The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion
This topic is about
R.U.R
Group Reads 2018
>
May 2018 Group Read: R.U.R. by Karel Čapek
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Helena: They do say that man was created by God.
Domin: So much the worse form them. God had no idea about modern technology.
Dr. Gall: Domin has his own ideas. People who have ideas should never be allowed to have any influence on the events of this world.
Busman: We're looking for someone to blame. That's the usual way to find consolation when something bad happens.
Damon [a robot]: To be like people, it is necessary to kill and to dominate....
Alquist: Ah, Domin, there's nothing less like mankind than his image.
(For that last quote, from act III, Alquist refers to Damon [a robot] as Domin [a person]. Is that a mistake in the translation? or something I'm not understanding?)
Those quotes are good, Ed. Makes me tempted to read it now.
Mod
I takes little more than an hour to read it. Plays can be read much faster than performed. It is worthwhile.
Thanks. I just sent myself a note to get it from Librivox, Ed.
Ed wrote: "Like in this reference to the Tower of Babel story: "... each factory will produce robots of a different colour, different hair, different language.."While I admit that possible allusion, for me it is more like an approach of the socialist/communist international that people are really divided by classes and exploiters play nation game exactly to guile workers so they can kill other workers, who are not their true enemies
Mod
Not just communists. Leaders of all types play such games.
I'm no expert on history. But it seems to me that in the time and place of this play, some leaders were playing Czechs against Slovaks against German and Hungarian speakers in the area. Soon after, Hitler's folks sent many of the upper-class, educated Czechs -- the very sort of people who would have been producing and watching this play -- to concentration camps.
Since there were other obvious biblical references in the play, my mind went to the Tower of Babel story.
Ed wrote: " But it seems to me that in the time and place of this play, some leaders were playing Czechs against Slovaks against German and Hungarian speakers in the area. "It was a bit different. The major force were Czechs, who pushed through Paris peace conference (1919) creation of Czechoslovakia (their views was that these are two sisterly/brotherly nations and rural Slovaks need an uplift if we use a SF term). They were actually the only non-authoritarian regime in Central Europe in the 1930s.
As for the Tower of Babel, as it is with a lot of great works, it can ave many layers/meanings and they are not exclusive.
Capek was a left-leaning liberal, so much so that his works were published in the USSR w/o big problems or censorship.
As for Domin as a/the God, I thought that Capek was following Nietzschean 'god is dead' (both creators of robots) and now a man creates heaven on Earth
I got the Librivox edition of this which turned out to be a reading of the play with a lot of different narrators playing the various parts. It was good, but kind of weird. Parts were absolutely profound while other parts made no sense. The quotes that Ed posted were only a few of the best, but at the end of act 1 (view spoiler)Anyway, I'm still thinking about it, so I'll write a review tomorrow, if I can. I'm way behind on those.
Mod
I totally agree.
Jim wrote: "parts made no sense."Helen of Troy (for she is Glory-ous) has to choose, or else :D
Ed wrote: "(For that last quote, from act III, Alquist refers to Damon [a robot] as Domin [a person]. Is that a mistake in the translation? or something I'm not understanding?)"Here is the original Czech version of this dialogue:
DAMON: Musíte zabíjet a panovat, chcete-li být jako lidé. Čtěte dějiny! Čtěte lidské knihy! Musíte panovat a vraždit, chcete-li být lidmi!
ALQUIST: Ach Domine, nic není člověku cizejšího než jeho obraz.
So, he actually sees Damon as Domin. The names may be a play on Demon and Dominus (lat. God)
Mod
It was a bit different..."
I was thinking a little ahead of the time this was written (1920) to later in WWII when Germany used ethnic divisions inside Czechoslovakia to Germany's advantage. But anyway, I'm sure you can agree that it is not only socialists who turn groups of people against each other.
"...he actually sees Damon as Domin..." Thanks for digging that out. I can't read the Czech but can see that the use of the "wrong" character name was in the original and wasn't a mistake of translation.
Mod
There are more quotes over on en.wikiquote.org. They are based on a different translation than the one I read, though.
One that caught my eye is this:
"You still stand watch, O human star, burning without a flicker, perfect flame, bright and resourceful spirit. Each of your rays a great idea — O torch which passes from hand to hand, from age to age, world without end."
That rang a bell with me because it made me realize that the web-comic O Human Star takes it's name from that quote. That story also includes partly-biological robots and has a female character named Sulla, although as pointed out in R.U.R. Sulla was originally a man's name. (The biological part of Sulla in O Human Star was cloned from a man.)
Took me a while to locate that quote in my translation because it is differently worded:
Fabry: You're still on watch, you star of man, steady glow and perfect flame, bright clear sprite of man's invention. Every beam brings thought and greatness...
Domin: Torch that passes hand to hand, age to age, and ever onward.
Helena: That evening lamp in the family home. Children, children now it's time for sleep.
(lamp goes out)
The translation using "world without end" is a more poetic one, I think, though I don't know if it is more accurate.
In the translation I had, I did like Nana's working-class British speech style.
Ed wrote: "The translation using "world without end" is a more poetic one, I think, though I don't know if it is more accurate."In the original it is
"FABRY: Ještě bdíš, lidská hvězdo, záříš bez kmitu, dokonalý plameni, duchu jasný a vynalézavý. Každý tvůj paprsek je veliká myšlenka –
DOMIN: Pochodeň, která koluje z ruky do ruky, z věku do věku, věčně dál.
HELENA: Večerní lampa rodiny. Děti, děti, musíte už spat.
(Žárovka zhasne.)"
Literally the text in your translation is closer, "age to age, to eternity"
Mod
Thanks. I think that "world without end" is a quote from something in Catholic church texts. Possibly the Czech version is also a quote of some church text.
Mod
OK. I found it. Ephesians 3:21: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (King James Version)
Or in Czech Bible Kralicka: "Tomu, pravím, buď sláva v církvi svaté skrze Krista Ježíše po všecky věky věků. Amen."
If Capek was intending a reference to the Bible, then the English version referencing the King James Version was a good translation choice.
Another translation thing I was curious about is in Act I just after Domin has Helena put her hands in his pockets (?!?!) he says that there is no news from the mainland, "not even a Fax."
I know that something like Fax existed already before 1920, and this play was projecting into the future a little, but still the word "Fax" stood out to me as too modern.
Ed wrote: "Another translation thing I was curious about is in Act I just after Domin has Helena put her hands in his pockets (?!?!) he says that there is no news from the mainland, "not even a Fax.""In the original he says "DOMIN: Ani depeše." 'ani' is 'not even' and 'depeše' is dispatch/telegram. In Russian translation they use telegram
As to "throughout all ages, world without end." Czech version "věky věků" (literary 'age of ages') is the same as the ending of latin in principio, et nunc et semper or English 'in the beginning, is now, and forever.'
I finally got around to writing my review. I gave it 4 stars here:https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
It's a shame the translations vary so much.
Mod
I disagree. Having multiple differing translations helps to get a better idea of what the original was like, since there is no way I can understand the original.
David Wyllie seems to have used mostly a literal translation, while [the other translator] did a more poetic version. [I originally wrote Paul Selver. But I now know that he is not the author of the poetic version I was referring to.]
I also rated it 4 stars. It is cool that so many of the ideas that have been explored in fiction about robots was already there in this work. About the only theme left out was sex with robots, and I'm fine with not exploring that!
Ed wrote: "I disagree. Having multiple differing translations helps to get a better idea of what the original was like, since there is no way I can understand the original.I fully agree. The more the merrier. Sometimes translations help to see another layer in the original work.
Mod
One chapter that really sticks with me is one where he shows repeated excerpts from 4 English translations of Eugene Onegin and doesn't reveal the sources until the end. Some of them sound more poetic. Some are more literal. Some rearrange sentences but preserve the rhymes. Some try to keep a literal meaning and skip the rhymes. The one by James F. Falen was the clear winner for me, and the one by Nabokov was a big stinker.
I'm currently reading parts of The Canterbury Tales using a side-by-side original (Middle English) and a non-rhymed modern translation. I can almost, but not quite, understand the original, but I'd love a modern rhymed translation.
Ed wrote: "Jim wrote: "It's a shame the translations vary so much."I disagree. Having multiple differing translations helps to get a better idea of what the original was like, since there is no way I can un..."
Only if a person reads the various editions. I think Oleksandr's input is much better.
Ed wrote: "Le Ton beau de Marot has some interesting thoughts about translation. One chapter that really sticks with me is one where he shows repeated excerpts from 4 English translations of [..."
I have never read Le Ton beau de Marot, but I do have a copy of [book:That Mad Ache|8204516] (I don't know why this link refuses to convert to hypertext!) by Francoise Sagan that Hofstadter translated, and the book includes a fascinating 100-page essay about the art of translation by Hofstadter.
I also prefer reading at least two copies of a translated work simultaneously (currently doing it with Dante's Divine Comedy), to try to get a better feel for the original. I only read one translation of R.U.R.; it is the Penguin Classics edition and the translator is Claudia Novack. Something struck me, as I read the play, and I wondered if it was deliberate in the original, or if it came out of the translation: in my edition, the humans seemed to be much more flat, "cardboard" characters (except Alquist), and the robots seemed to be much more human-- especially robot Helena when she talks about playing with the puppies. I loved that part. I liked the play enough to want to reread an edition with a different translator.
Leo wrote: "That Mad Ache"Thanks Leo! I don't know why it wouldn't work for me-- I've never had that problem before.
Mod
I didn't get that feeling in general. But Robot Helena is more human than original Helena.
I wonder whether Robot Helena and Primus really will become the new Eve and Adam. Will they figure out how to procreate?
Ed wrote: "I wonder whether Robot Helena and Primus really will become the new Eve and Adam. Will they figure out how to procreate? "I guess they will, because in the play humans stopped giving birth not because of any illness, but because 'nature' decided so for they don't work or suffer (and thus don't age). This worldsetting is okay with miracles :)
Mod
http://preprints.readingroo.ms/RUR/ru...
It seems to be legal, and a decent translation ..."
It is very interesting to compare that version (by Paul Selver and Nigel Playfair) to the version I read (by David Wylie), which can be downloaded from the "Download e-book" link on this page: R.U.R.
These are not simply different translations, but different adaptations. The version by David Wylie, has 3 acts. The version by Paul Selver and Nigel Playfair has 3 acts and an Epilogue.
Th Selver/Playfair version omits the character Damon. Reading it is really a very different experience. I assume the changes were made to make it easier to produce the play (with fewer characters, for example). But it loses a lot of the good text.
David Wylie:
3rd Robot: You gave us weapons. We had to become the masters.
1st Robot: We have seen the mistakes made by the people, sir.
Damon [a robot]: To be like people, it is necessary to kill and to dominate. Read the history books. Read the books written by people. To be like people it is necessary to dominate and to murder.
Alquist: Ah, Domin, there's nothing less like mankind than his image.
4th Robot: Unless you make it possible for us to procreate ourselves we will die out.
Alquist: Oh, just get out! You're just things, just slaves, and you want to multiply? If you want to live you'll have to breed, like animals!
3rd Robot: People did not make us able to breed.
4th Robot: Teach us how to make robots.
...
3rd Robot: We used to be machines, sir: but by means of pain and horror we have become...
Alquist: Become what?
2nd Robot: We have obtained a soul.
Selver/Playfair gives Damon's text to Radius, and shortens it considerably:
THIRD ROBOT You gave us firearms. In all ways we were powerful. We had to become masters!
RADIUS Slaughter and domination are necessary if you would be human beings. Read history.
SECOND ROBOT Teach us to multiply or we perish!
ALQUIST If you desire to live, you must breed like animals.
Mod
Nana: What's she want a fire for all of a sudden? Middle of summer? 'E's gone now, has he, that maniac? A fire in the middle of summer. She doe'n'alf get some funny ideas! You wouldn't think she's been married for ten years now! [...] Ain't got a bit of sense. A fire in the middle of summer. Just like a little toddler!
But that accent is gone in the Selver/Playfair version:
Nana: What, light the fire in summer? Has that mad Radius gone? A fire in summer, what an idea. Nobody would think she'd been married for ten years. She's like a baby, no sense at all. A fire in summer. Like a baby.
Mod
I just finished R.U.R. It was a bit of a chore and gets three stars, mostly on the strength of the brief pieces of dialogue between the characters. I can see how that and that alone might work with an audience. No long soliloquies. But that is all I can appreciate about R.U.R. The play itself is muddled in different genres, and makes a grandiose point in the tritest manner for its conclusion at the end of the third act. With the Epilogue, R.U.R. tries to arrive at a more meaningful conclusion than the third act does. However, the Epilogue of R.U.R, has essentially the same ending as the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica (BG) TV series, both of which fail for the same reason--they can't justify what led up to it.
Most critics call R.U.R. satire. If so, it is failed satire. It is too serious a treatment to make mankind's institutions appear ridiculous.
If it is science fiction, it fails because it is not serious enough to justify the magnitude of its stakes. The very survival of mankind, undone because people stop procreating? Why? Or the survival of robots, undone because Helena burns a couple pieces of paper? How?
I know R.U.R. preceded BG, but the two are so alike in concept that I can't really separate them. I think one reason I find the play so utterly boring is because it spends 114 pages in my edition rendering what it took BG a few minutes to cover, most of that off screen. Namely, the origin of their conflict. It's just not a sufficiently interesting concept to justify hours long treatment. If it somehow could be, Capek didn't prove it here.
Others might say, "Oh but there are such wonderful, intellectual ideas here. Capek has so much to say about capitalism and societal roles." If so, I couldn't find a deep or unmuddled message in what I read. Workers are exploited. No kidding! Creating people to do the mundane tasks of society's labor may some day result in violent revolution. You don't say? Sorry, but these are socialist platitudes, not ideas.
John wrote: "Dan wrote: "I just finished R.U.R. It was a bit of a chore and gets three stars, mostly on the strength of the brief pieces of dialogue between the characters. I can see how that and that alone mig..."War in the Balkans began in 1914. Science fiction that predicts events of seven years ago fails to impress. And socialist ideas were already stale to many when they were finally implemented in 1917, and widely discredited as a result within a few years of that since it only begat violence, barbarianism, and human misery. Socialism had a bad name throughout the western world by 1920.
Mod
Yeah, I find it very interesting to compare translations.
The Paul Selver version appeared in 1922. Nigel Playfair adapted it further in 1923. Those versions are abridged, and as I mentioned above removed the character Damon. The wikipedia article states that the 1989 version by Claudia Novack-Jones "restored the elements of the play eliminated by Selver."
Her translation is available on-line in parallel with the Czech text. So you can see that it is very close, even if you don't read Czech (I don't).
http://www.czech-language.cz/translat...
As you can see, the original is a prologue plus 3 acts. The abridged version is 3 acts plus an epilogue.
Mod
And from the wikipedia article we can see that somebody did re-interpret it that way:
On April 17, 1935, a film adaptation of R.U.R. debuted in the Soviet Union entitled Gibel Sensatsii ("Loss of Sensation"). It was directed by Aleksandr Andriyevsky. All the robots in the film prominently display the name "R.U.R.", though the film does take liberties with the original plot by tailoring it to communist propaganda
Ed wrote: "On April 17, 1935, a film adaptation of R.U.R. debuted in the Soviet Union entitled Gibel Sensatsii ("Loss of Sensation").."A lot of errors in this statement.
First 'Gibel Sensatsii' could be translated the way above, but it is closer to the 'death of sensation'
2nd, it is a different story, it is more like a prequel - there are workers, they are pressed ton work till they drop (literally).
The story is written by Soviet author, Volodymyr (Vladimir) Gladko, named in more widely known Russian version as 'iron mutiny' and in original Ukrainian version as 'march of robotars'. Robotar is authors version of robot, who are mechanical monsters.
In is true that in a tribute to Capek robotars have RUR logo
Events take place in a capitalist country with a hint at the United States. Jonathan Houston is the owner of machine-building factories that have stopped working - workers have announced a multi-day strike demanding a wage raise. There is a rumor that Houston intends to put on machines instead of living workers. A novelist from the Star newspaper, Tim Crowney, begins a journalistic investigation.
Houston invites Tim to the lab, although the reporter is almost a communist. He confirms that his company has already begun to develop robots. Asked by the reporter Houston shows a sample of a rude and powerful cybernetic machine. Jonathan does this with the intention that Tim Croutny describes the work in the news and this will inevitably intimidate the strikers. Houston assures - robots serve only him, do not require either salary or rest, so it will soon replace all workers and this will mean the victory of capitalism in confrontation with socialism.
Mod
A lot of errors in this statement...."
OMG! Something on Wikipedia was inaccurate! ;)
Thanks for the info!
The film is available in several places and now I'm curious to watch it. It is said to have nice visuals. The English title is sometimes given as "RUR: The Robots of Jim Ripl".
Ed wrote: "The film is available in several places and now I'm curious to watch it. It is said to have nice visuals. The English title is sometimes given as "RUR: The Robots of Jim Ripl". ."There is a full version on youtube. The sound recording then was very bad, so there is almost no talk and it can be understood from the visuals alone. It may be interesting - I've never watched it from the beginning to the end, because in the USSR almost no pre-war movies were on TV later and I was actually surprised to know that here were any old Soviet SF movies, when I read about them in the 90s.
Mod
That reminds me of politics.
Does the name Rossum, or Rossumovi in the original play, has any special meaning? It sounds Jewish in English and I wonder if there isn't a dash of anti-semetism here.
Marc-André wrote: "Does the name Rossum, or Rossumovi in the original play, has any special meaning? While there is no word 'rossum', it sounds like 'rozum' (exists in Czech, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian and maybe other Slavic languages) meaning mind/intelligence. Adding -ovi to the noun in Czech you create adjective of belonging.
It sounds Jewish in English and I wonder if there isn't a dash of anti-semetism here."
A bit of antisemitism can be seen in the fact that the only 1 character's nation is mentioned, and its a Jewish financial director. At the time of writing it would not be seen as racist.
Dan wrote: "tabula rasa?"I doubt it, chiefly because I'd expect both words in this case, even joined like Tabularasa
Mod
The translation by Peter Majer and Cathy Porter calls the story "Reason's Universal Robots". Don't know why they did that!
"only 1 character's nation is mentioned, and its a Jewish financial director"
I noticed that, too, and found it odd, to say the least. Busman is described in the David Wylie translation as "fat, bald, short-sighted Jew". I guess that comes from the original play. He wasn't a very important character and I don't even remember what he did in the story.
Ed wrote: "I noticed that, too, and found it odd, to say the least. Busman is described in the David Wylie translation as "fat, bald, short-sighted Jew". I guess that comes from the original play. He wasn't a very important character and I don't even remember what he did in the story. "The original description is the same. What he did - he tried to bargain with robots and buy the way out - this was expected as 'the Jewish behavior" at those times. This doesn't mean that the author was an antisemitic, just like Mark Twain wasn't racist, quite the opposite in both cases
Mod
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/c...
Quotes from the article: "Hardly any figure recurs in Czech prose as often as that of the wicked Jew."
"The few Czech writers with a wider outlook, such as Jaroslav Hašek (1883–1923) and the brothers Karel Čapek (1890–1938) and Josef Čapek (1887–1945), created Jewish characters without attempting to discuss problems affecting the Jews."
Another interesting article:
http://www.legacy.com/news/explore-hi...
"the Communist authorities were reluctant to embrace his [Capek's] legacy as in 1924 he’d written an essay titled "Why I Am Not A Communist," in which he argued that to view people only as members of a class was to rob them of their humanity."
Isaac Asimov wasn’t impressed with its quality. "Capek’s play is, in my own opinion, a terribly bad one," he wrote, "but it is immortal for that one word. It contributed the word 'robot' not only to English but, through English, to all the languages in which science fiction is now written."
Ed wrote: "The translation by Peter Majer and Cathy Porter calls the story "Reason's Universal Robots". Don't know why they did that!"They did that because "reason" is a near-translation of "Rossum". According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.):
The name Rossum is an allusion to the Czech word rozum, meaning "reason", "wisdom", "intellect" or "common sense".[8] It has been suggested that the allusion might be preserved by translating "Rossum" as "Reason" but only the Majer/Porter version translates the word as "Reason".[17]
Regarding anti-Semitism charges, Capek's degree was in philosophy. He moved about in the foremost, avant-garde, intellectual circles of his culture and therefore no doubt had many Jewish friends and acquaintances. Capek is on record for being critical of and persecuted by the nazis. I doubt you will find much grist for your mill in charging Capek with anti-Semitism. What little there may be would be a wafting residual odor of it from the East European cultural milieu in which he circulated.
P.S. I agree with Asimov for reasons I provide in my review, but charitably gave the play three stars, probably because it's a classic now, however flawed.
Mod
I'm not charging him with anything!
My understanding is that he was an enemy of Nazis because he spoke out against fascism and Nazism, and was a personal friend of the Czech president.
"P.S. I agree with Asimov for reasons I provide in my review, but charitably gave the play three stars, probably because its a classic now, however flawed."
I rate based on enjoyment, and I enjoyed it at a 4 star level.
I have also read Hordubal but didn't enjoy it. I don't remember why I didn't give that a star rating. I think I may go on with War with the Newts or "The Insect Play".
But next up is some Asimov....
I’m an Anarchist, so I mostly agree with the themes of this piece, but it’s not the best play. Somewhat childish dialogue. Almost like an Absurdist theatre play, but Absurdist theatre is more brilliant in that the message is less direct.It could also be seen as a precursor to some of Vonnegut’s work, as it’s science fiction satire, but again, he told stories, and they were less direct, and his dialogue wasn’t infantile.
I rate it a 3 out 5 for being an easy read and entertaining and the message.
Popular Science has a good article about the origins of the word "robot" & it's mostly about this book, of course. A lot of spoilers, if you haven't read it.https://www.popsci.com/story/science/...
The Evolution of Science Fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
Hordubal (other topics)War with the Newts (other topics)
R.U.R.: Rossum's Universal Robots (other topics)
That Mad Ache (other topics)
That Mad Ache (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Isaac Asimov (other topics)Mark Twain (other topics)
David Wyllie (other topics)
Jack Vance (other topics)
Martin L. Shoemaker (other topics)
More...
In the translation I read, by David Wyllie, he is called "Domin". Is he named "Domain" in your translation? Googoo translate says "Domin" in Czech means "Dominance" in English.
Anyway, he does act God-like. Like in this reference to the Tower of Babel story: "... each factory will produce robots of a different colour, different hair, different language. The robots will be strangers to each other, they'll never be able to understand what the other says; and we, we humans, we'll train them so that each robot will hate the robots from another factory all its life..."