For the...first twelve years of my life I shuttled between New York and Jerusalem, spending two years here, a year there, going to school in both places, learning the three R's first in Yiddish, then in English, then again in Yiddish. At one point I could tell time only in Yiddish, and multiply only in English; I was able to read English, but was more proficient writing in Yiddish. In Israel I took sewing and pattern making; in America I danced. Every time my family moved, my best friend became someone else's best friend, and I came to hate the constant displacement

As experiences, the journeys back and forth were always remarkable. At the age of five, I traveled with my family across the Atlantic Ocean for the first time aboard the luxurious Cunard liner, the Queen Mary. I saw grown men and women — fathers and mothers and ship captains — play such games as ping-pong and tennis and at the time the idea of adults playing came as a surprise. One day, after some persuasive begging, my parents agreed to play a game of ping-pong, and I remember that my mother was quick and competitive and my father was not.

On another trip, I met a family that very nearly matched ours. On the day of departure, an El-Al ticketing agent called to complain about a double-booking: according to their records fourteen reservations had been made for a Tobah Abraham and her six children. Hours later, at the airport, we met the other Abrahams and confirmed that the mothers were both named Tobah. Since this was real life, not fiction, the names of the children didn't match perfectly. There was a Pnina (my Hebrew name), a Moshe (my brother), and a Sarah (my younger sister), but not a Miriam, Levi, or Nachum. Also the other Abrahams weren't Hasidic. Pnina's mother had long black hair and wore long-legged bell-bottoms. My mother wore a navy blue turban and wool knit skirt suit. Pnina and her siblings wore shorts, t-shirts, and sneakers; my sisters and I wore matching pleated skirts, white shirts, and ankle-high shoes. We spoke Yiddish; they spoke Hebrew. I spent the long flight imagining myself as Pnina, daughter of a mother with long black hair, certain that I was never meant to be a member of my own family, that I was different and didn't belong.

There were variations on these experiences, more often than not initiated by novels. In my early teens I read every Girl Sleuth book and series every published and imagined myself leading the life of someone whose days were adventures. I gorged on Nancy Drew, Trixie Belden, Vicki Barr, Cherry Ames. I moved on to the British St. Claire Girls series. Somewhere along the way I read Little Women, Cheaper by the Dozen, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights. I fell upon The Scarlet Letter, a nightmarish page-turner for me. At some point dreams began augmenting my everyday real life. There were nights when I became a neighbor's child, others when I belonged to an Italian Mafia family. I was a child in India, and China, I was an acrobat in the circus turning cartwheels on horseback, and so on. These rehearsals in re-imagining the self surely enabled my eventual departure from my family's Hasidism and I did indeed become a woman with long hair and long bell-bottoms. More significantly, my early experience in displacement, of being perpetually new and different on the block and in the classroom, reinforced my sense of otherness, and probably led me to the writing life.

I often think The Romance Reader, my first novel, could be read as a Yiddish novel in English translation. A difficult hurdle in writing this novel was the question of voice, not the point of view, but rather the particular sound of the voice. In order to write about characters who think and speak in Yiddish, in order to evoke their lives and their culture, I had to find a way to capture the rhythms, culture, and vernacular of Yiddish. I didn't want to do this in broken immigrant English, the way Henry Roth had in Call it Sleep, which I find painful to read. Toni Morrison has said that she allows her characters to guide her in what they can and should say. In other words, If they wouldn't say something to one another, if the only reason they might say it is to benefit the reader, then it doesn't belong in the book. I tried to make use of this advice. It seemed to me that my Yiddish-speaking characters wouldn't sound like immigrants in conversation with one another unless they were attempting to speak English. The book opens with the sentence, “The sound of Ma's voice speaking English wakes me,” which is to say that it isn't the fact of her speaking English, but rather the way her voice changes when she speaks it that Rachel notices.

In my initial groping draft, certain rules asserted themselves. Anytime I had to choose between a two and three or four syllable word, I stayed with the simplest one. And I kept to short and direct sentences, perhaps as a way to give my characters what I think of as the rudeness or humor of Yiddish. There were other choices, mostly idiosyncratic, such as omitting certain conjunctions and prepositions from sentences, which editors and proofreaders subsequently tried to re-insert. Another oddity: I found that to render a particular expression with authenticity only an extremely literal, often clunky translation captured the beauty of the original. Then I came across a discussion of literal translations in one of Jorge Luis Borges' Norton lectures which he delivered in 1967 at Harvard, “Word-music and Translation,” which I think worth quoting at some length. Borges points out that:

in the Romance languages we do not say “It is cold” — we say “It makes cold”: “Il fait froid,” “Fa freddo,” “Hace frío,” and so on. Yet I don't think anybody should translate “Il fait froid” by “It makes cold... Matthew Arnold pointed out that if a text be translated literally, then false emphases are created. I do not know whether he came across Captain Burton's translation of the Arabian Nights; perhaps he did so too late. For Burton translates Quitab alif laila wa laila as Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, instead of Book of the Thousand and One Nights. This translation is a literal one. It is true word for word to the Arabic. Yet it is false in the sense that the words “book of the thousand nights and a night” are a common form in Arabic, while in English we have a slight shock of surprise. And this, of course, has not been intended by the original.

... Then we have “the song of songs,” I read in Fray Luis de Leòn that the Hebrews had no superlatives, so they could not say “the highest song” or “the best song.” They said “the song of songs,” even as they might have said “the king of kings” for the “the emperor” or “the highest king”; or “the moon of moons” for the “highest moon”; or “the night of nights” for the most hallowed of nights. If we compare the English rendering “song of songs” to the German by Luther, we see that Luther, who had no care for beauty, who merely wanted Germans to understand the text, translated it as “das hohe Lied”. So we find that these two literal translations make for beauty.

...How did literal translations begin? I do not think they came out of scholarship; I do not think they came out of scruples. I think they had a theological origin. For although people thought of Homer as the greatest of poets, still they knew that Homer was human (“quandoque dormitat bonus Homerus,” trans. “sometimes even excellent Homer nods”) and so they could reshape his words. But when it came to translating the Bible, that was something quite different, because the Bible was supposed to have been written by the Holy Ghost. If we think of the Holy Ghost, if we think of the infinite intelligence of God undertaking a literary task, then we are not allowed to think of any chance elements — of any haphazard elements — in his work. No — if God writes a book, if God condescends to literature, then every word, every letter, as the Kabbalists said, must have been thought out. And it might be blasphemy to tamper with the text written by an endless, eternal intelligence.

I would argue that along with the theological reason for literal translation was a great love of the original language, and a desire to capture its particular strangeness. The Kabbalists loved the text not only as religious men, but as mystics who transcended religion, as readers intent on retaining every subtle meaning, including those they were not yet aware of.

After the fact, that is after I'd finished writing The Romance Reader, I found more support for literal translation in Vladimir Nabokov, a writer who transcended the limitations of language, who wrote more beautifully in his third and fourth languages than many of us write in our first. Defending his much-maligned, literal translation of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, Nabokov wrote, “My own EO falls short of the ideal crib. It is still not close enough, and not ugly enough. In future editions I plan to deflowerize it still more drastically. I think I shall turn it entirely into utilitarian prose, with a still bumpier brand of English, rebarbative barricades of square brackets and tattered banners of reprobate words, in order to eliminate the last vestiges of bourgeois poesy and concession to rhythm. This is something to look forward to. At the moment, all I wish to put on record is my utter disgust with the general attitude, amoral and philistine, towards literalism.”

While I was at Hunter College, a period of my life when I read, wrote, and spoke English almost exclusively, though perhaps less than perfectly, I experienced what I might call a linguistic shift from Yiddish to English. I became aware of this shift when one day I awoke from a dream and realized that the people in my dream had been speaking English which was strange because in life they were not English speakers. I became more attentive to the language of my dreams and learned that now and then I dreamt in English. These days, years later, when I realize that I've been dreaming in Yiddish, it comes as a surprise, sometimes as a kind of revelation.

In my second novel, Giving Up America (1998), linguistic difference is one aspect of the characters' estrangement. Husband and wife, Daniel and Deena, find themselves worlds apart despite their shared Jewishness. Yes, they're both Jewish, but Deena's Hasidism separates her not only from the secular world at large but also from Daniel's assimilated American Judaism. During a painful attempt to return home to Jerusalem, Deena realizes that she has also grown away from her own family. In the end she must learn what every individual comes to know: of the inevitable strangeness that exists between any two people.


   

DREAMING IN YIDDISH
Excerpted from “Dreaming in Yiddish,” a paper originally delivered at the conference “Yiddish in America,” at UCLA, Fall, 2000.

   

 

<last updated 10-22-02>
<inquiries@pearlabraham>