**Elisabeth Bladh**

Department of languages and literatures, University of Gothenburg, 414 61 Gothenburg, Sweden; elisabeth.bladh@sprak.gu.se

Received: 31 July 2019; Accepted: 14 August 2019; Published: 30 August 2019

**Abstract:** This article focuses on how the second Swedish translation of James Joyce's novel *Ulysses* (2012) was received by Swedish critics. The discussion of the translation is limited to a number of paratextual features that are present in the translation, including a lengthy postscript, and to the translation's reviews in the daily press. The release of the second Swedish translation was a major literary event and was widely covered in national and local press. Literary critics unanimously welcomed the retranslation; praising the translator's raw, vulgar and physical language, his humour, and the musicality of his expression. Regarding its layout, title, and style, the new translation is closer to the original than the first translation from 1946 (revised in 1993). The postscript above all emphasizes the humanistic value of Joyce's novel and its praise of the ordinary. It also addresses postcolonial perspectives and stresses the novel's treatment of love and pacifism. These aspects were also positively received by the reviewers. For many reviewers, the main merit of the novel is found in its tribute to sensuality and the author's joyful play with words. Negative comments tended to relate to the novel's well-known reputation of being di fficult to read. One reviewer, however, strongly questioned the current value of the experimental nature of the novel. Opinions also diverged on whether the retranslation replaces or merely supplements the first Swedish translation.

**Keywords:** James Joyce; *Ulysses*; Swedish literary criticism; modernism; retranslation; reception history

## **1. Introduction, Aim, and Scope**

The early 20th century was a particularly prolific period in Sweden with respect to the production of new translations of a number of modern classics. Apart from James Joyce's modernistic masterpiece *Ulysses* (Joyce 2012), translated by Erik Andersson, which is the focus of this paper, Swedish readers could enjoy new versions of J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy *The Lord of the Ring* (2004–2005), translated by Erik Andersson (prose) and Lotta Olsson (poetry), and *The Hobbit* (2007), translated by Erik Andersson (prose) and Johan Swedenmark (poetry). Thomas Mann's *Buddenbrooks* (2005), was translated by Ullrika Wallenström, Albert Camus' *The Stranger*/*The Outsider* (2009) was translated by Jan Stolpe, and Gustav Flaubert's *Madame Bovary* (2012) was translated by Anders Bodegård. To this enumeration, which by no means is exhaustive, several novels by Jane Austen and modernist writer Virginia Woolf should be added: *Emma* (2010), translated by Rose-Marie Nielsen, followed by *Persuasion* (2013) and *Sense and Sensibility* (2016), both translated by Maria Ekman; *The Years* (2015), *Three Guineas* (2017) and *To the Lighthouse* (2019) translated by Margareta Backgård.

The release of the Swedish retranslation of Joyce's *Ulysses* coincided with the expiration of the European copyrights of the author's work. This was of course no coincidence. According to the publisher Bonnier (2012, personal communication), there were, however, no financial reasons behind their decision to delay their commission of a new translation. In this respect, it is noted that they had received support from the Ireland Literature Exchange translation fund. Rather, the delay was due to the notorious difficulty in obtaining the necessary permission from the Joyce estate. The Swedish retranslation was, in fact, one of several retranslations of the novel which appeared around the same time. In 2004, the prestigious publisher Gallimard released a new French translation; a polyphonic version where different individuals had translated the 18 episodes (Hoepffner 2011). In 2012, Dutch readers received a second retranslation, and, in the same year, Finnish fans of Joyce finally had an alternative to the original translation, which contained many errors (Schueler 2010; Zilliacus 2012).

The aim and scope of the present paper is to examine how the Swedish retranslation of the most (in)famous work of modernism was received in Sweden. Almost a hundred years have passed since *Ulysses* was first published and it is over sixty years since the first Swedish translation was made available. Questions that are raised in this context are: *How was Joyce's modernist novel evaluated a century after the novel's initial publication? What questions and problems did the retranslation pose for reviewers and critics? In what respect did the reception of the retranslation di*ff*er from the reception of the first Swedish translation?* and *How was Andersson's translation evaluated?* The discussion that follows should be understood as an instance of 'reception history', covering the period immediately following the release of the retranslation, and is limited to an examination of certain paratextual features found in the retranslation and a consideration of the relevant literary reviews that appeared in the daily press.

A study of the Swedish context could be argued to be of particular interest as Swedish was the first language James Joyce was translated into: In 1921, a year before the Irish author became famous through the publication of *Ulysses*, a Swedish version of *A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man* was released at the publication house Gebers, translated by Ebba Atterbom (Olofsson 1986, p. 18). (Years later, the translator's name, slightly changed, would appear in a pun in *Finnegans Wake* (1939): "The Fin had a flux and his Ebba a ride./Attabom, attabom, attabombomboom!" (Olofsson 1986, p. 36)). The publisher Nils Geber also had ideas to commission *Ulysses* for translation into Swedish soon after its release, but abandoned these plans after reading the novel, estimating that the Swedish audience was not ye<sup>t</sup> ready and that it would at best sell only a few hundred copies (Olofsson 1986, p. 33).

Instead, the first Swedish version of *Ulysses*, entitled *Odysseus* (Sw.) (Joyce 1946), was published in 1946 by Bonniers publishing house. The translator, Thomas Warburton (1918–2016), was a relatively young Finland-Swedish editor, translator, and writer at the time. In 1993, a revised version was released where Warburton had made more than 4000 changes (Joyce 1993). These changes were informed by Hans Walter Gabler's annotated edition (from 1984) and the latest Joyce research. Both versions were praised and were very well received (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 52; Riikonen 2004; Bladh 2014). As reported on in Section 3.2. below, many critics did not think that Warburton's translation was dated. However, the publisher was obviously of another opinion and, in 2007, Erik Andersson was commissioned to retranslate Joyce's most important novel.

Erik Andersson (1962–) is a Swedish author and translator. He is primarily well known for his retranslation of J.R.R. Tolkien's *Lord of the Rings*, due to the strong reactions his translation prompted in the Tolkien community. Andersson's version remained much closer to the original and consequently differed substantially from the first Swedish translation from the 1960's by Åke Ohlmarks. Whilst producing the translation, Andersson also prepared a commentary, or a "translation diary", *Översättarens anmärkningar* (The translator's notes), where he reflected on different aspects connected to the translation process. A similar book, *Dag in och dag ut med en dag i Dublin* (Day In and Day Out with One Day in Dublin) (Andersson 2012), was released in conjunction with his retranslation of *Ulysses*. Here, Andersson exposed for example how he used the first Swedish translation of *Ulysses* as a sort of "safety net" ("säkerhetsnät"): after translating a chapter, he would always compare it to Warburton's version in order to further reduce the chances of misunderstanding or misinterpreting the unruly original.

Not surprisingly, Andersson's recognized skill as a translator—including his experience of completing a previous translation project that lasted several years—explains why the publisher commissioned him for the task. Two other reasons why he was commissioned are Andersson's

thorough knowledge of Ireland and Irish literature and his sense of humor; an important feature for a Joyce translator (Åkerstedt 2012, editor at Bonniers, pc).

## **2. Paratextual Features of the Translation**

The new translation was released in January 2012, in an impressive softback edition two weeks before what would have been Joyce's 130th birthday. A year later, in 2013, the novel was available as an e-book and in the form of an audiobook in a recording by renowned actor Reinar Brynolfsson. In 2014, readers could purchase the paperback edition. Meanwhile, real connoisseurs could revel in a special gift-set edition in the form of a wooden box including the softback edition, the CD version, and Erik Andersson's translation diary *Dag in och dag ut med en dag in Dublin*.

In many respects, the aim of the retranslation was clearly to stay as close as possible to the original. To start with, the former Swedish title, *Odysseus*, which had been chosen by the first translator, Thomas Warburton, was changed to *Ulysses* and was thus identical to the title of the English original. The publisher Eva Bonnier (2012, pc) explained that there were several reasons behind their decision to change the title. With a new title, the publisher clearly signaled that the retranslation should be considered as a new edition. At the same time, they wished to respect the author's intentions. Admittedly, Joyce had chosen the Latin form of the name (and not *Odysseus*, which also exists in English) even though its use is less common in English, compared to Swedish (Farran-Lee 2012, p. 795). Another reason why *Ulysses* was chosen as the title of the retranslation was that the publisher wished to align itself with a European tradition, where many other publishers in different European countries favoured a title for their translations that was derived from the Latin form (O'Neill 2005, p. 125). No changes in the title had, however, occurred, at least not by 2005, when Patrick O'Neill's study of Joyce in translation was published. The Swedish retranslation was not alone in breaking this trend in 2012; the second retranslation into Dutch was entitled *Ulysses*, not *Ulyxis* as used by the two previous versions, and the Finnish retranslation abandoned the former *Odysseus* in favour of *Ulysses*, just like the Swedish retranslation.

Regarding its physical dimension and layout, the Swedish retranslation gives the impression that the publisher wished it to be as similar as possible to the original edition from 1922 that was published by Shakespeare and Co. in Paris, by Sylvia Beach. A brief note on the back flap of the dust jacket, however, indicates that the design of the cover actually emulates the first British edition. The book is a heavy imposing tome with a turquoise blue cover and the title of the novel, the name of the author, and the publishing house (in smaller font at the very bottom of the cover) revealed in white text. The flaps of the dust jacket contain a short note on the author (front flap) and a brief summary of the novel (back flap), where the translation is described as "outstanding" ("enastående"). The remaining paratextual elements consist of a postscript ("Efterskrift", 7 pages in length) followed by an extensive list of "word explanations" ("Ordförklaringar", 21 pages, 592 items). These "word explanations" are translations of non-English words and expressions in the novel which are left un-translated in the Swedish translation. In many cases, the entries also indicate the source of the expressions. A concluding paragraph consists of an acknowledgment to those individuals who the translator consulted for help in compiling the list of "word explanations".

The softback edition does not inform the reader at the beginning of the book about the wordlist and it is thus only by looking through the book's entirety that the reader will find it. The postscript is also somewhat concealed, given that it is not mentioned on the title page or in a 'table of contents'. In the softback edition, a brief note on the back flap states: "With a postscript by Stephen Farran-Lee" ("Med en efterskrift av Stephen Farran-Lee."). This underwent a slight change in the paperback edition where this short notice receives a slightly more prominent position since it appears on the back of the book.

No information about which edition of the original text that the translation is based on is included in the colophon, placed at the end of the book. In one review in the national daily *Dagens Nyheter*, critic, academic, and future member of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius described this unfortunate

omission on behalf of the publisher as a "major blunder" ("plump i protokollet") (Danius 2012). The number of editions of *Ulysses* have, in fact, become so numerous that the *Cambridge Companion to Ulysses* only refers to Hans Walter Gabler's edition from 1984 in the section "Manuscripts and Early Versions" among their suggestions for further reading (Latham 2014, p. 221). Danius reports that there are at least three di fferent editions of the book, all of which are a fflicted with various problems, and that there is no consensus within the research community concerning a 'definitive' version of the novel, even though most researchers use Gabler's 1984 edition. Danius opines that this unclear situation called for an explanation on the publisher's behalf as to which edition was used and why.

Let us now return to the postscript and examine it in more detail. Contrary to the lengthy afterword in the revised version of the first Swedish translation in 1993, where Thomas Warburton accounted for the di fficulties connected with the source text and the implications the most recent research in Joyce studies had on his revised translation (approximately 4000 changes), the postscript in the 2012 retranslation was not written by the translator. Stephen Farran-Lee, a Swedish publisher, translator, and cultural journalist specialized in contemporary Irish literature wrote the postscript of the new translation. Between 1993 and 1996, Farran-Lee was the editor of Bonnier's Literary Magazine (*BLM*). He has also translated novels by the Irish authors Patrick McCabe and Eoin McNamee. Working with Ola Larsmo, he wrote *Joyce bor inte längre här* ("Joyce doesn't live here anymore"), a book on contemporary Irish fiction. Even though Farran-Lee is a prominent figure within the literary profession, he is somewhat unknown to the public.

Whereas the function of Warbruton's postscript primarily corresponds to "the first minor function" in Genette's taxonomy of 'later prefaces' (Genette [1977] 2010, p. 240), i.e., "the function of calling attention to the corrections, material or other, made in this new edition" (ibid.), the function of the postscript in the retranslation also corresponds to Genette's chief function of the original assumptive authorial preface; namely, "to promote and guide a reading of the work" (Genette [1977] 2010, p. 265). As Farran-Lee indicates, the intended addressee of the postscript is not a reader who just finished the novel, but rather, a reader who gave up on reading the whole book and discovered the postscript only accidently, while flipping through the book to check where the end was. The postscript thus takes the form of a gentle, ye<sup>t</sup> learned, informative and personal encouragemen<sup>t</sup> to the reader to continue reading the novel expressed in a set of suggestions for how the reader might approach the book.

Farran-Lee begins with acknowledging that "[i]t is, of course, impossible to say something new about this novel" ("Det är förstås omöjligt att säga något nytt om den här romanen.") (Farran-Lee 2012, p. 794) and that, instead, his task is to provide a helping hand to a first-time reader to overcome his or her fear of the imposing volume. He notes that the passages which were once considered obscene and scandalous are no longer o ffensive, and that the novel's reputation for being di fficult to read remains intact. In his view, *Ulysses*, as a literary institution, does not make the book less frightening.

The most renowned introduction to *Ulysses* in Swedish is *Om James Joyces Odysseus* ("On James Joyce's Ulysses" 1970) by Olof Lagercrantz, a leading intellectual and editor-in-chief of *Dagens Nyheter* between 1960 and 1975. It is thus not surprising that Farran-Lee recommends this book as a starting point to the reader. He praises Lagercrantz's ability to expose the core elements of the novel and the way in which he compares Joyce's play with Homer's epic. Farran-Lee stresses the greatness of Leopold Bloom's ordinariness, and the way Joyce's allusions to the Odyssey resulted in a change of roles; namely by means of Joyce's profanation of the Greek hero, the ordinary and trivial gain in status whilst the antique champion is made more human. Whereas Lagercrantz draws a number of comparisons with Birger Sjöberg (1885–1914), the Swedish poet, novelist, and songwriter, contemporary with Joyce, Farran-Lee relates to a more central figure in the Swedish song tradition; namely, Carl Michael Bellman (1740–1795) and his *Fredmans epistlar* ("Fredman's Epistles"). In a manner similar to Joyce, they combine myth with characters from the lower social classes, which are then exposed to the authors' jokes, pastiches, and parodies, but always with a certain respect and care.

Farran-Lee continues with his discussion of the famous parallels that can be drawn between Joyce's novel and Homer's *Odyssey* and what the reader should know beforehand in order to enjoy a

fuller understanding of the novel. He first mentions the anecdote where Joyce explains to his aunt that all she needed in order to understand his book was Charles Lamb's *The Adventures of Ulysses*, an abbreviated version in prose for children, which fascinated Joyce as a young child. It is also noted that this adaptation inspired the author to use the Latin form of the Greek hero's name as the title for his book. Again, we note that this form is used in most translations of the novel, for example, in French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Norwegian, Danish, and now in Swedish. The change of the novel's title in the Swedish retranslation is thus only hinted at and mentioned merely *en passant*, since this information is presented within parenthesis in the postscript.

The following part of the postscript deals with the intrinsic, and occasionally oxymoronic, schema that Joyce used as a template for his novel and observes that Stuart Gilbert, a British academic and translator, based his seminal paper *James Joyce's Ulysses: A Study* on this schema. The specialized encyclopedia, *Ulysses Annotated* (first edition, 1974), by the American literary scholar Don Gi fford is also made reference to for the reader who wish to examine these details more closely.

Once Farran-Lee has highlighted these erudite observations regarding *Ulysses*, he goes on to claim that the novel can be reduced in its essence to a story about two men and a woman, in Dublin on an ordinary early summer's day, on June 16th, 1904. This day, Farran-Lee remarks, was not a day chosen at random by the author, since it was the day that he went for a walk with Nora Barnacle for the first time, the woman who would later become his wife. For Farran-Lee, the fact that the author chose to recreate this particular day in his novel explains why he always considered it as a book on 'love', but also a confession of a belief in 'peace'.

The final parts of the postscript discuss the 'pacifist' features of the novel, while placing the novel it in its historical context of British colonial rule. Farran-Lee notes that Joyce advocated for a view on the notion of "nation" which radically di ffered from the opinion of the chauvinistic Irish renaissance movement. Likewise, Farran-Lee remarks that this anti-heroic attitude is also directed towards Bloom's marriage. The postscript ends with a remark that the novel is an anti-machoist expression of the approval of physical love.

Occasionally, the postscript takes on a more personal note. The Farran-Lee reveals, for example, that he has always had a rather tense relationship with "the bloody book" ("den där jävla boken") (Farran-Lee 2012, p. 784), given that he was named after one of the protagonists, Stephen Dedalus, a character whom he had di fficulty in identifying himself with. Instead, he admitted that he feels more related to Leopold Bloom.

In the next section, we turn to the translation's reception in the daily press, where we will see that quite a few critics also revealed their own personal relationship to Joyce's masterpiece. Many topics that are discussed in the postscript were similarly treated in the reviews.

## **3. Reception in the Daily Press**

This section is divided into two parts—the first deals with the critics' general observations on Joyce and his novel and includes a comparative perspective vis-à-vis the reception of the first Swedish translation of *Ulysses* (1946), based on how it is described in Rut Nordwall-Ehrlow's excellent study "*Ulysses* väg till svensk publik" (*Ulysses'* way to its Swedish audience), published in a special volume dedicated to Joyce in Sweden and edited by Joyce specialist and translator Tommy Olofsson (1986). The second part treats the critical evaluation of the retranslation; here, references to the first Swedish translation are included only when the reviewers make comparisons in order to highlight di fferences or similarities between the two versions.

#### *3.1. General Viewpoints on Joyce and His Novel*

The release of the new Swedish version of *Ulysses* was a major literary event and was covered in both the local and national daily press. Even while the translator was working on his translation, the project was given attention to in the national newspapers, especially in media outlets that were controlled by the Bonnier group. In April 2010, when the translation was halfway completed, Andersson was interviewed by Magnus Haglund in the Bonnier-owned evening paper *Expressen*. A few days later, a small news item in the conservative *Svenska Dagbladet*, one of only two Swedish national morning papers and not owned by Bonnier, indicated that new translations into Swedish and Finnish were on the way. A few months later, in July 2010, the other national morning paper *Dagens Nyheter*, owned by Bonniers, began to release short excerpts of Andersson's translation, presented as "Joyceries" ("Joycerier") or "fragments of a translation in progress" ("skärvor ur en översättning in progress") (Wiman 2010). Joyce would continue as their "guest Twitter contributor" on an irregular basis for about a year, until May 2011.

In early November 2011, a *TT Spektra*<sup>1</sup> news-item entitled "A new translation of *Ulysses*" ("'*Ulysses'* ges ut i nyöversättning") announced the impending release of the novel in eight local newspapers. Another *TT Spektra* article, published in late December/early January, also promoted the novel as it included *Ulysses* among its recommended reads from the forthcoming season. In most of the newspapers, the lead paragraph started out with a reference to Joyce's novel—"Colossus" ("Tungviktare")—and also this book was generally covered first. However, as for the heading, Joyce's novel was somewhat eclipsed by the other books reviewed. Only one of 17, mostly local, newspapers used a heading that obliquely referred to *Ulysses*: "Retranslated classic among this spring's books" ("Nyöversatt klassiker i vårens bokskörd").

The public's attention on the release of the book was further intensified in the press by means of a good number of interviews with the translator. Especially widespread was Sara Ullberg's article (from *TT Spektra*) which was printed in approximately thirty, mostly local, papers, where Erik Andersson referred to his work as "an intellectual capability test" ("ett intellektuellt duglighetstest") (Ullberg 2011). Erik Andersson also appeared in national and regional papers owned by the Bonnier group (*Expressen*, *Sydsvenskan*, and *Dagens Nyheter*) and the competing national morning paper *Svenska Dagbladet*, as well in the local *Alingsås Tidning*, located in the area where Andersson lives.

Concerning critical reviews of the book, a search in the digital database Mediearkivet revealed that 21 reviews of the novel were published in the Swedish press between the period 2 February and 22 March. Later on, in June, in connection with Bloomsday, a review by Clas Zilliacus was also published in the Finno-Swedish daily *Hufvudstadsbladet*, where both the Swedish and the Finnish retranslations were the topic of discussion. Approximately one-third of the reviews were published on the scheduled review date2, February 3rd. Since seven of the reviews appeared in more than one local paper, Joyce's novel was in total reviewed in approximately 50 newspapers.<sup>3</sup> A good half of the reviews also discussed Andersson's translation diary *Dag ut och dag in med en dag i Dublin*. In this respect, interest in Joyce's novel had not changed particularly much from previous Swedish (re)editions. If parallel/duplicate publications are to be excluded, the number of reviews of Erik Andersson's retranslation was only slightly less than how Thomas Warburton's two versions were received in 1946 and in 1993 (Bladh 2014).

The headings of the review articles were of two types. Half of the cases indicate that the news-value associated with the book was primarily based on the fact that a new translation of *Ulysses* was now available in Swedish. The review articles generally included a positive qualitative assessment of the

<sup>1</sup> *TT Spektra* (*Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå Spektra*) is a Swedish news agency. Since 2013, it is part of the larger news agency group *TT Nyhetsbyrån*.

<sup>2</sup> In Sweden, new publications have a set date, chosen by the publisher, for reviews in the daily press. This custom, the aim of which is to ensure that critics are not influenced by each other, is less strictly followed today.

<sup>3</sup> The Swedish newspaper system is organized in big media groups, such as MittMedia, Gota Media, NTM, Bonniers, Stampen, etc., which are shifting from time to time, since they buy or sell each other (Weibull et al. 2018, pp. 41, 133–39). There are two reasons why a critic can publish the same review in different newspapers. Either he or she can write their article for a specific media group, which owns a number of different papers, or the critic can sell the review to different papers (which must be the case with Martin Lagerholm, since his review is published both in *Smålandsposten* and in *Barometern-OT*, which belong to different media groups). A review published in different newspapers generally has the same content, but the heading and the lead paragraph may differ, as well as illustrations and layout. In this survey, only print newspapers were included.

book. In this category, we find4: "From a dated *Odysseus* to a *Ulysses* with bite" ("Från bedagad Odysseus till Ulysses med bett") (Nyström 2012); "*Ulysses* in an elegant retranslation" ("Ulysses i elegant nyöversättning") (Jonsson 2012); "New readers ge<sup>t</sup> to know (a new) *Ulysses*" ("Nya läsare får ta till sig (ny) Ulysses") (Dahlman 2012); "Retranslation of *Ulysses* sparkles exactly like the original" ("Nyöversättning av Ulysses gnistrar precis som i originalet") (Dahlman 2012); "Now James Joyce has Swedish as mother tongue" ("Nu har James Joyce fått svenska som modersmål") (Danius 2012); "Refreshing retranslation of *Ulysses*" ("Uppfriskande nyöversättning av Ulysses") (Olofsson 2012); "The new *Ulysses*—a grea<sup>t</sup> achievement by the translator" ("Nya Ulysses—en översättarbragd") (Nordlund-Hessler 2012); "After four years with a new *Ulysses*" ("Efter fyra år med en ny Ulysses") (Balgård 2012); "*Odysseus* in modern cloths" ("Odysseus i moderna kläder") (Bergsten 2012); and "Well cut language" ("Välskuren språkdräkt") (Högström 2012).

The other half of the reviews focused on di fferent characteristic aspects of the novel. For example, that it is set in the Irish capital during one very ordinary day: "A day in Dublin" ("En dag i Dublin") (Kuivanen 2012); "One single day in June in Dublin" ("En enda junidag i Dublin") (Dahlman 2012); "Lost in Dublin found again" ("Vilse i Dublin leder rätt") (Kjellgren 2012); "A very special weekday" ("En alldeles särskild vardag") (Svensson 2012); and "A mythical day in Dublin" ("En högst mytomspunnen dag i Dublin") (Lagerholm 2012). One regional newspaper chose to highlight the novel's praise of ordinary things: "Trifling matters become grea<sup>t</sup> world literature" ("Struntsaker blir stor världslitteratur") (Degerman 2012). Another referred to the aspect that *Ulysses* is not connected to events outside: "A time which rested in itself" ("En tid som vilade i sig själv") (Polvall 2012). Yet others emphasized the parallels with the Greek epic: "Odyssey over man" ("Odyssé över människan)" and "An odyssey over mankind" ("En odyssé över mänskligheten") (Petdersen 2012). Elsewhere Joyce's burlesque and direct expression was highlighted: "The language of flesh" ("Köttets språk") (Jenny Tunedal 2012). One review was more general in their praise of the author: "The joy of Joyce" (Gradvall 2012). Another referred to the fleshly and experimental aspect of the book: "Sensual experiment" ("Sinnligt experiment") (Nyström 2012). Finally, two local papers used a heading which referred to the novel's reputation of being notoriously di fficult to read: "Ulysses—an indigestible process" ("Ulysses—en svårsmält process) (Bernesjö 2012) and "Thick and confusing but worth reading" ("Tjock och förvirrande men värd att läsa") (Jonsson 2012).

As a first general observation, we note that the Swedish critics in 2012 welcomed the new Swedish translation of Joyce's novel with unbounded enthusiasm. The book was clearly still considered a masterpiece, although a very strange one. Martin Lagerholm characterised it as "one of word literature's most odd and impressive creations" ("ett av världslitteraturens märkligaste och mäktigaste skapelser") (Lagerholm 2012). There was definitely a consensus that two time periods could now be delineated: a distinct 'before *Ulysses*' and an 'after *Ulysses*'.

In this respect, the perspective had not changed drastically from when the novel was first introduced into Swedish. Nordwall-Ehrlow observed that the novel already at this time was considered as a classic, unique of its kind and acknowledged for its "seminal importance" ("nyskapande betydelse") (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 52). The novel was above all praised for its innovating style and form, whereas comments on its "concepts of mankind and ethos" ("människosyn och livsuppfattning") were rare and mostly done *en passant* (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 61). In her view, this focus on form could be explained by the fact that this experimental style was still seen as new and innovative at the time (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 63). Her general judgment though is that the early reception of *Ulysses* as expressed in the ca. 10 reviews included in her study could mainly be characterized by a "reserved enthusiasm" ("reserverad entusiasm") (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 66). She sugges<sup>t</sup> that this attitude partly could be a result of the "idealistic schooling of the critics" ("litteraturkritikernas idealistiska

<sup>4</sup> In the following enumeration, some reviews are quoted more than once. This is because different headings were occasionally used when a review was published in different newspapers.

skolning") (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 66), which could explain why the reviewers were not convinced by the ethos of the novel and, accordingly, why *Ulysses* did not as ye<sup>t</sup> had had a general breakthrough.

A more conspicuous difference is that Joyce, in the 2012 reception, was no longer compared to such a wide range of authors of the Western literary canon. In the 1946 reception, Nordwall-Ehrlow (1986, p. 53) found mentions of Proust, Gide, Kafka, Hesse, Rabelais, Shakespeare, Swift, Ibsen, Cervantes and 'Alice in Wonderland'. In 2012, the referrals were mainly to British modernist writers such as Virginia Wolf, Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot, occasionally quoted in order to explain in what respect Joyce differed from his contemporary modernist giants (Petdersen 2012). But Joyce is also compared to or mentioned along with prominent people in other disciplines (the Jazz musician Coltrane (Gradvall 2012), the physicist Einstein (Olofsson 2012), and the painter and sculptor Marcel Duchamp (Nyström 2012)) in order to emphasize the revolutionary aspect of his oeuvre, which broke completely with earlier traditions.

Nowadays, Joyce and *Ulysses* are thus incontestably part of the literary canon. But what is it that makes the book worth reading today and in what way does this differ from the opinions of the reviewers of the first translation? We begin with an inventory of the attributes that the critics of the retranslation thought motivated why the novel is still a major work of literature.

The critics under discussion frequently stressed the importance of *Ulysses*'s praise of the ordinary as a key element. They felt empathy with the way Joyce turned Leopold Bloom, an ordinary and rather unsuccessful advertising agent, into a modern, humane Odysseus. This refers to how the author turned the henpecked protagonist, which in every aspect is a complete opposite of the Greek war hero, into a "magnificent person" ("en storslagen människa") (Dahlman 2012). There is, thus, no longer any objections against the novel's focus on rather trivial matters. In the earlier critic, however, some reviewers considered this perspective too confined, regretting that other more important themes or values were absent (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, pp. 53–54). Among the objections, we find that the novel was seen as too provincial at a time when only a couple of years earlier wars had devastated the European continent.

In 1946, there was also an ambivalence as to whether the novel lacked in universality or not, even though this opinion is questioned by Nordwall-Ehrlow. In her view, judgments which she finds in the two reviews proclaiming such a lack—that "anguish" ("ångest") is conceived of as a general theme in the novel or that the author aspires to tell "the truth about men and life" ("sanningen om människorna och livet") (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 55)—clearly indicate that these critics acknowledged that *Ulysses* addressed matters of universal value. No such objections can be found in the 2012 reception of the novel. In fact, the word "universality" does not appear at all in any review of the retranslation. Perhaps it is today such an obvious attribute of *Ulysses* that it does not have to be commented on. Moreover, both the early and later critic give prominence to Joyce's way of describing his characters and consider Ulysses as "a praise to life" ("hyllning till livet") (Svensson 2012). As for the parallels with the Homeric epic, several reviews of the retranslation omitted to comment on them, and, occasionally, opinions diverged on their importance for coming to a proper understanding of Joyce's novel. Kuivanan claimed that some parts of the novel were almost unintelligible for a reader who was unaware of the connections to the Greek epic. More common was, however, the opinion conveyed in the postscript by Farran-Lee; namely, that the allusions to Odysseys' journey are certainly not unimportant, but still do not constitute the most vital element of the story. This view is probably most clearly indicated in Gradvall's review. Gradvall's first advice to the reader is not to pay attention at all to the Greek parallels. In his opinion, the reader might otherwise easily be distracted and caught up in a game of solving a puzzle. In fact, he suggests that the first-time reader should not read up on the Greek myth at all, skip the first part of the book, and move on directly to Chapter 4, instead.

In comparison, no critic of the first translation left out the allusions to Homer's epic; on the other hand, neither did many of them develop on this theme. Only Olle Carlsson, a young teacher who prior to his review of *Ulysses* had published articles on two other novels by Joyce, drew important conclusions from these parallels (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, pp. 59–60). Carlsson argues that the

mythological framework of the novel reinforces the trivialities of modern life as they stand out clearer when contrasted to the ancient saga. As we noticed earlier in this section, this is a reoccurring theme in many of the reviews of the retranslation.

Some reviewers also emphasize the allusions to other works of world literature. In her review of the retranslation, Dahlman finds the parallels with Shakespeare's work of more interest; citing Hamlet's ghost and the 1600th-century playwright's wife, Ann Hathaway, abandoned in Stratford, as an inspiration for the character of Penelope/Molly. Per Svensson, also in a review of the new translation, in regional South Swedish paper *Sydsvenskan*, calls attention to the fact that the novel is replete with allusions to the father–son theme in other literary classics, for example *Hamlet* and Mozart's opera *Don Giovanni*. The allusions to Shakespeare were also commented on by the most negatively inclined reviewer of the first translation, Moa Martinson, a prominent proletarian author and the only female critic of Warburton's version. In her opinion, it is clear that Joyce had grea<sup>t</sup> esteem for the English playwright but nevertheless she finds his attitude towards Shakespeare too full of scorn and disrespect (Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 64).

The Swedish critics did not pay a grea<sup>t</sup> deal of attention to the title, at least not in reviews of the novel when it was first introduced in Swedish 1946 and later revised in 1993 (Bladh 2014). Commentary on this issue was, in fact, restricted to a single brief remark by critic and poet Artur Lundkvist, who considered the title change "somewhat unnecessary" ("något onödig") (Lundkvist 1946) in a lengthy review in *Vi*. Similarly, most reviewers of the retranslation did not comment on the change in title. Three critics explicitly welcomed the new title. In Svensson's words, it was a "wise" ("klokt") choice, since the allusions to Homer's epic (according to his interpretation) are not crucial to understanding the novel but, rather, instantiate an expression for the author's joyful play with intertextual references. Kuivanan used similar terms and described the change as "correct" ("riktigt") but without developing this claim any further. In Pedersen's view, the former Swedish title, *Odysseus*, was not only pedagogical but also indicative of the style of Warburton's translation at a whole. This is actually the only review where a critic discussed the original author's choice of title in more detail. Pedersen makes reference to the children's book mentioned in Farran-Lee's postscript but, ultimately, he explains Joyce's preference for 'Ulysses' as a matter of rhythm and musicality: he liked the way it sounded. In an interview with the translator in *Dagens Nyheter*, Jonas Thente (2012) remarked that the novel now bears the title that Swedish readers had always used when referring to it.

As already mentioned, the reviewers of the first translation unanimously admired Joyce for his linguistic playfulness. A distinctive feature of the author's modernistic experiment. This is also an aspect of the novel which received much claim by the critics of the retranslation. In Gradvall's opinion, Joyce's mode of expression was "quick, smart, natural" ("rapt, smart, ledigt") (Gradvall 2012). Other reviewers appreciated the stylistic variation, the puns, and the word formations that can be found in the novel.

Högström highlights the merits of Joyces's narrative technique, which, in her opinion, creates "a presence, which never decreases in power" ("en närvaro som aldrig förlorar i kraft) (Högström 2012). She finds that Joyce's seemingly never-ending digressions amusing and explains that they actually follow a pattern, since Joyce always comes back to certain details: a joke, a misunderstanding, a woman in labor. To her, this is the novel's "permanently shaking nerve" ("ständigt självande nerven") (Högström 2012). Kjellgren praises Joyce's skill at portraying people, especially how he displays sides of his characters that they do not necessarily want to show. Kjellgren also draws attention to the claim that there are so many various ways in which Ulysses can be read, and the idea that one can easily spend a lifetime without exhausting all aspects of the novel.

In a review in *Borås Tidning*, Bo W. Jonsson is perhaps less impressed by Joyce's baroque style. In his opinion, the merit of the novel is, instead, to be found in the author's inner thoughts, his narrative, his reflections, and his use of history. In the local daily newspaper, *Helsingborgs Dagblad*, Henrik Pedersen acknowledges that few other books come across as so modern in comparison to *Ulysses*. He stresses that Joyce's political attitude was ahead of his time, since it embraced a multicultural

peaceful world where paternalistic structures had been abandoned. In this respect, he acknowledges that *Ulysses* comes across as a more enjoyable novel than other important modernist works. Finally, he also comments on the importance of language in the novel; not only is it a tool for communication, but it is also something we cannot control.

In Nyströms's view, "the sensual concretion of straight narration" ("det raka berättandets sinnliga konkretion") (Nyström 2012) explains why the novel is still relevant today. Gradvall also notes that the novel is a beautiful homage to urbanity, the big city, with all its possibilities.

Turning now to examine some of the negative opinions voiced about the book, we note that Jan-Olov Nyström's review, which was published in several local papers in northern Sweden, argues that present-day attempts to move literary borders seldom succeed in producing something of interest. Instead, he claims, they tend to preserve old material, in contrast to the originals, which remain relevant. Apparently, this can be observed in the case of *Ulysses*. In spite of his initial positive assessment of the novel, Nyström reveals himself as a most critical voice concerning the present relevance of Joyce's novel as well as the modernistic project on the whole. He admits that the novel has its strengths but, at the same time, he dismisses many of the novel's lengthy passages of "babble" ("pladdret") (Nyström 2012), which he goes on to further judge as "meaningless" ("meningslösa") (Nyström 2012). Even though other critics have also characterized the novel as being di fficult to read, they express their opinions in a more facetious tone. In addition, they do not explicitly connect these wordy passages to modernism, as does Nyström. As such, Nyström is alone in questioning the value of the experimental feature of the novel. In his view, the 20th century can be characterized by a serious misunderstanding that the only way to break with previous models and ideas was by introducing a radically new form. He specifically resents the way these experiments a ffected language with respect to intelligibility and as a means for communication. In Nyström's view, the "arrogance of the avant-garde" ("avantgard-arrogansen") (Nyström 2012) is a disturbing element when reading *Ulysses*. As an experiment, he finds it acceptable, but not as a norm.

As mentioned in the previous section, Farran-Lee noted that *Ulysses* is no less frightening today when it appears on prescribed reading lists (for example, as part of a course in literature) and argued that the first-time reader might need some encouragemen<sup>t</sup> to read the whole book. It is obvious that many reviewers considered the book to be a major challenge. This was perhaps most ludicrously expressed in Jan Gradvall's review in the national evening paper *Expressen*, where he declared that reading *Ulysses* is more often than not described as the intellectual equivalent to completing *Vansbrosimmet*, an annual 3-kilometre open-water swimming competition in Dalarna. According to Inger Dahlman, writing for the local newpapers *Borlänge Tidning*, *Nya Ludvika Tidning*, and *Sölvesborgs-Tidningen*, only one chapter was easy to read—the passage with the three girls on the beach ("Nausicaa"). Pauli Olavi Kuivanen, in *Norrköpings Tidningar*, declared that many a reader has "surrendered when the text has risen up like a monster wave" ("gett upp när texten tornat upp sig likt en monstervåg") (Kuivanen 2012). Thomas Kjellgren, in the local newspaper *Trelleborgs Allehanda*, suggests that it is best to restrict one's reading of the novel to a maximum of 50 pages a day. For Bo Degerman, in local *Dala-Demokraten*, the novel is not too heavy if served in small portions, but, as a whole, he found the reading hard and tiresome ("dryg") and admitted that he had not ye<sup>t</sup> managed to finish the book. Lennart Bernesjö, in the local newspaper, *Arvika Nyheter*, also acknowledges that the reader needs time to digest the novel.

The translator, Erik Andersson, can thus be seen to have been proven right when he expressed doubts about Joyce's claim that *Ulysses* is a novel that is accessible for ordinary, non-specialist readers (Haglund 2010).

Even though *Ulysses* had a reputation of being di fficult to read already when it was first released, there is actually only one explicit example of such complaints in Nordwall-Ehrlow's presentation of the critic of the first translation. It is Moa Martinson and she is particularly outspoken in her dismissal of the reader-unfriendliness of the novel: "a terrible work to ge<sup>t</sup> through" ("ett fruktansvärt arbete att komma igenom") (Martinson, quoted in Nordwall-Ehrlow 1986, p. 63).

Another di fference between the receptions of the two translations is that many critics of the retranslation accounted for the circumstances around the novel, either at the time when it was written and first received or later, with regards to the editorial disputes caused by the many versions of the manuscript. This perspective does not appear so notably in the critic from 1946, at least not in Norwall-Ehrlow's presentation. On the other hand, we do not find many reflections on the sentiments or mood created by the novel in the reviews of the new translations. The acute sensations of a state of "late-on-earth" ("sent på jorden"), "terrible anguish" ("förtvivlad ångest") and "spiritual distress" ("andlig nöd"), which were evoked in some of the reviews in 1946 do not have their counterpart in the 2012 critic.

## *3.2. Evaluation of the Retranslation*

We will now consider a number of critical evaluations of the new translation. As previously mentioned, the critics unanimously embraced the new Swedish version of *Ulysses*. They praised the translator, both for his courage for accepting the challenging task and for the successful result of his dedicated labor. His translation is, for example, described as "elegant" ("elegant") (Jonsson 2012), "fresh, sensitive, and entertaining" ("fräsch, känslig och underhållande") (Olsson 2012) and "congenial" ("congenial") (Högström 2012). Opinions diverge, however, as to what role Andersson's translation plays in relationship to Warburton's revised version from 1993. In other words, the questions that are raised are whether the retranslation is to be seen as distinct, complementary interpretation of Joyce's novel or whether it replaces the earlier translation. According to Ulf Olsson, Warburton's translation had aged over the years to a point where the need for a retranslation was close to acute. Peterson's judgement is even harsher. He claims that Warburton's text had aged quickly. Nyström also describes the old version as "passé" ("bedagad"), in comparison to the new translation. Other critics are more cautious. Danius remarks, somewhat surprised, that Warburton's revised translation still reads very well, and characterises it as "natural, inventive, intelligent" ("ledig, uppfinningsrik, intelligent") (Danius 2012). Tunedal is of a similar opinion, acknowledging that the previous translation remains a remarkable achievement. In a review in the Finno-Swedish *Hufvudstadsbladet*, Clas Zilliacus, a compatriot of Warburton's, observes that no Swedish version of *Ulysses* will probably be much better than the first translation, just di fferent and newer. Martin Lagerholm is of the same opinion. Apart from having the merit of using a "more modernized idiom" ("mera moderniserat idiom"), he finds Andersson's translation reasonably equal to Warburton's version. Balgård, after a lengthy comparison, concludes that both translations are equal in merit.

There is, however, consensus that Andersson's translation is rawer, filthier, and more physical than the previous translation. Andersson's style is, in this respect, considered to be closer to Joyce's style and more in harmony with the author's intentions to portray ordinary people and their everyday life, however repugnan<sup>t</sup> and distasteful they might be. Jan Gradvall notices for example that the "brown hole" in the passage on Molly's behind stayed "brown" in Andersson's version, whereas Warburton preferred the euphemism "tar" ("tjära"). Jenny Tunedal declares that Joyce's words in the new translation had become "more flesh, a fleshier flesh" ("mer kött, ett köttigare kött"), apparently much to her joy and satisfaction (Tunedal 2012).

Critics have also noted that Andersson is more specific and avoids generalization in his translation. Tina Nordlund-Hessler illustrates this observation with an example where Warburton's "two beers" ("två öl") and "one steak with cabbage" ("en bi ff med kål") corresponded to the more precise "two stouts" ("två stouts") and "one corned beef with cabbage" (en hackbi ff med kål") (Nordlund-Hessler 2012) in Andersson's version. On the other hand, Nordlund-Hessler points out that Andersson's translation is far from a strictly word-for-word transfer from the original. Instead, her general impression is that Andersson, above all, aimed at capturing the spirit or emotion of each sentence. This aspect is praised by most reviewers, for example by Danius, who stresses how impressed she is with how successfully Andersson recreated a particularly di fficult aspect of Joyce's prose; that is, his sensuality and ingeniousness ("sinnligheten och fyndigheten") (Danius 2012). Other critics

also applaud Andersson's use of creativity and humor, for example, when reproducing the various styles of the original, its lengthy enumerations, and intricate word formations. Another characteristic of Andersson's prose that has received a grea<sup>t</sup> deal of positive acclamation was his sensitivity to rhyme and rhythm. Svensson finds Andersson's translation "an even more powerful and consistent focus on the oral acrobatic and verbal equilibrium, the burlesque and childish joy of words" ("en än kraftfullare och mer konsekvent satsning på oralakrobatiken och verbal-ekvilibristiken, den burleska och barnsliga ordglädjen") (Svensson 2012). In Balgård's view, however, Warburton's version is the more source oriented of the two translation, as it reproduces "a sort of Joycean staccato" ("ett slags Joyceskt staccato") (Balgård 2012), whereas Andersson's rendering runs smother.

Most reviews include direct quotes from the Swedish translation(s), which are often presented next to the English original. The passages cited are strikingly varied and are most frequently used to illustrate the critics' praise of Andersson's impressive linguistic skills. Needless to say, these comparisons are often anecdotal, which the reviewers are well aware of. Most often, the outcome of the comparisons is to Andersson's advantage.

Specific comments as to how Andersson deals with the di fferent registers in the novel are few but divergent. One reviewer approves of Andersson's use of the West Swedish *västgötska* dialect (Balgård 2012), whereas another complains about a translation solution which, in his opinion, reminded the critic too much of a stereotypical accent of Southern Stockholm ("Söderslang") (Petdersen 2012). The most frequently cited example is the famous passage where, late at night, Leopold Bloom finally returns back home to Eccles Street and kisses his wife's behind: "He kissed the plump mellow yellow smellow melons of her rump, on each plump melonous hemispehere, in their mellow yellow furrow, with obscure prolonged provocative melonsmellonous osculation." (Olofsson 2012). Here, Andersson chooses to give priority to the rhyme and rhythm of the original, for example, by changing the English *melons* to the Swedish word for *pumpkin* ("pumpa"): "Han kysste hennes rumpas buktiga fruktiga luktiga pumpagump, på vardera buktande pumphemisfären, i deras buktiga fruktiga fukt, med smygande utmanande pumpfuktiga stusskyssar." (Olofsson 2012).

In the concluding section of her review, Danius regrets that a characteristic feature of Joyce's unconventional style has been normalized in the retranslation. In Joyce's writing, she explains, inanimate objects and body parts tend to function as subjects of the clause. By using this 'close-up' technique, borrowed from film industry, Joyce is able to elevate the significance of inanimate objects to a level that is on par with human characters. Ultimately, this way of writing invites the reader to adopt an alternative perspective of the world. Danius illustrates her argumen<sup>t</sup> with an example from the passage where Molly is having breakfast: "Her spoon ceased to stir up the sugar. She gazed straight before her, inhaling through her arched nostrils." Here, Andersson has restructured the sentence and opted for a more banal solution: "Hon slutade att röra ut sockret med skeden. Hon såg rakt framför sig, drog in luft med de välvda näsborrarna." Instead of letting the 'spoon' remain the subject of the first sentence, as in Joyce's original, the Swedish version employs 'She' ("Hon" '—Molly) as the subject of both sentences. The Swedish reader is thus denied the 'zooming in' e ffect on the spoon, which is present in the original. Although Danius states that she does not want to judge Andersson's rendering as incorrect, she finds it "fairly blunt" ("tämligen trubbig") (Danius 2012). In her view, it is unnecessary for the translator to tone down the author's unusual style, even though she notes that such a change of perspective on behalf of the translator occurs only rarely in the retranslation.

It is also easy to agree with Tommy Olofsson, associate professor of literature at Linnaeus University and author of a monograph on the early reception of Joyce's work in Sweden, when he praises Warburton's solution in the beginning of Episode 14, where Bloom visits the maternity hospital. Olofsson initially questions Andersson's strategy of using a broken syntax as in the original to recreate the impression of an awkward English translation of a Latin text, finding it "a bit too high-spirited" ("lite väl studentikos") (Olofsson 2012). Then Olofsson moves on to the exclamations "Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!", admitting that he always interpreted it as "a praise to the blessing of intercourse and as a description of what might lead to the maternity

ward" ("en lovprisning av samlagets välsignelser och som en beskrivning av vad som kan föra till BB") (Olofsson 2012). In other words, Olofsson interprets this as a discreet indication of where Bloom will end up a bit further on in the episode. Olofsson remarks that this reading corresponds to Warburton's "Åhejåhå, pojkeenpojke, åhejåhå! Åjehåhå, pojkeenpojke, åhejåhå! Åhejåhå, pojkeenpojke, åhejåhå!" where the groans of the lovers' encounter and their desire to conceive a boy are quite evident. Olofsson remains perplexed by Andersson's translation, and claims to be unsure how to interpret "Hoppalanta lilla gosse hoppalanta! Hoppalanta lilla gosse hoppalanta! Hoppalanta lilla gosse hoppalanta!"
