Dimensiones de la inteligencia emocional

Willett’s text may be treated as a closet version in the UK, but that does not necessarily mean that it was written for the page and not the stage. What is certain is that whereas the other texts examined here were written for a specific performance, Willett’s TTdefinitely was not.

1_{It is not clear which text Joan Littlewood used for the Theatre Workshop production in 1956. Eddershaw says} that “Littlewood herself undertook the adaptation of the text” (46), but which text she was adapting is not stated. 2_{In 1970, Rob Walker directedMother Courageat the Citizens’ Theatre, but I have been unable to find out which} translation was used. The same is true of the 1976 performance at the Contact Theatre, Manchester, directed by Caroline Smith.

In writing for a hypothetical and potential rather than a specific performance, Willett felt that the translation had to be most faithful so that any future director still had access to “what the author wrote” (Willett, 1983, 2). In various writings about the drama translation process, and particularly about translating Brecht, Willett speaks plainly about what he sees as the translator’s and director’s respective and very separate roles. He believes that “cutting and changing” the text falls under the director’s remit, whereas the translator has an obligation to render the text in English as Brecht did in German: “The reader must have what Brecht wrote, not what his translator thinks he ought to have written” (Willett, 1998, 261). Willett thus reveals that his concerns lie with the director and reader having access to a version in English which replicates the original as closely as possible. We would thus expect hisTTto be faithful to theSTand be a close approximation to Brecht’s original.

Thanks to his extensive writing about Brecht, we have numerous records of Willett’s views on what should be retained in translations of Brecht’s works. Despite his negative view of the translator’s status,3 _{he does believe that his method of translating, that of a bilingual scholar} writing a close approximation of the original, is the preferred approach:

I am mistrustful of translations from an intermediate language. And I’m doubtful about the London National Theatre’s policy of only allowing recognised (or recog- nised by them) playwrights to translate, because they don’t always achieve the first essential, which is to understand and appreciate the original play. (Willett, 1983, 2)

Thus Willett believes that the route to “what the author wrote” involves a comprehensive un- derstanding and appreciation of theST, which can be achieved only by those working with the original text itself and not a ‘literal’ version or one in a third language. Willett’s conclusions on the problems encountered in the British treatment of Brecht’s plays and especially his language have been discussed elsewhere, but as we set out Willett’s aims and intentions as a translator of

Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder, it is worth examining his analysis of Brecht’s language in more detail so we may identify what he aimed to replicate.

Willett divides his analysis of the characteristics of Brecht’s language into two categories, namely poetry and prose. In Brecht’s poetic language, Willett commends his masterful control of form and metre, and stresses the importance of the quality of the sound, all of which should be retained over the content. The placement of caesuras is also important, since these indicate images and words that should be emphasised. Form also plays a role in the translation of prose, where the danger can be that translators give in to the temptation to normalise the language too much. In 1967, Willett wrote of Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder that: “the vitality of the language that Brecht uses is the main dynamic force in an otherwise flat chronicle. The

3_{He says “I don’t want to overrate the role of the translator, because I think there’s an unfortunate tendency} nowadays to treat translation as if it were nearly as important as original writing” (Willett, 1983, 2). Such defer- ential comments are typical of bilingual scholars who translate, since many view theSTas a sacred, untouchable original.

5.1 John Willett’sMother Courage and Her Children translator’s task is to devise an equivalent vitality in English” (Willett, 1998, 261). Too fluent language can distort the character determined by it, thus the rhythm, sentence length and social connotations of their idiolect must ideally all be retained. In order to do this, the translator must have a keen ear for the subtleties of theSTlanguage so s/he can identify the differences in

rhythm as well as register or sociolect.

In conclusion, we can expect Willett’s text to be a faithful approximation to Brecht’s original which resists normalisation in favour of retaining the vitality of the stylised German dialogue. Characters will still be defined by their particular use of language and thus the shifts between the various levels of language should have been retained. The resulting text should, as Willett himself said, aim “to assimilate without over-assimilating; to embrace but not to smother; to make the play intelligible and interesting without making it an Australian, American or English play” (Willett, 1983, 3).