All of these readings showed a very interesting take on the difference between the writing and translating styles of different translators. While the base text remains the same, different translators approach dealing with wordplay, descriptions, and context in many different ways. The ways that they approach these situations can also make certain readers love them or dislike them and their works. Something as simple as "using fewer contractions" plays a big role in having a signature of your own when it comes to translation. I find it interesting to see people's opinions on how important or unimportant it is to stay very close to the identity of the original text. Some don't stray far, and some writers, like those mentioned in the readings, ask to redact and add in new pieces of text as the idea for that literary piece has grown over time even after the original publication. It really makes me question if doing something like that is okay or if there should be a secondary work release for those adjustments. Additionally, I am always curious to see how different things such as wordplay or names are converted between the languages. Having a translator want to use "skinhead" for a character name and then be asked to use "buzzhead" by Murakami is very interesting as the translator's touch was lost in this piece, but at the same time, the piece is closer to the original kind of (?). Also seeing that multiple translators worked on the same story is very intriguing because I feel like even with the work of an editor the translations can still vary greatly amongst the two translators. As we saw for the text in the textbook, some translations just have a flow and style to them that a different translator may not capture at all. But then again, it begs the question of who was truly closer to the original work.
Catherine Vess
No comments:
Post a Comment