Storm of Steel

[spike10764]

The early versions from the 20 and 30s are indeed pretty "arian", but similar/comparable national excessive attitude will be found with Brit writers from that time frame. Go get it, you will not be dissapointed -promise!

I agree totally, egbert - to be honest, I found the language in the earlier version a bit "flowery and epic". Was this a literal translation of older style formal German?, I wondered.

Some Brit writers of the time sounded a bit "Bertie Wooster" as comparison....

[egbert]

Spike your observation is correct:

the older German language SOS versions differ pretty substantially in style and chosen semantic from the last modern ones; the content though stays the same. Although i never read one of the English translated versions, I suspect different tranlator qualities over the years; so that would add to the variances.

[spike10764]

the older German language SOS versions differ pretty substantially in style and chosen semantic from the last modern ones

I did wonder egbert.

In a similar way in english sayings have become more modern and economical, less classic.

A book I'm reading on war correspondents on the Western Front gives these examples-

that men 'perished' as opposed to the modern 'died',

'the red wine of youth'-modern-'young mens blood'

the 'foe fled the field'-the 'enemy retreated'

Obviously more modern translations take this into account and some translators are more prone to translating into modern speech, whilst others may take a more literal path.

[egbert]

Spike these are brilliant examples; that's exactly what I mean. I am amazed that authors from the German side AND British side tend to change their semantics over the years, adjusting to the respective time the updated edition is published. So it is not isolated/EJ unique!

I read 3 versions of EJs "Feuer und Blut" (Fire and Blood) in original German language, published over a time span ranging from the 30s to the 80s, and boy they differ in semantics. But generally the diary contents/character with all its details stay the same.

[andigger]

Hedley and others - great explanation on the versions. Since it is the author who changed the text rather than the translators I think this is an interesting dynamic to not only the SOS story, but also a study of Junger. Each version has its place, as Hedley pointed out, and although just reading the book is vital I now want to go back and read the 1929 version to balance the Hoffman version.

Andy

[SiegeGunner]

Hello, and forgive me for entering the discussion at this late stage, but I've only recently joined the Forum. I am a professional translator, specialising in WW1 and WW2 military history.

From an English speaker’s perspective, there are two issues about Storm of Steel - EJ’s various revisions and the quality of the two English translations. Thanks to Egbert for describing the differences in content and language between the different German language editions - it’s a shame, though, that he hasn’t read either of the English translations, as his views on them would be invaluable.

When Michael Hofmann's translation was published by Penguin Allen Lane in 2003, I ordered it immediately, as I already had Basil Creighton’s 1929 translation (and the 1924 German text, in Gothic script, on which is was based), and had always thought that, although generally very good, it contained too many small errors and would benefit from a bit of sympathetic revision and ‘tidying up’. Apart from that, however, it is a very competent rendering of the German text - 1924 German transposed into 1929 English. For interest, Basil Creighton also translated Jünger’s “Das Wäldchen 125” (Copse 125) and the works of Hermann Hesse (Steppenwolf, The Glass Bead Game …), and as far as I know his Hesse translations are those that are still in print today.

Hofmann’s translation is based on Jünger’s ‘final’ revision of the German text, as published in Volume 1 of the Collected Works (Ernst Jünger, Sämtliche Werke, Erste Abteilung, Band 1, Der Erste Weltkrieg - Klett-Cotta Verlag, 1978).

When the book arrived, the first thing I noticed was the caption to the photo on the dustjacket, which is captioned “German soldiers after an enemy gas attack on the Eastern Front, 1915”. As Hedley Malloch has already commented - not in 1915, not in those Stahlhelme.

The Introduction was helpful and informative until it got to the subject of Creighton’s translation, at which point it launched into intemperate criticisms that immediately put me on my guard. Creighton’s version has done good service for more than 75 years, bringing Jünger’s work to generations of English speakers, and simply does not deserve such vilification. Also, as a translator myself, I know that it is foolish to condemn the shortcomings of another translator, as it simply invites people to look more closely for faults in your own work.

On reading the book itself, I very quickly realised that Hofmann had indeed shot himself in the foot, as there were innumerable major and minor errors - most of which suggested that the translator simply did not understand the Western Front. It was very apparent that the book had not been read before publication by someone with expert knowledge of the First World War (who would, for instance, have spotted the reference to the RAF in a passage set in 1917). In addition, the language was all over the place - sometimes waxing lyrical where Jünger’s original was plain and factual, and often using jarring Americanisms that sat uncomfortably in a narrative that is otherwise in British English and uses British English spelling.

I felt I had to do something, so I e-mailed the eminent historian who wrote the words of glowing praise on the dust jacket and told him about my concerns. He passed my mail on to the Publishing Director at Penguin, who was initially friendly and cheerfully conceded that Hofmann’s criticisms of Creighton were perhaps unwise. He also said that the translator had had some misgivings about ‘military terminology’ and welcomed my offer to send him examples of problems.

Quote: “Thank you for your email. You are of course right that Hofmann was probably mistaken to attack Creighton's translation (he actually toned it down at my suggestion!). It was also unfortunate--as he himself recognises—that military terms were not checked adequately. Any help you can give with this would be terrific.”

So I went back to the translation and began checking it, line by line, against the original German and, where the German text was the same, also comparing it with Creighton’s translation. And the more I looked, the more it became apparent that the problem was not just confined to a few ‘military terms’. In many places the translation was simply a conversion of words, without the benefit of insight or real understanding. This is the translator’s equivalent of driving whilst wearing a blindfold, and is equally dangerous.

I reported my findings to the man at Penguin and suggested that the whole book needed to be comprehensively checked and revised. This changed his tune radically and he came back with reams of guff about the extraordinary worldwide critical acclaim and commercial success the translation was achieving and the fact that Hofmann was “generally recognised as the best living English translator of German”. I countered with more examples of ‘blindfold’ translation - “Heil Dir im Siegerkranz” (the German equivalent of “Hail to the Chief” or “God Save The King”) translated as “Hail Thee mid the conquerors’ round” (?), instead of something like “Hail to Thee with laurels crowned” and “Zur Granatecke” (a sign at a ‘hotspot’ regularly shelled by the enemy) translated as “Ordnance this way” instead of “Shellfire Corner” - plus a number of instances where Hofmann had got things wrong that were right in Creighton’s version, and one bizarre example where the beginning of a sentence evidently came from the 1924 text and the end of the sentence from the 1978 text.

Unlike the Pal who reviewed SoS for Stand To !, I never got the opportunity to speak to Michael Hofmann. Penguin eventually stopped talking to me when I sent further examples of deeper problems in the translation and raised the questions of incongruous Americanisms (“…little Schultz …. had turned up …, just where things were looking tough, toting four heavy machine guns”) and the erroneous dustjacket photo caption. I suspect that Hofmann, in the background, threw his toys out of the pram and told Penguin flatly he would not accept any of my findings or suggestions.

I don’t really understand why Hofmann, who is primarily a literary critic/translator and poet, with apparently no background or experience in military history, undertook this project, for which he seems to have been poorly qualified. I gather he is German-born, British-educated and now works for much of the time in the USA - which perhaps goes a long way to explaining some of the mid-Atlantic language.

Anyway, in spite of having been alerted to numerous flaws in the translation, Penguin went on to publish an unamended paperback edition. It’s a big commercial success, so they can’t afford the embarrassment or the expense of sending it back to the drawing board.

To conclude, I’m afraid that, IMHO, Hofmann’s "Storm of Steel" is a wasted opportunity - a case of the wrong translator for the job, without proper specialist back-up on the military history side. And sadly I doubt whether there will be another, better translation in my lifetime.

Regards

Mick

[spike10764]

Fair play to you Mick, I'll freely admit I'm not an expert in Geman , English, or even the Great War and Military matters.

The only thing I would say on the matter is, I found Hofmann's version more easy to read (maybe it's the americanisms seeping into all our lives).

I do agree he overdone the criticism of Creighton in the preface.

I think maybe reading this version (for beginners and newcomers to the book), then Creightons could be the best thing....

[Roxy]

I have only just bought Hoffman's translation. It was most interesting to hear Mick's views. (Even if Penguin didn't think so! )

Roxy

[ackimzey]

After checking my local library, seems like the Creighton translation is the only one available, so "Creighton" it is (at least for starters). I appreciate all the background information. As usual the forum comes through again.

Ann

[Hedley Malloch]

The US rights to EJ's titles are usually let separately to the Rest of the World. The rights to the 1929 Creighton version were given by Chatto and Windus to Howard Fertig of New York, who re-issued it in the 1990s. Howard Fertig now appear to have gone out of business. I don't think that Penguin have let the US rights yet. So an old copy of Creighton might be all that is available in the US at the moment over the counter or through your library.

On the other hand there are usually lots of copies of all versions, including a slightly edited Creighton version issued by Constable in 1994, available quite cheaply on any book search site, Ebay or Amazon.

[egbert]

Hedley, i just checked ebay.com: right now 2 versions "Fertig" and 10 versions "Hofman" are being offered

[lassuy]

The Hofman version is available in the US , Scholar's Bookshelf and Edward R. Hamilton both offer it mailorder. I just finished the new paperback version, and found it reasonably good. But then, I've never read any other version to compare. I have read a fair number of other translated books, and have always wondered if the translator got it right. A buddy of mine in a neighboring town married a woman from Solingen, and she offers translation services for old German documents---there being quite a number of descendants of German immigrants in the area. I was over to their house a while ago, and she was working at a translation---finally putting her pen down in disgust and saying "There's no word for this in English!". So a translator obviously must be well versed in idioms in both languages--a difficult task, no doubt.

I also noted the lack of military understanding in the Hofman version, the quote above about Schultz dragging four machineguns had me laughing. I'd like to see anyone dragging along four 08/15 Maxims. Schultz must have had quite the physique, an early day Arnold Shwartzenegger.