These articles contribute to an incredibly important and nuanced discussion about the responsibility of translators. What stood out to me the most from the Guardian article was the mention that Amanda Gorman herself actually chose the translator. If this is true, the identity of the translator is less of an issue. The NYT article, however, was unable to state for certain that Gorman was involved in this decision or not. It does seem like a rather questionable choice even just given Rijneveld's lack of translation experience. Gorman's work is also directly tied to her identity; she isn't writing generalized works of fiction, but rather commentaries on experiences that are likely shared among others with similar backgrounds. Thus, it is even more important to make sure the tone and message are accurately portrayed. As a side note, I enjoyed the John McWhorter reference in the NYT article; one of my previous classes spend a considerable amount of time discussing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and we read from his book "The Language Hoax". Aside from the classic issues with properly translating tone and ideas, there is the other issue of opportunity in the field, which is driving a lot of the emotions behind this debate. I enjoyed the format of the asymptote article, and reading the perspectives of translators from all sorts of linguistic backgrounds. The Washington Post article brought up the availability of certain specific combinations of identity and language in translators, and how there may not be enough people in the field to cover all the diverse experiences of authors. Regardless of the translator, it is always of utmost importance to be incredibly thorough with research while translating, and ensure that the focus is on contextualizing the source text in the author's personal experiences and identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment