Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"

This article examines the subjective aesthetic criteria used to assess two Finnish translations of Hamlet, one by Eeva-Liisa Manner (1981) and the other by Matti Rossi (2013), both accomplished translators for the stage. A survey consisting of one general question (“Briefly describe your idea of how...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nely Keinänen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Lodz University Press 2018-12-01
Series:Multicultural Shakespeare
Subjects:
Online Access:https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/szekspir/article/view/4457
id doaj-7adc3089df824c18ac1d7b4bd5c73a7a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7adc3089df824c18ac1d7b4bd5c73a7a2021-09-02T11:26:52ZengLodz University PressMulticultural Shakespeare2300-76052018-12-011833234210.18778/2083-8530.18.034457Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"Nely Keinänen0University of Helsinki, FinlandThis article examines the subjective aesthetic criteria used to assess two Finnish translations of Hamlet, one by Eeva-Liisa Manner (1981) and the other by Matti Rossi (2013), both accomplished translators for the stage. A survey consisting of one general question (“Briefly describe your idea of how Shakespeare translation should sound in Finnish, and what you think are the qualities of a good Shakespeare translation”) and five text extracts was distributed on paper and electronically, generating 50 responses. For the extracts, respondents were asked whether one or the other translation most closely dorresponded to their idea of what a Shakespeare translation should sound like and why, along with questions on whether they would prefer to see or read one or the other. The results show that there are no strong shared expectancy norms in Finland regarding Shakespeare translation. Manner was generally felt to be more concise and poetic, while Rossi was praised for his exquisite use of modern Finnish. Respondents agreed that rhythm was an important criterion, but disagreed on what sorts of rhythms they preferred. Translation of the “to be or not to be” speech raised the most passions, with many strongly preferring Manner’s more traditional translation. The results suggest that Shakespeare scholars would do well to take variations in expectancy norms into account when assessing and analysing Shakespeare in translation.https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/szekspir/article/view/4457shakespeare receptiontranslationdrama translationhamletshakespeare in finlandmatti rossieeva-liisa manner
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nely Keinänen
spellingShingle Nely Keinänen
Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"
Multicultural Shakespeare
shakespeare reception
translation
drama translation
hamlet
shakespeare in finland
matti rossi
eeva-liisa manner
author_facet Nely Keinänen
author_sort Nely Keinänen
title Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"
title_short Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"
title_full Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"
title_fullStr Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"
title_full_unstemmed Receptive Aesthetic Criteria: Reader Comparisons of Two Finnish Translations of "Hamlet"
title_sort receptive aesthetic criteria: reader comparisons of two finnish translations of "hamlet"
publisher Lodz University Press
series Multicultural Shakespeare
issn 2300-7605
publishDate 2018-12-01
description This article examines the subjective aesthetic criteria used to assess two Finnish translations of Hamlet, one by Eeva-Liisa Manner (1981) and the other by Matti Rossi (2013), both accomplished translators for the stage. A survey consisting of one general question (“Briefly describe your idea of how Shakespeare translation should sound in Finnish, and what you think are the qualities of a good Shakespeare translation”) and five text extracts was distributed on paper and electronically, generating 50 responses. For the extracts, respondents were asked whether one or the other translation most closely dorresponded to their idea of what a Shakespeare translation should sound like and why, along with questions on whether they would prefer to see or read one or the other. The results show that there are no strong shared expectancy norms in Finland regarding Shakespeare translation. Manner was generally felt to be more concise and poetic, while Rossi was praised for his exquisite use of modern Finnish. Respondents agreed that rhythm was an important criterion, but disagreed on what sorts of rhythms they preferred. Translation of the “to be or not to be” speech raised the most passions, with many strongly preferring Manner’s more traditional translation. The results suggest that Shakespeare scholars would do well to take variations in expectancy norms into account when assessing and analysing Shakespeare in translation.
topic shakespeare reception
translation
drama translation
hamlet
shakespeare in finland
matti rossi
eeva-liisa manner
url https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/szekspir/article/view/4457
work_keys_str_mv AT nelykeinanen receptiveaestheticcriteriareadercomparisonsoftwofinnishtranslationsofhamlet
_version_ 1721176030148820992