ohhh i get what you mean now about the pedophilia thing. that didn't even occur to me, but that's because...dun dun dun...i was having bestiality heebie jeebies over it instead :''''''D AND THEN I PROMPTLY IGNORED ALL OF *THAT*, FOREVER. *shudders*
oh i'm sorry, i forgot to mention, his name IS mikael in the original and enkeli is his nickname, but very few people called him mikael at all. there's some analysis to be done there (esp if going further with the enkeli/päivänsäde mirror) but i didn't look into it at the time. i just go with enkeli every time because it's the most consistent name in the book. but his name is very much mikael in the original and everything you said re: name applies there too!
i don't know who made the decision to swap out the poems, if it was the translator or editor or if there were copyright issues on top of all that? but it's definitely interesting. the eino leino poem that was there originally is a weird one too, that i'm not even sure how to interpret? i've read it a few times and every time it's like, ok is this about a murderous troll or is it about a soldier consumed by darkness or is it about a devilish darkness in humans, or what is it??? so in a way i completely understand the decision to put reino helismaa's lyrics there instead as it would also have provided some cultural context. and on the other hand, eino leino is one of the finnish national romantic poets, very famous, so *his* work is also in the cultural consciousness - but not this particular one. it's one of his darker poems, less read, less known, not as politically "good" as his national romantic poetry. so having that poem in has a certain effect on a finnish reader, that the helismaa lyrics wouldn't have had, because that one is well known. so it's the difference between subversion and painting with large letters, i think? for finns, anyway. for foreigners, i think it wouldn't have made a difference to have the eino leino poem there because its specific function *would* have gone over their heads. (and also, it's a pain to translate. i don't know if it's been translated, but just reading it is confusing enough, and it seems like one of those where as soon as you start translating it, you have to choose one, maybe two, interpretations to translate and won't be able to have it all, so you risk actually making it worse? so...if it were me in that situation, i'm not sure what i would do, but i do know i'm not against the solution the translator/editor came up with for the english translation. (i don't know what the swedish translation did, and i don't think there are other translations but those two).
Yes, though, it’s clear to me that there’s a ton of meaning I’m missing out on as a non-Finnish reader who hasn’t grown up with the source material, and all the wider folklore about trolls: like, I wouldn’t have known that in the source poem, it’s presented as “leave the darkness so you don’t die” and that this is clearly being presented in contrast with Enkeli’s choice to JOIN the darkness. I wonder if that’s even possible to convey in the translation? THAT is precisely why I wanted to hear your thoughts! because everyone i know who's read the book is either finnish or a fellow student of finnish, so we have that perspective. i wanted to find out how someone who didn't have that perspective/knowledge at all would've read the book!
for example, it never occurred to me that the trolls could've been representative of oppressed and marginalised peoples so that's not a reading i would've come up with on my own - i don't have that background. (upbringing in a homogenous society and all.) but thinking about it now, given that the trolls in the book are also linked with northern finland, it would be easy to draw parallels between them and the indigenous people of sápmi, as they are a marginalised and oppressed people in finland. i'm not entirely comfortable with that reading though, as allegories of that kind where the people are represented by animalistic beings....lots of unfortunate racist and colonialist ties implications there, as they have been historically treated like animals and denied basic rights, not to mention studied like animals (there's a movie about that called sameblod that came out last year i believe). i'd really hope that was not sinisalo's intention, because yikes. :''D
i definitely think (well, i'm more comfortable with that reading anyhow) that she's laying her sympathies with the trolls and thus nature, and it's part of her larger anti-environmental destruction political beliefs. but even without that angle (which i didn't pick up on at first) one of the reasons why i liked the book so much is that as a fanfiction writer/reader/fandomperson, this book resonated with me in that way - taking a known trope, subverting it, using 'canon' along with 'new' inventions, and also it's gay. XD and to be completely honest, i regularly consider applying for a phd program with a thesis proposal that is just about THIS book. this one book. (i'd probably have better luck if i included the rest of her books, though. i have yet to read them, but it'd probably work...)
and as for your question about conveying all that in translation - who knows, really. we can't control the readers, and even if all the information is there, we can't count on them to pick it up. we can only hope? and even if they don't, who's to say the readers who missed it didn't still have a reading experience and interpretation that's completely valid? that's the beauty of literature after all. but it's definitely something i've given a lot of thought because sinisalo hasn't been translated into danish (aside from one children's book) and i kind of want to (kind of don't) translate this book (and maybe her other books. so i've thought about how to go about it, how to phrase certain things so the meaning comes across, and all, and it's...god, such a task. :''D
the ending though! i read it as very threatening and violent, not at all a happy one. enkeli is met with a *hunting rifle* and my brain instantly went 'oh god, they're going to kill him and eat him.' what else would they be doing with a hunting rifle? he was also clearly (to me, anyway) a prisoner rather than there voluntarily, or at least even if he went there voluntarily, he's now not able to leave. and it's so interesting, esp held up against the song lyrics, because in the song both the troll and the girl are taken with each other, but it's the troll that's willing to burn (go blind) for the girl, and it's the girl who leaves in order to not die (burn/go blind). and here it's exactly the opposite. and because it's the opposite, the ending has to be opposite too, so it's the "wrong" ending. so to me it scans as a...destructive love story rather than a romance. i mean, the original song didn't have a happy ending either if we assume that two lovers choosing to part is an unhappy ending, but they both stayed alive, the girl especially, and we're left only with the troll wondering if it's such a dark creature to begin with when the girl was presented as a destructive force to him, also, you know?
i have a lot of incoherent thoughts about it all. :'''D
no subject
oh i'm sorry, i forgot to mention, his name IS mikael in the original and enkeli is his nickname, but very few people called him mikael at all. there's some analysis to be done there (esp if going further with the enkeli/päivänsäde mirror) but i didn't look into it at the time. i just go with enkeli every time because it's the most consistent name in the book. but his name is very much mikael in the original and everything you said re: name applies there too!
i don't know who made the decision to swap out the poems, if it was the translator or editor or if there were copyright issues on top of all that? but it's definitely interesting. the eino leino poem that was there originally is a weird one too, that i'm not even sure how to interpret? i've read it a few times and every time it's like, ok is this about a murderous troll or is it about a soldier consumed by darkness or is it about a devilish darkness in humans, or what is it??? so in a way i completely understand the decision to put reino helismaa's lyrics there instead as it would also have provided some cultural context. and on the other hand, eino leino is one of the finnish national romantic poets, very famous, so *his* work is also in the cultural consciousness - but not this particular one. it's one of his darker poems, less read, less known, not as politically "good" as his national romantic poetry. so having that poem in has a certain effect on a finnish reader, that the helismaa lyrics wouldn't have had, because that one is well known. so it's the difference between subversion and painting with large letters, i think? for finns, anyway. for foreigners, i think it wouldn't have made a difference to have the eino leino poem there because its specific function *would* have gone over their heads. (and also, it's a pain to translate. i don't know if it's been translated, but just reading it is confusing enough, and it seems like one of those where as soon as you start translating it, you have to choose one, maybe two, interpretations to translate and won't be able to have it all, so you risk actually making it worse? so...if it were me in that situation, i'm not sure what i would do, but i do know i'm not against the solution the translator/editor came up with for the english translation. (i don't know what the swedish translation did, and i don't think there are other translations but those two).
Yes, though, it’s clear to me that there’s a ton of meaning I’m missing out on as a non-Finnish reader who hasn’t grown up with the source material, and all the wider folklore about trolls: like, I wouldn’t have known that in the source poem, it’s presented as “leave the darkness so you don’t die” and that this is clearly being presented in contrast with Enkeli’s choice to JOIN the darkness. I wonder if that’s even possible to convey in the translation?
THAT is precisely why I wanted to hear your thoughts! because everyone i know who's read the book is either finnish or a fellow student of finnish, so we have that perspective. i wanted to find out how someone who didn't have that perspective/knowledge at all would've read the book!
for example, it never occurred to me that the trolls could've been representative of oppressed and marginalised peoples so that's not a reading i would've come up with on my own - i don't have that background. (upbringing in a homogenous society and all.) but thinking about it now, given that the trolls in the book are also linked with northern finland, it would be easy to draw parallels between them and the indigenous people of sápmi, as they are a marginalised and oppressed people in finland. i'm not entirely comfortable with that reading though, as allegories of that kind where the people are represented by animalistic beings....lots of unfortunate racist and colonialist ties implications there, as they have been historically treated like animals and denied basic rights, not to mention studied like animals (there's a movie about that called sameblod that came out last year i believe). i'd really hope that was not sinisalo's intention, because yikes. :''D
i definitely think (well, i'm more comfortable with that reading anyhow) that she's laying her sympathies with the trolls and thus nature, and it's part of her larger anti-environmental destruction political beliefs. but even without that angle (which i didn't pick up on at first) one of the reasons why i liked the book so much is that as a fanfiction writer/reader/fandomperson, this book resonated with me in that way - taking a known trope, subverting it, using 'canon' along with 'new' inventions, and also it's gay. XD and to be completely honest, i regularly consider applying for a phd program with a thesis proposal that is just about THIS book. this one book. (i'd probably have better luck if i included the rest of her books, though. i have yet to read them, but it'd probably work...)
and as for your question about conveying all that in translation - who knows, really. we can't control the readers, and even if all the information is there, we can't count on them to pick it up. we can only hope? and even if they don't, who's to say the readers who missed it didn't still have a reading experience and interpretation that's completely valid? that's the beauty of literature after all. but it's definitely something i've given a lot of thought because sinisalo hasn't been translated into danish (aside from one children's book) and i kind of want to (kind of don't) translate this book (and maybe her other books. so i've thought about how to go about it, how to phrase certain things so the meaning comes across, and all, and it's...god, such a task. :''D
the ending though! i read it as very threatening and violent, not at all a happy one. enkeli is met with a *hunting rifle* and my brain instantly went 'oh god, they're going to kill him and eat him.' what else would they be doing with a hunting rifle? he was also clearly (to me, anyway) a prisoner rather than there voluntarily, or at least even if he went there voluntarily, he's now not able to leave. and it's so interesting, esp held up against the song lyrics, because in the song both the troll and the girl are taken with each other, but it's the troll that's willing to burn (go blind) for the girl, and it's the girl who leaves in order to not die (burn/go blind). and here it's exactly the opposite. and because it's the opposite, the ending has to be opposite too, so it's the "wrong" ending. so to me it scans as a...destructive love story rather than a romance. i mean, the original song didn't have a happy ending either if we assume that two lovers choosing to part is an unhappy ending, but they both stayed alive, the girl especially, and we're left only with the troll wondering if it's such a dark creature to begin with when the girl was presented as a destructive force to him, also, you know?
i have a lot of incoherent thoughts about it all. :'''D