What do you think?
Rate this book
Dag ut och dag in med en dag i Dublin
- GenresNonfictionSweden
150 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
1 person is currently reading
44 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
August 1, 2014
When Joyce's Ulysses was given a new translation to Swedish last year, the translator Erik Andersson also put out this short book about the translation process, which is pure translation porn. He starts out with a sigh of relief that he's finally done with his translation of Lord of the Rings, which ate his brain for a long time; now he can relax and translate a book he's read lots of times, knows inside out, let's get this party started: "Stately plump Buck Mulligan - "
Uh, is that "Stately" the adjective or the adverb? "Plump" as in chubby or rude? ...Damnit, it's both. And both are specific to English. Fuck. He's stuck on the opening sentence for two weeks. And it doesn't get any easier, the puns and the double meanings the least of his problems. How do you translate the difference between Irish and British English to another language? What about all the untranslated Latin that made sense to early 20th century catholic Irishmen, but is all Greek to 21st century Swedes?
At one point, he takes up this question: 1) Why do we do re-translations, apart from the vague clichés of the old translation not feeling "fresh" ("Finally we have a Dostoevsky for our times!" Excellent. But what's he doing in our time? Aren't we supposed to be visiting his?) and 2) if we regularly put out new translations of foreign works to keep them up to date, why don't we do the same thing for books written in our own language that have become... if not unreadable, then at least reader-unfriendly with age? If the life expectancy of a translation is roughly 50 years, why shouldn't* the same hold true for original works?
* Note the "why"
He argues, hesitantly, that the best argument for a re-translation is to be true to the author's original intention (so much for the author being dead). So then the question becomes, did the author really intend to come across as archaic and confusing? Probably not.
In Swedish, this gets complicated since Swedish was "modernised" fairly recently. "Classic" Swedish literature begins in the early 19th century, but we had our latest major spelling and grammar reforms in the early-to-mid 20th century, which means that a lot of the older works that were still popular then were edited to "correct" archaic spelling and verb forms that no longer existed. You can think what you want about that, but the fact remains that almost every printing those books have gone through since are not the original text but a modernised one. (Part of the reason why August Strindberg and Selma Lagerlöf are still very popular in Sweden was that they were among the first authors to embrace this, so they automatically feel more "modern" than other writers working at the same time.) Still, for the most part, they only changed spelling and verb endings - word choices, social situations and forms of address that have gone out of style, etc remain and, much like Shakespeare for the English, occasionally make the text confusing without extensive footnotes.
This isn't to say that I necessarily think old texts should be modernised, but it's an interesting question... for the moment, I'll stick with Erik Andersson's conclusion:
But as with all translations, you can take comfort in the fact that the original isn't annihilated but remains for those who prefer it. There's nothing to stop us from adding another category to the translators' workload; once they've finished translating and retranslating all foreign literature ever written, they can deal with the Swedish one, from 1962 and backwards.
And for what it's worth, the translation itself is brilliant.
Uh, is that "Stately" the adjective or the adverb? "Plump" as in chubby or rude? ...Damnit, it's both. And both are specific to English. Fuck. He's stuck on the opening sentence for two weeks. And it doesn't get any easier, the puns and the double meanings the least of his problems. How do you translate the difference between Irish and British English to another language? What about all the untranslated Latin that made sense to early 20th century catholic Irishmen, but is all Greek to 21st century Swedes?
At one point, he takes up this question: 1) Why do we do re-translations, apart from the vague clichés of the old translation not feeling "fresh" ("Finally we have a Dostoevsky for our times!" Excellent. But what's he doing in our time? Aren't we supposed to be visiting his?) and 2) if we regularly put out new translations of foreign works to keep them up to date, why don't we do the same thing for books written in our own language that have become... if not unreadable, then at least reader-unfriendly with age? If the life expectancy of a translation is roughly 50 years, why shouldn't* the same hold true for original works?
* Note the "why"
He argues, hesitantly, that the best argument for a re-translation is to be true to the author's original intention (so much for the author being dead). So then the question becomes, did the author really intend to come across as archaic and confusing? Probably not.
In Swedish, this gets complicated since Swedish was "modernised" fairly recently. "Classic" Swedish literature begins in the early 19th century, but we had our latest major spelling and grammar reforms in the early-to-mid 20th century, which means that a lot of the older works that were still popular then were edited to "correct" archaic spelling and verb forms that no longer existed. You can think what you want about that, but the fact remains that almost every printing those books have gone through since are not the original text but a modernised one. (Part of the reason why August Strindberg and Selma Lagerlöf are still very popular in Sweden was that they were among the first authors to embrace this, so they automatically feel more "modern" than other writers working at the same time.) Still, for the most part, they only changed spelling and verb endings - word choices, social situations and forms of address that have gone out of style, etc remain and, much like Shakespeare for the English, occasionally make the text confusing without extensive footnotes.
This isn't to say that I necessarily think old texts should be modernised, but it's an interesting question... for the moment, I'll stick with Erik Andersson's conclusion:
But as with all translations, you can take comfort in the fact that the original isn't annihilated but remains for those who prefer it. There's nothing to stop us from adding another category to the translators' workload; once they've finished translating and retranslating all foreign literature ever written, they can deal with the Swedish one, from 1962 and backwards.
And for what it's worth, the translation itself is brilliant.
October 26, 2021
så förtjusande för denne språkfantast att läsa översättares tankar & funderingar. och sen har vi erik andersson! ja ni vet ju. kärleken når ingen gräns. jag blir till och med sugen på att orka läsa färdigt självaste ulysses.
#sockenmentalitet #apelsinjoyce
#sockenmentalitet #apelsinjoyce
August 21, 2021
En fin bok om svårigheterna i att översätta Joyce. Översättaren använder många svåra ord och betygar dymedelst att han är uppgiften mogen, å nej nu har han (och Joyce) smittat mig.
November 23, 2019
Ofta småmysigt men ibland lite för putslustigt.
February 2, 2015
Liten pratig volym om översättandets vedermödor, om Ulysses och om Irland. Får mig att längta efter att återse det Irländska kustlandskapet snarare än inspirerar till läsning av det stora feta mästerverket i fråga.
April 21, 2022
Vilken liten pärla! Tror att man kan läsa den med stor behållning även om man inte har läst Ulysses.
March 22, 2024
Jag läste denna mestadels trevliga lilla bok, ”Dag ut och dag in med en dag i Dublin”, där Erik Andersson ger en intressant och rolig inblick i sitt arbete med nyöversättning av James Joyces Ulysses. (Som jag funderar på att göra en omläsning av, långsammare och med mer hjälp av förklarande bredvidläsning.)
Erik Anderssons bok förklarar lite om Ulysses och innehåller många spännande reflektioner, men ibland tappar han mig bland referenser jag inte känner till och inte kan orientera mig bland. Han vänder sig inte riktigt till kreti och pleti, vissa delar av boken behöver man nog ha läst lite litteraturvetenskap för att kunna tillgodogöra sig.
Jag upplevde att en förutsättning för att jag fick ut mycket av ”Dag ut och dag in” var att ha läst Ulysses först. Den fungerar knappast som en genväg att ta till istället för själva verket.
Erik Anderssons bok förklarar lite om Ulysses och innehåller många spännande reflektioner, men ibland tappar han mig bland referenser jag inte känner till och inte kan orientera mig bland. Han vänder sig inte riktigt till kreti och pleti, vissa delar av boken behöver man nog ha läst lite litteraturvetenskap för att kunna tillgodogöra sig.
Jag upplevde att en förutsättning för att jag fick ut mycket av ”Dag ut och dag in” var att ha läst Ulysses först. Den fungerar knappast som en genväg att ta till istället för själva verket.
October 30, 2025
"När jag berättar att jag nyöversätter Ulysses är den vanligaste reaktionen ungefär så här:
- Oj, det måste vara svårt!
Jag håller med och säger att det är enastående svårt.
Sedan säger den jag pratar med att hon eller han faktiskt, i själva verket, om nu sanningen ska fram, inte har läst boken."
Ska sanningen fram har jag i själva verket inte heller läst Ulysses. Men jag har läst Anderssons bok om översättningen flera gånger, och blivit lika underhållen varje gång.
- Oj, det måste vara svårt!
Jag håller med och säger att det är enastående svårt.
Sedan säger den jag pratar med att hon eller han faktiskt, i själva verket, om nu sanningen ska fram, inte har läst boken."
Ska sanningen fram har jag i själva verket inte heller läst Ulysses. Men jag har läst Anderssons bok om översättningen flera gånger, och blivit lika underhållen varje gång.
October 7, 2012
Den var bra.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews