Storm of Steel - New Edition

[Paul Reed]

I was reading in one of the Sunday newspapers that there is a new edition, a new translation to be more precise, of Ernst Junger's Storm of Steel.

It is to be published in a few days time by Allen Lane; ISBN: 0713995947.

I have found some details on Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...6744900-5571610

Junger was an officer in the 73rd Hannovarians, and served on the Western Front from 1915-18. He was wounded three times, and awarded the Pour le Merite for bravery; he was both the youngest and oldest holder of this award at different times in his life. He died, aged 103, in the mid 90s. An amazing character, and a classic Great War account. It will be interesting to see how it differs from the 1st edn.

[David Filsell]

For information the new edition contains a most useful introduction by the translator

(Michael Hoffman) who has previously translated works by the Austrian author Joseph Roth to considerable acclaim. He states that the original translation by Basil Creighton is seriously flawed and gives a number of examples of poor translation.

Not least interesting is that Storm of Steel exists in some 8 different versions in German since Junger was forever altering the text. Hoffman states that the original translation - the one that Cyril Falls praised - should now be "retired". I have spoken to Hoffman who is of German birth and claims no particular interest in military matters - he just feels that Storm of Steel is a classic which was worthy of a new translation. Publisher is Penguin and I believe that the book is available in soft and hardback copies. I have written fuller review for next Stand To!

[paul guthrie]

Is it an improvement? Thanks.

[BlackSeptember1918]

An improvement ?...Can't imagine how it could be improved . I've got a copy from 1996 . I couldn't put it down for a moment when I read it . An amazing book .

Phil..

[healdav]

Even more amazing that I can take you to the Regnieville trenches where he was stationed.

Don't try and find them for yourself, you won't. It took me two days fighting my way through the undergrowth (but I know the way now!).

[paul guthrie]

On page 1 he mentions a Champagne railroad station that's still there at Bezancourt and on 2 a chateau at Orainville which was blown up but the concrete steps are there.

[Jim_Grundy]

I've read the new translation and think that the translator might claim to have a superior knowledge of German (not being a German speaker, I wouldn't know) to the original but he certainly doesn't appear to know too much about the war. OK, I'm going to be seriously nit-picking here but in the section (my personal favourite) about Guillemont the translator has Junger hiding from the "RAF".

Sad of me? Probably. It irritated me, though, especially given the very dismissive view of the original translator's abilities that the new version contains. Perhaps that is what I really disliked more than anything!

Jim

[ianw]

Totally agree with you Jim. It's a work of military history. Howlers like that will just let it down. He should have asked an expert to read it pre-publication if he had any doubts whatsover. I wonder if the original translator made the same error ?

[Jim_Grundy]

ianw, no the original translation (if memory serves) refers to "English machines", no doubt a literal translation of Junger's text. The new translator probably thought this was clumsy and in need of improvment, stylistically. Shame it wasn't checked factually too!

Cheers,

Jim

[ianw]

I think referring to one's "machine" (flying Machine) was common parlance in English in the 20's and 30's and therefore very likely a good translation of meaning and intended use of the expression. Substituting "RAF" is not only a technical/anachronistic error but doesn't render the full meaning and nuance of what was written anyway.

[spike10764]

I found the language of the book a bit flowery. I don't know if the translation was responsible, or the fact that Ernst Junger was an author who had published on other subjects.

Personally I prefer more basic language in these accounts-it gives a more gritty edge and feels like the trenches(if you know what I mean).

One of the drawbacks of translated books really-so much can be lost/added in the translation(the copy was 1991,I think).

The copy I borrowed from the local library did not really inspire me to add this book to my collection, I'm afraid.

It was a change to see the battles from the other side so to speak

Regards

Spike

[David Filsell]

I've reviewed the new translation for Stand Too and spoke to the translator of the new edition. He has also translated a large body of work by the Austrian writer Joseph Roth to considerable acclaim (if you want a good book about the dire state of Austria Hungary on the ourbreak of war try Roth's Radetsy March). The translator admitted that he was no military expert, and that he had little interest in war books. He tackled the new translation simply because he felt it an important book - regardless of subject - and that the original translation was poor. He was very critical of Basil Creighton's - the original translator - knowledge of German. There are howlers' and I am genuinely not sure if it is a better read in the new version. But, regardless of one's views on Junger and his writing, and he does make me uncomfortable, at least Storm of Steel has had a boost and yet another important book about the Great War is once again readily available.

[andigger]

I found the language of the book a bit flowery.

I would have to agree. I bought the modern translation in preperation for a book discussion, and what was very interesting was that the discussion turned to the era when each translatation was written versus Junger's original.

My edition was almost politcally correct, but I didn't know that until I saw the other translation. It was dripping with nationalism, and the stab in the back theroy on almost every page. Although the 'older' translation was from the 60s you might have guessed it was from 1930s Germany.

In retrospect I think the extent to which Hoffman apology for leaving out a lot of Junger's original emotions.

Andy

[Hedley Malloch]

I have spent some time reading both versions, often side-by-side. There are some important differences and they are not all matters of style or linguistic competence. For example, take the chapter on Langemark. Towards the end of that Chapter the 1929 version has EJ reflectiing on his experiences during the battle of Pilken Ridge (see pp.180-1). During this passage EJ makes a remarkable statement: 'Hours such as these were without doubt the most awful of the whole war." This from a man who experienced all the major operations of the war, save Verdun and the Vosges. Yet he thought Pilckem Ridge was the worst, an engagement which I would suggest would not make it into the top 10 of most WW1 students. Run it through the Forum search engine and see how many hits it generates - and most of those are about the A19.

Yet this statement, and these pages, in the 1929 edition are competely excised from Hoffman. For me it such a staggering omission that I wonder if the pages of Hoffman's manuscript went missing at the printers.

On the other hand, Hoffman does include material which is not in the 1929 edition, notably EJ's brother Fritz's account of his wounding, meeting with EJ, how EJ organised his evacuation, and his subsequent recovery. The 1929 version ends somewhat abruptly on p.189. Hoffman's account is much more detailed and pp.178-9 and contains interesting and relevant material not in the 1929 edition.

So I think that the serious student will need both Creighton and Hoffman.

The mistakes in Hoffman's book are not all linguistic. The cover photo shows 'German soldiers after an enemy gas attack on the Eastern Front, 1915'. 'German soldiers'? Sure. 'Gas attack'? It certainly looks like one. 'Eastern Front'? If you say so. '1915'? No way. Not in those helmets. 1916, possibly; 1917, definitely. But not 1915

[andigger]

On the other hand, Hoffman does include material which is not in the 1929 edition, notably EJ's brother Fritz's account of his wounding, meeting with EJ, how EJ organised his evacuation, and his subsequent recovery.

Hedley thanks for this reply!

Actually thanks for mention the stories of his brother's wounding and their meeting. This section caught my eye from the minute I read it, and I am a little surprised to learn it was not in the 1929 edition.

What struck me was how EJ recalls the events with little emotion, more as facts. On the other hand his brother retells the story of EJ coming into the clearing station, tears in his eyes, and full of concern. One was a recounting of facts and one was a telling of emotion. - I guess on second thought I can see how this emotion didn't fit into the German mystic of 1929.

Andy

[Hedley Malloch]

Andy; The account of the meeting with his brother does occur in both versions, but it has a much fuller treatment in Hoffman. In Hoffman, Fritz's account of his recuperation is given full treatmant; in Creighton it ends with his second meeting with his brother. It is a very important section in the book, because it is the only time the reader sees EJ through someone else's eyes.

It's true that EJ recalls this event with the icy-cold emotion and total clarity with which he considered himself to be cursed. It is even more remarkable when one considers how much Fritz, and this particular meeting, meant to him. He did dedicate one of his books to his brother and their meeting at Langemark. Did Hoffman give Fritz more space because Hoffman understood EJ better than Creighton? I don't know, but it's a possibility.

One other difference between the two is the font used in both. My 1996 reprint of Creighton by Howard Fertig retains the original type face of the 1929 edition. This gives it a WW1 'feel' which Hoffman's 10.5 Postscript font lacks. I prefer the old font to the new for much the same reason that I prefer the old CWGC cemetery registers to the new ones: they capture the mood of the time better.

One other important part of the 1929 edition which has not survived in the Hoffman versionis EJ's preface to the English Edition in which he speaks with wit and emotion about his old adversary. It's full of nice little epigrams and metaphors ('there is no one less likely to disparage the lion (Tommy) than the lion-hunter'.) He concludes the Preface by saying: 'Of all the troops who were opposed to the Germans on the great battlefields, the English (I think he means British) were not only the most formidable but the manliest and the most chivlarous. I rejouce, therefore, to have an opportunity of expressing in time of peace the sincere admiration which I never failed to make clear during the war whenever I came across a wounded man or prisoner belonging to the British forces'. It's a pity that the Preface never made it into Hoffman.

On balance I think I prefer Creighton. But Hoffman is published by Allen Lane and a Penguin paperback is surely only a matter of time. Hoffman, whilst inferior, will become the standard version. Future readers seeking Creighton will have to scour the military sections of second-hand bookshops and be prepaed to pay high prices. We'd better get used to Hoffman.