Little Golden Calf: Translation Comparison

A comparison of two translations

It is rare that reviews of fiction in translation examine their subject’s quality by referring to the original text, or by comparing alternate translations. But the appearance of two different versions of this classic Ilf and Petrov novel within the span of a month (after a 50-year hiatus) offers a unique opportunity to do both. It is our hope that reviewers of either our version, or the Open Letter version, will compare the two translations in depth, so that readers will be able to understand the importance of fine translation.

Below is a comparison of a paragraph from each of the two new editions. The paragraph used for this purpose was not chosen by us, but was cited by a reviewer for the Los Angeles Times as a representative example of the Gurevich and Anderson translation. We do not offer these observations simply to quibble over individual word choices, since, as any translator knows, there can be more than one good translation of a text. Still, there are apparent differences in the two editions’ translation philosophies that seem worth addressing.

  • First, it is significant that we translated the novel’s title in a way that preserves Ilf and Petrov’s intent (read more about this).
  • Second, we translated everything in the original text, without leaving anything out, since we felt a story with a reputation like this needs to be available in its entirety.
  • Finally, we generally preferred to stay close to the original meaning, rather than substitute an equivalent that might be more familiar to an Anglophone audience (as with, for example, “bells and whistles” vs. “peddler’s wares”).

It is important to note that the Gurevich/Anderson version and the Fisher version use different editions of the text of Ilf and Petrov’s novel (see our page on divergences between the two editions), so there is a chance that the two translations might differ widely at points, due to differences in the originals being used. However, in the case of the paragraph below, both editions were using the same original text.

OPEN LETTER PRESS VERSION (GUREVICH AND ANDERSON) ORIGINAL TEXT RUSSIAN LIFE BOOKS VERSION (FISHER)
“Investigating Koreiko’s case might take a long time," Ostap said. "God only knows how long. And since there is no God, nobody knows. We are in a terrible bind. It might be a month, it might be a year. Either way, we need some legal standing. We need to blend in with the cheery masses of office workers. That’s what the bureau is all about. I have long been interested in 1 administration. I am a bureaucrat and a mis-manager at heart. We will be collecting 2 something very funny, for example, teaspoons, dog tags, or bells and whistles. Or horns and hoofs. That’s perfect! Horns and hoofs to supply manufacturers of combs and cigarette-holders. How about that? 3 Besides, I already have some excellent blank forms that are suitable for any occasion and a round rubber stamp 4 in my bag.” — Следствие по делу Корейко, — говорил Остап, — может поглотить много времени. Сколько-знает один бог. А так как бога нет, то никто не знает. Ужасное положение. Может быть—год, а может быть—и месяц. Во всяком случае нам нужна легальность. Нужно смешаться с бодрой массой служащих. Все это даст контора. Меня давно влечет к 1 административной деятельности. В душе я бюрократ и головотяп. Мы будем заготовлять 2 что-нибудь очень смешное, например, чайные ложечки, собачьи номера или шмуклерский товар. Или рога и копыта. Прекрасно! Рога и копыта для нужд гребеночной и мундштучной промышленности. Чем не учреждение? 3 К тому же в моем чемоданчике имеются чудные бланки на все случаи жизни и круглая, так называемая 4 мастичная печать. “Our investigation of the Koreyko case could take up a lot of time,” said Bender. “How much time, God only knows. And since there is no God, no one knows. It’s a terrible situation. It could be a year, or it could be a month. In any case, what we need is legality. We need to blend in with the office workers’ energetic masses. An office will give us that. And I’ve long felt called to 1 administrative activity. I’m really an incompetent paper-pusher at heart. We’ll procure 2 something really funny, like teaspoons, or dog tags, or peddlers’ notions. Or horns and hooves. Beautiful! Horns and hooves for use in the comb and cigarette-holder industry. Sounds like a fine institution to me. 3 What’s more, I happen to have right here in my case a round, so-called rubber stamp 4 and fabulous blank forms for recording every conceivable life event.”
  1. влечет к: this is more than just “be interested in,” which does have its own verb in Russian, a cognate to the English (интересовать). Bender’s choice of verb indicates his playfully ironic attitude here, and the translation should convey this. 
  2. заготовить: This means “to procure,” i.e. to make available as raw materials for industry, not simply “to collect,” which is a broader, less specific (and not very industrial) term. But the novel is set during the first Five-Year Plan, when there was constant propaganda from all corners regarding industry, building, construction, and so forth; where possible, the translation should preserve the original’s constant echoes of this theme.
  3. Чем не учреждение? This was a challenge. The literal translation, “In what way is it not a [real] institution?” simply doesn’t work. But the emotional tone of the comment is what is most important: a playful-ironic “What’s not to love about this?” The final translation retains the important lexical element “institution” but puts the main emphasis on rendering Bender’s trademark attitude.
  4. так называемая: Bender deliberately uses the word “so-called” here, but Gurevich and Anderson leave it out. Why? Bender constantly sprinkles his speech with little undermining gestures like this, and they are one reason Bender is one of Russian literature’s most popular anti-heroes; to leave these verbal gestures out is to render Bender’s speech unnecessarily conformist.