ARTICLES ON HAN KANG CONTROVERSY
As I moved through each of these three articles, I found myself entirely convinced by each author until I moved on to the next. Ultimately, Smith won me over. I believe her claim that translation will never not be flawed and there is no such thing as literal translation because "no two languages’ grammars match, their vocabularies diverge, even punctuation has a different weight." I also liked how she recognized how people often forget that what they read and loved was a translation (her War and Peace example). Translation is a strange art because sacrifices are always made in every choice.
What is the line between an adaptation and a translation? Can it even be defined?
I also liked how she differentiated the work of author and translator: how structure, plot, themes, characterization, etc. are the work of the author while translations, in many cases, work on language, style, tone, and rhythm. Both are inventing, both are creative writers.
I also think it was important for her to call out how translation norms vary between countries and contexts, and how this might shape individual approaches.
DEBORAH SMITH'S INFIDELITY
I was really interested in the exploration of fidelity in this article---how Yoon argues that Smith rejects traditional ideas of translation as merely copying, or word-for-word fidelity, but rather asserts that literary translators are engaging in a creative and political practice. The process of translation is not mechanical, not simply concerned with what one word means in a different language, but is more about literary sensibility. Smith's translation adds an intentional feminist dimension to The Vegetarian, something that has been interpreted as mistranslation, betrayal, or distortion. Yoon also makes an interesting connection between women and translations being faithful to men and original texts. The act of reproduction is inferior to the active role of production. I agree that translators should be seen as creative writers who make choices that engage their literary sensibilities, but I wonder about permission and approval. Did Han Kang understand all of the choices and deviations that Smith made in her translation and sign-off? If the translation wasn't successful, and instead was badly received in South Korea for its rejection of the tradition of literal translation, would the relationship between the women be different?
PETRARCH PREFACES
I was struck by Mark Musa's dedication to the sounds of words in his translations. In his preface, he writes, "When sound in the Italian text seems to be the dominant element in a particular poem, I am careful to imitate this sound by choosing words that play with and echo each other" (x). He articulates the balance he tries to strike between being faithful to the poem's meaning without being too literal and being faithful to the original poem's sound and music without a formal rhythm scheme. He also claimed that Petrarch must be read aloud, something that I find often helps me to digest and understand poetry and its impact.
I also liked how Young remarked on the intimacy he felt with Petrarch while working on his translations: how there are disagreements and misunderstandings, but also mutual trust and exchange. I'm sure this is the kind of relationship and communication with the author that all translators wish to arrive at within their work.
No comments:
Post a Comment