Articles on Han Kang Controversy
I found that reading all three articles together formed a really interesting conversation about a translator’s fidelity to, and interpretation of, the source text. Tim Parks’ criticism of Smith’s inaccurate translation raised a lot of questions about the distance in which a translator may wander from the original, what liberties are afforded in the name of an English language reception and understanding. I found myself thinking about the statement: “in a literary text a certain content manifests itself in a certain style. There is no separating the two. The difficulty with translation is always to reconstruct that relationship.” Interpreting this, Parks’ is stating what makes a literary text unique and precious is its union of content through specific style and/or voice. Naturally, the act of translation inherently warps both style and content to some degree. He then continues to note Smith’s tendency to opt for idiomatic, ornate, or plain incorrect phrasing. I found these arguments to be rather compelling. And further, after reading Charse Yun’s article, I found myself questioning the authority a translator should be allowed to assume and still call their work, as Yun puts it, a translation and not an adaptation. However, after reading Deborah Smith’s piece, I found myself conflicted and with even more uncertainty. Considering that Smith was the one deeply involved in the text as well as being in dialogue with Kang, I found her justifications held more bearing than the critics. I especially found this statement compelling: “translating from Korean into English involves moving from a language more accommodating of ambiguity, repetition, and plain prose, to one that favors precision, concision, and lyricism.” And that in order to communicate this sense of ambiguity a more poetic and lyrical interpretation was required to capture the essence of the voice. Whether this concession was warranted, I am not sure.
Deborah Smith’s Infidelity
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Sun Kyoung Yoon’s piece. Having not read The Vegetarian, Yoon’s mapping of thematic and contextual relevance through the lens of feminist theory put the translation into a new light. It seems to me that Smith was reaching for the core of the novel, and allowed hefty omissions and additions to bring this to a global audience. While this aligns with the theoretical approach of a translation—to communicate the intention and emotional relevance of a text—I found myself unsure about the omissions part. While Kang’s blessing of these alterations must be considered, I wonder what the reception would have been like if the entirety of the book was included. Possibly, the social commentary and feminist application may not have been as clear? But is it not cheapening to have the source text diluted for an English language reception? I am not entirely sure, and look forward to discussing it in class. Regardless, Yoon’s article had many strong points, specifically that “literary translation should not be literal, but literary” (940). And it is clear that Smith’s translation was effective in its accolades and success.
Translators’ Prefaces to tr. of Petrarch
When thinking about capturing the essence of a text rather than a literal translation of it, David R. Slavitt’s comment on the requirement of repetition in Petrarch’s poetry is an example of the need to understand the key function of a piece’s success. His statement, “to convey at least some suggestion of this in English, I think rhyme is necessary in translating them, even if the rhymes require some slight departure from the literal meaning of some of the sentences”, confirms this. In light of the previous two readings, “some slight departure” begets the question of what this distance actually can be. It is clear that Slavitt’s intention is to understand what the source piece best achieved, regardless of personal involvement or preference, and to convey this through English. So, when translator preference or opinion is involved, how much should the reader be able to see?
I appreciated how Mark Musa’s translation note addressed the specifics of approach in conjunctions, indentation, and punctuation conventions. It was interesting to read the thought process of moving into a modernised structure for ease of audience reception. Moreover, his closing paragraph includes the admission that “nothing is as good as the original”, and that if the reader should seek the original after reading the translation, then some form of success on his part has been achieved. Again, this championing of the source text is fascinating.
What became clear after reading David Young’s notes was that often a translator will select a specific, defining aspect of the original to try and retain. Young wanted to avoid "modernizing" Petrarch excessively, while still capturing the formality, drama, and energy of the original. Reflecting on Smith’s translation of The Vegetarian, it is clear that she had a similar intention of capturing the energy and essence of Kang’s work. However, how much can the translator make their presence known? How aware should the reader be that the translator has added their perspective?
No comments:
Post a Comment