Social Acceptance: The Tyranny of the Majority

by Dodo Charles

Being popular is not all it is cracked up to be. I can understand why some individuals want to climb up the social ladder into popularity, however I simply cannot comprehend why people then feel that this is an excuse to pick on someone “beneath” them.

There are some individuals who are more likely to get bullied than others, namely:

1.      Those with disabilities- this can be anything from being blind, being in a wheelchair or being deaf. It is thankfully becoming more rare to see people with disabilities being bullied, but society is still not capable of walking past them without looking uncomfortable and, in some cases, avoid people with disabilities completely.

2.      Visible illness- I am talking about illnesses that cause a change in physical appearance. People often assume that there is something morbidly wrong with you, which is not always the case and can be upsetting to the recipient of the worried looks. Not to mention, the loss of friends who feel awkward talking to the ill person.

3.      Personality- bullying someone for not fitting in with the majority of the public. This is one of the worst forms, as it is picking on someone who is just trying to be themself. Many of us have been affected by this attempt to degrade someone and it really lowers people's self-esteem.

Society will always have difficulties with accepting people. It is something that we cannot prevent no matter how hard we try. The question is: Why?

Read More

Easter Sunday Gospel Hour: The Staple Singers

by James Burkinshaw

The Staple Singers
(image source: soundonsound.com)

"There's hardly a dimension in black life in its richest sense that cannot be found in the music of the Staples. Not only the political and overt social message that some of the songs have, but the religiousness of the spirit. It is the embodiment of the struggle of black people in America." Harry Belafonte

  The Staple Singers ("Pops" Staples and his three daughters, Mavis, Cleotha and Yvonne) were not only central to American gospel and its secular twin, soul music, for over half a century, but at the heart of the Civil Rights Movement during the triumphs and tragedies of the 1960s. 
   
Roebuck "Pops" Staple was born in Mississippi and brought from the Delta a blues-inflected guitar style that helped revolutionise gospel in the 1950s, creating a raw, ecstatic sound described by one critic as a kind of "holy blues". Among the Staples' earliest fans was fellow-Mississippian, Elvis Presley, who told Mavis "You know, I like the way your father plays that guitar. He plays it nervous", referring to the way in which the shivering tremolo of Staples' guitar played off the blistering intensity of Mavis' lead contralto and the sinuous harmonies of Cleotha and Yvonne. Here is the group performing the gospel classic "More Than A Hammer And Nails" on The Johnny Cash Show:

While performing on the gospel circuit in Montgomery, Alabama, the Staples heard Martin Luther King preaching at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church and, as Mavis later recalled, "from that we joined the movement, made the transition from strictly gospel to protest songs . . . Gospel  music is good news music to strengthen people when they are burdened down. The movement was the same thing, helping us to come together as one." They became close to King and their song "Freedom Highway", which fuses impassioned lyrics about social justice and political freedom with insistent, often hypnotic, gospel rhythms, became one of the emblematic songs of the Civil Rights Movement, still retaining its haunting, intoxicating power fifty years after it was recorded:

  During the late 1960s, like many other gospel singers such as Sam Cooke, the Staple Singers shifted towards a smoother, more secularised soul sound that nonetheless retained the millenarian Christian optimism of their early gospel music. "Respect Yourself", recorded at the iconic Stax Records, was a huge soul hit, with a message of self-empowerment that appealed to African-American audiences demoralised by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and frustrated by a sense that the promise of the Civil Rights era had not been fulfilled.

It was followed by their first mainstream number one record, "I'll Take You There", criticised by many traditionalists for representing an abandonment of the Staples' gospel roots. Mavis later recalled, " "I'll Take You There" was described as the devil's music, but we were talking about the same thing, about taking you to heaven". However, what critics perhaps objected to was less the spiritual content of the lyrics than the worldly suggestiveness of the music, with its resonant bass line, rich horn arrangement and the sensuous intensity of Mavis Staples' vocals.

The Staples continued to experiment and develop musically, resulting in another number one, the funk-suffused  "Let's Do It Again", in 1975, produced by Curtis Mayfield; this was to prove their last major hit. 
 

Mavis Staples, early 1960s
(source: the casual optimist)

However, a year later they teamed up with American roots rockers The Band to produce a transcendent performance of "The Weight", memorably filmed by Martin Scorsese in The Last Waltz (see below).

The Staples continued to be in demand, working with artists as diverse as Bob Dylan (who had unsuccessfully proposed marriage to Mavis in the 1960s), Elton John, Jeff Tweedy and Prince. Mavis Staples has continued to record and perform worldwide. As she received her first Grammy Award in 2011 for her solo album You Are Not Alone, at the age of 71, she mused,"This has been a long time coming."

Interview with Mavis Staples taken from NPR's "American Routes"

See also Easter Sunday Gospel Hour 2012: Sister Rosetta Tharpe

Read More

'Be My Baby': A Director's View

Director in Residence John-Paul McCrohon reflects upon the experience of directing 'Be My Baby'

(photograph by Rob Porter)

In the final week of term, a large cast of Year 9 and 10 students took to the stage in a challenging theatrical double bill that was comprised of Amanda Whittington’s ‘Be My Baby’ and David Hare’s ‘South Downs’. Both plays called for a naturalistic style of playing whilst also posing further challenges that were unique to each piece; the thematic link was their setting of the early 1960s and the young outsiders at their core.

As Tim MacBain (our Year 13 ‘Guest Star’!) has already written very eloquently about being part of ‘South Downs’, it has fallen to me to forward some words on the ‘Be My Baby’ experience …

‘Be My Baby’ is widely studied as a GCSE and A Level text and has received several major productions since its 1998 debut. Set in 1964, it follows the stories of four young women who have fallen pregnant out of wedlock and been sent to one of the ‘Mother and Baby’ homes that operated at this time.

(photograph by Rob Porter)

After a very well-attended audition, I was fortunate enough to find the ten superb performers that would make up this all-female cast and go on the considerable journey that working on this play would represent.

From the very beginning of the process, it was clear that this would be a thoroughly rewarding project to work on as all the girls involved committed wholeheartedly to bringing the nuances out in their respective characters, gradually submerging themselves into their roles to the point that the lines between onstage and offstage camaraderie was blurred in the best possible way.

In addition to taking on such a mature piece of work, many practical challenges were met … these included working in a ‘thrust’ stage set-up, operating an authentic 1960s dansette record player and donning prosthetic pregnancies!

The girl-group music of the period is extremely important in the play as it not only provides the escape from reality that the girls sorely require but comments and counterpoints on the action and themes of the piece. For this production, I decided to bring the music even further to the fore by using four female singer/dancers alongside a live band … and I am extremely grateful also to Gemma Williams for her choreography and to Mr Gladstone and his Year 10 musicians who contributed so vitally to the piece.

Watching the piece develop was a privilege and seeing the ladies face perhaps their toughest audience of Year 9 peers on the day before giving a triumphant, rounded and professional performance in the evening to a packed house was a true delight.

Neither play would have been possible without the tireless work of Emily Bustard, who assembled props, set and people with great aplomb, ably assisted by her two stage managers – Dodo Charles and Jack O’Leary.

The two plays were a stunning representation of the sheer standard of dramatic talent on display at PGS as well as a shining example of how hard-working, dedicated and charming the school’s students are. I feel fortunate to have worked with all those involved and look forward immensely to having further opportunities to do so.

Read More

Photography Club: Self Portraits

Self-portraits by Isaac and Grace

Photography Club meets every Friday and is run by Mr Stone.

Read More

Good Friday or Forgiveness Friday?

by Daniel Rollins

'It should be called Forgiveness Friday, not Good Friday,
there is nothing good about being crucified'  -Eve, aged 8

This profound observation from a young girl appeared on my twitter stream two days ago courtesy of a Churchplanter in Northern Ireland (the sort of person I follow on twitter). It made me think once again about what Christians ‘celebrate’ on this day and how the image of Jesus on the cross can ever be considered ‘good’.

In a controversial article in last Saturdays Guardian, Giles Fraser, liberal priest, former cannon of St. Paul's Cathedral and church polemist, criticised evangelicals who celebrate,  “the cross of Good Friday… as a moment of triumph”, claiming that this view of the events of Good Friday is, “theologically illiterate”.

There certainly are very dark moment in the Easter story, shown dramatically by Miss Meadows’ Year 9 drama group during this year’s PGS Passiontide Service: Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial, the disciples’ desertion of Jesus and, finally, the shameful and agonising death of an innocent man by crucifixion. As little Eve reminds us, “there is nothing good about being crucified.” The ugly image of broken man on a cross does not seem like something to celebrate as triumphant.

Yet many Christians, myself included, continue to see the cross as a victory. In his letter to the Church in Colossae, the Apostle Paul wrote this, “And having disarmed the powers and authorities,he [Jesus] made a public spectacle of them,triumphing over them by the cross”. Paul claims that, despite the horrible nature of Jesus’ suffering and death, it was through it that he won a great victory over not only the human powers that nailed him to the cross but all the evil in the world. This is because it is through the cross that God works out his salvation for humanity; through Jesus’ sacrifice on the ugly cross that humanity can have its sins forgiven and be saved from the power of death. This is summarised in what many consider the most translated sentence ever: “For God so loved theworld, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should notperish but have eternal life.”

Therefore it’s right that Christians celebrate the cross as a victory as Paul teaches but also important to remember the suffering and pain that Jesus went though as he died alone on the cross to win our salvation. The hymn writer Isaac Watts put this beautifully in his famous hymn, “When I Survey the WondrousCross”:

“See from His head, His hands, His feet, 

Sorrow and love flow mingled down! 

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet, 

Or thorns compose so rich a crown?"

So should we rename Good Friday Forgiveness Friday, remembering the forgiveness Jesus gave us through his death? Or should we keep it Good Friday as we see the beauty of the victory Christ won for us? Please respond in the comments.

Daniel is a leader of the PGS Christian Union which meets every Thursday at 1:10 in the BCSC meeting room. All are welcome.

Read More

Translation of Literature: Challenge, Sacrifice and Potential

This extended essay by Fay Davies was awarded the prestigious Ithaka Prize on Tuesday, 19th March, 2013. It was originally published in Portsmouth Point magazine.



Winner of the 2013 Ithaka Prize
(photo: Chris Reed)

One might think of language as a system of signs understood by humans to refer to certain concepts in the mind. Its purpose is communication – rendering thoughts into spoken or written words so that they may be received by other people. This is only one definition of many, but however it may be viewed, one aspect of language is clear: it is far from precise. No word has an absolute, indisputable meaning, and every individual's interpretation is unique.

There is more than one language in the world: more than one system of arbitrary signs which refer to our perception of reality. These can be learnt and understood, and of course translated. But the process of translation is not the same as the act of mere understanding. There is never a corresponding word in one language for every word in another, and languages have different structures: grammars. The process of translation inevitably becomes an act of rewriting, as translator must read and interpret a phrase, then render the thought in another language. Adding another stage into the imprecise process of communication, the translator creates a new piece, and it will always be a distortion of the original. If the subject of this translation is literature, it cannot hope to replace the author's work, but only perhaps provide us an insight into the original.

Of the variety of literary forms, poetry is perhaps the most difficult to translate. To the existing problems of translation, poetry adds the constraints of rhythm, rhyme, tone and form. In his introduction to 'Ezra Pound, Translations', Hugh Kenner writes 'If he doesn't translate the words, the translator remains faithful to the original poet's sequences of images, to his rhythms, or the effect produced by his rhythms and to his tone'[1]. The very mention of some kind of choice suggests a difficulty. The translator, it seems, can choose not to translate 'the words'. He must 'remain faithful' to either the images, or the rhymes, or the tone. He must sacrifice certain elements in favour of what he thinks is most important and most representative of the original work, and this is subject to individual interpretation.

To help illustrate the subtle, elusive and sometimes ineffable difficulties that translation of poetry presents, I will be comparing two translations of Dante Alighieri's 'Inferno', Book One of The Divine Comedy: that of Dorothy Sayers, 1949, and Steve Ellis, 1994. The Divine Comedy has been translated into English by at least thirteen notable translators since 1805, and each translation is wildly different – demonstrating the unavoidable imprecision of the art.

I will also be exploring evidence of their different intentions, facilitated by the introductions in which both translators state their intended style. Ellis, for example, starts by asserting that his translation is 'a colloquial version'[1], and that 'it tries to recapture some of the vigour and directness of Dante's original'. Importantly, 'vigour' and 'directness' are abstract qualities, and there is no absolute means of reproducing them. The kind of language that incited vigour in Dante's era and in Dante's culture is certainly not the same as today. Sayers, the second translator, claims that 'the vocabulary and the sentence-rhythms of verse are not, and never can be, exactly the same as those of contemporary prose'[1]. Thus, although she writes that she has 'considered the whole range of intelligible English speech', she is of the opinion that her diction must be altered to match the demands of verse. A noticeable difference between the two versions is Sayers's use of the ancient 'thee and thou', marking her work with the echoes of ancient speech.

Finally, I will address the theoretical concerns at the heart of translation. The sacrificial notion, evident in Kenner's words, is a common one: we see translations in terms of what has been lost, what cannot be brought over to the new language. However, perhaps it may be possible to change such a perception: to see the art in a more positive light.

Starting the analysis is an example that demonstrates the idea of sacrifice, as Kenner notes. In Canto XVIII, line 51, Dante uses a pun. 'ma che ti mena a si pungenti salse?' He is inquiring as to the reasons that his companion found himself in hell, and a fairly literal translation would be 'But what brings you into such a biting pickle?' Salse, the word for pickle or sauce, is also the name of a ravine near Bologna where they threw the bodies of criminals, and herein lies the pun. This line is problematic for two reasons: historical and linguistic. The first is that modern readers are unlikely to know of such a ravine: regardless of the need for translation, the detail may not be understood. This is something that may be a problem with any text, as they all tend to presuppose a certain amount of knowledge on the reader's part. Yet, the older the text and the further it is from the culture and society of the reader, the more likely it is to contain allusions that are not understood.

The second reason that this line poses difficulties is more crucial to the nature of translation: the English translation of 'salse', whatever it may be, is not 'Salse'. The pun no longer exists. Sayers and Ellis overcome this problem in two different ways. Sayers writes, as a translation of this line, 'What wormwood pickled such a rod?' Her translation retains the pun element. She could never use the same pun as Dante, but she creates one that her readers are more likely to understand. In a way she ignores Dante's words; she does not give a literal translation but seeks to create a similar device of her own. While 'pickled' may have been inspired by 'salse', it occupies a completely different role in this sentence as has become a verb where it was originally a noun. No matter, her translation does have roughly the same meaning: the narrator asks this occupant of Hell how he came to be there. And, as she preserves the use of a pun, she in turn preserves the humour and playfulness of Dante's line.

Ellis, on the other hand, does not preserve the pun, writing 'Why is your sauce here so spicey?' Ellis has provided a reasonably literal translation of Dante's line, allowing the pun to be sacrificed and not providing another. The relative simplicity of this line is typical of Ellis's colloquial style. Of course, it is not without its own merits: the playful alliteration of 'sauce' and 'spicey' has, like Dante's original line and Sayers's pun, a comical effect. Significantly, while one translator brings over the pun to their version and one doesn't, both bring over the humour of the line. Perhaps this is most important: for the translators to attempt to reproduce the same feeling in the reader that they think a reader of the original would have felt. Incidentally, what they believe a reader may have felt is most likely what they themselves felt upon reading. Thus, subjective interpretation plays a large part in the process of translation.

Humour is something that both translators are careful to preserve, but it is a complex topic. Sayers notes this, writing in her introduction that '[humour], of all qualities, has been the most hopelessly obscured by his translators and critics'. Humour is problematic because it is produced by a network of words, cultural expectations and the subversion of these. Often, the causes behind it are elusive and a result of multiple strands. Sayers sums this up, describing Dante's particular humour as 'something more like a faintly ironic inflection in the voice than anything humorous in the words themselves'.  An example of this 'ironic inflection' and the way it has been preserved by the translators is Canto XI, lines 76-78, where Dante's guide Virgil reprimands him for the stupidity of his questions. Sayers translates it as:

            “What error has seduced thy reason, pray?”
            Said he, “thou art not wont to be so dull;
            Or are thy wits woolgathering miles away?”

The humour lies in the fact that the narrator represents Dante himself, therefore passages such as this are ironic and self-deprecating. In her translation, Sayers increases the sense of insult with her use of metaphor and words that are particularly offensive. What translates fairly literally as 'it looks elsewhere' becomes 'woolgathering miles away'. 'Why does the mind wander so' is replaced with the accusation 'so dull'.  Sayers's Virgil is, in this instance, more emphatically insulting and disrespectful than Dante's. As a result, she amplifies the sense of self-deprecation and, arguably, the humour of the section.

Ellis, however, does not supplement Dante's words with metaphor:

            He says, 'Why do your wits wander
            out of their normal way so much?
            or what's your mind got hold of?'

Arguably, to say 'what's your mind got hold of' excuses the matter as absent-mindedness or anxiety; there is nothing of the ridicule of 'dull' or 'woolgathering'. The humour is not completely lost, as it is inherent in the very notion of Dante putting himself down; yet it would seem less explicitly comical than Sayers's version. Despite her observations that humour tends not to be a result of the 'words themselves', it appears that Sayers intends to accentuate the humour by these means; particularly by the use of 'woolgathering'.  Interestingly, Ellis's unembellished version is closer to the kind of subtle irony that she describes.

Occasionally, word order alone can mean that different shades of humour are produced. In Canto XVII, lines 91-93 there is another instance of self-deprecation, this time more subtle: as he boards the shoulders of a demon, the Dante acknowledges his fear and futility. As Sayers translates:

            So I climbed to those dread shoulders obediently;
            “Only do” (I meant to say, but my voice somehow
            Wouldn't come out right) “please catch hold of me.”

In these lines, there is a revelation: that Dante was unable to say what he intended. Sayers conveys this revelation in parentheses: the syntax is broken, stuttering, anxious. In this translation, the character Dante makes no attempt to hide disorder: it is immediate, honest, and not at all dignified. The confused uncertainty of 'somehow' adds to the pitiful humour: he has no control and no answers. The phrase in parenthesis uses more colloquial diction than is normal in this translation: the abbreviation 'wouldn't' and the simplistic 'come out right' seem curiously modern. Sayers in fact writes in her introduction that she favours a modern phrase 'if the passage was humorous or conversational', revealing her intention to produce changes of tone when she deems it appropriate.

Ellis phrases these lines differently:

            I perched on those vast shoulders:
            I wanted to say, 'Hold me tight,'
            but found my voice wouldn't come.

The revelation comes last, and the irony comes from writing what he intended to say and later revealing his inability to say it. Crucially, Ellis's syntax is less cluttered, and unbroken by parenthesis. This gives his version a greater sense of control than that of Sayers. Yet, he still portrays disarray with the verb 'found', as that he 'found' his voice wouldn't come is similar to Sayers's use of 'somehow'. It implies a confusion; a lack of control over his faculties. 

The way Dante writes this section, the syntax is also unbroken but the speech comes last:

            I' m'assettai in su quelle spallacce:
            si volli dir, ma la voce non venne
            com' io credetti: 'Fa che tu m'abbracce.'

The revelation of his failure to speak is the first thing Dante notes. Arguably it comes as less of a surprise than in Ellis's or Sayers's versions, as no intended speech has been recorded before we learn of his failure to say it. The phrase 'ma la voce non venne / com' io credetti' ('but did not come as I thought') is parenthesised: writing it as the less dominant clause of the sentence Dante unveils a  shame over his fright.

The mere position of the revelation, whether it is first, last or central, subtly affects the humour that is created. It is impossible to judge exactly why each version is comic, and which is more comical than the others, because it depends on individual interpretation. It is also difficult to know exactly why Ellis and Sayers chose the order that they did: perhaps it was to convey the exact feeling they interpreted from Dante; perhaps it was because it best accommodated their chosen rhythm. In any case, the translators have not produced a faithful representation of Dante's lines. They have changed his structure for reasons external to the direct demands of translation, something that may seem unexpected when the purpose of translation is to provide as best an insight as possible into the author's original work.

Each of the examples so far demonstrate Dante's tendency to mix styles, particularly that of epic and comic. This mixture of styles is no more apparent than in Dante's occasional scatological humour: his crudity. Of the two translators it is Ellis who most exaggerates this, and indeed his colloquial style can more aptly accommodate it. Sayers tends to soften this aspect. Her relative hesitancy to use vulgar terms could be due to a desire to echo a sense of the medieval, meaning that she chose to write in tune with contemporary perceptions of the era or of epic poetry. This would include use of high diction, archaisms and a sense of prudery as opposed to crudity. One instance of this crudity can be found in the final line of Canto XXI, as the leader of a group of devils replies in an obscene fashion to the salutes of his minions. 'Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta', Dante writes, translating fairly literally as 'and he made his rear into a trumpet'. Ellis takes no pains to be polite, writing:

            but first, each blew a raspberry
            at their leader, for a salute,
            and he trumpets back with his arse.

While his translation may be intentionally colloquial, this last line is incongruously vulgar. Next to the harmless and childlike act of blowing a raspberry, the word 'arse' comes as somewhat of a shock. The final line is noticeably more playfully rhythmic than what came before it, as if proudly announcing its inelegance. It is the incongruity, then, which creates the humour of this section, rather than the act or the language in isolation. Sayers, in contrast, masks the vulgarity of this last line: 'He promptly made a bugle of his breech'. She does not make the line stand out, linking it to the rest of the section with rhyme, using the dated terms 'bugle' and 'breech', and adding grace with the alliteration. Interestingly, Dante's version places 'trombetta' at the end of the line. This word, which is the key to the metaphor and the humour, fall last, ending Canto XXI. As shown by the reasonably literal translation above, English would also allow this to be the case, yet Ellis and Sayers choose to change the line. It may seem that the change has occurred for no plausible reason, bringing us back to the previous example in which both Ellis and Sayers inexplicably change the word order. This change, too, is unexplained; but it is vital to keep in mind that the process of translation involves not only the constraints of language, but also the constraints of the new poem which is in creation. It is a separate entity from the original text, and needs to cohere and work as a whole. Thus, lines may be written in ways that differ from the original simply because they fit in better with what has come before them. In this case, both translators at least allow the line to retain some kind of comic impact, whether through pure vulgarity or playful alliterative frivolity.

Another instance where Sayers and Ellis diverge in their level of vulgarity is lines 58-60 of Canto XI. Listing the occupants of a particular circle of Hell, Ellis writes:

            of hypocrisy, flattery, enchantment,
            counterfeiting, thieving, simonists,
            pimps, swindlers, crap like this.

The last small phrase is, again, incongruous. The modern, colloquial term is common to the English language of today but at odds with more archaic religious words such as 'simonists'. Perhaps this is Ellis's attempt at mixing the epic and the comic. Unsurprisingly, Sayers puts it more gently:

            Hypocrites, flatterers, dealers in sorcery,
            Panders and cheats, and all such filthy stuff,
            With theft, and simony and barratry.

'All such filthy stuff', if only because of its higher syllabic count, is decidedly less dismissive than 'crap like this'. This impression is reinforced by the way that the list subsequently continues, seeming longer, and the more complex, mixed and broken syntax contributes to a more dignified tone. The tone and the words are more similar to Dante's original, although like Ellis he writes 'e simile lordura', translated possibly as 'and the like filth', at the end. Turning 'and the like filth' into 'crap like this', Ellis takes the dismissive remark to an extreme, undermining all that went before it.

Alliteration forms a particular problem when translating poetry: not only does the translator have to preserve the sense and tone of the line, but they are also restricted by a necessity to repeat first letters. In the 'Last Judgement' sections, Sayers shows her command of such techniques as, to use her own phrase, she 'reproduces Dante's complete alliterative scheme'. One such section is in Canto VI line 95 onwards:

            “Till the last loud angelic trumpet's sounding
            For when the Enemy Power shall come arrayed
            Each soul shall seek its own grave's mournful mounding,
            Put on once more its earthly flesh and feature
            And hear the Doom eternally redounding.”

Here, Virgil is telling Dante what the condition of the spirits will be after the Last Judgement, and Dante widens out from his personal tale to take on a biblical, authoritative tone. Sayers manages to retain the alliteration, and while she arguably sacrifices the meaning of certain words, their proximity to the originals is sufficient. For example, 'mounding' was originally 'tomba', more  accurately translated as 'tomb' but still an adequate representation. 'Doom eternally redounding' is perhaps more accurately translated as 'that which echoes in eternity'.Yet, any sacrifice she has made is worthwhile because the epic subject is suited to the alliteration and its rhetorical poetic effect. It keeps a pulse through this section, creating a mounting movement spurred on too by the rhyme. However, Ellis does not attempt to reproduce Dante's alliteration except where literal translation facilitates it:

            “till the angels sound their horns
            and the enemy chief comes here:
            each will repossess his flesh and figure,
            hear what booms through eternity.”

It is possible that his decision not to reproduce the alliterative scheme stemmed from the difficulty of the task, but the choice may indeed have been deliberate. The solemnly lyrical effect of the alliteration in Sayers's version, the sense of gravity and tension that it produces, is arguably unsuited to the poem that Ellis writes. In his translation of this section, it appears that he has preferred to consume the exalted subject matter with a more matter-of-fact tone. The casualness with which he writes 'comes here' contrasts with Sayers's 'shall come arrayed': he trivialises the act and makes it seem like an accident; a mere happening. The omission of alliteration prevents too much embellishment, and he achieves more understated description of this momentous biblical occasion. This seems to better reflect Ellis's style and the self-consciously modern nature of his translation.

Another instance where his style seems emphatically modern is in Canto. 'just as I've heard of that lance that Achilles and his father had, /harmful at first and then benign'. To say 'I've heard of that lance' is noticeably hesitant; the narrator distances himself from the legend with the word 'that', as if he professes not to be intimately acquainted with classic mythology. Ellis notes that he uses primarily the 'language of the 90s', and it would appear that he reproduces not simply the language of the current era, but also the mindset.

Throughout the comparison, the problems of translation have manifested themselves in the issue of the pun; in the challenge of reproducing humour and a mix of the epic and comic; in the necessity to write a piece that is good in its own right, staying faithful to one's own style as well as to the original. The last point is perhaps the most interesting one, and although cited as a 'problem', perhaps it is something that should be celebrated. The style established by each translator may be developed unconsciously, but as noted, they seem to start with some kind of agenda. Ellis claims that he wishes to 'recapture some of the vigour'; Sayers writes of her decision to use archaic forms of English. So, while the task of translation is of course imprecise, it also gives freedom. It implies not just sacrifice, but also potential: potential for reinvention, which Sayers and Ellis both take  advantage of. Translations are overshadowed by the presence of the original; a kind of holy grail that we wish to access but can only do so imperfectly. This is perhaps even more emphatic in the case of Dante, who has such legendary status as a writer. Sayers writes of her translation 'it is not, of course, Dante; no translation could ever be Dante'. Yet, to say 'it is not Dante' is not the same as saying 'it is not good'. The purpose of translation is to make a work accessible to those who do not understand the language of the original: to, as the Literary Review writes in praise for Ellis's translation, provide a 'door to Dante'. Sayers and Ellis demonstrate the true freedom of translation by making subtle changes that stem not out of necessity, but out of choice. The vast differences in their versions are a result of the way that interpretation is subjective and unique. So, a translation should not be judged solely on its ability to mimic the original. It is also vital that a translation can stand in its own right, enjoyed by readers for what it really is: a new creation. A testimony to the plurality of meaning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dante – The Divine Comedy – 1: Inferno; Italian text with translation and comment by John D Sinclair (Oxford University Press 1961)

Dante – Inferno; Translated, introduced and annotated by Steve Ellis (Vintage Classics Random House 2007)

Dante – The Divine Comedy 1: Hell; Translated by Dorothy L. Sayers (Penguin Books 1949)

Hugh Kenner's introduction to Ezra Pound, Translations (New Directions, 1963)

Read More

England: What To Do?

by Tim MacBain

Roy Hodgson: more imagination needed
(source: Wikicommons)

I am, as I am sure many of you will be very aware, not a very sporty person. I love the stuff, but can’t seem to play it properly. However, I do enjoy thinking and talking about sport, and thus I was somewhat incensed by the horrific display the English football team put up against Montenegro on Tuesday evening. How could a team with such ability put in such a depressingly bad display?

When Roy Hodgson became England manager, I think I was with the majority of people in believing that he was one of the best men for the job, and all the better that he was actually English. I am impressed with his new attitude; give young players some time on the field, and change the formation. Now, I have nothing much against the 4-4-2. It’s a very well balanced formation. But it’s SO DULL. It gives no room for imagination; one is always attacking the same way, and as soon as the opposition work out how to repel that attack, you are permanently on the defensive. That was why, when watching the build up to the match on Tuesday, I was ecstatic to see a new formation. I did think the 4-3-3 was a little dubious, for reasons I shall reveal later, but it wasn’t the 4-4-2, so I was more than happy with developments. I was equally happy with the selections.

Almost. I don’t deny that Tom Cleverley has been playing well recently, but why is he starting? Put Frank Lampard on the right of the midfield and you’ve got a simply sublime combination; even better, Lampard and Gerrard aren’t right next to each other, separated by Michael Carrick, so we won’t be faced with the problem we’ve had for so long, will we? If I may also point out the ridiculous inaccuracies of the ITV broadcasting; Milner was OBVIOUSLY playing on the right, NOT the left as their reporting would have us believe. I can understand this incorrectness before the game had started, but after half time? Honestly, this is why I can’t stand watching football on ITV. That and the blooming adverts…

So, the match begins, and England are chugging along rather nicely. A goal in the sixth minute, just what you want, and the whole team, especially Welbeck and Milner, are having a blast. However, the seeds of England’s undoing were sown in the first half. As soon as the goal was scored, as Andy Townsend said might happen, the midfield drops back so their almost having a chat with Joe Hart in goal. With that, they surrender a fair old whack of the pressure they had built up in the opening minutes. I’m afraid to say that this is the problem I have with the 4-3-3 formation; without proper regulation, it becomes more of a 7-3, with an enormous gulf between the defence and strikers/wingers.

This became even more of a problem in the second half, with Gerrard playing more and more long balls; let’s face it, Milner, Rooney, Welbeck and Cleverley aren’t going to win many aerial battles, are they? This meant that England surrendered possession, pressure, and made camp in their own half, relying on last ditch saves to stop a Montenegran goal; which, as the scoreline states, doesn’t work so effectively. It was like the England of old, reverting to the dullest of kinds of football; hoof tackle hoof hoof tackle, block, block, tackle, block, concede. Euro 2004 quarter final all over again, protecting a one goal lead.

So, what can we do?

 

In my humble opinion (which I know doesn’t have much backing in terms of knowledge/experience), we should succumb to the latest formation craze: 4-2-3-1. I was, initially, quite suspicious of this formation, but have since come to the conclusion that it offers an improvement on the basic promise of the 4-4-2, defensive capabilities, whilst offering offensive flexibility in as much as a lot of players in midfield, allowing a team to dominate possession. Keep the same backline (I for one have faith in Chris Smalling, he just needs time to settle into the international setup) apart from replacing Ashley Cole with Leighton Baines, who is FAR more capable and level headed than Cole, and use Carrick and Lampard to sit in front of the defence and feed the front four. Cleverley can be kept on the bench to provide that little spark should we need it in Gerrard’s position.

Gerrard can stop playing the accursed long ball (we know you’re good at them, Stevie, but do you HAVE to do them so often?) and instead supply some delectable through balls to Rooney, Welbeck and Milner. Rooney can hold the ball up if there’s no one in support, or can hang around the opposition’s 18 yard box waiting for one of those magical through balls. Ashley Young, Theo Walcott, and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain can provide another option for Hodgson through their speed and agility, and hey, if all goes belly up, replace Rooney with Defoe and Gerrard with Parker and tell them that AVB is thinking of selling them both; that’ll soon get some pace in the team!

All we need is imagination. Roy Hodgson has shown that he can provide a little. Now we need him to show he can provide a lot.

Read More

Theatre Review: South Downs

by Tim MacBain

(image by Rob Porter)

This term, I have been fortunate enough to work with Mr McCrohon and a large group of Year 9s and 10s on the play South Downs by David Hare. Although not mentioned in the play, Hare’s schooling at Lancing College had a large influence on the writing of the piece (both from a pupil and master perspective) and the plot, as well as the title itself. 

South Downs is a play about the trials of maturing in an all-boy boarding school in the 1960s, and the ways in which the central character, Blakemore, deals with being different to the others, with the help of a prefect, Duffield.

Mr McCrohon put it rather well when he first approached me about being in the play: “South Downs is a play where very little actually happens. But what does happen resonates, stays with the audience, and leaves them buoyed at the end.” This sums the entirety of South Downs up nicely; it isn’t some piece of impenetrable Shakespeare, or some utterly baffling Berkoff. It does what it says on the tin, and the audience, quite frankly, enjoys that.

Mr McCrohon’s decision to act the play out promenade (walking around a building, to you and me) around the Upper Junior School was daunting, seeing as we didn’t really know exactly when the audience would see us (until they appeared), but it worked very well,  really giving the impression of the transience of school life, from one fleeting moment to the next.

(image by Rob Porter)

The cast was mainly made up of Year 9 boys, with two Year 10 girls playing the mothers of Blakemore and Duffield. Robert Merriam, as Blakemore, put in a wonderfully subtle performance, conveying how ruthlessly intellectual, but also how socially inept and immature the character was. The Duffield of Jack Shahran was immaculate, oozing confidence; I did feel like I was dealing with a political figure of the future during my scene with him! However, these two are only two of the many performances that shone; the rest of the cast put in so much, developed their characters a great deal, and worked so hard to make the performance a success, that it would be unfair not to give them a mention.

(image by Rob Porter)

 I was asked to join the cast because my character, a housemaster, needed a discernible age difference from the boys. However, I did not feel that I was older than the cast, nor that they were less accomplished than me; on the contrary, at times I felt dwarfed by the sheer enthusiasm and thought they brought to the process. I have rarely enjoyed a play in its entirety, from first rehearsal to performance, so much. Thank you all for that.

It would be extremely remiss of me not to thank our patient and brilliant director, Mr McCrohon, for his time, enthusiasm and artistry, without which the play would not have been what it was. We are also indebted to Emily Bustard and Jack O’Leary for their technical skills, and for Mrs Filho for overseeing the whole project.

Read More

Boris Johnson: The Irresistible Rise

by Daniel Rollins

'a bicycle crash of an interview'
(source: The Guardian)

Yesterday evening the BBC showed Michael Cockerell’s documentary about Boris Johnson, “The Irresistible Rise.” In the hour long program Cockerell looks at one of Britain’s best loved yet controversial politicians through interviews with many of his friends, colleagues and family mixed with some of his famous appearances in the media, both good and bad. The whole film is centered on an interrogation style interview with the man himself as he answered questions about his past and future ambitions, and responded to many of his private and public indiscretions.

I first heard about the film was on Sunday when #Boris began trending on twitter as people reacted to his appearance on the “The Andrew MarrShow (without Andrew Marr)”. What should have been an easy Sunday morning interview for the experience statesman turned into what the Guardian described as a “bicycle crash of an interview.” The replacement presenter, Eddie Mair, ended up calling the Mayor of London, “a nasty piece of work” citing his extramarital affairs, admission to have having “sandpapered” a quote while working as a journalist for The Times and agreeing to help have another journalist beaten up. For the first time “BoJo” appeared lost for words and floundering. Expectations for the documentary were set high.

The program itself began by documenting Boris’ childhood moving around the world with his parents and three siblings and later attending Eton where he had his first taste of power as “School Captain”. This was also when he first met “Cameron minor”, who later became a recurring character in Johnsons’ political life.  On leaving Eton he went to Oxford to study Classics and became the president of the Oxford Union on his second attempt. It was at Oxford that he also became a member of the infamous “Bullingdon Club.” When confronted with the picture of himself with the other members of the club (including Cameron minor) he called it a “truly shameful vignette of almost superhuman undergraduate arrogance, toffishness and twittishness,” admitting that his “biding memory is of deep, deep self-loathing.”

After this Cockerall confronted the Mayor with controversy after controversy from his colourful career; from fabricating a quote which got him sacked from The Times to his promise to help Darius Guppy, a convicted fraudster and Bullingdon chum, find a journalist so he could have him beaten up, and his numerous infidelities. To each accusation Boris responded just as he had when these stories had broken, with some jovial bumbling as if it was just a bit of insignificant banter. And somehow, yet again, he got away with it, appearing much more like the bumbling teddy bear we are used to than the “nasty piece of work” Eddie Mair accused him of being.  

After this the documentary was less aggressive towards Boris, focusing on his election as Mayor of London and his reputation since then. After a few embarrassments early on in his mayorship, Guto Harri, his then Director of Communications, explains how his job was to turn Boris from a celebrity into a statesman, “without losing any of the celebrity”. The result of this image management was showcased to the world during the London Olympics when crowds of supports chanted his name. This experience helped him to understand why Roman emperors put on their dramatic games.

So does Boris want to be Emperor? The last 10 minutes of the documentary looked at his ambitions for the future, his sister explained that he saw life as a, “competition” and he “always wanted to be on top”. His father went so far to say Boris should be leader of the Tory’s by the next election, but Boris himself, as reserved as always about his ambition to become PM, just gave some vague metaphor about rugby.

As with anything featuring Boris the program was very entertaining, his witty comments, classical allusions and shambling persona made him the star of the show despite some awkward moments. Although it was interesting to see how he reacted to being trapped by three large television screens showing images from his past the film didn't really tell us anything about Boris that we didn't already know. The program could be summed up by one quote from his former boss Conrad Black who described Boris as a, “sly fox disguised as a teddy bear.” Is that news to anyone? 

Rating (out of five): 3 

Watch the program on the BBC iPlayer here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rlx9l/Boris_Johnson_The_Irresistible_Rise/  (Available until Tuesday, 2 April 2013)

Read More

Review: Tegan and Sara – Heartthrob

by Patrick McGuiggan

My epic quest to return back to Northern Ireland included: a 300-mile drive, a 2-hour delay in Liverpool, a boat journey with around 100 loud American tourists, all intent on drinking the boat's entire supply of Guinness, and then, finally, a snow- shovelling session which lasted an hour, all so I had somewhere to abandon the car.

It wasn’t all bad, though. I got to spend a lot of time listening to music, one of the few things I actually like about driving – there is something quite cathartic about singing along whilst in a world of your own.

I was recently interviewed by Sampad Sengupta and Ellie Burr-Lonnan for The Portmuthian. In that interview, I mentioned two things: one was that I would like to write album reviews as an alternative career, but that the thought of using so many words was simply terrifying for a mathematician; the other was Baz Luhrmann’s song, “Everybody’s Free to Wear Sunscreen,” in which he says: “Do one thing each day which scares you.”

So...here goes nothing:

The most notable album I listened to on my travels was the aforementioned 'Heartthrob' by Tegan and Sara. It is nothing short of a triumph. On their seventh attempt, the Quin sisters have released what is, without question, their best album to date and probably a contender for the best pop album of the year. What is more impressive is that the girls have abandoned their guitars and traded them in for keys and synthesisers. With each album, their sound has slowly evolved but here they have jumped feet first in to the world of pop music ... and they are showing everyone else how it is done.

The album opens with the track “Closer”; you may recognise it from the BBC’s coverage of the Six Nations (perhaps my only highlight of the tournament). An extremely uplifting track with a hugely infectious chorus, it is a song about new love and, along with “Love They Say,” is one of few moments the girls spare us from the world of heartbreak.

Instead, the pair choose to tackle broader topics on the love continuum. “How Come You Don’t Want Me” is a deeply depressing song written from the perspective of someone not taking rejection well; “Now I’m All Messed Up”, perhaps my favourite track on the album, details the devastating moments when a relationship falls apart; and “I Couldn’t Be Your Friend” is about how it can seem impossible to remain friends with a lost love.

The girls do take a moment out from the world of love and loss on “I'm Not Your Hero,” a song Sara wrote about her time growing up and coping with her individuality, and, perhaps, how it then felt to become a role model for the LGBT community when she stood up to the homophobic lyrics written by Tyler the Creator (see here).

What the girls have accomplished is an album that sounds like it could have been released 30 years ago yet still somehow manages to sound current. 'Heartthrob' excels at disguising its darker lyrical content with bright, electronica flourishes and it’s consistent up-tempo beat; they manage to harmonise throughout in a way that only twin sisters know how. It is entirely different to anything they’ve ever released, yet still sounds like a Tegan and Sara album. I promise, you will not regret it if you choose to buy 'Heartthrob' (or, more likely, spend time looking for it on Spotify or You Tube), for it is truly exceptional. In fact, it is so close to perfection that I’m left with no choice but to leave my rating as an obscene decimal/fraction combination.

9.5/10

Additional Infomation (including album trailer):

 

Track Listing:

1. Closer
2. Goodbye, Goodbye
3. I Was A Fool
4. I'm Not Your Hero
5. Drove Me Wild
6. How Come You Don't Want Me
7. I Couldn't Be Your Friend
8. Love They Say
9. Now I'm All Messed Up
10. Shock to Your System

11. Guilty as Charged (Bonus track)

12. I Run Empty (Bonus track)

Read More

Formula One: Australia Race Review

by Thomas Penlington

Surprise win by Kimi Raikonnen of Finland
(source: Wikicommons)

The anticipation leading up to the first race of the season was causing the focus to ricochet between Vettel achieving yet another world title or could Fernando Alonso go one step further this season and claim his second world title? Furthermore, could Lewis Hamilton’s surprise switch to Mercedes for the 2013 season prove to be successful at a team that is slowing emerging as a serious contender as finance seems to be no issue?

The 2013 season began in Melbourne Australia at Albert Park on the 17th March and the race weekend began with practice one in which no surprise last year’s winner Sebastian Vettel was top of the time leader but surprisingly closely followed by the two Ferrari drivers Massa and Alonso perhaps reflecting the performance of the cars in the season to come. The other Red Bull driven by Webber was only down in 5 although only 0.457 seconds off the leader Vettel his team mate and fierce rival. But the most impressive performance of the day was by the new Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton who finished fourth whilst his old team McLaren where down in 9 perhaps showing how Hamilton had made an intelligent decision moving from a team he won a world championship at.

Qualifying began on the Sunday in the hours before the race began due to it being delayed because of lack of light in the day before when qualifying was due to be held. The qualifying result didn’t really hold any surprises as Sebastian Vettel found himself at the top of the grid but closely followed by his team mate Mark Webber. Then an impressive qualifying performance for Hamilton placed him third on the grid ahead of the two Ferrari drivers Massa and Alonso and from this position he may be able to seriously challenge for a podium finish on his debut race for Mercedes. Alonso clearly had some work to do down in fifth as did maybe surprise contenders for a podium Nico Rosberg, Kimi Raikkonen and Romain Grosjean who had shown average pace all weekend. McLaren showed a disappointing pace over the weekend and this reflected in the qualifying result of the two drivers Button and Perez who finished tenth and fifteenth respectively. Button would have a lot of work to do if he wanted to recreate his win in Australia from last season and new boy Perez failed to impress on his debut for McLaren.

The race proved a rather surprising result as from down in seventh Kimi Raikkonen forced his way through the field and crossed the line in first place to claim the first race of the season and take the lead in the world championship. Raikkonen no doubt snatched the win away from Vettel at the last hurdle and added another dimension to the world championship prospects. In the end Vettel couldn’t even claim second but had to settle for third as the Red Bull failed to show the pace we expected and his team mate Webber after a poor start failed to finish where expected down in sixth.  Fernando Alonso used the poor start from Webber and his excellent ability to be both intelligent and aggressive in his racing to move himself up from fifth to finish second.

Lewis Hamilton finished an impressive fifth in his new developing Mercedes but maybe he was a little disappointed with his finish after starting third on the grid. Although it wasn’t such great news for Nico Rosberg who was forced to retire during the race and qualified below Hamilton perhaps showing the difference in driver quality. The most disappointing result from the race was for the McLaren drivers Button and Perez who followed up a disappointing qualifying to finish ninth and eleventh respectively after their cars failed to show the pace expected from McLaren in the season.

So with the 2013 season underway what does the result represent for the following season for the drivers? Firstly the driving quality of Lewis Hamilton combined with the promising Mercedes presents Hamilton with a serious chance of title contention for the 2013 season. McLaren look like they have a lot of work to do in order to build a car that can be competitive during the season. Vettel will want his Red Bull team to produce a car with improved race pace to win yet another world championship. Finally Lotus will be confident that this season they can push forward with a fast car and achieve a few more successful results than last season.

Read More