#comparative reading

Recently I got my hands on a printed copy of Visser. I figured it was the perfect chance to start a comparative reading between Visser and Vysserk, its French translation.

Context: I’ve known Animorphs since I was nine years old, and I read and reread them in French so many times I practically know them by heart. About two years ago, I decided to dive back into the series — and since I’d learned a bit of English in the meantime, why not rediscover them in their original language? Because, as the saying goes, traduttore, traditore ("to translate is to betray") and I quickly realized that there were a lot of betrayals in these translations.

Just to be clear, I’m not doing this comparison to brag or claim I could’ve done better than the translator. My English is far from good. But throughout the saga, the various translators made choices that left me genuinely confused — like the fact that cinnamon is never translated the same way from one book to the next, or that Aldrea cries over her parents’ deaths in Chroniques des Hork-Bajirs whereas in The Hork-Bajir Chronicles she doesn’t. (And Elfangor explicitly says in TAC that Andalites don’t cry, which left me a bit perplexed for a long time.)

Visser/Vysserk has always been my favorite title in the saga, so I don’t plan to just compare, I also want to dig a little deeper into its meaning.

Alors c'est parti !

-----------

Before we start…

I want to take a moment to talk about the book as an object. Because honestly, when I got the English edition, I was so jealous of how gorgeous it is! Hardcover binding, shiny dust jacket — and there’s even a little flipbook animation that was completely left out of the French edition. You can already feel the difference in how the series was treated on each side of the Atlantic.

The first obvious change is that Visser becomes Vysserk. There’s only one other universe-specific word that got translated: Yeerk becomes Yirk. Everything else (Hork-Bajir, Andalite, Taxxon, etc.) stays the same. Personally, I think that choice was about adapting the sound of the words for a French audience. For a French reader, Visser sounds exactly like viscère (“viscera”). And Yirk, well… double ee doesn’t exist in French. Plus, Yirk just sounds a bit more gross than Yeerk.

Alright then, let’s get reading!

-----------

Prologue

Right from the very first page, I want to nitpick.

He laughed and shook his head (was translated as) Il a secoué la tête en riant.

The use of the gerund en riant (“while laughing”) sounds clunky in French, especially considering K.A. Applegate’s usual style. A literal translation would’ve worked perfectly fine. But okay, as I was saying, I’m nitpicking.

Let’s move on.

Already, in his early adolescence, the stamp of failure was on him.

I find this line incredibly harsh in English. In French, it’s been toned down — a lot:

À peine entré dans l’adolescence et déjà marqué par le destin. (Barely into adolescence and already marked by destiny.)

The entire notion of failure is gone, even though it’s crucial — this is Visser One’s judgment on Marco. But beyond that, the line becomes almost ironic once you know what Marco’s “destiny” will be!

Je l'ai regardé une dernière fois, tandis que la voix dans ma tête continuait d'implorer : "Laissez-moi lui dire au revoir, au moins ! Le serrer dans mes bras une dernière fois, l'embrasser. Oh, mon Dieu, non, je vous en prie, ne faites pas ça !"

Alright. I’ve got a lot to say about this passage.

Here, Eva addresses Edriss using the formal “vous.” And… it just doesn’t make sense. It makes absolutely no sense.

In French, “vous” is used when you want to keep a certain distance from someone and/or show them respect. It’s also the default form when you don’t know the person.

In this context, using “vous” could only make sense if Eva and Edriss didn’t know each other — like, for example, if Edriss had just infested Eva. But we know from #10 that Eva has already been infested for about a year and a half by the time Edriss fakes her death. I’m guessing the translator didn’t know that, and the publisher didn’t give them the background info, because later on, Eva does address Edriss normally, with “tu”.

Another thing that bothers me about using vous in the prologue is that it somehow ends up humanizing Edriss. I actually think that’s consistent with the author’s intent, since the whole point of the book revolves around that small part of humanity Edriss possesses — or rather, once possessed.

On the other hand, it completely contradicts another major translation choice that does the exact opposite and totally dehumanizes her. (I’ll get back to that later — for now, we’re only in the prologue ^^.)

I didn’t use the engine, not even for getting out of the marina. Anyone could guide a powerboat. It took skill to sail.

Not a comment on the translation here, but I love the touch of pride we get from Edriss in this paragraph — and the next one, which is genuinely poetic. It’s an interesting character choice from Applegate: she gives Edriss a passion, and a distinctly human one at that.

In an hour or so, once I was out of sight of land, I would lower my sails and wait for a Bug fighter to come lift me off the deck. The engine backwash of the Bug fighter would capsize the boat.

Les remous du moteur feraient chavirer le voilier. (The engine’s wake would capsize the sailboat.)

Well, here the meaning — and even the action — completely changes. The translator chose to drop the mention of the Bug fighter in the second sentence, and translated backwash as remous (“wake”) instead of souffle (“blast”). As a result, it sounds like the sailboat capsizes on its own, because of the wake created by its own engine in the water. That always seemed strange to me — how could a boat capsize by itself? Now I get it.

The husband, the son who belonged to the voice inside my head, they would think I had died.

Le mari et le fils de la voix à l'intérieur de ma tête la croiraient morte. (The husband and son of the voice inside my head would believe her dead.)

Another change that shifts the meaning.

The verb to belong in English hits hard — it makes the sentence much stronger. It shows clearly that Edriss doesn’t consider Peter her husband and Marco her son. This emotional distance comes back in Chapter 32:

Eva’s husband, my second husband, so to speak, was there.

This also makes it clear that when she says “My husband” at the very beginning of the prologue, she’s playing a role. It’s not a slip or a moment of identity confusion on her part.

-----------

That’s it for the prologue. I’ll stop here for now, otherwise this post would get way too long.

All right, here we go with part 2! If you missed part 1, you can find it [here]. We left off at the end of the prologue, so now it’s time to move on to Chapter 1.

----------------

Thirteen Yeerks in various host bodies: Nine Hork-Bajir, two Taxxons, and two whose bodies were so concealed that I could not guess at their form. They were dressed in dark red robes, so dark they were almost black.

I don’t have anything to say about the translation itself here, but I wanted to point out something I’ve always found pretty intriguing: the use of clothing as a symbol of power by the Council Members.

In #5, we learn that Controllers use uniforms to distinguish their troops (Red for Visser Three, Gold for Visser One, brown for the rest). But at that point, those troops are mostly human-Controllers. So it’s not unreasonable to think the idea of uniforms was borrowed from humans.

Here, it feels a bit different. The Council Members live and operate far from Earth (Eva will even say later that they know very little about the planet). Hork-Bajir, Taxxons, and Gedds don’t use clothing. Andalites don’t either.

So: where did they get the idea of using robes to set themselves apart? Which unknown species did they steal this from?

The mystery remains unsolved. ^^

He rested comfortably on four almost dainty hooves. His body was standard quadruped grazer: like an Earth deer or horse, or a Desbadeen Limner. "Il possédait un physique de quadrupède herbivore, reposant confortablement sur quatre sabots délicats. On aurait dit un daim ou un cheval terrestre."

Explain to me why the mention of the Desbadeen Limner vanished?

Visser Three, straining to sound obsequious, said, <I would remind the Council that this creature has already been demoted. She no longer holds the rank of Visser One.> 'That was a temporary reduction in rank. This trial will determine whether that reduction is permanent. Or, whether, indeed, Visser One is allowed to live. For now, she will be referred to by her formal rank.' < J’aimerais rappeler au Conseil que cette créature a été rétrogradée, a dit mentalement Vysserk Trois, d’un ton aussi obséquieux que possible. Elle ne porte plus le rang de Vysserk Un. > — Il s’agit seulement d’une mesure temporaire. C’est au tribunal de la rendre permanente. Ou, plus exactement, de décider si Vysserk Un peut ou non rester en vie. D’ici là, il garde son grade officiel.

This is the moment that absolutely SHOCKED me the first time I read the book in English: discovering that Visser One is referred to as she.

Yep.

Quick French grammar note: in French, everything, absolutely everything, has gender, masculine or feminine. Even objects and concepts (e.g. love = un amour (m), hate = la haine (f)). There is no real equivalent to “It”, and when you need to refer to something whose gender is unknown, you use the masculine by default.

(Yes, it’s extremely sexist, but I’m not going to launch into a debate about how language shapes thought and affects our worldview. I’d be here for hours, and I don’t feel like attracting far-right idiots. We've been seeing way too much of them these past few years.)

Anyway.

« Elle ne porte plus le rang… » → “elle” refers to créature (a feminine noun), meaning: It no longer holds the rank of Visser One. But: « Il garde son grade… » → “il” (he) refers to Edriss.

Honestly, I don’t understand the choice to ignore the English she. Maybe the intent was to dehumanize Edriss by using “il” with a kind of neutral connotation (as if Applegate had used it the whole time), but still, it’s a pretty major betrayal of the original text…

"The Yeerk, Edriss-Five-Six-Two, holding the rank of Visser One is charged with the following crimes: treason by incompetence, which carries a sentence of death by Dracon beam; treason by violation of established procedure, which carries a sentence of death by Dracon beam; treason by sympathy with a subject species, which carries a sentence of death by Kandrona starvation; treason by contact with the foul Andalite race, which carries a sentence of death by torture; treason by murder of subordinate Yeerks, which carries a sentence of exile to punishment duty.” Five charges of treason. Four death sentences.

I really love how this passage casually reveals how Yeerk society works. It explains Edriss’s reactions toward Allison and Essam, and also why, despite the ban on killing one’s subordinates, we constantly see Visser Three killing his own troops throughout the series.

All the charges are summed up under one umbrella: treason. What this tells us is that Edriss is being accused of betraying the Empire — or more precisely, of betraying the Council Members who have decided how the Empire should be run.

But treason, like loyalty, is a subjective concept, one that depends entirely on who holds power. Basically: those at the top make the rules, and the rest are expected to stay loyal.

Can you see the alternate ending Animorphs could have had??

"We were on Earth, and Earth has not been kind to Visser Three. A small guerilla band has bedeviled his efforts to follow through on the great contest begun by me." "Nous étions sur Terre, une planète qui lui donnait bien du mal : une petite bande de résistants le harcelait sans cesse, tandis qu’il s’efforçait de poursuivre la vaste opération de conquête que j’avais lancée."

“Guerilla band” becomes “une bande de résistants.”

The choice may seem minor, but throughout the entire rest of the series, whenever the Animorphs are mentioned with terms like “Andalite bandits” or similar, the French text always renders it as “résistants.” Yet bandits and guerilla are perfectly valid French words and could have been translated transparently.

Personally, I don’t think this is accidental. The term résistant in French carries a very strong World War II connotation, referring specifically to the French Resistance.

So by calling the Animorphs “résistants” rather than guerilleros or bandits, the French version gives them a kind of nobility, the image of true freedom fighters for justice.

"A battle that had been, I later realized, by the so-called Andalite bandits..." "Un combat qui avait été orgasisé, comme je l'ai compris plus tars, par les fameux ‘résistants andalites’..."

See?

French ego in all its glory 😂

"My host, the human, Eva, had been emboldened by my weakness. I no longer had the strength to silence her voice inside my head. She taunted me. Distracted me. She hates me, of course. <Soon he’ll kill you,> she said. <Soon evil will destroy evil.> <The pain may well be yours as much as mine,> I told her. <No, no, it won’t,> she said. <Because for you it will be defeat. For me it will be liberation.>"

All.

This.

Passage.

Reading Comprehension is probably the most ignored section of the LSAT. People tend to think something like, “I’ve been reading since I was five. If I can’t get it by now, I’m just gonna have to live with it.” But, Reading Comp isn’t reading as usual, so putting in the practice does pay off. Reading Comp’s peculiarities are most evident from the Comparative Reading passages. You get two passages and a single set of questions related to one or both passages. When’s the last time you had to go through something like that reading, say, the Huffington Post?

In case you’ve been struggling with Comparative Reading passages, we’ve got your back. Here are some of the strategies our students find helpful.

Step 1: Tag the crap out of the first passage

Reading Comp authors are notoriously bad about using paragraph breaks. Paragraphs are rare, and they show up without much reason at all. Instead of relying on an author’s paragraph breaks to give you the structure of a Reading Comp passage, you need to tag each complete thought in the margins yourself.

Ideally, you want to tag role elements: support/evidence, studies, hypotheses, experiments, examples, causal claims, questions, answers, problems, solutions, criticisms, and so on. If you can’t spot a structural element, then your second best option is to us a subject tag. Role tags answer, well, Role questions, that’s why they’re awesome. Subject tags will at least help you navigate the passage and remember what the author said.

Tagging the first passage really well is absolutely the key to doing well on Comparative Reading passages. This is because Comparative Reading questions will often as you to compare the two passages. But you can spot Comparative Reading questions the moment you flip the page and see two passages. So don’t wait until you get to the questions to start thinking about how the two passages are related to each other. Start right away by getting to know the first passage. You do this by tagging the crap out of it.

This way, when something new, same, or antithetical comes up in the second passage, you’ll be a lot more likely to notice it.

Step 2: Reading for agreements and disagreements from the second passage

Before I move on to the second passage, I like to quickly review my tags for the first passage. I tend to have a lot more tags per line than I would in a normal Reading Comp passage. This way, when I start reading the second passage, all the ways in which the two passage relate jump out. Here, during your second passage, your tagging strategy changes a bit.

Every time you find an agreement in the second passage, write a little (+) in the margin. If you find more than one, then start numbering your plusses: (1+). And, every time you find a disagreement, tag it with a (–). Feel free to write a word or phrase next to each (+) or (–) to help you remember what the agreement or disagreement is.

Step 3: Don’t forget your other strategies!

Often people get so overwhelmed with tracking agreements and disagreements that they forget to use their other Reading Comp strategies.

Remember, each passage will have a primary structure (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis), secondary structures (examples, questions/answers, causal claims, classifications) and a number of other elements we usually keep an eye out for (experiments, named advocates, studies, and so on).

Also, you should be using your Logical Reasoning question type strategies during Reading Comp. Each Reading Comp question has a corresponding Logical Reasoning question type. The work of typing Reading Comp questions is a bit harder, but it’s definitely doable. At the very least, try to figure out which question family you’re in (Implication? Operation? Characterization?).

Hopefully that helps. If you have any questions, feel free to post a comment.

Comparative Reading for your Writing #SarcasticMuse #amwriting

While watching this Ted Talk video of Lisa Bu speak about how comparative reading gave her a new path to happiness, I found myself agreeing that comparative reading not only expands your knowledge, but it also has a positive impact on your writing. Reading and writing go hand in hand. They are regarded as related language processes,…

Lisa Bu, in her wonderful TEDTalk, "How Books Can Open Your Mind"