**4. Concluding Remarks**

The release of the Swedish retranslation of *Ulysses* was an event that was meticulously prepared for, with a marketing campaign that had already begun while the translation was in progress. In this respect, the translator, Erik Andersson, was certainly a major contributor to the success story of the new version of Joyce's extraordinary novel. His translation, which was unanimously praised by Swedish critics, was certainly his major contribution. But other contributions that he made should not be neglected, however. After the commotion caused in connection with his translation of Tolkien's *The Lord of the Rings*, Andersson was familiar to the public and somewhat of a "celebrity translator" ("kändisöversättare"). Apart from the many interviews that were published in the press, he also participated in various literary events, for example, in book discussions or readings. The only Swedish TV program dedicated to literature, *Babel*, included a feature with Andersson in Dublin where he visited di fferent locations that are connected to the novel. From a marketing point of view, it also turned out to be a wise choice to launch the translator's commentary in conjunction with the novel, as it surely increased the news coverage of the book.

According to the Swedish critics, the present value of the book relies on its focus on the everyday life of ordinary people, sensuality, love, and reconciliation. In this respect, they have adopted the ideas of Richard Ellmann, one of the most influential of Joyce critics, "who presented the world with a humanist Joyce" (Brooker 2014, p. 27). Moreover, Swedish critics have praised the linguistic aspects of the work, for example, the author's predilection for puns, jokes, and the use of various styles. Many of the topics that are addressed in the postscript by Farran-Lee also appear in the reviews in the daily press. Even though many critics admit that the novel is di fficult to read, no one has questioned the relevance of a new translation.

In this respect, the critic has slightly changed from when the first Swedish translation was received. At the time, it was above all the formal aspects of the novel and the uncompromising attitude of the author, who wanted to include all aspects of human behavior, which were cherished. Nordwall-Ehrlow (1986, p. 63) suggests that the modernistic experimental features perhaps were considered as something real new when the Swedish version was published and that this circumstance could explain the enthusiasm on behalf of the critics for the novel's unconventional style. With regards to content, on the other hand, voices were raised against the lack of a proper message in the novel and its focus on trivial matters of the life of ordinary people. Some sixty years later, these characteristics were instead described in positive terms. Otherwise, most themes raised in the reviews in 2012 were present already in the critic from 1946.

Whereas the postscript of the new translation does not comment on the translation, the majority of the reviews contained a positive evaluation of the translator's work, as can be seen in the titles of many reviews, but also in extended comments, generally towards the end of the text. Normally, book reviews do not include lengthy remarks related to the translation (Gullin 2002). When the critic presents a review of a book which has been already translated, it is of course easier for the critic to comment on the translation. There might even be a certain expectation on behalf of the reader of the review that the reviewer addresses a number of di fferences between the translations. It is thus not so surprising that the reviews of the Swedish retranslation of *Ulysses* allocate space for the provision of comparisons with the original, the previous translation, or both. It should, however, be mentioned that the reviews that were published in the 1940's also include extensive remarks on the translation (Bladh 2014), which is not surprising, given that this novel poses a particularly challenging task for the translator.

In a certain sense, the new Swedish version can be considered to conform to the "retranslation hypothesis" (Berman 1990; Paliposki and Koskinen 2004), which claims that a translation of a text which has already been translated into a particular language will tend to be more source-oriented, compared to the previous translation. In the case of *Ulysses*, this tendency of staying closer to the original reveals itself both in the layout, which reproduces the design and colour of the first British edition, and in the translator's personal style. A style which, according to a majority of the critics, renders the expression of the author more faithfully. However, if the "retranslation hypothesis" *is* to apply, one would expect the new version to be more literal than the first translation. As many reviewers have observed, the faithfulness referred to above does not take the form of a word-for-word translation, even though some examples quoted by critics are more formally closer to the original in Andersson's version compared to the corresponding solutions in Warburton's translation. Instead, faithfulness can be identified at the level of the "spirit" of the original novel. There is nothing unidiomatic about Andersson's translation, and he was especially praised for his way of reproducing Joyce's puns, "verbal equilibristic" ("verbalekvilibristiken") (Svensson 2012), and raw language. As Danius remarks, this is how Joyce would have expressed himself, had he Swedish as a mother tongue.

There is no consensus among the critics about the function of the retranslation, whether it replaces or supplements the first translation by enriching the Swedish reading community with ye<sup>t</sup> another interpretation of this modernistic classic. Interestingly, a new edition of the 1993 version of *Odysseus*, produced by the translator of the first Swedish translation (Joyce 2018), was recently published by Modernista, a publishing house which has come to specialize in reprinting old translations of literary classics usually quite soon after a new translation has been released. This is an activity that they have been severely criticized for by Joyce translator and scholar Tommy Olofsson (2018). In his opinion, reprints of former translations are a nuisance and cannot be justified by referring to their "historical value", as claimed by Henrik Pedersen, editor at Modernista. Olofsson considers these new editions as unfair competition, since the cost involved in publishing such editions is considerably lower compared to the investment that is required for a new translation. He moreover claims that Swedish readers do not care if they read the most recent translation of a book and that they would merely buy the cheapest version.

The publication of old translations shortly after the release of a retranslation does not seem to be a uniquely Swedish phenomenon. In a recent volume on British retranslations of two novels by French 19th-century writers Gustave Flaubert and Georges Sand, it is in the case with *Madame Bovary* striking to what extent older versions regularly reappear when a new translation is introduced. This is particularly salient with the first version by Eleanor Marx-Aveling from 1886, which accompanies all of the seven other retranslations, including the last one from 2011. However, Sharon Deane-Cox (2014) does not seem to interpret this habit as a threat to future retranslations. When she discusses the issue of coexistence of multiple versions, it becomes clear that the opposite perspective seems prevailing in the literature, with new translations rivalling anterior versions.

Neither is the topic brought up in *Perspectives on Retranslation*, another recent volume on retranslations studies (Albachten 2018). However, in one of the contributions to the volume, Müge I¸sıklar Koçak and Ahu Selin Erkul Ya ˘gcı (Koçak and Ya ˘gcı 2018) show that Turkish reader opinions on available retranslations are far from indi fferent. Online fora and blogs flourish with comments and discussions, occasionally even o ffering lists with pro's and con's on di fferent publishing houses' o ffers of retranslations (quality of the translation, design, printing quality, variety of books, etc.).

Could it thus be so that this competitive situation is only problematic in Sweden, a smaller language area compared to the two target cultures of the previously mentioned studies? It would in any case be interesting to see how the coexistence of several translations actually a ffects the Swedish book market. If Olofsson is right in his claims, the prospective situation for Swedish retranslations might not be very optimistic if publishing houses in the future will be less willing to invest money and

time to produce retranslations. In this regard, it would be fruitful to examine the prescribed reading lists of literature courses at Swedish educational institutions (schools and universities), as well as borrowing statistics of public libraries, book sales and online discussion forums.

As for the Swedish translations of Ulysses, Warburton was perhaps not wrong after all when prophesying that his version, after a meticulous revision in 1993, would last until it reached a hundred years. Time will show if the two present versions will ever have to make room for a third translation of *Ulysses* into Swedish.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer whose suggestions and comments have greatly improved this manuscript.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
