The three rewritings of Dracula in Turkish that will be covered in this essay are Niran Elçi's Drakula published by İthaki Yayınları, Zeynep Akkuş' Drakula published by Kamer Yayınları, and Ali Rıza Seyfi's Drakula İstanbul'da published by Kamer Yayınları. The version accepted as the original writing is the version published by Penguin in 1993.
I will try to form a methodology to follow for this kind of an analysis study. What I will look at through the essay consists of the different parts of the rewritten text, namely the publishing house, the re-writer, the context (i.e. the time and place), genre, number of pages, and pictures; and I will not analyse the texts line by line rather I will look into the context of the rewriting process.
Publishing houses: It would not be surprising at all to look at the publishing houses at first, since publishers are one of the most powerful components of the literary system. Because they hold the authority to publish, to censor, and to distribute the literary texts. They can be well defined as patrons with Andre Lefevere's terminology. In this situation, publishing houses "try to regulate the literary system and the other systems, which together, make up a society, a culture." [Lefevere, 15]. They have to regulate the literary system, because needs and preferences of the market are also defined by them. Thus, while analysing these rewritings a brief look into the publishing houses, their ideologies and preferences will be beneficial to find out the differences in the translations. The reviewer has to have some questions in mind: What kind of novels has this publishing house published so far? How have these novels been published, whether there are any abridgements, adaptation or so? What is the general pricing strategy of the publishing house for these novels?
The question about the pricing is also important; because this will define the reader profile, whether the novels are for professional readers or non-professional readers. For whom have these novels been published? Translations are a way of creating the communities imagined by the patrons. And these "imagined communities fostered by translation produce effects that are commercial, as well as cultural and political" [Venuti, 496] And most probably it would not be an exaggeration to claim that the main aim of the publishers would be creating a bestseller rewriting out of a original writing.
"To translate" and generically to rewrite "is to invent for the foreign text new readerships who are aware that their interest in the translation is shared by other readers" [Venuti, 495] and this interest of the readers will coincide with the interest of the publishers, thus with the market. And naturally the community built will be shaped by the reader profile.
Another important question would be: Why have there been two rewritings of the same original writing published by the same publisher, in our case by Kamer Yayınları?
Other works of the re-writer: Re-writers are another important factor, maybe a more important factor than the publisher, in shaping the text since s/he is the actual creator of the text. What this translator have translated so far? What is her/his approach to translation? What are her/his priorities while rewriting? What is her/his experience with the genre? Because if they are known well and respected, their work will be "propagated as an example for future writers to follow" [Lefevere, 28] and canonized by the system as the proper/accepted version of the original writing. Thus their names may be published on the cover. However, none of the re-writers is mentioned on the cover.
The context in which the rewriting was published: The year in which these rewritings published is also important. The political climate of the time, popularity of the genre in those days, and the novelty brought to the literature of the time by these publications, if there is any, are important criteria for the analysis. And whether the two different Dracula's published by Kamer Yayınları have any effect on the later publication by İthaki is also important. The publication date of Drakula İstanbul'da was 1997 and Zeynep Akkuş' Drakula was published in 1998 while Elçi's translation was published five years later in 2003. So Elçi's translation have the opportunity to enjoy the fame of the Drakula after two published books and the movie.
Front and back covers of the rewritings: Cover of the novel gives a clue about what is expected inside. If the commentary writings on the cover satisfies anticipation of readers, s/he buys it. So the blurbs are important. Generally the back covers are the place to print these blurbs. Elçi's Drakula and Akkuş' Drakula have blurbs. The former one has a direct quotation from the book while the latter has a promotional writing, the reason for which is promoting the first translation of Drakula in Turkish. And it also has supported the promotion by mentioning the movie, Dracula.
Another significant detail about the covers are the pictures. On Elçi's Drakula the only picture on the cover belongs to the Dracula himself. Seyfi's cover picture has Drakula in front of a city setting which is consistent by the name, Drakula İstanbul'da. Akkuş' cover, on the other hand, has Dracula and a woman bit on the neck by him. The way woman is exposed quite sexually with her dress and the way her breasts are shown may be appealing to some readers.
The genre in which the rewriting was classified: All three publishing houses classified the book as a horror book.
Number of pages and other parts of the rewritings: "Contemporary canons of accuracy are based on an adequacy to the foreign text: an accurate translation of a novel must not only reproduce the basic elements of narrative form, but should do so in roughly the same number of pages" [Venuti, 484]. When the first thing to look at is the number of pages of the three rewritings without paying attention to the names or cover pictures of them, it is easy , and maybe wrong, to assume Elçi's and Akkuş' rewriting, with pictures, are "translations" of Stoker's Dracula while Seyfi's Drakula İstanbul'da is an adaptation most probably for children.
Number of pages are one of the elements that shows our biases in our perception of translation. Because generally we tend to focus on the exactness of the rewritten text and closeness to the original. So the closer the number of pages to the original, the closer the translation to the original is. The others are more likely to be called adaptations.
While Kamer Yayınları has contents page for both rewritings, İthaki Yayınları prefers not to put a contents page on a novel.
Finally, the pictures inside the books create a difference. Akkuş' Drakula has pictures directly taken from the movie which is consistent with its promotion on the blurb. Seyfi's Drakula İstanbul'da has pictures looking more like sketches which supports the children's book anticipation. Elçi's Drakula has no pictures in it.
REFERENCES
Lefevere, Andre 1992. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence 2004. "Translation, Community, Utopia" in Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti, Lawrence. pp. 482-503.
I will try to form a methodology to follow for this kind of an analysis study. What I will look at through the essay consists of the different parts of the rewritten text, namely the publishing house, the re-writer, the context (i.e. the time and place), genre, number of pages, and pictures; and I will not analyse the texts line by line rather I will look into the context of the rewriting process.
Publishing houses: It would not be surprising at all to look at the publishing houses at first, since publishers are one of the most powerful components of the literary system. Because they hold the authority to publish, to censor, and to distribute the literary texts. They can be well defined as patrons with Andre Lefevere's terminology. In this situation, publishing houses "try to regulate the literary system and the other systems, which together, make up a society, a culture." [Lefevere, 15]. They have to regulate the literary system, because needs and preferences of the market are also defined by them. Thus, while analysing these rewritings a brief look into the publishing houses, their ideologies and preferences will be beneficial to find out the differences in the translations. The reviewer has to have some questions in mind: What kind of novels has this publishing house published so far? How have these novels been published, whether there are any abridgements, adaptation or so? What is the general pricing strategy of the publishing house for these novels?
The question about the pricing is also important; because this will define the reader profile, whether the novels are for professional readers or non-professional readers. For whom have these novels been published? Translations are a way of creating the communities imagined by the patrons. And these "imagined communities fostered by translation produce effects that are commercial, as well as cultural and political" [Venuti, 496] And most probably it would not be an exaggeration to claim that the main aim of the publishers would be creating a bestseller rewriting out of a original writing.
"To translate" and generically to rewrite "is to invent for the foreign text new readerships who are aware that their interest in the translation is shared by other readers" [Venuti, 495] and this interest of the readers will coincide with the interest of the publishers, thus with the market. And naturally the community built will be shaped by the reader profile.
Another important question would be: Why have there been two rewritings of the same original writing published by the same publisher, in our case by Kamer Yayınları?
Other works of the re-writer: Re-writers are another important factor, maybe a more important factor than the publisher, in shaping the text since s/he is the actual creator of the text. What this translator have translated so far? What is her/his approach to translation? What are her/his priorities while rewriting? What is her/his experience with the genre? Because if they are known well and respected, their work will be "propagated as an example for future writers to follow" [Lefevere, 28] and canonized by the system as the proper/accepted version of the original writing. Thus their names may be published on the cover. However, none of the re-writers is mentioned on the cover.
The context in which the rewriting was published: The year in which these rewritings published is also important. The political climate of the time, popularity of the genre in those days, and the novelty brought to the literature of the time by these publications, if there is any, are important criteria for the analysis. And whether the two different Dracula's published by Kamer Yayınları have any effect on the later publication by İthaki is also important. The publication date of Drakula İstanbul'da was 1997 and Zeynep Akkuş' Drakula was published in 1998 while Elçi's translation was published five years later in 2003. So Elçi's translation have the opportunity to enjoy the fame of the Drakula after two published books and the movie.
Front and back covers of the rewritings: Cover of the novel gives a clue about what is expected inside. If the commentary writings on the cover satisfies anticipation of readers, s/he buys it. So the blurbs are important. Generally the back covers are the place to print these blurbs. Elçi's Drakula and Akkuş' Drakula have blurbs. The former one has a direct quotation from the book while the latter has a promotional writing, the reason for which is promoting the first translation of Drakula in Turkish. And it also has supported the promotion by mentioning the movie, Dracula.
Another significant detail about the covers are the pictures. On Elçi's Drakula the only picture on the cover belongs to the Dracula himself. Seyfi's cover picture has Drakula in front of a city setting which is consistent by the name, Drakula İstanbul'da. Akkuş' cover, on the other hand, has Dracula and a woman bit on the neck by him. The way woman is exposed quite sexually with her dress and the way her breasts are shown may be appealing to some readers.
The genre in which the rewriting was classified: All three publishing houses classified the book as a horror book.
Number of pages and other parts of the rewritings: "Contemporary canons of accuracy are based on an adequacy to the foreign text: an accurate translation of a novel must not only reproduce the basic elements of narrative form, but should do so in roughly the same number of pages" [Venuti, 484]. When the first thing to look at is the number of pages of the three rewritings without paying attention to the names or cover pictures of them, it is easy , and maybe wrong, to assume Elçi's and Akkuş' rewriting, with pictures, are "translations" of Stoker's Dracula while Seyfi's Drakula İstanbul'da is an adaptation most probably for children.
Number of pages are one of the elements that shows our biases in our perception of translation. Because generally we tend to focus on the exactness of the rewritten text and closeness to the original. So the closer the number of pages to the original, the closer the translation to the original is. The others are more likely to be called adaptations.
While Kamer Yayınları has contents page for both rewritings, İthaki Yayınları prefers not to put a contents page on a novel.
Finally, the pictures inside the books create a difference. Akkuş' Drakula has pictures directly taken from the movie which is consistent with its promotion on the blurb. Seyfi's Drakula İstanbul'da has pictures looking more like sketches which supports the children's book anticipation. Elçi's Drakula has no pictures in it.
REFERENCES
Lefevere, Andre 1992. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence 2004. "Translation, Community, Utopia" in Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti, Lawrence. pp. 482-503.
Thank you, this is a very nice try. There are a few questions I would like to pose.
YanıtlaSil1. Why have you chosen to use the rewriting terminology?
2. Further paratextual elements to look at also include forewords and footnotes, these are always worth a look.
3. The number of pages may not be always indicative, especially in the case of additions which come in to replace omissions.
4. My request was an offer of methodology for studying norms, but you have chosen not to go into the norms framework. Are there any reasons for that?