Leah Smolin - Responses for 2.4

I enjoyed Tim Parks’ review of “The Vegetarian”—I appreciate a review that comes from a place of “is no one else seeing what I’m seeing?” I agreed that the phrases he picked out sound like “novelese” and the end of this sentence grammatically goes off the rails: “Taking in her nicely filled-out figure, big, double-lidded eyes, and demure manner of speaking, I sorely regretted the many things it seemed I’d ended up losing somehow or other, to have left me in my current plight.” Parks’ and Charse Yun’s criticism of Deborah Smith’s choice to “poeticize” the novel was interesting. On one hand, I’d like a translation to prioritize being beautiful/interesting in the target language over fidelity. (As a reader, I would have appreciated Jeffrey Angles improving the prose in the Mothra novelization.) On the other hand, it does seem like translation “promises” the reader that the style of the original remains intact.

In the LARB, Smith says, “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.” I’m not sure I understand this. Isn’t “plain prose” necessarily precise and concise? And who says English can’t favor plain prose? I think Smith herself just doesn’t favor it, and that’s fine. It’s strange that she doesn’t just admit to taking liberties and stand by it.

Is translation an act of feminine procreation or is it masculine violence and rape of an original language? You can make these kinds of abstract arguments in either direction and I don't find them particularly useful. In Sun Kyoung Yoon’s article, I’m struck by the metaphors introduced about gender and feminism. Yoon is right to criticize the idea of original works as somehow male. But as far as the original being superior, isn’t it widely accepted that the original work is superior, that something is “lost” in translation and if you can, you should read books in their original language? I wouldn’t call this opinion patriarchal, just potentially snobbish. Unless Smith got Han Kang’s permission, I think changing characters’ motivations in the way Yoon describes is in fact a betrayal of the original text, not a feminist “subversion of the patriarchal myth of fidelity.” 

David R. Slavitt’s introduction to Petrarch is informative, history-focused, and interesting while still feeling personal. I like the hot take “Petrarch has been of greater influence on English literature than Dante.” 

Mark Musa’s introduction has a lot of undefined terminology relating to Latin and assumes familiarity with the original text (or other translations). I could’ve used a bit more explanation. I also find his wording around choosing to maintain rhythm and meter but not rhyme to be evasive/unconvincing. There are plenty of good reasons to make that choice, but he doesn’t explain his. 

I’m immediately charmed by David Young’s introduction from the first sentence: “Translating is a most peculiar activity.” And here’s a much better reasoning for keeping meter but discarding rhyme! This one is very methodology-focused. An example sonnet, with other translations! I love this introduction!