Politics, Religion, Race and Translation

Politics, Etc
Friends Steve, Jo, Claudine and Jacques came round to eat on Saturday evening and we all got into a marathon discussion that lasted until 11.30. The subjects were the usual: politics, religion (just a bit), race and translation.

The religious bit was just about food. Happily, Jacques and Claudine (and Steve and Jo) eat just about anything so I was free to choose what I wanted to cook; a curry, Bombay potatoes, dahl and raiti with chapatis I decided. We got to talking about Patricia, Daniel's part-time partner, and the difficulty the two of them posed since Daniel can't take cheese (lactose allergy) or spice and Patricia strictly observes the Jewish eating code: no pork, crustacea or game. None us quite understands why Patricia, who is not a strict Jewess (doesn't pray, attend synagogue), nonetheless is very strict with the eating conventions. There's nowt so queer as folk.

Then on to politics. Steve remarked that he had been told that the French think left but vote right and it seemed to be true. Despite widespread comment against Sarkozy and his right-wing policies the recent local regional elections had shown strong support for Marine Le Penn who has taken over her father's former leadership of the National Front. Jacques surprised me somewhat by showing some sympathy for the Margaret Thatcher era in the UK, saying that at least her policies were clear and she stuck to them. The reverse of this is, in effect, what most of the French who supported Sarkozy when he was elected President now hold against him. There's a kind of masochistic feeling around that he should implement the policies he was elected on even though most French people don't want them; a sort of “kick me and it'll hurt and I'll hate it (and strike!) but it will do me good” sentiment. The trouble is that Sarkozy is no Thatcher (which I can't hold against him). But he strikes me as an opportunist and narcissist, more concerned with what makes him look good than what does the country good.

Sarkozy's response to the trend to the right has been to borrow some of the National Front's ideas, particularly with regard to immigration. So are the French a racist lot? I don't think so, at least no more than any other nation as a whole can be called racist. A friend suggested to me not long ago that possibly the most racist country in the world is one where the question of race rarely occurs: Japan. He remembered being in a hopelessly overcrowded carriage on the Tokyo metro with a spare seat next to him, the only Caucasian in the carriage. There is certainly racial tension in France in the large city suburbs where ethnic ghettos abound and where support for Le Penn is strongest but elsewhere a generally liberal attitude prevails. The tension is largely economic. The situation seems to be that the French are content to see support for the far right to rise and put pressure on the government but would baulk at electing a National Front government.

So what's the alternative? Any left-centre government would have to be a coalition and there's no one at the moment who could make such a coalition work. Segolene Royale, the principal left-wing candidate, has lost all credibility with the public at large; she's regarded as a fantasist. The last person who managed to make the left and centre coalesce for any length of time was Mitterand, who is now missed, although not without reservations. I had sensed but not really understood the reservations but Jacques explained that there were echoes of the war there (still!). Mitterand had been a significant player in the Vichy government and, whilst this could now be forgiven (we all make mistakes), what was held against him was that he had shielded and promoted various other senior players in the Vichy government. As an aside, the fact that he had a publicly acknowledged mistress and bastard child for most of his reign was of no consequence. French politics for the moment consists of multiple factions waiting for a leader to emerge who can create a coherent coalition.

And so, briefly, to translation. Claudine has been translating some short stories I wrote when on a creative writing course in England so it was natural that this subject should crop up (again!). The translations Claudine had done turned out to be more difficult than those I have done. The problem, in a word, was colloquialisms. Here, above all, word for word translations won't work but it is difficult to get away entirely from the words used in the original text. The discussion crystallised something in my mind about the ideas I had been forming for the best approach to translation. The approach is essentially Wittgensteinian, as follows. Read the words in the original text and visualise the meaning: the objects, actions and attitudes. Crystallise a picture and then render that picture in the target language. This won't work with poetry or other forms of dense literary effect, which is why I won't attempt translations of these, but works in most other cases.