Discussion Questions for Fictions of the Foreign

1. Bellos spends quite a bit of time dwelling on the base paradox of "selective foreignism". As a reader, what is is that drives you to read foreign/translated works? Would you rather a work 'feel foreign', even if it would not feel that way to a reader in the native tongue?

2. Bellos asserts that it is easiest to translate between languages which are already closely interrelated, like English and French, as readers will have some innate understanding of the original. How different do you feel it is to translate from one of these related languages as opposed to from Japanese, a language the typical western reader has little knowledge of?

3. What, in your opinion, is the best way to avoid "ethnocentric violence" in your own translations?

Discussion Questions for " The Hermeneutic Motion" by Steiner

1. Is the trust stage vital if it can never be final in its conclusion as it will be betrayed and treated as trivial?

2. Steiner mentions that the act of translators incarnate alternative energies and resources of feelings that they become marred and lame by what they have imported and their vein of creativity goes dry. Do you agree with Steiner why or why not?

3. The hermeneutic motion is made up of three stages but is lacking a fourth stage that makes it complete. What do you think the fourth stage should be to make the cycle complete? Do you agree with the author idea of the fourth stage and how the hermeneutic cycle is incomplete?

Discussion Questions for "On the Different Methods of Translations" by Schleiermacher

1. Of Schleiermacher's two methods, "bringing the author to the reader" and" "bringing the reader to the author" which do you believe is a better method?

2. Do you think Schleiermacher is arguing for the superiority of one of these methods? If so, which one and why?

3. Do you think it is possible for the translator to fully preserve the meaning and intention of the original text? Whether it is possible or not, do you believe it is an appropriate goal for a translator to have?

Discussion Questions for "You are what You Speak"

1. To what extent do you think language shapes ones perception of the world? Have you had any experiences in which you felt that your unique linguistic upbringing made you see or experience something differently from others?

2. How do you think the unique structural characteristics of Japanese are related to the way in which the language is used?

3. Do you think that there is any instance in which fundamental differences between languages may or should be kept in translation? Or would doing so simply produce a foreign-sounding if not incomprehensible text in the target language?

Discussion Questions for "Hearing Voices”

1. Do you agree with the author that translation incorporates a wide variety of different voices, or is it mostly a solitary enterprise as she had originally thought?

2. The author mentions how cuts to the novel "Grotesque" were accused to have been made to censor aspects of the novel. Do you think that it is ever acceptable to make modifications to a translation in order to better suit cultural norms, if it will ostensibly lead to a wider readership or less controversy?

3. How do you think you would have handled the translation of the word "fence/salt", and what do you think is the best approach to dealing with incorrect translations that had a major impact outside of the text such as this one?

Discussion Questions for "McClellan, Hibbett, Seidensticker, Nathan, Richie - Round-Table Discussion"

1. Seidensticker said, "I think that when the original author is flat, the translation should be flat but, of course, that's impractical. No editor would allow it." Do you agree with him that in a perfect world, the translation of flat prose should be flat? Extending upon that, if tasked with translating a very generic text with very generic prose, is it the translator's duty to make a more readable text?

2. In regards to the discussion on differentiating Tokyo and Osaka speech as well as the speech of different classes, how can a translator realistically transpose the sociopolitical implications associated with different forms of speech? Furthermore, in attempting to do so, how can a translator responsibly translate one dialect into another without offending speakers of either dialect?

3. On the debate of whether or not a man can translate a woman or a woman being able to translate a man, how does that debate extend to other elements of a person? Is a translation bettered by the translator mirroring an author in class, gender, race, ideology, or any other potential commonality?

Book Covers

Dear Students,

As I have said in class, I would like you to write down your brief impressions about the article on book covers and the Chip Kidd video.
Here is the link to the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC0KxNeLp1E
And her is the link to the article:
https://www.cnbc.com/id/45541606

Nathan on Mishima and Oe Discussion Questions

1.  In the article, John Nathan mentions an essay by Walter Benjamin, in which he discusses the reine sprache.What do you think about the idea of the reine sprache as a philosophical idea and how do you think it relates to translation?

2. What would be your approach to handling the translation of style?  Do you side with those who say it's better to try and keep the original styling or those who say to just render it in your language?

3.  If we assume that individual style will almost always change or be lost in translation, can you think of anything else that is lost at the price of translation?  Do you think every translator must think about what is lost at the price of translation and what is worth struggling to fit into the target language? (i.e. things which are too language specific to fit into a target language vs things which can make a translation feel more natural to read)

Optional Bonus 4.  What do you think of Nathan's translation examples from Oe and Mishima?

Exciting Translation Event

Dear Students,

Please mark your calendars!

On November 19th, BU will host Hiroko Oyamada, a Japanese writer who won the Akutagawa Prize (the most prestigious literary prize in Japan) a few years ago. She will be reading from her book and conversing with her American translator, David Boyd (who will read some of his translation). David is a really talented young translator who won the Donald Keene Prize for his translation of Hideo Furukawa's Slow Boat a couple of years ago.

Another young literary translator, Sam Bett, will be interpreting. Sam will also visit our class the following day. So there are at least four reasons for you to come:
1. It will be about translation
2. You will see somebody interpreting between English and Japanese
3. It will count for Culture Pass
4. It should be interesting.

Hiroko Oyamada's book, The Factory, is to appear on October 29. I have ordered it and will post a few pages on Blackboard in English and in Japanese for you to look at before the event.

Discussion Questions for “On Tanizaki Jun’ichirō”

1.  In the interview, it says that Tanizaki is a master storyteller, and also lacked "shisho" or social/political concerns, and an outlook on life.  Do you believe that in translation it is more important to be a sort of storyteller who creates a fluent tale in English, or bring across the commentary within a work without bringing the fluent story aspect?

2.  In regards to the obscure author, do you think, like Hibbet says, attacking the text straightforwardly is the best way to translate it?  If not what would you try to do when the text in its own native language isn't clear?

3.  How do you feel about Hibbet's process of translating a work where he will read it until he knows it well, translate it, and then brings it back into Japanese again along with research without looking at previous translations until he has a full understanding, and has finished a draft.  Do you feel like there are any steps you don't agree with (for your own translations) or that there are some things that would perhaps change the value of the translation?

Questions for A Live Dog

1. Charles Terry's pointers for translation mainly focus on the translation of Japanese writing into English, and the ways that the rules of Japanese writing differs from what we are used to in English. Do you agree with his assertions that the majority of these common traits/"clichés" of Japanese written works need to be changed and/or removed in translation to make them read acceptably to English-speaking readers?

2. Terry uses a long sentence from the book Miyamoto Musashi to demonstrate the level of detail that is typical in Japanese writing. In his translation of it into English, he ends up removing a lot of these details because he believe that if he left them all in "an English reader would not bother to read it" and "would find it difficult to follow." Do you agree with his thought process, and do you think that his decision to be unfaithful to the original in this way makes it a better translation? Do you agree with his belief that his job as a translator is to "try to say what an English writer would have said"?

3. Terry lists a number of Japanese words that do not translate exactly into English, the main example being bunka. Given his examples and argument, do you agree with his assertion that "there are very few words in Japanese for which there is an exact equivalent in English"? Can you think of examples that are either in line with or go against this argument?

Discussion Questions For "Jumping Into the Pond" by J. Carpenter

1. In the text, the author finds it really difficult to translate Japanese words with similar meanings, for example, waku waku and doki doki. What she did was to go back to the original text and look at how the author of the book has conceived of them. Then she would translate these two words according to the specific contexts. 
  Do you think what she did is a good way to sovle this problem? And, can you come up with other Japanese words/ pharses that sharing similar meanings which make them difficult to be translated into English?

2. In the text, author mentions that when she was trying to translate a moive scene into Japanese, she intentionally changed the name of Ichiyama into Imaichi to translate"the spirit of wordplay" and capture the mood of what Jerry Lewis, another character in the movie, is doing with language. 
  Do you think such change is acceptable？Especially for audiences who can't understand the English, do you think it may change the way how audiences think of the movie?

3. In the text, author mentions that she "would never translate a mystery without knowing first who did it." 
  Do you think it is necessary for translators to read the whole novel first before starting to translate?

A funny translation mishap

Somebody sent this to me and I thought you might enjoy it (ICYMI).

Discussion Questions for Notes from Interlingual Hell

(from Maoyue Xie)

Discussion Questions for “Notes from Interlingual Hell: The translation of Essays and Journalistic Prose”

1.Riggs stated that the Japanese essays or articles are often loosely organized, etc. whereas the English versions need to be more logical considering its international readership. Do you believe this to be true?
2. Riggs argues that the term transmigration is more adequate than translation, especially when it comes to Japanese-English conversion. As a translator, would you like to transmigrate (make it easier for readers) a piece or to translate (stay close to the original)?
3. Riggs points out that there are two main ways a professional translator approaches the first phase (producing a draft). One is to start out cold and another is to read through to the end at first. As a translator, which approach do you prefer?

Discussion Questions for "On Translating Poetry" and "Through a Glass Darkly"

"On Translating Poetry"

1. Pulver states that extensive research into the original poet is necessary for good poetry translations. Do you believe this to be necessary?

"Through a Glass Darkly"

2. Given the excellent translations of Japanese poetry in the article, do you believe that the argument concerning Japanese's ambiguity/difficulty to translate is valid?

3. Beichman argues that translation is purely a selfish act, and it is not really about building bridges between cultures. What do you think of her statement?

My thoughts:

1. While I think that extensive research can improve the quality of a poetry translation, I think there is a point at which research can hinder the translator. When a person is buried in their research concerning the poem, I think it can over-complicate the task. Rather, reading the poem multiple times, getting a feel for it, drafting a translation, and then researching is probably a better avenue. By understanding the poet after allowing creative flow, the translator can reevaluate their work and adjust as needed.

2. I no longer believe in the argument's validity. The translations from the article were phenomenal, and to me, they showed that I have a lot to learn. My Japanese ability is not where I want it yet, and I think that manifests itself in my anxiety concerning Japanese - English translation. As I improve and continue studying the language, it gradually becomes clearer, and in turn, easier to translate. Poetry is an art of its own, so seeing these translations was inspiring.

3. I don't quite agree with her. It might be because I wish to pursue a career in translation, but I don't like to see my ambitions as selfish. It was because of translators that I developed an interest in Japanese language and culture, and I hope to inspire similar feelings among future generations of English-speakers. While I have a lot to learn, I think that translation is a difficult and mentally taxing profession. It is also known for not having stellar wages. So I would think that there has to be some selflessness involved in doing translations. 

Discussion Questions for "Eight ways to say you"

1.     In the text, the author thinks that English is a linear fashion supported by logical explanations while Japanese is more of a circular fashion. What do you think?

2.     The author mentions that when translating academic works she sometimes reorganize or rewrite the text. Do you think it is appropriate for translators to rewrite or reorganize? Why?

3.     Other than “you” there are multiple ways of saying “me” in Japanese as well. When encountering examples such as 僕, 俺, 私, わたくし, and あたし what will you do if you are the translator? Will you just simply use “me”? Why?

Here are my thoughts:

1.     In my opinion, I do agree that Japanese is subtler/circular than English while constructing sentences. However, I somehow find it disturbing when the author uses “logic” to define the difference between English and Japanese. English novels don't always follow the pattern of “introduction to body to conclusion” and Japanese novels also have logical supports behind them. I think her way of distinguishing the difference between these two languages are too general.

2.     I don’t think it is appropriate for translators to rewrite the text. I simply think it is dangerous for such things to happen. It gives me a feeling that the translator is no longer translating but acting as a co-writer of the book.

3.     It is important to explain the differences between different “me”. Sometimes the different “me” implies a huge difference in the character’s personality. For example, 僕 and 俺 are both “me” used by male. However, 僕 often is used by male characters who are not as strong while 俺 is commonly used by more determined and sometimes violent guys (i.e. gangsters). I will probably put in a footnote to explain rather than letting it go by simply using “me”.

Edward Seidensticker, "On Nagai Kafu and Kawabata Yasunari"

1. How does Seidensticker feel about improving upon works when creating the translation? Does he feel this a beneficial or harmful thing to do?

2. What are some of the difficulties that Seidensticker faced while translated Kawabata's works into English? In what ways was his work a "challenge" to translate?

3. Why does Seidensticker think that Kawabata is a good writer? To clarify, what "style" does he use in his writing and how is this remarkable?

"Orchestrating Translation" Discussion Questions

1. Why do you think it was so important for Japanese literature to be translated into English first (as opposed to other languages)? Why is it believed that English translations are indispensable to "succeed on the international scene"?

2. How do you think the image of Murakami changed in Japan (or did it change?) after his international success?

3. What are the benefits of indirect translation?

Marie IIda in action

Here is a YouTube clip where you can see Marie IIda interpreting. 

Welcome to the blog and Marie Iida

Dear Students,

Welcome to our class blog! I hope you will feel free to write not only comments about assigned readings, but also post about translation-related things you come across.

Happy blogging!

Anna Elliott