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?
1. I think translation does incorporate a variety of voices and I agree with the author about the various host of voices when translating. I don't have much experience with the translation industry but from the little I know translation involves not only the author's voice and the translator's voice but also other related people's(editors, professional assistants, etc) voices.
ReplyDelete2. I always stand for being faithful to the origin so I don't think it's right to make modifications just to lead to wider readership. Readers should be attracted to the book because of its original content but not to its modified content.
3. I would translate it as fence since it is what the original text wrote. For the previous incorrect version I would just add an explanation for it.
1. I think that translation does incorporate a variety of different voices because it is not only the translator's voice in the text, but the author's, editor's, etc. Many people work on one piece to create a mix of their voices in a final work.
ReplyDelete2. I personally think that the translated text should be as faithful to the author's voice as possible, so I wouldn't want to cut out parts of the piece that convey the author's message. If so much important text is cut out, it isn't really the author's book anymore.
3. I would probably translate it as fence like in the original text, and then include a short explanation of the significance of the other word in the initial translation.
1. Yes, I think translation does incorporate a variety of voices, because it is a product of many different edits, suggestions, feedback, etc from editors, native speakers, and perhaps the author of the original text.
ReplyDelete2. I think it really depends on the intention/purpose of the translation. Of course, the best, most accurate translation will not be censored or adjusted to fit different cultural norms. But, at the same time, censoring certain aspects of a text can allow the text to be enjoyed by more people around the world. I wonder if censored translations might be better off being described as translations "based" on the story of ____________, rather than describing it as a direct translation of the story. Either way, I think that it's important to let the audience know that the translation has been adapted for a certain audience/culture.
3. I think I would stick to the original text and translate it as fence. I also think that this is the beauty and purpose in having multiple translations- that the same text can be translated into completely different styles (even if it is a result of a mistake). That's what makes translation so fun and exciting.
1. I would agree with her on this thought. Translators often reach out to others for advice on specific words and whatever other difficult spots there may be. If you consider the editing process as well, translation is very much a collective effort.
ReplyDelete2. Generally I am very much anti-censorship, even if what is being censored may offend many people. I also think that one of the interesting things about reading literature in translation is that it often retains a way of thinking, form, pacing, etc. that is more characteristic of the language it was translated from. I think that we shouldn't be so afraid of having our worldviews, or what to us may be "normal structure" in literature, challenged. That said, knowing nothing else about Kirino's Grotesque, the introduction of the nephew at the end does feel like an odd choice. Still, I think it is absurd to make such a huge cut to the original work.
3. Assuming I would have access to a legible version, I suppose I'd translate it as 'fence.' To be honest I really don't know what the best thing to do in the case of such an error is. But it is interesting how such errors as that can bring a new idea into the dialogue.