Seidensticker's opinion about whether a translation can improve the original work and translations mean the choice to sacrifice is related to the article we read last week I totally agree that a translation is never perfect because of the language difference. Even for two languages that are relatively similar, like Chinese and Japanese, there will be some expressions that will inevitably lose some meanings after translation. Beyond that, the editors in the publisher give requests for clarity which makes the job even harder.
The word "counterfeiter" is interesting. In the reading, Seidensticker mentioned he got plenty of criticism from the Japanese side about his translation. Critics read and value translations in a lopsided view, or I can say people have different ways to compare and value a translated work. The number of proper names or one sentence's inadequacy doesn't mean complete failure for me, at least. Sacrifice a little ambiguity to reach a smooth rhythm or better imitation of the author's style is worthwhile, in my opinion. As a reader, a better reading experience is better than a bunch of obscure texts that "introduce the literature better."
The idea of fondness for authors of similar ages is interesting, too. Seidensticker said that he found himself not very attracted to young authors, and I don't know whether it's true for most people or translators. I enjoy reading authors from all periods, and I don't know if he is saying this because he has translated so many works of authors from a similar period. Maybe some people are born to like contemporary literature more than classical ones or vice versa? Since literature works from different periods are quite different, I usually see translators focusing on translating authors from the same period because those authors' works share something in common, like stories' themes, society background, and language style.
No comments:
Post a Comment