10/21 Readings - Ellerie Ross

 The "A Live Dog" reading was interesting to me because it seemed like the majority of the essay was trying to convince the reader to leave out information in their translation. I feel like usually there's a lot of discussion on how to incorporate detail or how to organize the sentences properly in the English translation, but I don't often see translators advocating for changing the original so drastically. I agree that Japanese sentences often contain too much filler and repetition as compared to English, but I don't fully agree that the best solution is cutting out what you don't find interesting or necessary. I feel like that is too subjective to be a usable method for translating. What he may consider unimportant information might be information that the reader would find interesting. Even if the translation comes out uninteresting, I think content is more important than style.

For the "Notes from Interlingual Hell" reading, I had never considered that the way of writing an essay might be formatted differently as was mentioned in the reading. Because an essay is a very prescriptive style of writing, I feel like it would be best if the order was switched around in order to make the most sense to the English reader, especially an essay that is not focused on the idea of Japanese language.

10/21 Comments - Samantha

The readings this week were quite interesting since they seemed to be centered more around translation of essays rather than strictly narratives, as far as I could tell at any rate. I think the opening line of the first reading "A Live Dog" was quite interesting. That in order for a translation to be faithful it cannot be very beautiful (well, not necessarily beautiful but 'natural'). I don't necessarily think that this is true in all cases but there are a lot of times that that does seem to be the case based off of the few translations that we've done in class. There are certain parts that I don't fully agree with, such as what is considered 'bad writing' in English. Such as with the use of phrases like "Needless to say" and rhetorical questions, which as far as I gathered the writer was saying were hallmarks of bad writing. Terry wrote, "In this case, it is necessary for the translator to avoid insulting the reader by implying that something not known to the reader is known to everybody else" but I don't really think that this is quite correct. Though perhaps, I am not quite literary enough to really grasp what bad writing even is. 

10/21 readings - Rachel

Charles Terry,  A Live Dog

I noticed from this reading and from Judy Wakabayashi's chapter that I read about register, tone, and repetition that Japanese writing heavily portrays how Japanese people try to avoid absolutes. For example, Terry mentioned 難しい in business meetings usually means "No," but people don't want to say it straight up. I also resonate with his statement that "ninety percent of the time, ... you don't say what the American wants to say in Japanese. You say something else, or you say nothing at all." I often get asked how to say an English phrase in Japanese, but it is rare that there is an equivalent translation.

Another point I found interesting was the didactic/rhetorical questions. It's commonly used in Japanese literature, but I never noticed that you don't really use the English equivalent in English writing. He mentions that Japanese will often have more intricate details in a singular sentence compared to English. That made me wonder whether Japanese writing naturally is harder to read. It takes me more time to read Japanese, but I always thought that was because less characters hold more meaning in Japanese than in English.

Lynne E Riggs, Notes from Interlingual Hell

I liked the way Riggs described the translation process required the original to be "obliterated and reincarnated" so that the "soul (message)" can be "reborn in the next (English) life." Since the nature of Japanese and English language structure is so different, I agree with the fact that it is to this extreme of obliteration and reincarnation that has to be done to make a successful English piece.

I think the inviting title is very important in starting a magazine article or essay. Making an impactful title for our assignment was the most challenging part, especially since Japanese titles tend to be much longer.

I found it interesting how Riggs was comparing and contrasting the translator and the editor's point of view for each of the components in translation. For example, it mentioned how editors have a way of changing titles to obtain a preferred image without the translator's consent so the translator should create a good title while anticipating that the editors may change it. I also found it interesting when it concluded with "After working with a text for a long time, once ceases to be able to see it objectively." We often talk about this in our class discussions, but since the translators look into every detail in the original writing for so long, they often get too deep that they might not notice a problem with the larger picture as a whole. I think the balance between translating minute details and maintaining an overall cohesive tone is the most challenging task for translators.

Commentary on 10/21 readings - Maya

 I first want to start with Terry's reading; where I agree and where I disagree. I found it funny how Terry wrote that the (english) reader might feel insulted by "implying something not known to the reader is known to everybody else". I just do not think that it is that deep of an issue, or maybe it isn't anymore since the creation online interactions across the globe. Maybe, I have seen many different wordings and feel like people may not be as sensitive as Terry might think they are (depending on the topic of course). I also agree with how Japanese literature tends to repeat a lot and that it should be necessary to just get straight with what they want to say without using didactic approaches, but then again, it is just my personal preference. This also reminded me of the time when I would go to Hoshuukou and their Kokugo no Jyugyou; I would always think how unnecessary the questions were in this class since they would usually be something along the lines of "who does the author talk about here" or "what does この imply in this sentece?" However, now that I think about it, it seemed obvious to me because it was only elementary school level, and it was necessary to start with the basics in order to get integrated with the Japanese customs of saying a lot with less wordings. They were all things that should have been added to our experience in the Japanese culture. I also want to touch upon Terry saying how the readers might get bored if they were reading something that was too complicated or too wordy. This reminded of the Wakabayashi Chapter (7), where it said about translators being worried about not translating enough and getting too wordy with the sentences unnecessarily. However, I also think it is important to balance being too wordy and not being wordy enough since it might just be the style of the author. As I was reading through Terry's last thoughts on it, I felt like he was prioritizing the readers rather than balancing between the author. 

Moving on to Riggs, I will only say something that it reminded me off since this commentary's getting too long. I just remembered the time when I was translating the blogs and magazine articles for my friends (and then to the whole international fandom on the internet) when I used to be a very big fan of this one seiyuu. Hence, I just really wanted to say what they mean about English result needing to be "comprehensible to a very heterogenous international readership..." I feel like I may have been a bit lousy as a translator (granted, I am an amateur), since I would be putting a lot of side notes to things that I was translating because I felt like my translation wasn't enough in implying a few nuances. I sometimes would only be able to realize them after a thorough reaction check in Twitter from the local fans, which again, shows how hard being a translator is. 

10/21 reading comments (olivia)

 In "A Live Dog", I agree with Terry's argument that stating the obvious and too much repetition is good to avoid in English translations. In my experience growing up in the US, not being repetitive has been heavily emphasized in writing since a young age and I can see how it would become boring quickly. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration though when he says phrases like "needless to say" sounds like bad English, or at least I never thought of them that way. He also says rhetorical questions might sound "childish or pompous" in English- I don't know if I would see it as pompous but maybe childish since it would remind me of essay starter sentences in early childhood. I agree with his stance of not always translating literally especially when there are cultural differences involved. It wouldn't be accurate to translate "muzukashii" to "it would be difficult".  

In Riggs' article, I liked her concept of "transmigration" and that there is a difference between a translation that has gone through a "transmigration" and one that hasn't. I agree that essays are very rigidly organized in English so it might seem disorganized if a Japanese essay was translated to English with no structural edits from the translator. I also agree with her stance on abandoning literal translation of the text and creating something new for the sake of effective communication, especially for things like metaphors, historical references, and cultural allusions. Her opinion that the title being one of the more difficult parts of translating resonated with me, as I feel like that is one of the parts I also struggle with the most when there is not a simple answer. 

Riggs and Terry Reading Comments- Carly

 So far in this class, we have discussed what makes a good translation. And if the answer comes down to complete accuracy or readability. Both the articles about Charles Terry and Lynne Riggs showed why the topic continues to remain controversial amongst translators. When translating myself, there have not been many times when I have omitted something that was in the original text. I mainly have tried to reword the sentence so that it becomes something that is easily understood in English. However, I think, after reading Terry's reason on why certain things should be omitted, I think made me better understand why that option should be explored as well while translating. I think what stuck out to me is how he explained not to translate in a way that would be "offensive" to English readers, and to translate in a writing style that is considered "good writing" in English. I didn't realize that some commonly used writing elements like rhetorical are not as common in English writing. It is something that can take you out of the story and make you think, "why is the author talking that?" Another point mentioned in both the articles was breaking down sentences fully in order to get the true meaning. In Japanese, it is easy to miss something when translating due to the tendency for there to be long sentences. So really thinking about the best way to break up sentences or express a certain meaning in English was helpful advice. 

I'm writing this blog post after turning in my translation of the magazine article, but it addressed some of the thoughts I was having while translating. Something I noticed was that I did not need to know much information about the person being interviewed in order to translate it. Typically, I'm used to reading magazine articles that heavily focus on the interviewees' personality, mannerisms. Most magazine articles that I have read are written in a way that makes you feel like you were actually in the room interviewing the person yourself. Because of this, so I thought the suggestion of always having an introduction paragraph to the interview was important. In other articles we have read, the translators mention knowing the contents of a story in full detail before translating. I think doing research on the interviewee before translating in similar in a way, and with be beneficial for the final translation.  

Reflection 10/21 - Sora

 In “A Live Dog” the passage where Terry mentioned “itadakimasu” stood out to me, because I feel this is a common thing in not only translating Japanese and English but many other languages. And some speakers may find it difficult to understand that such a phrase does not exist in one language and want the translators to translate it when they cannot, making it difficult for the interpreter. I also liked how he mentioned how when someone asks how to say something in Japanese, they say something else or just say nothing at all.

From “Notes from Interlingual Hell” I like how Riggs referred to translation as transmigration, and how the text was being reborn to something else with the same soul or meaning, because I also feel that sometimes turning it into something else delivers the same exact message better. Such as times when I am telling my family members things I saw on instagram, read, etc. sometimes I try to use words from the original. It just sounds wrong, and not the same but when I just don’t think about the original too much they can understand it completely. And I also agree with how it talked about the title being the hardest to translate because I cannot agree enough from the assignment we just did.

Fri Oct 18 Readings, Bowen Ran

 Reading Charles Terry's "A Live Dog" really resonated with me, especially regarding the similarities between Japanese and Chinese writing styles. Like Terry mentions about Japanese writing, I've experienced similar habits in my own writing in English, particularly when I was a freshman. Coming from a background where repetition is common in Chinese writing, I often found myself repeating phrases Another point that struck me was Terry's discussion on long sentences. I've struggled with this as well, often using commas instead of periods, which mirrors the way I structure sentences in Chinese. Even now, I occasionally catch myself doing this. Terry's insights helped me reflect on these habits and better understand the adjustments needed when translating thoughts from one language to another.

For Riggs' article, while I understand and appreciate the author's point about the importance of reconstructing the structure of a text during translation while keeping the content intact, I don't fully agree with this approach. It certainly makes sense from the perspective of adapting the work for a different audience, but to me, going to that extent feels more like over-interpretation. At that point, it seems like I'm writing my own version of the paper or article, rather than truly translating the original author's work into another language.

Ryu - Reading comments

 From Terry’s "A Live Dog", I found his emphasis on how Japanese and English speakers express things differently in the same situation quite interesting. He gave the example of how Japanese people might say “itadakimasu” before eating, while an English speaker would say nothing at all. I realized that I do use that phrase when I'm back in Japan with my family but don't really say it when I'm outside of Japan. It also really made me think about how much context and cultural habits shape communication. Another interesting point was his view that translators often need to omit unnecessary details to make a translation readable/understandable. He mentions that while a Japanese text might include excessive repetition, translating every bit of it would make an English reader lose interest quickly, and I can definitely see how that would be a challenge.

From Riggs’ "Notes from Interlingual Hell", one thing that caught my attention was the idea that translating essays from Japanese to English is often more like rewriting the text than directly translating it. I had never considered how much restructuring might be necessary just to create a logical flow in English. Another point I found interesting was Riggs' description of how metaphors often don’t survive the translation process. A metaphor that works beautifully in Japanese might or often sound awkward or overly sentimental in English, so it has to be replaced or reworked, which I imagine could sometimes change the entire feel of a piece.

Reading Reflection 10/21 -Jaxon

The topic of faithful and beautiful is discussed again in the text. From the reading we have read so far, I think almost every passage has this topic of sacrificing some of the content in order to make a better translation. Charles Terry's article discusses the omission of unnecessary texts like supportive expressions, extra repetitions, and frequent rhetorical questions that sound unnatural in English contexts. I was surprised by the rhetorical question part in Japanese. I don't really see didactic questions very often from what I have read in Japanese so far, and the frequent didactic or rhetorical questions remind my primary school writing techniques. We were told to use those kinds of techniques in writing when we were little to "make the passage read more interactive," but I think they sounded childish, too, when I grew up.  Not being too definitive is part of the Japanese culture, but I thought that would only appear in presentations or daily conversations. 

Two passages mention "experiences" a lot in terms of expressions and knowledge. I agree with the idea that translating English into Japanese might be done by Japanese native speakers better. Being truly bilingual is hard since a person has to immerse himself deeply into two cultures that are sometimes totally different, like Japanese and English. I also encountered many situations as a Chinese when I tried to use Kanji words that write exactly the same while having slightly different meanings, like the example of ham and ハム. Learning a language itself is not enough to understand the context that contains culture-related stuff, and just like Lynne Riggs mentioned in the article, making a text smooth to read is more important to translate the texts that keep all the information. A reader will give up reading the translation if the topic requires some extra knowledge to be understood. Making reasonable deletions to improve the reading experience is worth in my opinion. 

Reading Reflection 10/21 - Aaron

I found it interesting that in the article "Notes from Interlingual Hell" the translation of text from Japanese to English is described as more of "transmigration" than "translation" which I felt was accurate for a good part, as Japanese traditional sayings, proverbs, and terms that are seldom found in English must be replaced with an English equivalent that may not necessarily mean the same thing but convey the same idea. I also agree with the idea brought up in the article that the title is one of the hardest things to nail down - as can be seen in the recent magazine article translation assignment. 

In "A Live Dog" a seemingly recurring topic of cultural difference arose, especially when talking about the idea of how an American/ Japanese person would say something/ respond to a phrase in the opposite language. Particularly notable examples were "itadakimasu" which obviously has no equivalent in English as it isn't really common for Americans to say a particular phrase before eating (unless it is a prayer of some sort), and "muzukashi" which simply means no but is not used in English as Americans can be a lot more direct with responses compared to Japanese people who are more hesitant to refuse someone/ something directly. 

I also resonate with the part about translating metaphors as that is something I tried to do in the recent assignment where there was a saying in the title - which I replaced with an English saying - that didn't really sound that great when translated into English.

10/21 Reading Comments - Yang

Charles Terry, A Live Dog

    The first line of the article, "It has been said that translations are like women: if they are faithful, they are not beautiful; if they are beautiful, they are not faithful" is pretty misogynistic. I get that it is supposed to be a playful analogy, but it is a completely untrue generalization. I also don't get why 言うまでもなく is fine in Japanese but translating it to "needless to say" in English is considered "a sign of bad writing."

    It's interesting to see the difference between Japanese and English in terms of didactic and rhetorical questions. I've never thought of how different the connotations are between the two languages despite being the same types of sentences, and it does seem that the English versions can come off as assertive and interrogative.

    "The worst problem in translating from Japanese into English is simply that Japanese and English speakers do not say the same thing in similar circumstances." This is once again referencing the familiar problem of translating cultural nuances. I would argue that the silence before eating in English should not be translated into いただきます in Japanese. Also, it seems that 難しい being used as "no" instead of "difficult" is very common, especially in the business scene in Japan. My brother, who works in Tokyo, said the same thing to me during an interview for another Japanese class.

    To me, the ridiculously long paragraph-sentence from Miyamoto Musashi just seems to be bad writing. Sure, the descriptive phrases and words help paint the imagery more vividly, but I don't see why the sentence couldn't have just been divided into two or three sentences. In my opinion, only having one gigantic sentence in the section just makes translating needlessly difficult, and as a result, much of the original is eliminated due to redundancy and readability during the translating process into English.

    Finally, I agree that a literal, exact, word-for-word translation of the original work does not equal a good translation. Instead, translating the original text into an easily readable, comprehensive text for the speakers of the other language is much more important, even if that is considered not staying true to the original work's contents or the author's intent.

Lynne Riggs, Notes from Interlingual Hell

    The author says regarding the translating process of essays or magazine articles from Japanese to English: "The physical body of the original piece has to be obliterated and reincarnated in a totally different guise in order for the soul (message) to be reborn in the next (English) life." This sounds very similar to the generally accepted process of translating poetry from Japanese to English which involves breaking down the poem and rebuilding it in a new context.

    I prefer the second approach of the two described. It makes more sense to me to read through the article first before attempting to translate the whole thing. Knowing the overall content of the article, as well as any professional or technical words, should help streamline the translating process significantly.

    I thought the recreation of titles in English compared to the original Japanese titles was very smart. To be honest, I originally thought that a literal translation of the original title was best in this case, but some of the titles shown, such as "Credit Card Quicksand" and "Antidote for Anomie..." were genius.

    I agree with one of the ending remarks: "After working with a text for a long time, one ceases to be able to see it objectively. A team of one or two translators and an editor is ideal for some projects." I think this applies to many other time-consuming jobs that require a lot of creativity and focus. One of which I can think of is songwriting and producing music. Since you have to spend so much time checking various aspects of the music itself, it becomes overplayed and your ears become tired. When that happens, it is often a good idea to have other friends or collaborators listen to it instead and ask for opinions/suggestions from them.

    

Reading comments - Ryu

Juliet Winters Carpenter's journey as a translator is something I deeply relate to. She talks about how she fell in love with the challenge of capturing the subtle differences in meaning between languages, like trying to express the Japanese phrase poka poka in English. It’s these kinds of nuances that hooked her, and I understand why. Translation, to her, is like coloring in a picture—adding life and creativity to something while staying within the lines of the original work. But it’s not just a mechanical process; it’s about diving deep into the emotions, the culture, and the meaning behind the words. The way she describes “jumping into the pond” of a text really resonates with me, as it shows that translating is about fully immersing yourself in both languages and cultures. You bring something new into the world, and that’s where the real satisfaction lies. 

When Carpenter took on A True Novel by Minae Mizumura, she embraced the full collaborative experience of translation. Working closely with the author, they didn’t just focus on translating words—they aimed to capture the soul of the story, blending Western and Japanese influences seamlessly. It wasn’t always easy; they spent hours together reworking passages to ensure that the cultural nuances made sense to Western readers while staying true to the Japanese context. For example, Carpenter and Mizumura had to decide how much to explain about things like Japanese social norms that might confuse Western readers, all while keeping the flow of the novel intact. This project showed that translation is as much about cultural interpretation as it is about language, and that’s what makes it such a rewarding, creative process.

Carpenter Reading Comments - Maya

 There are a few points that I want to address that really captured my attention with Carpenter’s interview and text. The first one would be the difficulty of translating onomatopoeia. I think it is rather easier to translate it from English to Japanese but the vice versa has always been very difficult for me as I need to find the exact feeling that I feel in English when I’m reading in Japanese, which is quite funny considering how Japanese is a rather indirect language when onomatopoeia imitates a very specific feeling or sound that is rather hard to convey in another language. The other thing that I want to touch upon would be her first time using the f-word. This reminds me of the times when Turkish people would come up to me and ask whether there were vulgar words in Japanese. I would ponder for a bit to translate the words that they would want me to translate, but it would never come up as “heavy” as the other language would intend to be. Which is why I understand why Carpenter is usually avoidant in using vulgar language as it packs more punch than what the Japanese word is supposed to mean. 

It was also very interesting to see how the text was being translated into English and how different translators would be focusing on different parts of the sentence. What I realized while reading the examples in the interview was that translations usually focus on translating the general meaning, or rather, if the general idea was conveyed or not. It is quite hard to catch the exact essence and part of the sentence to focus on. The translator needs to be able to understand where to author (or the culture) is pointing at through the subtleties of the sentence, and needs to convey that subtlety with a similar feeling to a person who may not be familiar with the culture. Translation is not only the act of putting one word to another but rather a means of conveying the culture and the language to someone who doesn’t know about it, which also amazes me to think about even if people across the world have different ways to interpret things, there are still some similarities between cultures and language that is enough to convey a general feeling of a literary me

10/15 Comments - Samantha

It was interesting to read how Carpenter mentioned needing to have a full understanding of the text before one starts translating it. Which of course makes sense, but I feel like this is really highlighted when reading translations of texts that are still in ongoing serialization. I'm talking about this in the context of something like a weekly serialized manga for example, where the entire text is not complete but translations are occasionally done in tandem with or maybe only a few weeks behind the Japanese release. And it does seem that as a result there are often corrections that need to be made after the fact, whether it be certain gendered pronouns, the romanization of names, etc.

Reading how different writers who were fluent in multiple languages approached translation was also quite interesting. In the case of Binard, he was able to take a lot more liberties that a translator would not be able to get away with which I thought was interesting. Even in the case of Mizumura, she didn't appear comfortable translating the entire novel but was able to write in more context for western readers.

Another thing that was highlighted in the readings was the need to seek feedback, not only from the author if able, but also other knowledgable individuals on both the English and the Japanese speaking side. 

Carpenter Readings- Carly

Compared to some of the other readings, I think Carpenter makes the idea of Japanese to English having so many options seem like more of a positive thing. I think her knowledge about literature and willingness to try many ways to say something until it feels right is a very admirable trait in a translator. Something that was mentioned in both, the article and the interview was about what her process when she is not quite sure about how to express the feeling of the original in English. Carpenter mentioned how she asked her brother to look over her translation of the Mozart book, and he gave her a lot of feedback on what she should change. In this case, she did not need technical help, she needed help finding the "mood." Through this story, I think it showed the importance of not only focusing on the syntactic elements of language, but the pragmatic aspects of it as well. She also described how it is very important to fully understand the original piece before translating it. Because of this, she sometimes gets assistance from the author and even filmmakers to complete her translations. In an earlier reading we had, the translator mentioned how there are authors who sometimes do not like to answer questions about their work. So I found it interesting that the author is not Carpenter's only source when it comes to getting help with her translations.

In the article, I liked what she said about what she said about humor in translations. I also feel like it connected to what she said about "imitation," vs "transposition." She explained how there are some situations or some dialogue that would simply not be said in Japanese or vice versa. I think when translating, it is very hard to resist the urge to try to write a sentence in English exactly how it is written in Japanese. This is probably because it takes more work to think of something new on your own. However, when you read, the words allow you to have some kind of image in your head of what's happening in the story. I think being able to remember that can allow your translation more accessible to people who come across your translations. 

Carpenter Readings - Ellerie

 In the essay written by Juliet Carpenter, she explains how difficult it is to explain certain phrases from Japanese to English without the cultural understanding. It was interesting that she pointed out onomatopoeias, which I've always found difficult to learn and to translate. Japanese onomatopoeias seem to be much more expansive and have their own language that can't be found among their English counterparts. She mentions that even within a children's book, it is difficult to get across the same feelings because there is no direct translation available for those words. Instead, you have to find their closest English meaning, often through metaphors or common phrases, such as "raring to go". It's also difficult to get across word play and jokes that don't translate directly. There can only be so many liberties taken with changing the text in order to get across the humor or undertones of a scene.

In the interview, Carpenter explains the close relationship she had with the original author and how that helped her with the translation. I feel like being able to collaborate with the author that closely is not possible often, and I wonder how that affects the translation of the story. I wonder if the author being able to reread their work again closely and finding new mistakes or things to add can make the translation easier or harder, or a mix of both. It also made me think about how difficult it would be to get feedback from an author who is not able to speak English at all, and what the process would be like for that.

Carpenter Readings - Sora

 

I thought many things in the Carpenter reading were relevant to what we discussed during class, such as sending out the meaning of the original poem while still being able to be playful and have fun with it. Such as many phrases or word plays that exist in Japanese but don't in English, where the translator can still have fun by using a different phrase with similar meanings in English in order to deliver the tone and meaning of the original. I also found it interesting when Carpenter talked about onomatopoeias or phrases that describe a specific mood, because I feel like this topic comes up frequently when translating Japanese, due to the large number of onomatopoeias that exist in Japanese. 

In the interview article, it was very fascinating to hear about Carpenter’s experience on being able to work so closely together with Mizumura, who is also fluent in English. It was very interesting to hear her experience, because I feel like in many of the articles we read for class the interpreters usually mention the difficulty translating some phrases, because they do not know how to fully translate or the complete nuance behind those sentences. But with Carpenter, because she is collaborating with the author to translate she can ask her questions directly and be able to deliver the the text in the way the author wants, and closer to the original.

Jumping Into the Pond - Bowen

     In "Jumping Into the Pond," one of the major challenges Juliet Winters Carpenter discusses is translating humor and wordplay, which often do not directly translate between languages. She uses the example of Jerry Lewis’s Geisha Boy, where the humor comes from a character mispronouncing Japanese names. Carpenter argues that a successful translation of such humor often requires creative reimagining rather than direct translation, as the joke might otherwise fall flat.

I agree but also disagree with this point. It is true that many jokes rely heavily on cultural nuances, and attempting a direct translation can result in the joke becoming completely unfunny. Translators need to preserve the humor’s effect on the audience. However, I also disagree, while it’s understandable that modifications are sometimes necessary, as a reader, I often find it fascinating to encounter jokes or wordplay that reflect a different culture or language, even if they don’t translate perfectly or lose their humor during rendition. Rather than changing the joke to fit the target audience’s understanding of humor, I would prefer a more literal translation accompanied by an explanation. While the process of explanation might take away the humor, it would offer a glimpse into the uniqueness of the original language and culture, which can be equally interesting to me.

carpenter readings - olivia

 Jumping Into the Pond 

I liked Carpenter's idea of "translating the spirit" and I was really impressed reading his translations of the onomatopoeia because I never thought of "pitter patter" for ドキドキ. I also thought his "jôshiki" idea was interesting. He says that you either like the balancing act of being creative and not changing the intention of the original text or you don't, and I personally think translation can be better when there is creativity, especially after seeing the translated poems last week. As for his comments on translating poems, I agree with how he says cultural understanding, empathy, and being able to balance accuracy and creativity are important skills for a translator to have. I think in order to be able to  "translate the spirit" of a text empathy is just as important as skills such as language proficiency and cultural understanding. For his translation of 命は地球より重い, I was a bit disappointed that the publishers made him change it because I like  “A human life is infinitely precious" a lot more than “The heaviness of life is heavier than the heaviness of all things".

True Collaboration on A True Novel 

One of the most interesting parts of this interview was reading about the level of teamwork between the translator and the author- it is inspiring how they were so dedicated to stay up late to review every word and revisit the same passage several times. The fact that the entire process took 3 years was pretty shocking. It was also interesting to see that Mizumura suggested to add a sentence that would explain the "Japanese prudishness", since it seems like adding extra sentences to explain the culture isn't always encouraged. I was kind of surprised to read that Carpenter chose not to revisit Wuthering Heights even though A True Novel was loosely based on it. I wonder if she would've had more context if she did revisit it, although I agree with her mentality that focusing on Mizumura's unique story should be the most important thing. 

Carpenter Readings - Aaron

 I thought the first Carpenter article was very much relevant to what we discussed in class - taking a phrase and translating it not necessarily word by word but conveying the meaning of a phrase while also in a playful way that appeals to the "local audience." An example that stands out to me is the geisha scenario where it says お茶をひかずに辞書を引くってわけか, and how it was translated into "you wait for the thumbs up or you thumb through your dictionary while you wait." It gives a playful tone to the text while also conveying the original idea, instead of just saying "they would do their homework while they waited for someone's approval." 

Similarly, in the interview with Carpenter, several frequent topics are involving collaboration during the translation process as well as preserving the cultural specificity of a text while making it accessible to a global audience. I think that it is beneficial for a translator to work with the author, as they can receive continuous feedback throughout the process and continue to improve on it. Furthermore, utilizing similar cultural references from other cultures such as the Ieyasu vs Buddha example that was brought up in class gives the text the same feeling while also making it "readable" for readers of different backgrounds and origins. Carpenter then brings up the translator/ interpreter's duty in translating the text, in that they have a duty to decide which nuances of the text to specify or explain more, and which ones to leave ambiguous. Although this is a great process to possibly make the text more "mass appealing" once again, it is important to not overdo the process and overshadow the original author's intent.

Comments on Carpenter Readings -Jaxon

After reading "Jumping Into the Pond," I couldn't agree more with the idea of "translating the spirit" and "the translator has to understand." I think that's what the machine translation can't do. The machine might be able to process better with a certain amount of contexts, but it can never catch the spirit when translating very similar words like "わくわく" and "どきどき." AI's algorithm uses big data to enhance its ability, such as AI translation's algorithm learned to translate by reading an unimaginative number of literature works. However, just like "娘" is not able to be translated very well in Snow Country,  no matter how good an algorithm is at learning different literature all over the world, a new book can't be well translated just by looking at the works in the past. Machines, after all, don't have any creativity, and they can't really "understand" a book. Machines can summarize the book or even categorize or make comments on the book, but if it's going to the details, they are almost useless. 

I found doing translation actually makes you learn a lot of things, too, as the article described. As a human, we know little about the world, so I think if we are doing translation, learning new things all the time is a fun part of translation. As translators, to be able to understand the book, they definitely need to put a lot more effort into making sure the readers have the minimum cultural barrier to read the work.

It's very interesting to see the collaborations among translators, and in the interview, Carpenter even collaborated with the author herself, which is fascinating. I don't really know if it is common to have multiple translators work on a literature work at the same time. I wonder how exactly they cooperate, do they just work on different parts and check each other's work, or does one of them translate and the other one check and give suggestions? It's hard to imagine that usually, only one person is doing the translation, even if the book is super long. I just realized that making a translation, sometimes, can take longer time than writing the book they are translating.

Comment on Carpenter Readings - Yang

Jumping into the Pond

I can see how it'll be difficult to translate Japanese onomatopoeia like わくわく and どきどき, as they mean almost the same thing but there are cultural nuances that separate them. I thought translating the former as "excited" and the latter as "pitter-patter" was very fitting. 

I think foreigners usually pronounce Watanabe as "wah-tah-nah-bee," instead of "what a nibble," but that's just based on my experiences. Perhaps Ryu can confirm if that is true or not :)

"Pa pa pa" was certainly a difficult one to translate. I liked the idea of using a similar alliteration to convey the meaning of the onomatopoeia, such as "pop pop pop." Personally, I definitely prefer "faster than popcorn pops" to the translation Carpenter decided to go with, "Rarin' to go."

It's ironic how she says that the translator is "in control," but then she gives countless examples of what the translator is not allowed to do. 

I thought the wordplay between "thumbs-up" and "thumb through the homework" was a very smart way to translate the original wordplay between "ひかず" and "引くって." I definitely would not have thought of that at all.

Based on all the examples she gave about technical terms that required expertise in a specific area, it seems like it is definitely beneficial to ask for help when the text describes something you're not particularly familiar with, such as the bikers or the cameras in her case.

True Collaboration on A True Novel

It's very cool to see Prof. Elliott interviewing a well-known translator like Carpenter. 

I think it's very smart of Mizumura to put explanations regarding Japanese concepts that could be confusing to Western readers in the book. This way, the differences between the cultures can be mitigated, and it prevents the translator from having to do the explaining and as a result not staying true to the original text. 

This process of collaborated translation between the writer (Mizumura) and the translator (Carpenter) is very interesting to see, as the responsibility usually falls on the translator solely, with limited communication with the author. It's good to see that they have become close friends due to the collaboration, going beyond just partners in the business of translation.

I agree with the addition of the sentence regarding the "Japanese prudishness" of not wearing shorts. Japanese people seem to have a weird correlation between shorts and childishness. To this day, I see many tourists in Japan wearing shorts and being outed as tourists almost instantly, with myself being an offender as well. This is definitely something that the average Western reader would be unaware of, whereas most Japanese people will hold the same notion. I do think that refusing to wear shorts during the hottest days of summer is stupid and that shorts shouldn't be something that only children can wear.

Comments on Carpenter Reading - Rachel Nozaki

The interview article highlighting Carpenter's experience working closely with Mizumura in creating the A True Novel translation was very interesting. As she mentioned, I think it's really rare that the original author is fluent in English and is willing to work that closely with the translator to go through a holistic translation process. 

In the second article, I liked how she described translation as a coloring book. The translator is stuck with this picture that somebody else drew and they give life to it in their own way like how you can choose which colors to use to color in the book or adding elements that you see fit. I always have a hard time translating in my head words like ワクワクandドキドキso I enjoyed reading how she came up with excited versus pitter-patter for the two expressions. In my personal opinion, I think Japanese has better words that express complex emotions that I often struggle to come up with an equivalent in English.

I also found it interesting how she used the reference of "thumb" to mimic the お茶をひくand辞書を引くexample to play on the words. Getting a "thumbs-up" is used pretty often in English so I thought it was the perfect medium between playing on words while making it sound natural.

Comments on translating poetry -Maya

 I have always felt a great difficulty in translating poetry. To be honest, I never properly tried it. To me, poetry is much harder than text, and as Pulvers said, it about the tone, the rhythm, the musicality and the poet’s voice. It would be easier to think about what the poet was trying to say while they are alive but at the same time, I am wondering whether the poet would think of it as killing the “magic” of the poem, just like how Kawabata felt–or at least I thought he felt– when he was being difficult with the translator. However, in my opinion, a poem can have different meanings according to the audience as well. A poem is not only for the poet but also for the audience as well; it is art after all. Even after reading Beichman, I do not think it is possible to translate poems as accurate as texts or movies. Although it is true that a lot of poems can be easily translated, I think its accuracy doesn’t only depend on the translator’s skills, but the Japanese language itself. It is highly rhythmical and depends on the audience’s interpreting skills as the language does not need a subject. However I do agree with the statement; ‘the aim of translation is not to produce a clone, but rather to evoke a sense of difference’ and ‘this is a defense of translation as the imperfect art, an art whose importance derives from its very “imperfection.’ These makes one remember that translation does not need to be the without faults or differences, but rather convey the feeling by the translator’s best.

10/07/2024 Comments - Samantha M

 The topic of translated poetry is very interesting, especially as I am currently taking a Chinese literature course (in Translation rather than in Chinese) and a frequent topic that gets brought up, especially in relation to the poetry we read, is whether the translation is loosing any information or nuance that was part of the original. I feel as though in a lot of our readings, the topic of translation as 'recreation' is frequently brought up, perhaps this is particularly relevant to poetry. While I understand the logic and to a certain extent agree to it, at certain points it does feel like it oversteps. The first text mentions having a deep enough understanding of the original text to properly be able to translate it, which makes sense but when it comes to liberties taken during the translation it then becomes a much different argument I feel. As with poetry and other writing like it, there may be multiple valid interpretations and who's to say that any one understanding is more correct than another. In that way, overly changing parts during the translation to align with the translator's understanding of the message seems like it can easily go too far-- though I suppose this can be said of any text, not just poetry...

poetry translation reflection (olivia)

 Poetry in Translation

It was really interesting to read about what kinds of challenges that translators face when translating poetry. The author argues that poetry is translatable, which I'm not sure if I can agree with. Even if poetry was translated, I feel like it wouldn't be able to get close enough to the original since poetry incorporates a lot of words, grammar structure, etc. that are unique to the language. I agree with Pulvers' statements that tone and voice are especially important when translating poetry. His idea that translating a poem would be a process of absorbing the poem and reinterpreting it in the context of a different language and culture is interesting but I don't think that it would be the same poem if it was translated in that way, I would see it as more of the same messages/ideas conveyed in a different way by a different person. I did like Pulvers' translation of Ame ni mo makezu, especially how he considered the rhythm of the poetry. 

Through a Glass Darkly: Is Translating Poetry Possible?

I enjoyed seeing different ways that translators translated the same poem side by side. I liked how Sesar's translation of Takuboku highlighted the small details and sound effects with the use of onomatopoeia and rhythm. And I also enjoyed the visual element of how Kafu used collapsing lines in his translation of Verlaine. Keene's translation of Akiko's poem shows how a small word change could make a big impact in the poem's meaning by using the word "hoarded". I'm not sure if I like the haiku translations. Maybe it's because the number of syllables in general or the number of syllables in each phrase isn't the same, but it doesn't have the same flow and it's not as nice to read in my opinion. Overall, I think both the readings emphasized the importance of creativity especially for translating poems, since it's really different from a regular text. 

Translating Poetry- Carly

 After reading both the articles about translating poetry, I can see how the topic can become very divisive. I think Roger Pulvers' method of recreating the poem is probably the most straightforward way to translate poetry from language to another. Paying full attention to the author's purpose and what they were trying to say in the poem and working from there will give you better results than trying to find the exact same word or phrase in the target language. I also think that way works because what sounds beautiful in one language may not sound beautiful in another, so it isn't necessary to be exact with every single word. However, when I read the translated version of "Ame ni mo makezu" I felt that I wanted to read the original version of the poem instead. I think the idea of losing to something/someone is the part of the element that I would resonate with the most. When translating poetry into English, there is a risk of the poetry coming out sounding too much like inspirational quotes you see on Pinterest and not something that a professional poet wrote. 

Something I found interesting while reading the translated poems, is how the different translators chose to address rhythm. I saw how there were many options for expressing the rhythm in the target language, like using alteration, or breaking up the lines in a different way. Ultimately, the interpretation of the whole piece, and thinking about what the poet did not say explicitly, plays a big role in how the translation of a poem will come out. Although I think the translators have found very creatively approaches to translating poems, I still feel like the only way I wouldn't feel like something is missing from the translation is if I knew nothing about the original language or poet before reading. 

Comments on Readings About Translating Poetry - Yang

 Roger Pulvers, "Poetry in Translation"

At first, I found this reading pretty abstract. The words used to describe the process of translating poetry all seemed very subjective: "tone," "vitality," "voice," etc, but then it made sense to me, as poetry itself is a very abstract and interpretive topic to begin with. I think it's interesting that Pulvers says the key to translating poems is actually "recreating" them, even though other readings so far have suggested that the translator should not aim to improve or change anything about the original and should instead only focus on reproducing the exact same material, as seen in Seidensticker's "counterfeiter" analogy. 

I thought it was smart how Pulvers translated the beginning lines of "Ame ni mo makezu." I feel like by changing "I won't give in to..." to "strong in/against the...", the translated poem now has a much closer match to the original poem when it comes to the flow and tone of the poem. I like how he continued the whole wormhole/universe analogy in the last paragraph of the article. It paints a clear and powerful message.

Janine Beichman, "Through a Glass Darkly: Is Translating Poetry Possible?"

It seems like Arthur Waley and Sir John Denham both agree with the aforementioned notion in the previous article of "recreating" the poem in some way when it comes to translating poems and that the need to "add a new spirit" or "put back in a great deal" is essential.

Although it doesn't stay true to the original poem, I liked Sesar's translation of "不意のくちづけ" as "her mouth on mine" instead of saying something literally like "an accidental kiss," as I feel like the former shows what's happening more vividly rather than just describing the situation.

As Beichman said, the differences between the original translation and the edited version of "My Songs" are very minute but create completely different images due to better word choice being employed. 

I think it's genius to structure the translation of the Akiko Tanka by gradually increasing the indent on the left so that the poem both visually and aurally has a sense of continuation, and this strategy works especially well with the addition of "fall" as it looks like the lines themselves are falling.

The conclusion that "the aim of translation is not to produce a clone, but rather to evoke a sense of difference" is directly the opposite of Seidensticker's school of thought regarding translation, which is very interesting. I know that this is mostly talking about translating poetry, but it's cool to see how these ideas can differ so much based on different literary genres as well as personal opinions. It's funny that Beichman refers to the translator as a "shape-shifter" as opposed to Seidensticker's "counterfeiter."

Poetry Translation Reflection - Ellerie

I have always thought that poetry would be the hardest thing to translate, so I found it interesting in these readings learning how translators actually try to translate poetry. Because poetry is so specific to the language it is written in, either due to metaphors or due to the feeling a certain word may have, I feel like it's impossible to get across the exact feeling of the poem into another language. But I also think that in the same way that the poem in written in a different language for different people to understand, it's okay for the meaning of the poem to also change slightly to accommodate those new people reading the poem. For example, Ame ni mo makezu has a slightly negative feeling in Japanese due to the use of the negative conjugation, but it works well in Japanese and with a Japanese audience that is more accustomed to subtlety in literature. In contrast, American readers would relate more with a more positive take on the poem, such as what is shown in the reading by Roger Pulvers. The different feelings of the original and translated poems allow the same message to reach many people through different interpretations.

I also found the idea of a hometown, or a furusato, being a language. I think that's a really pretty concept, especially for people who might not be able to speak in their native language often and can return to it like it is a hometown to visit occasionally. In the case of poetry, I feel like the best poetry will always be written best when it is one's native language because that is where people can connect with their emotions the best, in the same way that a hometown can provide comfort and security to those that return to it.

Poetry Reflection Bowen Ran

     After reading both articles, I still have doubts about the idea that poetry can be effectively translated into another language. Unlike the articles, I believe it is only feasible between closely related languages, such as Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, or between English and other European languages. As I do find reading chinese poem in japanese a very possible thing. However, I think it's a different story when translating between languages like Japanese to English or Chinese to English.

The arguments made by Pulver, suggesting that the form can be changed while maintaining the content, seem applicable to some poems but not all. This reminds me of a course I took last semester, where we read classic novels from different cultures. One of the works we studied was the Daodejing by the ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi, which we read in English. The Daodejing is very similar to poetry, with many passages that are poetic in nature and carry deep meanings.

As a native Chinese speaker, I read both the Chinese and English versions, and in most cases, the English translation did what Pulver described—it altered the content while trying to preserve the core idea. However, the problem was that the cultural beauty of ancient Chinese was completely lost in translation. The mysterious and profound nature of the Daodejing was reduced to a very simplified list of theories that differed greatly from the original text, and I mentioned this issue during the class and checked a various numbers of different editions, and none of them are able to fix the problem.

Poetry Reflection - Sora

 In Pulver’s article, I found it interesting how he mentions that the structure of the poem does not have to match the original, nor does it have to be as closely literally translated as normal text. I agree with him with the idea that the important portion of translating poetry is to capture the flow, or voice of the original and be able to send out the same message in a similar tone, even if the forms are altered.

For Beichman’s article, I liked how she compared between two different translators translating the same poem, because it showed how impactful the choice of a single word can be in that poem. So it makes me believe that word choices are much more important and significant in poetry than normal texts, because the translators needs to send out a message with a limited number of words they can work with.

Ryu - Poetry

When I think about the translation of poetry, it was interesting how both Janine Beichman and Roger Pulvers tackle the same challenge but offer different insights into how the process works. Beichman focuses on how much is lost in translation and the necessity of adding something new to preserve the spirit of the original. Her exploration of Japanese poets like Nagai Kafu shows that translation is not just about linguistic accuracy, but about a translator’s passion for bringing a foreign poem "home" so to speak. I found it compelling that without translations like these, modern Japanese poetry as we know it wouldn’t probably exist. 

Pulvers, on the other hand, emphasizes tone and voice as the crucial points in poetry translation. His discussion of 宮沢賢治's famous poem "雨ニモマケズ" and his decision to translate the negative phrases into positive affirmations was pretty interesting for me. It’s not just about literal meaning; it’s about re-creating the poem in a way that evokes the same emotional response in a different language. Though I'm not sure if that's what the foreign audience wants, but Pulvers' approach reminds me that translation is an art form that requires both a deep understanding of the original context and the creative ability to re-imagine it in a new linguistic world. 

Poetry Reading Reflection - Aaron

After reading the articles I realized that translating poetry seems to be on a different level compared to what we have been doing in translating texts. The translation of the Noh play Sotoba komachi mentioned in the article adopts a wavelike pattern, reflecting the original Japanese style. But particularly difficult are poems such as haiku and tanka, where there are a specific number of syllables/ words that can be used throughout the entire poem - with haikus adopting a 5/7/5 structure for total of 17 syllables, and tankas having 31 syllables total over five lines. 

The articles bring up that translation's imperfections grant it unique value, transforming a poem into a "second self" when translating sometimes. Both articles mention a balance between faithfulness and creativity that roots a translation to the original but also recreates it organically. Such an example can be shown in the translation of Miyazawa Kenji's 雨にも負ケズ, where the literal translation of a line became "I won't give in to the rain," which he reversed into "Strong in the rain" to better reflect the poem's spirit. 

I agree with the saying mentioned in the second article that "tone is everything," as lack of vitality in the language of a written work "cannot salvage the language."

Poetry Translation Refelction -Jaxon

 I think I seldom read translated poetry in my native language, and mostly, the translated fragments appear in situations where one character recalls a fragment of a poem in a literary story. I just realized I almost never pay attention to a song or poem that appears in the literature, since I think they are only some redescription to the thoughts the character is having or to the environment. I didn't know how difficult it is to translate a poem until I saw one of the most famous Chinese poems by Li Bai in MFA with one of my friends, I can see a lot of effort in English translation trying to imitate the structure and tone but it's still very far away from what it conveys in Chinese. I tried to tell my friend how beautifully written that poem was but I failed since it requires a decent amount of knowledge of Chinese to be able to appreciate the poem. At that time I really wish there was a good translation that could make me say "That's what this poem is talking about."

I like the phrase "bring them home" and "recreate." The nature of the poem makes the translation difficult, but it's so amazing to see all the efforts being made since people who translate the poem love the poem and also love their native language. Especially for Haiku and classical Chinese poems, which are strictly structured, lineration in English is almost impossible to resolve, puls in Chinese, there are even rules for the tones of each position in the poems, and obviously, English doesn't have tones for each word. I was still amazed by all the works in "Through a Glass Darkly" since I felt "that's a poem in English" if I wasn't provided with the text in Japanese. Translate poems can be read smoothly with rhythm that's as close to the original as possible. The tone and structure are not perfectly copied, but it still maximizes the author's ideas from their understanding. The translators get so creative in the wording and structures. I never felt the power of spacing was that important when reading poems like Janine Beichman's modification for “五月雨の鐘”.

"The impossibility of translation is precisely what makes it possible to enjoy the pleasures of otherness." reminds me of the tale of George Mallory climbing the Mountain Everest. 

"Why choose such a hard challenge that's impossible so far?"

"Because it's there." 

Poetry Reading Reflection - Rachel

 Starting with Pulvers' article, I found it interesting that he choice the word "voice" to convey what qualities had to be the same for the original and translated poetry. It's not necessarily the structure or literal meaning that need to be the same, but rather the translated poem should be a poem in its own right. His translation of "ame nimo makezu" to the positive tone of "Strong with the rain" was very clever, showing that the translators don't need to be restricted to any of the original poem's form as long as the "re-creation" absorbs the original meaning and assimilates it according to the laws of the translated language.

For Beichman's text, I found it interesting when she discussed the visual impact of a poem, like commas or letters repeating (e.g. tiptoeing to mimic きしきしと). I agree that the flow created by enjambment and alliteration is important to recreate, but I think keeping the same impact when translating to the other language is challenging.