THE SEAGULL - QUOTING HAMLET

Photo by Mark Vancleave

In Act I of Chekhov's The Seagull, Arkadina and her son Konstantin quote from Hamlet:

Michael Leader gives a rough, literal translation of these lines as:

These are not the actual lines from Shakespeare, which read:

This is because Chekhov was pulling his quote from the Russian translation of Shakespeare by N.A. Polevoi.

This line creates some problems for English translators of The Seagull because Polevoi's translation of these lines is not as harsh as Shakespeare's original. Putting Shakespeare's original lines in Konstantin's mouth results in a much harsher portrayal of the relationship between Kostya and his mother than Chekhov probably intended.

More importantly, in my opinion, the original Russian can be taken as a sly reference back to Kostya's critique of his mother's "Theater" from earlier in the same scene -- the context from Hamlet quite clearly references her relationship with Trigorin, but the context of the upcoming play results in the line also alluding to the "vices" and "crimes" of her false theater. The original quotation from Shakespeare, however, results in a complete non sequitur (which also adds to the harshness of what Kostya is saying).

CONSIDERATIONS

For me, there are several factors to take into consideration when attempting to provide a proper translation of these lines:

(1) The literary reference is part of a larger tapestry of literary references woven throughout the entire structure of the play. In an English translation, I think, this particular reference is even more important because it is one of the few references which will be directly recognizable as a quotation to modern audiences and, thus, capture some of what the original flavor of the references throughout the play would have been for Russian audiences.

(2) Arkadina quotes from Hamlet because it provides her with an opportunity to over-react (in a particularly and literally dramatic way) to her son's light chastisement. Therefore, I think the line she chooses can be directly translated.

(3) By matching her quote-for-quote, Konstantin is also showing that he can play her game. Given Konstantin's earlier comments about feeling humiliated in her social circles, this is imporant.

(4) But Konstantin is also using the line to call attention to the context of Hamlet -- and thus make a sly dig at her relationship with Trigorin.

(5) And, as noted above, Konstantin is also using the line to comment on the "sins" of her "Theater".

(6) The narrative relationship between the Kostya-Arkadina and Hamlet-Gertrude relationships is also heavily emphasized by many commentators, so it's possible that Chekhov is using these quotations to set up a larger theme of the play as a whole. But since most commentators who attempt to highlight this narrative relationhip do so by using the Oedipal Complex interpretation of Hamlet -- an interpretation which post-dates Chekhov's life -- it is doubtful to my mind that it is as strong as many commentators would suppose.

In approaching these lines, I first considered several different approaches that have been attempted by other translators. These include:

(1) Laying all other considerations aside and using the original Shakespearean lines. (This was unsatisfactory to me for the reasons described above.)

(2) Re-translating the passage from the Russian back into English, producing a result more-or-less similar to Michael Leader's effort quoted above. (This approach is problematic because they are no longer recognizably quoting from the play. Some translators have attempted to address this issue by removing the name of "Hamlet" -- but at that point any remnant of reference to the original play is completely lost and the entire nature of the scene is fundamentally altered.)

(3) Using Gertrude's line as it appears in Shakespeare, but then re-translating Kostya's quote from the Russian back into English. (This allows the translator to blunt the harshness and non sequitur of Kostya's response. The problem is that Kostya now looks like an idiot. Instead of playing his mother's intellectual game of quotations and matching her blow-for-blow, Kostya instead appears to misquote the play. Instead of showing him as clever, this approach turns him into an unmitigated and out-classed bumpkin.)

None of these proved satisfactory to me and so I started experimenting with other approaches.

The first thing I played around with was the idea of selectively editing Kostya's quote. For example, I tried dropping the very end of Hamlet's line ("... over the nasty sty!"). This made the line slightly less vicious, but it ultimately failed to truly alleviate the problem and still came up short in capturing most of the dynamics in the original Russian.

Eventually I decided to go trolling through the entire scene from Hamlet to find a literal quotation that would work. I have subsequently found a few other translators who have done the same, but -- as far as I know -- none have chosen the same line:

This satisfies the literary necessity for an accurate quotation (without which Konstantin's tit-for-tat is thwarted since he's failing to accurately quote the play); calls attention to the relationship with Trigorin; and can also be taken as a sly dig at her theatrical shortcomings.

It's not a perfect solution. (I doubt a perfect solution exists.) But it seems to work well. (For me, anyway.)

WEAPONS OF LEGACY

In the comments on Sunday, Bobson mentioned Weapons of Legacy. This was almost certainly the worst supplement ever produced by Wizards of the Coast. It wouldn't even be worth mentioning, except that the core concept (which they mangled so horribly) is actually pretty nifty. In response to Bobson's post, I went digging around and found an old series of messages I posted to the rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup regarding this trainwreck. I've reorganized and slightly rewritten these thoughts here...

 THE REACTION

I'm coming kinda late to Weapons of Legacy, but I've got a legendary weapon that I need to give to a low-level PC and it seemed like it might be the perfect fit. So I borrowed a copy from a friend and sat down to read through it and see what I could bash out.

Wow. This is one of the worst supplements I've ever seen. Oh, there's been some third-party D20 stuff that's worse, but not by much. It reminds me of some of the worst dreck that TSR was cranking out during the darkest days of 2nd Edition.

It got off to kind of a rough start when the authors just kept repeating the same ra-ra, pom-pom cheerleading of themselves. Then the book started repeating the exact same description of what a weapon of legacy was in nineteen different forms: Yes, okay, I get it. Weapons of legacy improve as I gain levels. I read the blurb on the back cover. Can we get to the meat of the matter, please?

Then I got to the part of the system where, in order to unlock the higher level powers of a weapon, you had to perform rituals which would give you feats which... weren't actually feats? Well, that's pretty lame. It would have been interesting to have a mechanic where you could either (a) spend gold and XP to unlock the powers or (b) spend a feat to unlock the item's powers, but to have a system where you get something that we'll call a feat but which doesn't actually work according to any of the rules which govern how feats work? Stupid. Pick a different name. Or, better yet, don't pick any name: Instead of having rituals which give you feats which unlock powers, just have rituals which unlock powers.

Then I got to the part of the system where, in order to unlock these powers, you have to accept penalties to attack bonuses, class abilities, saving throws, and the like. What the hell? The awesome artifact of arcane power from the elder days of the universe is... making me suck? And not only that, but the penalties frequently go after the very stats that the weapon is boosting. So you'll have a +4 weapon, but it will only effectively be a +2 weapon because it comes with a -2 penalty to attacks... and not only attacks with that weapon itself, but with ALL weapons.

(If you run the numbers, this makes a kind of pseudo-sense for some of the items described in the book: The penalty to the item's core competency ends up making it about as effective as the item you could buy for the same price. But upon closer inspection, this doesn't hold up: You're spending just as much money for an item which is making you suck whenever you're not using the item.

I can see the temptation that led to this mechanic: "Well, if you're willing to accept a penalty for using an item, the item should cost less." But, first of all, it doesn't fit the purported concept behind weapons of legacy. And, secondly, it's impossible to balance such a mechanic: Either you have the penalties target the same abilities as what the item is pumping up (which defeats the purpose) or they target other stats, in which case you're creating a whole sub-system which exists only for the purpose of enabling min-max abuse.)

My patience with the book was finally exhausted, however, when I got to the rules for actually creating legacy items. From their own Example, this is the process: Create a basic magic item. Choose an option from Menu A. Choose an option from Menu B, since the Menu A choice can't be taken again. Menu B selections take up two slots for every one slot that a Menu A ability would have taken. For your next selection you can select from Menu A again, but instead we'll select from Menu C. This takes up three slots for every slot that an ability from Menu A would have taken. Now, select the penalties for using the item from tables 4-1 through 4-10...

Are you kidding me? Are you frickin' kidding me?

THE BIG PICTURE

The basic concept behind legacy items is simple: Instead of replacing their magic items as they increase in wealth and/or power, their existing magic items increase in power with them. This means that Elric never "outgrows" Stormbringer. It also allows you to put ancient and powerful artifacts in the hands of low-level PCs without completely destroying game balance.

The most basic mechanic for accomplishing this goal is simple: As the PCs level up, a legacy item would automatically increase in power with them.

Unfortunately, this doesn't quite work. There's a 48,000 gp difference between the cost of a +1 longsword and a +5 longsword. So if you have a mechanic by which a +1 longsword automatically transforms into a +5 longsword -- and everything else remains the same -- then the PC will have an extra 48,000 gp to spend on other magical equipment (and thus unbalance the game).

When you put the problem that way, the solution becomes pretty obvious: If you want the item to improve, you still need to figure out how to impose the cost of the more powerful item in order to keep things balanced. You can't do that upfront (because low-level PCs don't have the cash reserves to buy a +5 longsword -- if they did, they would own them already), so that means that you need to find a mechanism of imposing the cost as the item improves.

SOLUTIONS

THE BACKSTAGE SOLUTION: The PC never actually pays any additional cost. Instead, you simply adjust the amount of treasure the party receives to account for the "extra" value of the legacy item. By the time the legacy item becomes a +5 longsword, the party has been "shorted" 48,000 gp of treasure -- but that's okay, because the +5 longsword makes up for it.

There are two potential problems with this approach, one minor and one major.

The minor problem is that it requires the DM to adjust the standard treasure distribution. This isn't a huge hassle, but it is one more thing that needs to be accounted for.

The major problem, however, arises in groups which assidiously split treasure equally. Unless the party is willing to adjust for the "lost" treasure, the PC with the legacy item will receive an unfair share of the party's wealth. (They'll get an equal share of all the actual treasure, but then have an extra 48,000 gp of "virtual treasure" as a result of their legacy +5 longsword.)

And thinking of it as "lost" treasure probably won't make most players happy, either. It makes the legacy item feel like some kind of penalty.

THE SIMPLE SOLUTION: Legacy items come with pre-packaged abilities. By performing legacy rituals, characters can spend the standard XP and gold cost for enchanting the item with those abilities without the necessary Item Creation feat or any of the other prerequisites.

This is a simple, straight-forward approach. It's guaranteed to be balanced with the core rules because it's using the existing item creation system as a basis for its prices.

The only mechanical problem with this approach is that it leaves the PCs with little motivation to take advantage of it. It costs just as much to unlock the powers of a legacy item as it would to enchant the item with a new power from scratch. There are slight advantages to be gained (the XP cost comes from the item's user instead of the party's spellcaster and they don't need a feat to do it), but I think it's likely that most players will prefer the flexibility of getting exactly what they want instead of being locked into whatever abilities are prepackaged into the legacy item.

So you might want to consider granting a 10% or 25% discount to the XP and/or gold costs for performing the legacy rituals.

MORE COMPLEX SOLUTIONS: If you wanted to design a complex system from scratch, you might consider looking at using a system in which a character can take feats which bind them to a particular legacy item and unlock the legacy item's abilities.

Another option (or perhaps building on the same option) would be to model certain items (intelligent or otherwise) like cohorts. The legacy items would gain XP just like cohorts and the powers of the legacy item would depend on its "level".

WHAT ARE LEGACY ITEMS?

Let's assume that we go with the Simple Solution I outlined above. What explanation(s) might there be for these particular mechanics:

(1) A legacy item has within it the nascent potential for a specific set of abilities.

(2) It requires both money and XP in order to unlock these abilities.

THE RITUAL OF CREATION: Legacy items are created using the standard Item Creation rules. The creator of the item must meet the prerequisites for all of the item's potential properties, but they only pay the XP and gold piece costs associated with the basic properties of the item.

Why would someone create a legacy item? Well, it's less taxing on the spellcaster who creates the item -- they're shifting some of the burden onto the one who will actually wield it. It also shifts the time required, which means that a single spellcaster could (for example) more easily supply magical weapons to an entire platoon of soliders. And, at the same time, the legacy rituals act as a kind of insurance policy against the items falling into enemy hands (since the enemy would need to expend their own resoruces to perform the legacy rituals anew).

One last thing to consider here: What should the market value of a crafted legacy item be? Remember that, unlike other items, legacy items can be a money sink that can never be cashed out. If the party wizard creates a +5 longsword by spending 25,000 gp and 2,000 XP that sword can be sold at a by-the-book price of 25,000 gp -- recouping that gold directly back into the party's coffers.

But if you pour the same 25,000 gp into a legacy ritual, then that money is simply gone. (22,500 gp if you use a 10% discount. 18,750 gp if you use a 25% discount.)

(On the flipside, this helps provide a motivation for the PC to keep the legacy item. Which is, after all, one of the primary reasons for having the mechanic in the first place.)

TRUE LEGACIES: The auras of magical items tend to "mix" with the auras of those who wield them. When a great hero or villain wields a weapon, for example, they leave behind indelible traces of their legacy.

Legacy rituals are designed to tap into these "greater auras" and unleash their power -- but, like any mystical ritual, there are the associated costs in equipment, components, and the like.

This explanation for legacy items is more evocative, while still explaining the need for the costly rituals (that coincidentally maintain game balance).

You might consider using both explanations. Perhaps some items are possessed of true legacies, while other items are merely designed to be bound to their owners. Mechanically the two are similar, but in terms of the game world they're quite different and distinct.

WHAT I'M READING 61: TALTOS

I'm a sucker for non-traditional narrative structures.

Start in the middle of the story and then have two narrative tracks -- one going forward in time and one going backwards in time -- with matching revelations at the end of each track? Awesome.

Six different characters without any apparent connection to each other but experiencing events which are clearly interconnected? Awesome.

In terms of Brust, this trend actually started in Teckla -- a novel in which a literal laundry list is used as prelude, omen, and outline. (It's actually quite difficult to give this proper justice, but it's really, really clever.)

In Taltos, Brust goes in a completely different direction: He has three different narrative threads, all starring the same character, and all taking place at different times during the character's life. In some ways, he's taking the non-linear meta-structure of the series and realizing it in the confines of a single volume.

Of course, the most important thing with a non-traditional narrative structure is not the oddity of the structure -- it's the effectiveness of the use to which it is put. In Taltos, that use is subtle, but effective. A lot of it is about thematic resonance and characterization -- I show you X in timeline A and then I show you Y in timeline B. By juxtaposing the two concepts or the two thoughts or the two actions, what conclusions can you draw? 

But there's also a practical side to the structure, as exposition dropped in timeline C will suddenly crop up in timeline B (or even vice versa). This creates, in a very specific way, a complexity of character that isn't possible in a more traditional narrative structure -- because it highlights the fact that a person is not merely a sequence of events or a static entity.

And while the book stands by itself in some regards, the entire narrative is deeply enriched by the knowledge that we -- as readers -- bear with us from other books. The revelations of Taltos reshape our understanding of events we have already witnessed; and the revelations of previous books (as yet unknown to the Vlad of this story) shape our understanding of Taltos.

That type of multi-layered, interconnected resonance is not easy to create, but it's very satisfying to read.

All of this is evidence of Brust's continuing maturation as an artist. And that growth can also be seen in other aspects of the work. For example, one of the comments I made in my reaction to Yendi was that Brust had failed to raise the stakes from the previous volume in the series: "The first time you show me a rocketship? Awesome. The second time you show me a rocketship? Nifty. Now, what are you going to do with it?"

In Teckla, he used the rocketship. In Taltos he uses the rocketship with his left hand while building brand new rocketships with his right hand.

In short, he takes his existing tableau of characters, history, and mythology and builds upon them in new and interesting ways. Simultaneously, he is creating whole new swaths of hitherto unseen mythology which is not only creative in its own right -- but which is then immediately pressed into service on a deeper narrative level, as well.

GRADE: B+

CALIGULA

Walking Shadow Theater's production of David Grieg's translation of Albert Camus' Caligula opens tonight!

I've only got a small role in the show, but it's a really beautiful and thought-provoking piece of theater. Often when I see Camus' work performed it is done devoid of passion or life. These empty productions had previously left something rather akin to the taste of ash in my mouth when thinking of Camus' work, but Walking Shadow's production -- realized by the talents of a remarkable cast -- brings the characters to life... and thus reveals powerful and moving truths.

THE SEAGULL - JUPITER IS ANGRY

Photo by Mark Vancleave

In Act I of the The Seagull, Arkadina has become upset with her son Kostya. This prompts Dorn, a family friend, to respond in this exchange:

Which can be literally translated:

Wait... what?

Translation isn't an easy gig sometimes, and it's perhaps unsurprising to find translators struggling with this line. However, I was somewhat surprised to discover how many of them -- at the end of the day -- get it wrong.

Let me spoil the ending here by explaining what this line is actually all about. Its source is a Latin proverb: Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas. Literally, "Jupiter is angry, therefore [he is] wrong." Although less known in English, this old saying was apparently quite popular in Russia (appearing, for example, in the works of both Dostoyevsky and Lenin, among others). Here Chekhov is assuming that the audience will be familiar enough with the saying that they will know what Dorn is saying even though Arkadina cuts him off.

In the end, I translated this line as:

This is basically a literal translation. The significant difference is adding the word "therefore" (which I hope is enough of a clue for modern audiences to realize that Dorn is offering up a maxim) and changing the ellipsis at the end of his line to a dash (Chekhov uses ellipsis to indicate both characters trailing off and characters being interrupted; in modern usage the dash is a clearer indication that Dorn is being cut off by Arkadina).

Now, translation is more of an art than a science. There are certainly other ways a translator could try to tackle this line. But the essential elements here are (a) Dorn starts to quote a maxim and (b) Arkadina cuts him off.

Elisaveta Fen, on the other hand, translates this exchange as:

By sticking that exclamation point after "Jupiter!", Fen turns it into an odd ephitet quite separate from the maxim that follows.

The Marian Fell translation (which is reproduced by Project Gutenberg without proper credit) has:

This, honestly, doesn't even make sense. Dorn referring to Arakdina as "Jove" looks like a complete non sequitur.

George Calderon, one of the earliest translators of the play, gives us:

Having Dorn break out into song is not as much of a non sequitur as you might think if you're not familiar with the play: Dorn frequently interjects snippets of song into conversation.

My point with all this is not to talk about how clever I am. (Well, not primarily anyway. I have an over-abundance of ego.) But I think it's a notable example of the ways in which translation can (and do) go astray. I've met lots of people who have written off Chekhov or Tolstoy or Hugo or Dumas on the basis of bad translations, bad productions, or bad adaptations.

Of course, not everyone is going to like Chekhov, Tolstoy, Hugo, or Dumas (or the thousands of other foreign authors like them). But I think it's worthwhile to remember that not all translation are created equal. If it turns out that you don't like the works of a foreign author, it might be worth your while to give them a second chance in a different translation. And this is a maxim that extends beyond the classical.

Prelude 2: The Awakening - Tee

When I pitched In the Shadow of the Spire to my prospective players the campaign didn't even have a name yet. Actually, it didn't have much form at all. I only knew two things:

(1) I had pre-ordered Ptolus and it would be arriving within a couple of weeks. I already knew enough about the city to know that I wanted to run an urban-based campaign there, but I (obviously) didn't know a lot of the details.

(2) I wanted to incorporate the Banewarrens adventure into the campaign. I first read this adventure back in 2002 and I'd been itching to run it ever since. In some ways I had actually started laying the groundwork for this campaign way back then, when the players in my original 3rd Edition campaign passed through the port city of Ptolus and saw the Spire for the first time:

(That's a player handout modified from a DM-only reference image.)

As I started wading through the Ptolus tome and the campaign began to take shape in my mind's eye, one of the things I realized early on was that the PCs shouldn't be from Ptolus itself. It would be more interesting, in my opinion, if their characters were exploring the city with the same fresh eyes that they were. It would also be more disorienting (for both players and PCs) to awake with amnesia in completely unfamiliar surroundings.

Those of you who have been reading the campaign journal from the start, however, may have noticed a slight incongruity here: Tithenmamiwen is from Ptolus.

No plan, however, survives contact with the enemy... or, in this case, the players.

Actually, though, trying to push this one off on the player is a bit disingenuous on my part. Tee's player simply came to me with the idea of playing an elf. The character concept she was discussing in general terms, however, struck off all kinds of resonance for me with the work I had just recently put into fleshing out some of the elven communities in Ptolus itself.

Taking a step back, I realized that it made more sense to tap into this pre-existing development work and use it as part of Tee's background. I also came to the conclusion that variety is the spice of life: Yes, it was interesting to have both players and PCs coming to the city with fresh eyes. And, yes, that lack of familiarity was disorienting.

But there was also something inherently interesting in the broken homecoming experienced by Tee: She had left home for reasons she didn't fully understand and now she was back again for reasons she didn't even know. There was a disoriention to be found there as well, and a useful contrapuntal beat to the other characters.

This decision also had some long-term consequences that I hadn't fully considered. For example, Tee had a greater sense of ownership in the city than the other PCs... which meant that her reputation was important to her from Day One. She needed to be able to live there when all was said and done, which meant that she helped to keep some of the more radical impulses of the group in check.

FEBRUARY 2009: 

PART 1 - PART 2 - PART 3 - PART 4 - PART 5

RETURN TO THE ALEXANDRIAN - SUBSCRIBE