Ravelstein by Saul Bellow 兩處

這是三年前simon university 比較有意思的一則

索爾．貝婁（Saul Bellow） 2000年出版Ravelstein，轟動、暢銷。我2003年讀它【法文多請教RL】，不知道有《像他這樣一個知識分子》翻譯版本。（李桂蜜譯，台北：時報出版公司，2003 ）。我們Simon U的好朋友合作評過前面數段。現在知道大陸有翻譯本，所以昨天看一段，其中「時報出版公司」有一處錯誤，所以可以將它當英文學習。我不比較兩本書的文采。 索爾．貝婁《像他這樣一個知識分子》（Ravelstein by Saul Bellow）李桂蜜譯，台北：時報出版公司，2003
索爾．貝婁《拉维尔斯坦》胡蘇曉譯，南京：譯林出版社，2004（這本標2004年11月出版。遠比「時報出版公司」版本正確得多（hc以後會陸續比較說明）。整本書內文全無洋文字母、注釋。）

"The waiter tells me that Michael Jackson won't eat the Crillon's food," he said. His cook flies everywhere with him in the private jet. Anyhow, the Crillion chef's nose is out of joint. His cookery was good enough for Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, he says, and also a whole slew of shahs, kings, generals, and prime ministers. But this little glamour monkey refuses it. Isn't there something in the Bile about crippled kings living under the table of their conqueror – feeding on what falls to the floor?" 時報出版公司李桂蜜譯：「服務生跟我說麥可‧傑克森不願意吃飯店裡的食物，」他說。「他的廚子會跟著他坐在私人噴射機裡到處去。不管怎樣，克里宏廚子的鼻子不靈。他的廚藝對尼克森和季辛吉來說還算好，對許多的亞洲皇族、歐洲王室、將軍、總理等等來說也還可以。可是這隻迷人的小猴子拒絕吃他準備的東西。《聖經》裡不是記載跛腳的國王住在他們的征服者的桌底下－－以掉到地板上的食物碎屑維生？」"I think there is. I recall that their thumbs had been cut off. But what's that got to do with the Crillion or Michael Jackson?" (pp. 4-5) 「好像是。我記得他們的拇指都被切掉了。可是這跟克里宏或是麥可‧傑克森有什麼關係？」
------
Anyhow, the Crillion chef's nose is out of joint.「不管怎樣，克里宏廚子的鼻子不靈。」應該是錯誤。
【nose is out of joint put sb's nose out of joint INFORMALto offend or upset someone, especially by getting something that they were wanting for themselves(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) 】
所以，胡蘇曉譯《拉维尔斯坦》中，「好家伙，克里戎的大廚子的鼻子都要氣歪了。」稍為正確，其實可以暫時將"鼻子"忘記。當然廚師的鼻子很重要啦

----HC提問題：請問上文《聖經》典出何處？小讀者 留言：「大衛擊敗了掃羅掃羅的孫子米非波, 即大衛好友約拿單之子, 腿瘸.但大衛賜他"同桌"吃飯, 不是在桌下吃渣?見撒母耳記下四章與九章」

「謝謝小讀者，太厲害—我昨日整本Bible不知從何說起。」






Ravelstein一段和摘記
上周記一段翻譯版本之比較，沒空追細節，列給有興趣的朋友參考：

Ravelstein Well, his friends, colleagues, pupils, and admirers no longer had to ante up in support of his luxurious habits. Thank God, he could now do without the elaborate trades among his academic pals in Jensen silver, or Spode or Quimper. All of that was a thing of the past. He was now very rich. He had gone public with his ideas. He had written a book—difficult but popular—a spirited, intelligent, warlike book, and it had sold and was still selling in both hemispheres and on both sides of the equator. The thing had been done quickly but in real earnest: no cheap concessions, no popularizing, no mental monkey business, no apologetics, no patrician airs. He had every right to look as he looked now, while the waiter set up our breakfast. His intellect had made a millionaire of him. It's no small matter to become rich and famous by saying exactly what you think—to say it in your own words, without compromise.

A台灣版本：「不過，他的友人、同事、學生與崇拜者已經不需要為他付清債務，好讓他維持豪奢的習慣了。謝天謝地，他已經不需要精打細算地把Jensen銀具、斯波德陶瓷（Spode）[、坎佩陶器（Quimper）賣給學校裡的同事。那都是過去的事了。他現在變得很有錢。他將他的理念公開發表。他寫了一本書－－很艱澀卻很受歡迎－－是一本熱烈、聰明、好戰的書，在兩個半球及赤道兩邊都賣得不錯，而且還在繼續熱賣。書很快被寫出來，不過寫得很認真：沒有廉價的讓步、沒有通俗化、沒有惡作劇、沒有apologetics（申辯）、沒有貴族氣派。服務生在準備我們的早餐時，羅斐斯坦有充分權利讓自己看起來像他現在這樣。他的才智讓他變成百萬富翁。完全講出心裡的想法而變得名利雙收，這可不是件小事－－是毫不妥協地用自己的話說出來。 」


B版本：「現在他非常有錢。他把自己的觀念公之于世。他寫了一本書－－深奧難懂很廣受歡迎－－一本生動活潑、才思敏捷且富於挑戰性的書，在東西兩半球及赤道兩邊，銷路都很好，印了一版又一版。書雖然寫得很快，態度卻是認真嚴肅的：沒有廉價的讓步、沒有大事吹噓、沒有心智上的騙人把戲、沒有護教學、沒有貴族氣派。他完成有這樣居高臨下地看著。一旁侍者忙著給我們安排早餐。他靠自己的才智成為百萬富翁。名利雙收而又不必妥協，說自己想說的話－－用自己的語言，這可不是一件無關緊要的小事。 」


---hc三年前的看法
「在兩個半球及赤道兩邊都賣得不錯」， vs「在東西兩半球及赤道兩邊，銷路都很好」
後者稍好，不過似乎都非正常的表達方式。
both hemispheres and on both sides of the equator. The thing had been done quickly but in real earnest: no cheap concessions, no, no, no apologetics, no patrician airs.

◎CHEAP「容易得到 不費力氣的」；CHEAP concessions輕易放水？

◎popularizing「大事吹噓」「通俗化」（to make something become popular:）
hc可能偏向「迎合大眾趣味」to make something known and understood by ordinary people:

◎mental monkey business「心智上的騙人把戲」比「惡作劇」好，不過或宜參考「巧言偏辭」。

◎apologetics（申辯 應為apologia），這字也不宜直接翻譯為「護教學」，或宜參考「為其學說做系統的辯護」。【\A*pol`o*get"ics\, n.That branch of theology which defends the Holy Scriptures,and sets forth the evidence of their divine authority.】

◎patrician airs顯貴氣勢 風流高不可攀

◎ exact 似乎都沒翻譯？