With an opening not for overly delicate sensibilities, Harbart (or Herbert depending on the edition) takes you down into the darkened streets of Calcutta where a group of intoxicated men vomit and piss their way home, and a “rag-clad mumble-mad woman” washes herself at the neighbourhood water tap. They’ve spent the evening partying at the home office of “Conversations with the dead” with the proprietor, the title of the character of the book, who has by now, unknown to them, slit his wrist and lies bleeding to death while a blue fairy frantically presses at the window unable to alter his fate.
Recently released in a brilliant new translation by Sunandini Banerjee, this beloved cult classic is a spirited—and spirit-filled—story of a man who never quite manages to fit himself into a world that is in upheaval, through a time of shifting social and political uncertainties. If our hapless hero exercises a certain practical and historical indifference and finds himself caught up in a number of currents he does not understand, his creator was anything but complacent. Writer and poet Nabarun Bhattacharya was a dedicated humanitarian, passionate about the lives of all members of society—a man who was, as his daughter-in-law remembers him, keen to explore “the unknown, the unearthly, the underbelly of Indian society, where he dared to immerse himself with wild abandon, unapologetically.” This inclination shines through warmly and vibrantly in this, his first novel, originally published in 1994.
From its ominous, dramatic beginning, the narrative slips back in time to fill in the gaps, and make its way forward to close the circle of Harbart’s short, unfortunate life. From the start, tragedy marks him. Orphaned before the age of two after his father is killed in an automobile accident, and his mother accidentally electrocuted while hanging laundry on a wire, Harbartt ends up deposited at his father’s family home in Calcutta where he “proceeded, through indifference and neglect, toward adulthood.” His aunt Jyathaima will be, throughout his life, the sole family member to show him kindness. His cousins, especially the greedy Dhanna-da, resent his presence, abusing him whenever the opportunity arises, while his uncle whose unrestrained fondness for whores leaves mentally incapacitated as the result of venereal disease, spends his time circulating from room to veranda with the regularity of a cuckoo clock, screaming “Peeyu kahaan, peeyu kahaan!” This Hindi version of the brain-fever bird call, meaning “Where is my love?” becomes a running gag in the book—just one small indication of the humour and character that runs through the story.
Although Harbart spends a few years in school, he finds it not to his liking and drops out, preferring to read on his own and even, for a brief time, dabble in some, less than elegant poetry. Had his father not been obsessed with movies and squandered his share of the family fortune on film projects before his untimely death, this entire tale might have been quite different. But, instead, what he and the boy’s beautiful fair-skinned mother leave their son is a handsome profile, a Hollywood-ish, Leslie Howard-ish air, and a notably shahebi name—Harbart (or Herbert).
Early on, Harbart develops an interest in the dead when he find a human skull and a few bones in a trunk in the house. He eventually takes them to cleanse and release them into the waters of the Hooghly River, but from that point on he starts to immerse himself in two tattered books on the occult that had once belonged to his grandfather. This is not, however, the beginning of his career as a communicator with the deceased. His cousin Binu, a young man with connections the Communist Party had come to the city just as political tensions were rising in the early 1970s and is killed by the police. Despite his attention to Binu as he lays dying in the hospital, the incident slips from Harbart’s memory until, many years later, he recalls his cousin’s long forgotten last words in a dream and, before long, his fortunes take an unexpected turn:
Herbert could sense it. He would have to charge-barrage now. Binu had had his time. It was Herbert’s time now. He would have to produce panic-pandemonium. Rip apart everything, torment-turmoil everything until the entire universe whirled in the dance of devastation.
All of a sudden, Harbart is in business. At the same time, a chain of events is set in motion that catches the naturally anxious proprietor unaware. It seems that there are forces intent on cashing in on his talents and others determined to shut him down.
Harbart’s business may be a sham, but it is not conducted with an entirely mercenary intention. On the one hand, he is too inept to concoct an illusion worthy of the mediums of the past, like the personalities who populate the reference books he clings to, on the other, the painful stories of those who seek his services tug at his heart. It is exactly this weakness that allows him to fall into the trap set by those intent on discrediting him. But is he really hurting anyone? He is accused of playing on the desires of the bereaved to believe ghosts exist. And yet, in truth, Harbart’s own ghostly ancestors are never far away. His deceased parents huddle close by whenever their son is in trouble, his progenitors confront him in a terrifying god-like vision, and they all will cluster around at his unforgettable cremation.
This slender novella moves with a force and energy of its own—stretched out in places, sliding sidelong in others—and packs an entirely unanticipated punch at the end. By turns funny and tragic, it sings with the spirit and energy of the Calcutta streets and neighbourhoods, which are slowly changing, where modernization—like the satellite dishes sprouting on roof tops—is leading to more isolation and less compassion. It’s a world where a lonely misfit like Harbart, clinging to illusions (like that afforded by the moth-eaten Ulster great coat he walks around in, or his infatuations with a lady doctor he happens to see in passing or a stone fairy in a store window) hardly stands a chance.
Finally, I have to add a few words about the two editions of this book. I bought and read the New Directions edition first and thoroughly enjoyed it. The language is vibrant, coarse, and playful. Calcutta as I’ve experienced it comes alive on the pages. But I was curious about the different spellings of the title character’s name. It is not unusual for a book published in North America by one publisher and in the UK and the rest of the world by another to have two different titles, or small variations in the edits, but the name is rather obvious. Harbart is the Bengali rendition of “Herbert,” the name the Seagull edition uses which, depending on how you choose to look at it, given that this is an English translation, the protagonist was given an English name and he likes to imagine that others might detect in him a whiff of “white blood,” there is a fair cause for an English spelling but it’s not a major concern for me. In this review, I decided to hold to the US edit. However, the quote above is from the Seagull version, and for some reason that I can’t quite fathom, the delightful hyphenated rhyming or alliterative verbs and nouns that litter the text in this edition have been, largely diluted, sometimes even replaced in the New Directions edit. Same with some of the vernacular. Given that the translator is the senior editor at Seagull who are themselves based in the heart of Calcutta, this noticeable difference begs the question: Was the translation deemed too lively for American audiences?
Both Seagull Books and New Directions are publishers I greatly respect and I don’t want to belabour the differences. This is an exceptional, moving and important book—not to be missed, no matter the edition!
 This new translation has been published by New Directions in North America as Harbart, and by Seagull Books in the rest of the world as Herbert.
11 thoughts on “A ghost from Calcutta revived: Herbert (or Harbart) by Nabarun Bhattacharya”
Lively review befitting what seems to be an enchanting read. It is made more interesting by your astute comparison of the version published in India and the US. How true the point you raise about many books being unable to ‘travel’ (to the West, of course!) without a special edit on language done for that readership. Tough call for the translator and publisher to make!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thing that concerns me here is that Seagull is an international publisher, and they hold the worldwide rights, exclusive of North America. This kind of sharing of rights does help finance translations, but it does run the risk of illustrating the degree to which a work can be edited with an eye to what looks like making it more palatable for an American audience.
Hmmm. I’m not necessarily a fan of tailoring a translation to make it easier for the intended audience. If I want to read a book about Russia, say, I want it to feel and sound like a Russian book. An example I often give is abandoning a particular translation of War and Peace which rendered Andrei as Andrew. I would go for the Seagul version here…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think so too. The assumptions some publishers make seem strange to me. I mean, seriously, what kind of reader who’s going to tackle War and Peace, can’t cope with the name Andrei???
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the UK it is the Seagull edition that will be available. Thing is, it feels like a bit of the character of the language is smoothed out for no reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is some reason! I would love to know what the reason was. This book is like a test case. It seems unlikely to the point of impossibility that the translation was “deemed too lively.” I am having trouble imaging that meeting. “I don’t know – our readers don’t like anything that is too lively. Can we edit out some of the liveliness?”
Here is the ND version of the quotation included above:
Harbart could sense it. He would have to charge-barrage now. Binu had had his time. It was Harbart’s time now. He would have to produce pandemonium – rip apart everything, turn everything upside down until the entire universe reeled in the dance of devastation. (Ch. 4, 45-6)
The signature stylistic device of the ND translation is the compound word, like “charge-barrage.” There are lots of them. I would love to see more examples of the differences. The first page of ND has “frothy-foaming,” “piss-cross,” “mumble-mad,” “skin-rotten,” and “Star-TV-signalling-sucking.” Are there so many more in the Seagull edition?
More curious is the “whirled” versus “reeled” change. What is going on there? It has nothing to do with the American palate. Honestly, I don’t see a thing here that has anything to do with changes aimed at American tastes, whatever those might be, but this difference in verbs suggests that something else is going on. I wonder what.
We could ask ND! They’re on Twitter. I could also politely mention that the page-numbering of the endnotes is screwed up.
I do not want to undermine the ND edition which, as I said, I read and thoroughly enjoyed. It was not my original intention to read or compare the two. I greatly admire both publishers, and this book would not exist without the investment of both. It is not unusual for two publishers to share the rights and costs of a translation, nor for there to be editorial differences. A translation is still a raw text, subject to editing like any other text. There is no “right” or “wrong”, only different.
What you notice reading both is that the Seagull edit is rather more high energy, playful and irreverent with the way language is used. The compound words are a key part of this. It also retains colloquial expressions (or translated expressions to mimic colloquial usage). The US edition smooths out a lot of these elements and often adds words or rephrases for clarity in a manner that, as an editor and as a reader, I find curious. But it is not a game changer.
The Seagull edition is due to be released this week and then readers can chose if they wish.
I find it curious too. Someone should compare the editions (and the earlier 2011 translation – now that one is smooth). That person should write a paper. That person should probably know Bengali.
So I guess the answer to my question is that there in fact are way more compound words on the first page? Twice as many, or something like that? The differences between the texts are huge, then, and I begin to wonder what is really in the Bengali text. Is “frothy-foaming” an ordinary compound word in Bengali, or is it weird in Bengali? It is weird in English. There is no right or wrong, but there is accurate and inaccurate.
If “retains colloquial expressions” means that a chunk of the Seagull edition is still in Bengali, well, I can see how a publisher would ask that a translation be translated.
I think you are fussing over the details of translation, whereas my initial reason for bringing up the subject was to highlight how editorial decisions made by western publishers/editors dealing with a translation OR an English text from another, typically non-western culture, can be subject to a modifying of the language to make it feel/sound less foreign. You cannot expect a translation to be exacting word for word, especially when working across very different language families, times, and cultural contexts. Translators often spend a great deal of time researching to contextualize a piece they are working on and striving to use language in a way that keeps more than semantic value intact.
The differences between these edits are less than the similarities, the publishers are not in competition, and their collaboration to facilitated the translation (which the translator did on her own time outside her 6 day/week job at Seagull). To dissect the edits in detail would only serve to discourage such collaborations.
Of course I am fussing over the details! The art of translation is in the details. Fondle the details, as Nabokov told his students. I have not the slightest expectation of a word-for-word translation, as you are well aware from reading my blog. I love this stuff, and write, or wrote, about it all the time. That’s why I keep asking questions – it’s interesting, right?
I could not disagree more with your last line. Dissecting in detail is taking art seriously. The only way to “highlight how editorial decisions… modify… the language” is to pick a specific editorial decision and look at what happens to the actual language.
I am not yet convinced that a single editorial decision has been highlighted, though. How do you know what belongs to the editor and what belongs to the translator? I assume the translator corrected the proofs of both versions. Surely she did. She could write a great big STET on any edit that she thought was wrong. That’s what makes this example so interesting. One translation has turned into two. How did that work?
Translating makes the original text sound and feel less foreign by definition. It had better!
One way to take that last line is that you think I should not ask the questions I am asking here. If so, I’ll stop. I mean, I’ll stop in this post’s comments.