A rose may be a rose, but a poppy is a whole different deal...

A little while ago, another Russian translation of John McCrae's In Flanders Fields appeared in ru_translate. I frankly thought the translation took more liberties with the original than I would be comfortable with, but it's a free country (at least for a while).

What piqued my interest was a comment to the translation that said:

"Just one little comment -- I think "We shall not sleep, though poppies grow" refers to the fact that poppies are a source of opium. So your translation that "we will stand in the fields as the poppies" is not true to text."

Clearly, the commenter believes the poem to be some kind of allusion to drug use during the First World War. A quick Google search found some sites - but not many - that profess ideas along the same lines.

By 1989, I'd accumulated sufficient "frequent flyer" miles to take the entire family to Europe for vacation (more about which in a future post). What is germane here is that, as we drove from Calais to Brugge, we could not help but notice the bright red poppies that grew along the side of the road and sometimes carpeted fields that we would drive past.

These red flowers, known as "Flanders poppies" or "corn poppies" (and as Papaver rhoeas to serious horticulturalists), tend to bloom in "disturbed" ground, such as ditches and tilled fields. The concept of "disturbed" ground also includes bomb craters, trenches, and graves, of which there were plenty in the general area between 1914 and 1918. They are most certainly not the opium poppies (Papaver somniferum) that grow in other parts of the world.

The lines in McCrae's poem that read

If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

clearly (at least, to me) state that if the Living fail the Dead, the latter will not rest quietly in death, even though their graves will seem quiet and calm (i.e., a place where flowers can grow and bloom among headstones).

Cheers...

Astra problems...

The Alcatel Espace launch of the Astra-1K from Baikonur (via International Launch Services) did not go as planned. According to a report published on Rambler.ru, the 5-ton telecom satellite separated prematurely from its booster, leaving it in an orbit that will soon cause it to reenter the atmosphere and burn up.

Later on in the report, a possible "save" is described, entailing the use of the satellite's maneuvering thrusters to loft it into a geosynchronous orbit, which sounds interesting, but I get the feeling the idea won't fly (then again, that's just a gut feeling).

I found the last paragraph of the report interesting:

Между тем, телекоммуникации, в том числе и космические, - это, прежде всего, бизнес. Инвесторы проекта будут решать судьбу "Астры" с точки зрения интересов дела. Спутник был застрахован на 217 миллионов долларов. С другой стороны, на его создание было потрачено 5 лет, и сам аппарат не пострадал. Вероятнее всего, судьба спутника-гиганта больше зависит не от баллистических, а от бухгалтерских расчетов.

Meanwhile, telecommunications - including space telecom - is, before anything else, a business. Project investors will decide the fate of the Astra on the basis of business interests. The satellite was insured for US$217 million. On the other hand, it took 5 years to build the Astra, and the satellite itself is not damaged. Most likely, the giant satellite's fate will depend not so much on ballistic analysis, as it will on analysis done by beancounters.

Side note: My initial review of the text as a subject for translation noted that it was a shame that the alliteration of "баллистических" (ballistic) and "бухгалтерских" (accounting) would be lost. Fortunately, I think the use of "beancounter" (an acceptable term for "accountant" in the register of a business news article) patches that hole quite nicely.

I wonder if the follow-on launches will be delayed owing to this problem?

Cheers...