"A Man - A Novel" Oriana Fallaci

A Man – A Novel Oriana Fallaci

Do translations reflect the accurate intentions of the Writer?

As a journalist, courageous in interviewing world leaders, Fallaci asked the questions that some wished to ask and most feared to ask. Her first language, being Italian, the thesis of this critique is to investigate whether or not the meaning of words being translated accurately give the reader the writer’s true intentions.
This novel is her fictionalized work based on her love of the Greek poet and political activist, Alexander Panagoulis. In writing his story, she also writes her own.

It was published in Italian in 1979. The English translation was published in 1980. The nuances and finesse of her original work having been translated to English may or may not have the nuances and finesse conveying the intent of the piece. This is the basis for the analysis.
The novel discusses the actions of a Greek radical in rebelling against the leaders of Greece in the sixties and seventies, which is pivotal in the context of the development of Greek politics. Panagoulis’ attempt to assassinate the Dictator, George Papadopoulos, leads to his immediate capture. He is sentenced and incarcerated. His passion for ideals and truth resonates for Oriana. She gives up her individual former single life and freedom to support his efforts and to help him accomplish his dreams. Her interviews and journal articles far surpassed his political efforts for change. The interviews were given in Greek and translated subsequently.

The beginning, “Yia sena” is translated into ‘FOR YOU”. The words are Greek and the meaning of the original conveys a sensual and passionate meaning. The English translation is in upper case and conveys a ‘SHOUT OUT” and to some extent a wanting to belong to another person or giving something, which is not particularly part of the Greek term. How then is the translator able to take the original language and communicate a similar sensuality, passion or emotion that the English may not able to produce? Is the literature weakened by the translation? Is the writer having her work translated doing a disservice to the piece? Is the work dissipated? Does the translator take on the work of re-writing rather than translating?

Translators have a code and an association with some regulations and standards. The following is from the British Council website.
“To discuss the art of literary translation is to a large extent to mystify it if we disregard the unruly manner in which it has been practiced throughout history. For although writing between two different languages has always been integral part of national literatures and the exchanges between them, the most striking, the truly captivating thing about it is its variations rather than any single characteristic or aspect.” (The British Council is the United Kingdom's website)

The text in translation is an attempt to communicate the words of the writer, perhaps not the ideas communicated. The English language does not have the actual verbiage to effectively communicate the slight nuances of other languages. In this case, both the Italian of the original manuscript, which includes the Greek dialogue, as well as the text, are perhaps too literal and not sufficiently visionary with language.
The phrases in the text infer a sense of struggle with vocabulary and takes away from the original work and intent of Fallaci.
“If you asked him about the old man he would answer with singsong nonsense: ‘I am I. I with him am I with him, I with you am I with you, so I remain always I.’

He also made rather silly plays on words, happy to be a master of my language: ‘non voglio te, volglio il te! I don’t want thee, I want tea!’” (178).

In the novel, the passage uses the word, “papadopoulaki” referencing the guards watching over Panagoulis, as he awaits his execution. They ask him, “Why do you always call us papadopoulaki, what does it mean?” (70). The word as most Greeks understand it to mean is a term of endearment, as term with the “laki”: or “taki” is something or someone small, not literally, but it means either a child or a person that you find dear or is cherished. The response to this question by Alekos is “a smile: “Sometimes it means little Papadopoulos and sometimes servant of Papadopoulos.” (70). My sense of this passage is that Fallaci attempts to integrate the Greek words used by the love of her life. She attempts to distinguish terms used by Greeks and used by “xeni” or “strangers”.
An example of the usage of the phrase attached to a legitimate word is Panayioti means Peter and Panayiotaki means Peter who is dear and lovely or cherished. The actual usage may be shortened by those using the phrase and Panayiotaki becomes “Taki”. It is common and there are passages that exemplify some of these characteristics in usage of language being translated.

The English word choices have some flavor of the man and the plot. How do literary translations retain the emphasis and tone of the original language? Translations may enhance meaning, however, the “tonos” or “emphasis” of language is not word to word, as phrases and usage by the various personalities are one more method of characterizing who they are and what they value. The person translating, as is more commonplace presently, has a clear sense of the culture, traditions and history, as well as the language. This new enlightened persona of a translator has an advantage over counterparts from just a few decades ago.

“And besides we’ll see each other again soon, we’ll see each other at Easter.” (411). The translator uses the word “Easter”, however, I am confident that Fallaci used the word that would be translated more accurately as “Pascha”. Perhaps, the slight difference appears just that, slight. However, to Greek Orthodox the latter term is the only one that reflects the season that is the center of their faith. The language choice of “Easter” is not accurate and although Fallaci is from Italy, she is clearly a person that adopts Greece as her own, when she chooses to have both a physical and a spiritual connection to Alekos Panagoulis.
The words of her book and her interviews are significant and powerful. That significance and power moves and delivers a record of history with a female perspective. Her perspective is of a person with genuine heroic proportions. How does that translate?

Works Cited:
Fallaci, Oriana, A Man-A Novel, Simon & Schuster, NY 1979.
The British Council is the United Kingdom's