A Comparison Between Two Chinese Versions Of The Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of System Theories

In this thesis, a comparison is made from the perspective of system theories between two Chinese versions of Tolkien's trilogy The Lord of the Rings in China (one was published on the Chinese mainland; the other was in Taiwan). The term "system theories" was adopted by Jeremy Munday (2001: 108) chiefly to refer to Itamar Even-Zohar's polysystem theory and Gideon Toury's concept of "norms". In fact, the author thinks that Andre Lefevere's concepts of "rewriting" and "patronage" can also be included in "system theories" since his starting point was also viewing literature as a system.According to Theo Hermans, the central idea of all system theories is "relational" (2004: 106-107). They advocate both a synchronic and diachronic view on certain phenomena of literature (including translated literature) in relation to other elements within the socio-cultural system as a whole, hence a comprehensive and dynamic methodology.The comparison in this thesis is carded out along both macroscopic and microscopic lines. The starting point of macro-comparison is to view the two Chinese versions of The Lord of the Rings as a part of Chinese literature system which is a sub-system of Chinese socio-cultural system. The micro-comparison is, namely, textual comparison. In view of the fact that the mainland version of the trilogy was translated by three translators while the Taiwan version only by one, we only chose Part I of the trilogy, i. e. The Fellowship of the Ring, for textual comparison to avoid cross comparison among different translators.In the macro-comparison, not only the influence of the element or system outside the system of literature (e. g. publisher and system of movies), but also that of the similar works inside the system of Chinese literature (e. g. ancient classic Journey to the West and Louis Cha's kung fu novels), is taken into consideration for analyzing the introduction and reception of The Lord of the Rings in China. One of the conclusions of the macro-comparison is that the emergence of the two Chinese versions is the result of the publishers' controlling the publishing time in accordance with the release of the namesake movie. The introduction of the movie into China would naturally draw the attention of audience to the original novel or its translation. With the movie as the excellent advertisement, the publisher, as the "patronage" of the translation, was capable of exerting its influence on the translation process mainly out of its own commercial interest. Therefore, it was not accidental that the two Chinese versions both appeared on the eve of the premiere of the film. As for the reception of the two Chinese versions in China, the conclusions of this thesis are, firstly, the publisher's selection of translator plays a role in it (Yilin Publishing House, the publisher of the mainland version, recruited a team of three translators who either are scholars from universities or translators being experienced in literary translation. Such a selection might suggest Yilin's serious attitude towards Tolkien's trilogy, i. e. it should be translated and received as a modem classic; Linking Publishing Company, the publisher of the Taiwan version, chose a young man of 25 years old, who is an enthusiast of fantasy fiction and video games, as the translator. Linking's choice was based on the fact that the majority of the readers of The Lord of the Rings in Taiwan are young men). Secondly, the similarities of Tolkien's trilogy to ancient Chinese classic Journey to the West and Louis Cha's kung fu novels in some respects are conducive to its reception in China.The aim of the micro-comparison is to spot the different norms followed by two translators with such different educational background and knowledge system in translating some segments of the original. The segments that are subjected to our comparison include book title, table of contents, some language items and three poems. The preliminary conclusion of this thesis is that Ding Di employed a large quantity of Chinese four-character phrases in his translation, which added to its "acceptability". Lucifer Chu displayed his pursuit of "adequate" translation particularly by following some naming principles of the original author in translating proper nouns.