina, one of the first readers of samizdat “Tale of the Ring”

Zinaida Bobyr’, Moscow

“The Tale of the Ring,” 1966

“Tolkien paints his world in detail and in the tones of utter credibility. Few authors achieve such strong ‘participation effect,’ especially with a fantastical plot. Reading ‘The Tale of the Ring’ you can’t help believing its surroundings and events. It is an extraordinary world, but it is governed by strict laws. It has no dreamlike fluidity, it is not Carroll’s Wonderland or Baum’s Oz. It is a real world, even though it’s different from our own.” (“History – Saga – Poetry”)

Alexander Gruzberg, Perm’

1975, a complete samizdat translation of LoTR (a year of work)

“Most [samizdat] translations were… terribly poor. They were so illiterately done that it is hard to believe. The translators not only didn’t know English, but didn’t even have the most elementary knowledge of history and culture of the country. But undemanding readers just swallowed it all.”

«We discovered Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Ring’ in 1971. Now it is widely loved and read, and people see different things in it. Back then we saw in it, first of all, a great moral reminder. Tolkien and [C.S.] Lewis spoke to us with sadness and seriousness... For many of those who had lived through some very horrible times in our country, samizdat books by [C.S.] Lewis, Tolkien and [Charles] Williams were endlessly helpful , and we will be forever grateful to them” – Natalia Trauberg

“I read the trilogy about 11 times, twice translated it orally to others, and for me it is a Book with the capital B! Tolkien is great because he described and gave real shape and form to the world which had already existed in its potentiality – and it was the shape and form that hundreds and thousands of people believed. His reality proved to be so close to, so needed and so indispensable for daily life – and not just as an escape but as an augmentation, a necessary enlargement of our understanding of life as a whole” – Boris Grebenshchikov, Russian rock musician

1982, an abridged translation of Volume I of LoTR in Children’s Literature Publishers

Vladimir Muraviyov Andrei Kistyakovsky

An immediate bestseller, 1983 – 2nd edition (300,000 copies )

“The Translation Boom”Alina Nemirova (Ukraine), 1989

Valeria Matorina (V.A.M.), 1991

Valery Karrikand Maria Kamenkovich,1994 (K&K) Natalya

Grigoryeva andVladimir Grushetsky,1991 (G&G) … and others

“The 2nd Publishing Boom”: 1999 – 2003

Mark Hooker, “Tolkien through Russian Eyes”

“A search for ‘Tolkien’ at a well-stocked online Russian bookstore in 2003 returned 105 titles” – Mark Hooker

+ a “read-Tolkien-in-the-original” boom

“Although I am old and gray of head,And free of the stresses that others all dread,I would learn English and only becauseThe Professor in it wove a marvelous cause.”

The Big Translation Debate: Which one is better?

“Because it was the first I read”“Because I haven’t read any others”“I have known it since my childhood” “The language is more imaginative”“It’s closer to the original”“It’s beautiful”

“Because this translation is better”

• Translation is a problem with multiple solutions

• “Good translation is the matter of making the right sacrifices” (Dorothy L. Sayers)

The Big Translation Debate

• More foreign or more Russian?• More literary or more accurate?• Dealing with contemporary Russian realities - ? (like translating

“red” or subtly hinting at Stalin and the police state)

Some of the translation dilemmas:

artifact

tradition

producer consumer

realityCulture

© N. A. Dobrolubov State Linguistics University, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

Prod.1

Reality1

Tradition 1

artifact Cons.1/Prod. 2 meta-artifact

Reality 2

Tradition 2

Cons. 2

© N. A. Dobrolubov State Linguistics University, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

Intercultural Communication (translation)

Translation by Muravyov and Kistyakovsky, very “Russianized”, 1983

1st translation by Tatiana Bobyr (1/3 of the original), 1966

Karrik and Kamenkovich (academic, with extensive commentary; Tolkien’s instructions taken into account), 1994

“The Fight”

“[M & K] wanted to make the book into a militant manifesto for the revolt of GULAG prisoners and underlined it every way they could – the book was used as a direct proclamation. They used it as a manifesto, fairly long but militant.”

Natalia Trauberg, on two different approaches to Tolkien

“Providence”

“Not daring to touch it (… I still don’t know how to translate Tolkien…), we tried, without adding our own words, with awe, to convey this amazing vision that these homely little creatures, with their patience, kindness to animals, and pity for Gollum, are actually saving the world.”

The Big Translation Debate: Which one is better?

“If I were buying the book as a gift for a child, I would get one by Muravyev & Kistyakovsky; for an adult, for study and not for addictive, immersive reading, I would get

Karrik & Kamenkovich.”

M&K: “The most literary and beautiful, which is not always best; very Russianized, too emotionally colored”

K&К: “The most accurate, not a step away from the original, but dry, academic, and mechanical; hard to read”

B: “Bad; more like an abridged retelling with a lot of ad-

libbing”

G&G: “Very popular; fairly good in terms of style, but I don’t care for the translation of the names”

“All the translations have their merits and drawbacks. I believe the Professor should be read in the original.”

“They have managed to convey the color and tone of the book: Magic, middle ages, kings… Poems in Muravyev’s translation are better, but I think his version is too Russian”

“Firstly, G&G was my first introduction to LOTR. Secondly, tone and color. My favorite chapters are about Goldberry and Tom Bombadil. If you compare, for instance, the English, the French and the Russian versions, the Russian one takes a lot more liberties, but as a reader I am more interested in the visual picture, and its picture is magical.”

“Correct names, beautiful language” “Nice translations of names, geographical places and poems.” “Names of places are not translated and thus the atmosphere of the

book is rendered better” Names are more beautiful, and the meaning can be guessed even if

you know just a little English”. “I think, names are rendered better. the one disadvantage is that

Frodo Baggins is called “Sumkins”. Last names should not be translated, just as names of places”

“I don’t like it when proper names are made too Russian-sounding” “The feeling of magic” “I like our language”

The Big Translation Debate: Titles and Names

“The Fellowship of the Ring” “The Brotherhood of the Ring”

“The Keepers”

“The Return of the King”“The Return of Gosudar’”

“The Return of Korol’’”

“The Community of the Ring”

The Shire“Shir”

“Hobbitania”

Bilbo Baggins “Torbins” (“torba” – old Russian for ‘bag,’ ‘knapsack’)

“Baggins” (transliteration)

“Sumniks” (“sumka” (‘bag’) +“niks’)

Rivendell‘Rasdol’ (split + dale + peace + space)

‘Rivendell’ (rEE-vendell)

‘Rivendell’ (rAI-vendell)

Taking Liberties“The best Russian translation of Tolkien is “The Hobbit” by Rakhmanova. Infortunately, there is no adequate translation of LOTR: all existing versions are, in essence, retellings that take outrageous liberties with the original – especially that of Muravyev and Kistyakovsky whose ‘translation’ was the first to be published and is now by many seen as “classical.” There is a relatively unknown translation by Gruzberg, where the translator tried to follow the original faithfully, but it is a rather amateurish effort which contains a lot of goofs and errors.”

“Forgive me, but these liberties they take with the original are not ‘outrageous’ but creative. As the result we have a truly Russian book, valuable in its own right, and reading it (if you stop thinking of originals) is pure pleasure.”

Zinaida Bobyr’, Moscow, 1966, ‘Tale of the Ring’

• 1/3 of the length, severely abridged• embellishments (Aragorn’s Silver Crown)• a happily-ever-after fairy-tale ending

A hack job? Or a daring effort to make Tolkien available?

Mark Hooker, “Tolkien through Russian Eyes”• Sentences / passages omitted – ??? • Struggle with key concepts, Tolkien’s and Russia’s: hope / despair / luck / avos’, destiny / fate, master / servant, job / duty• Arbitrary translation of proper names• Slanting language with a personal agenda

finishing what the Professor began

“The Ring of Darkness” by Nik Perumov,Fourth Age of Arda

“The Black Book of Arda”by Natalia Vasilyeva (Illet) and Natalia Nekrasova (Nienna) – history of Middle Earth from the point of view of the Vanquished (Niennism)

“He is only an Englishman, what could he write?”:

“Well beyond the Text”

“Our admirers of Tolkien, in contrast to those who study his legacy in the West, do not imagine the dimensions of the underwater part of the iceberg, on top of which his works rest… Partially from ignorance and partially from a lack of desire to search, people replace his realities with their own artificial and contrived constructions, which turn what is really there into what the authors of these constructions want to see” – K. Asmolov

Russian Tolkienism initially grew out of Tolkien’s texts but has grown much larger than the texts. Now it is possible to be a Tolkienist without having read Tolkien: “Tolkien’s reality is much broader than the text, and many of its aspects remain outside the framework of the narrative” – Petr Chistyakov

Tolkien’s world and Tolkien’s text are not synonymous

“Well beyond the Text”

It is possible to immerse oneself in Tolkien’s world bypassing the text

Nevertheless, the texts retain their status as sacred texts for a movement that is beginning to function independently, without

direct connection to the text

I can however suggest some (admittedly well known) words of the new prophet that might be carved on the portal of the Tolkienist temple or cathedral when it is built: ‘I begin to feel like I am shut up in a madhouse’”

(12 September 1965, letter to his publishers)

“… Russian thoughts on sacred texts, or on a ‘Tolkienism’ that exists independently of any knowledge of what he wrote (because “Tolkienian reality is broader than the text’), float at a level beyond my critical capacity.

Russian Tolkien Scholarship and Fantasy Studies

1) Theoretical Tolkien Studies• Genre studies: is it fantasy or not? (and WHAT is fantasy?, etc.)• Textual and literary studies (myth and mythopoetic features; Biblical

themes and motifs; style, language and poetics; sources, main themes, key concepts, etc.)

• Study of Tolkien’s worlds (geography, politics, space and time, Tolkien’s languages cultures, etc.)

2) Social Tolkien Studies (influence on people and society)

3) Translation Studies

Tolkienism in RussiaTolkienism – “a philosophical movement which Russians have used to fill the philosophical vacuum after the fall of Communism”

1st wave: intellectuals in the humanities (English-reading)

Several different types: • the aphilosophicals – “Simply enjoying a good book”• the ‘alternativists’ – “The Professor was wrong!”• the Northerners - Nordic elements, Nordic theory of Courage• the Christians – Tolkien’s Catholicism, Christian elements• Толкинутые [‘tolkienOOtyie’] = “touched in the head by

Tolkien”

2nd wave – a fandom (often no or little background; often Russian-reading)

Tolkien as a “visionary”Толкинутые [‘tolkienOOtyie’] = “touched in the head by Tolkien” = “Mythomaniac Tolkiensies” (an article in the early 1990s, by S. Kirillova)

• Stage One: contagious Tolkien ‘evangelists’

• Stage Two: “Everything The Professor wrote in his books I true, and I have seen it with my own eyes”

• Stage Three: “I have seen everything The Professor wrote about in his books with my own eyes, and it is not that way at all!”

• Stage Four: “Only I know what really happened in Tolkien’s novels! All other Tolkienutyie are liars!”

• А complex and intricately worked out history and culture of a different world – 30

• A chance to immerse myself into a different world – 29

• An interesting plot – 28

• Carefully constructed languages of various races and peoples – 23

• His moral and ethical message – 21

• The author’s language and style – 18

• Characters, their development and growth – 17

• Romantic adventures and optimism despite the presence of evil – 16

• A chance to complete or add to what the Professor started – 2

• + A theological view of various aspects of life (own)

What attracts you most in Tolkien’s books?

• “No one else has been able to out-do the Founding Father” • “Tolkien is a fantastic writer! Thanks to him, you begin to

see how beautiful and diverse the world is, and to suspect the existence of things that ordinary people are completely unaware of. Tolkien teaches us to think differently, to use our imagination; he inspires us towards something extraordinary and makes it possible to get immersed into other worlds”

Why do you think Tolkien is so popular among Russian readers?

• Because these are good, high quality books – 27

• We like romantic adventures – 23

• Because of the chance to “escape” into a fantastical world from daily reality – 20

• It’s interesting to get into fictional languages and cultures – 11

• Mainly because of the films – 8

• We have many great translations that are regularly published – 1

• I don't think Tolkien is that popular – 1

“heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed”

“The Fellowship of the Ring is like lightning from a clear sky…”

“… the conquest of new territory. Nothing quite like it was ever done before...”

“sub-creation” – … he creates a whole world!”

“… piercing, high, elvish beauty of which no other prose writer has captured so much.”

“… here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart.”

“This is good news, good beyond hope.”

Morals and ethics: “Fantasy is a genre that allows us to take a speculative look at morality. The language of fantasy – the language of symbol and gesture – makes such study free from boring didacticism” – Olga Brileva

“Double-coding”: “LoTR is a cunning, double-bottomed thing; it can be read as ‘a mere book,’ as ‘another fantasy story,’ just like ‘The Name of the Rose’ can be read as ‘yet another detective story.’ Tolkien’s novel is not simply a story of a quest; it is in itself a quest, a journey that ends (or doesn’t end) in a mystical initiation.” – Olga Brileva

“Proto-negative theology”: Tolkien’s approach does not frighten one away with the necessity of thinking, looking for hidden meaning… He truly entertains without being didactic… His approach is more advantageous theologically, because by not saying anything positive about God, Tolkien avoids the risk of making an error… There is nothing to accuse Tolkien of, because he didn’t say anything…. In our culture a direct or even allegorical conversation on similar topics often frightens away the audience before it begins” – Yakov Krotov, Russian theologian

“Tolkienism as a Return to Mythological Consciousness”

“Tolkienism as an Element of Neo-Religiosity”

“On the Connections of Tolkienistics with Religious Systems”

“Tolkienism and Magic”

“Tolkienism and the Contemporary Rebirth of Paganism in Russia”

“The Phenomenon of Neo-Religiosity: ‘Finding Oneself’ in Tolkienism”

“I guess no Christian preaching in the world is ever [fully] successful (according to the parable of the Sower): three people will understand it, and the rest will do something exactly opposite…

Our main trouble now that we have many religious people but as few Christians as ever. Of course, I do not mean that all preaching always fails completely: there is always a tiny island, a tiny remnant. But I have certainly seen that Tolkien, in this edited understanding [of his works], has been very instrumental in promoting this religiosity without Christianity…

The human soul is religious by its very nature, it’s a fact. But after it was stamped out for so many years, and then, over the last 30 years, all the other idols – not pagan, but our own – have also dissipated, people started creating this...”

The numinous experience without the Gospel?

“I thought I saw how stories of this kind could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralyzed much of my own religion in childhood. Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. And reverence itself did harm. The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday School associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.” ― C.S. Lewis