This article created a rollercoaster of emotions I had about Kawabata. Seidensticker tells us about how his thought process would flow when he is translating, and he mostly gave examples from Kawabata. Honestly, I can see how much Seidensticker loves his work because if I were him, I probably would have started to dislike Kawabata; not as an author, but as a person. I felt like he was too narcissistic due to his unresponsiveness towards Seidensticker. In my humble opinion, Kawabata misjudged Seidensticker as a regular reader. If Seidensticker wasn't a translator but just a curious reader who wanted to know more about Kawabata's work, then sure, Kawabata doesn't really have to tell him who is doing what and can stay as vague as he wants, so I grew quite irritated at his responses. However, at the same time, it is true that English is a clear and concise language in contrast to Japanese, where a lot of things depends on the person's intuition that they have nurtured by being in a Japanese society. That's why, maybe, Kawabata refrained from giving clarity in order to make sure that the English readers were unable to get a clear picture, which is exactly Kawabata's style. Who knows, maybe he was very confident in Seidensticker.
I also feel like people–including authors forget that translators are on the side of the author and the reader at the same time. However, in Seidensticker's case, Kawabata was treating him as if he was from the reader's side, and readers would treat him as if he was doing an injustice for the author, which is ironic because it is the vice versa for the in person translators.
Anywho, I still maintain the fact that translators are merely a tool for the author to use for their work to reach wider audience, and I appreciate the fact that Seidensticker seems to think the same way as well; he also thinks that when a translation is better than the original work, the translator has crossed the border in which they weren't supposed to as it is not their job.
No comments:
Post a Comment