In reading the multiple perspectives on Deborah Smith’s translation of Vegetarian, an interesting question came to the top of my mind: how much should a translator impose their own style on a work? My impression of translation as a field is one that involves a labor of love—a person is likely not going to dedicated months or years of their life to the intense study of a literary work that they do not at the very least appreciate. From that assumption, I would like to imagine that any changes or shifts in style or tone are done out a love or appreciation for the original work, not out of disregard or laziness. True, the errors referenced in Charse Yun’s article (such as mistaking “foot” for “hand”) do not add anything to the work, but those are just that—errors. The other choices made by Smith in her translation, including the level of “drama” in the prose that Tim Parks so objected to, were supposedly because that was truly how she believed that work was best expressed in English—and possibly because she was interested in interpreting it in her own style.
For the haiku translations were prepared for this week of class, as well as the Catullus translation from the week prior, I made multiple choices that involve ideas that may not be present in the original text. I included these not out of disrespect or a lack of understanding, but because as a curious and interested reader, I wanted to explore new ways of looking at classic texts. However, it seems (based on the backlash that Deborah Smith received) that this sort of more creative translation is not widely accepted unless it is specifically marketed as an adaptation rather than a direct translation, and perhaps that is the way to do it—just as traditional fairy tales like Cinderella are constantly being rewritten in new and inverted ways, so too can works translated into English be re-interpreted for a new audience by passionate fans of the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment