J. Bosman and Video Responses (Umi)

J. Bosman, “Selling Books by Their Gilded Covers” :

In her article, Bosman points out that e-books are becoming very popular at a high rate, which makes sense to me. In a world where the internet and technology is growing, it would only be on the same wavelength for book readers to start downloading books to read online. Personally, I have never read an e-book and never plan on, because I like the feeling of owning a book and being able to physically grasp it as I sit down somewhere to read it. The idea of staring at a screen to read a book seems very unnatural to me. In her paper, Bosman also goes on to mention that "attractive" book covers can get the attention of readers -- something e-books cannot do, at least on the same level. To this extent, I agree and it makes more sense when you take into account the point about Madeline Miller's The Song of Achilles which has a 3-D effect on its cover. Unfortunately, I now order all my books from Amazon (physical copies), rather than going into brick and mortar stores to purchase them, so this article made me realize that I may be missing out on the "beauty" of a book cover when browsing for books to read. 

Book Cover Design Video:

I found Chip Kidd's TED Talk to be very interesting and funny at the same time. Kidd mentions some points/approaches he takes into designing book covers, and hearing all this made me realize how much thought goes into designing book covers. For instance, his example of the "APPLE" vs image of an apple vs image of an apple + "APPLE" proved to be helpful in his explanation as it helped me understand why readers do not want to be treated like "morons" when browsing for new books to read. His message helped me realize that physical books are not necessarily a type of art that is going out of fashion, but an art that is becoming something special. Furthermore, I cannot help but deeply agree with him in that we stare at electronic screens enough already so we should stick to physical, handheld books (non e-books). 

Howard Hibbett on Tanizaki Junichiro (Tai)

The experience of Howard Hibbett in translating the works of Tanizaki Jun'ichiro gives a rich commentary on the complexities and nuances involved in literary translation. Hibbett's challenges reflected not only the depth of Tanizaki's work but also the cultural and linguistic subtleties.

Tanizaki's often vague hints about the events of his time serves as an intriguing literary device. It allows the work to maintain a sense of timelessness while also engaging the reader's imagination. This vagueness can be viewed as a double-edged sword for a translator. On the one hand, it offers the flexibility to adapt the text within the context of another culture or time. On the other hand, it poses the challenge of retaining that intentional ambiguity without making the text seem incomplete or confusing to readers unfamiliar with the original cultural context.

"The Key" presented Hibbett with another unique challenge: the text was written using a combination of katakana and hiragana to denote masculine and feminine styles, respectively. This gendered linguistic difference is a feature of the original text that doesn't have a direct equivalent in English. Hibbett's choice to research past examples like Alba De Cespedes’ novel, "The Secret," suggests a methodological approach to solving such problems. By examining how other translators have navigated similar challenges, Hibbett could find inspiration for his own work. What I learned from this reading is that referencing past works is one way to find solutions to current translation problems because these translation problems have certainly existed in the past.

 

Hibbett on Tanizaki (Cat)

 This reading was really interesting as it gives us a deeper view of how certain words, titles, or phrases get translated. Especially when I came to the discussion of the Buddhist symbol and how it should be translated into English. Taking a look at how other cultures decided to translate it is a fantastic concept however, with English we still run into the issue of it being a somewhat sensitive subject, especially if the Manji is translated into Swastika the way it was in French. Additionally, I enjoy that Hibbett pointed out that he himself has made errors in translation and discusses how looking back, he should have made an effort to see and better understand the device in the garden. This definitely makes me feel like if I were to ever translate more complicated works, if I were to run into something that felt complicated I could maybe look into learning more about the item before just assuming or only using the context from the text to describe it. 

I also enjoyed that Hibbett discussed his dislike for footnotes especially when it came to more leisure-based reading. We've had this discussion in class and while there isn't necessarily a correct answer when it comes to using or not using footnotes, I feel that his opinion on not using them in leisure reading is a good one. It just feels too institutional to have footnotes in a text that is meant to be read for fun. However, thinking about The Tale of Genji, that book tends to still be a leisurely one but definitely requires a lot of context so I guess there is still a scale when it comes to which leisure books may still need footnotes. 

Howard Hibbett on Tanizaki (Bruce)

I was intrigued by Hibbett's claim that Tanizaki employed the "unholy trinity" of "ero, guro, and nansensu." I've only ever read The Tattooer translated by Hibbett, but you can see even from the start of his bibliography, Tanizaki has been relying on this motif. I found it quite boring and somewhat sophomoric, which makes me wonder about the appeal of his works. Clearly, he is a controversial figure in Japanese literature, and I'd like to hear what someone who enjoys his stories has to say. 

In the Q and A, Hibbett comments on his experience in translating a Japanese story with no punctuation. I take extreme issue with how he decided to have punctuation in his translated text. He claims he kept a similar "flow" to the original, which I can't comment on since I haven't read it, but this is one of those choices that is so clearly intentional, there is no justification for the editor to take things into his own hands. In particular, when considering that English literature has been trending to a looser form of grammar and punctuation through the modernist and post-modernist movements, there really is no excuse at all. 

Musashi response to the reading

In Howard Hibbett's talk about Tanizaki's works, I learned that Tanizaki, known for his controversial writing style, faced criticism and rejected the Nobel Prize. Despite this, there's a growing interest in translating his works for international readers and I thought it was very cool. During translation, Hibbett encountered challenges in conveying Tanizaki's unique style and dealing with the title "Manji," changed to "Quicksand," a decision that seemed questionable to me at first. Hibbett's translation principles involve understanding the work before looking at earlier translations and I agree with this. The reading also explores differences in Japanese writing styles, particularly between katakana and hiragana. The translation of "The Key," involving different alphabets for the husband and wife's sides, adds complexity. The discussion extends to translating titles, like "Manji," with considerations for cultural sensitivity. These words are very difficult to translate even for people who also grew up in Japan since there is no defined meaning. Hibbett's idea that translated texts should sound a bit strange as foreign literature raises questions about finding a balance between adapting for foreign readers and preserving the original character. I believe it is better to use terms that are similar to the original versions and still familiar to the reader. It might not sound like the original, but as long as the meanings are similar, I think it is better not to sound weird.

Hibbet on Tanizaki (Kelly)

 What caught my interest the most was when Hibbet was passed on the task of translating "The Key." Something I find really unique about the Japanese language is the fact that it has two alphabets with an endless kanji system so when the text said the book was written as a secret diary exchange with the husband's side written katakana to emulate a masculine side and hiragana for the wife's side. At first, I had also thought maybe bolded letters for the husband's side and italics for the wife's side, but Hibbet says italics did not seem productive here so I'm curious to see how "The Key" ended up being translated.

Another point brought up was the translation of titles, specifically the translation of Manji --- the Buddhist Swatika symbol. It may be something traditional in Japan and something common to see but in the West, it is definitely a very touch subject with, I assume, different reactions to seeing the symbol or references to it on a cover. I think "crossing lines" would be an interesting translation but it rids itself of any religious notions the author may have wanted to include, but very unique otherwise. I think just using Manji itself would also be a good translation.

Hibbet Reading (Racky)

 Reading Hibbet provides me some unique perspectives regarding the Japanese writing style. One part of the reading grabbed attention. It was the difference between katakana and hiragana. Katakana has a square shape and shows more muscularity, while hiragana has a more circular shape and shows a more feminine writing style. Besides the letter shape, the grammar and the words they use are also different between men and women. In some European languages, there are some female or male words; however, the usage of different letter shapes is very specific to Japanese, and the author had a difficult time translating. 

Another part of the reading that attracted my attention is his principle when translating. He said, "I try to avoid reading any earlier translations until I feel I have formed my understanding of the work well enough." He even said reading the earlier version is sometimes convenient. I was curious why he usually tries to read the earlier version of the translated work after he completely understands his work. It might be because he did not want to change what he was going to do in the translation because of other people's works. The last part that attracted my attention is the fact that more Italian translators translated Tanizaki's work than English translators because earlier works were done by English translators. Without earlier work, not many translators were able to translate Tanizaki's work; however, continuous work on translation polished earlier works and created better-quality translations. 

Hibbett on Tanizaki (Micah)

Reading about Hibbett's artistic decisions while he translated "The Key" was a new part of translation that I never put too much thought in to, which was the presentation of the work such as font. I think that the amount of artistic options you have are limited, so the use of italics for example would have to be very intentional. In the example of the diary, I would be curious to see what he decided to go with, because I can't imagine how you would able to convey a feminine tone just through the font.

Another thing that I found interesting was his breakdown on the different theories of translation. Hibbett mentions how the "naturalization" theory in which the translation adds to the original and improves it can "dilute the special flavor" of the original. I thought that this was a great analogy to put onto something that we have discussed multiple times in class. I think that the main thing that matters is what is being translated. If a newspaper article was being translated, I believe that it is perfectly ok to "naturalize" the text and add to the original, as the style of writing is not as important as the information being conveyed. But when it comes to something like a fictional book, it may be better to stay away from adding on to the original as to not "dilute the special flavor." On the other hand, there is the side that doesn't add on to the original, but stays true to it and acts more as a direct translation. Hibbett mentions that it isn't only to mirror the text, but to stay true to the source language itself. I am not completely sure what he means by this, and would be interested to understand it because I tend to add on to the text versus staying true to the original. 

Tanazaki (Jordan)

 I found it interesting that critics disapproved of the fact that Tanizaki avoided making statements about current conflicts or making analyses of them. I don't think of it as an author's duty to take a stance on the current state of the world, but apparently, some do. Another interesting criticism he received was of "beautifying" Japan. This is another criticism I don't quite understand. Maybe setting unrealistic expectations of Japan or ignoring the darker side is what bothers the critics about it. I'm also unclear about exactly what the author means by "exoticism". I enjoyed learning about the "ero, guro, nansensu" trend in Japanese writing, and I feel like this can be seen even today in Japanese popular media such as anime. It feels like anime is built upon these three pillars, and to think it started in the 1920s. 

Hibbett on Tanizaki Jun'ichiro (Daniel)

Something that particularly caught my attention was when Hibbett talked about the challenges with translating Tanizaki’s The Key. In the original text, the husband’s diary is written in a more masculine style, utilizing katakana, while the wife’s diary is written in a more feminine style, with hiragana. This really made me think about what subliminal ideas and associations we attach to these different styles of kana. These nuances are relatively noticeable in Japanese, but once translated, the author needs to truly consider how, if possible, they can communicate these writing style associations in another language that only utilizes a single writing system. 

Another thing that I have thought about as this class has progressed, which Hibbett touched on as well, has been the translation of titles. I feel as though authors take too many liberties with titles in general. I personally prefer translated titles that do not diverge too much and stay as close to the original as possible, as I believe the author selected that specific title for a valid reason. Of course, there are instances when title changes are quite necessary, as was the case with Manji, which I believe you must change in order to avoid unintended meanings. Regardless, I found the final translation, Quicksand, to be too far from the original, with alternatives such as Whirlpool to be more fitting.

H. Hibbett Response (Matt)

I found the reading of Hibbett on the topic of Tanizaki to be very intriguing. One of the things that Hibbett mentions is how Tanizaki is a part of this "Big Three" of Japanese writers between Kawabata, Mishima,  and Tanizaki. The three of these writers seem to be criticized for their extreme writing and concern for tradition within their writings. More notably, Tanizaki's works would include a lot of erotic, and grotesque details compared to other writers. I feel that writing something like this is not something that should be necessarily criticized but rather embraced as being a part of the writer's style. It might make more sense in that the time period when Tanizaki wrote, these topics could be seen as controversial to write about which could be a part of the criticism. I feel like people writing about these extreme topics do tend to get criticized, in both good and bad ways. Hibbett also mentions how Tanizaki is regarded as a master storyteller, but was not awarded a Nobel prize. This he attributes could be the fact that he wrote about these extreme topics which caused him to not be considered. There are definitely politics behind awards like these, and despite Tanizaki being regarded as such a great writer, that is probably why he did not receive an award like that. Another thing Hibbett talked about was not looking at other translations when doing translations, at least not until completing a draft himself. I thought that this was particularly interesting since for a lot of things, I feel like taking a look at an example will help you with your process of whatever it is that you are doing. But in the case of translation, I think it could be seen as hindering. If you take a look at a translation before doing it yourself, you could introduce some biases in what you try to translate from whatever example you have looked at.  If you complete a translation yourself before looking, you can notice differences between how things were interpreted and even possibly find errors in previous translations. I think this is a good practice to do, but it does bring up a point of if in the translations, you could give to much of your own style in the writing, and change the style of the original text. This problem is something that can be difficult to deal with at times but can be helped if you don't look at a different translation beforehand.

H. Hibbett Reading Response (Jane)

 I think Hibbett's introduction to the world of translation was interesting because it almost seemed to have happened by chance when he met Tanazaki. He goes into depth about how he started in the world of translating which I thought was interesting because he seemed to have picked up Japanese extremely quickly just by reading it often. He goes over a couple of hardships he faced as a translator: Gender-specific styles of writing and culturally specific topics. These are two struggles translators face that we have gone over many times before and similarly, translators are unafraid to own up to their mistakes when it comes to it. 

In regards to gender-specific writing styles, I found it interesting when he discussed researching using other works. I personally think I would have gone to a woman and had her work with me to figure out how she would write the words I was translating. In addition, it would have made more sense to also pool in the results from multiple women and decide from there how to write. In this way, the writing style of women is collected from women and not another translation. 

The culturally specific aspects of Japanese stories seem to be the common enemy of many translators. Like Hibbett said, the balance in avoiding footnotes for flow purposes but also making sure that the reader is educated and understands what is being described seems to be a balance that varies among translators. I thought it was interesting that even the section of translation he considers the easiest became a huge problem because of the sōzu.

H. Hibbett Reading (Umi)

Howard Hibbett on Tanizaki Jun'ichiro:

In his speech, Hibbett mentions having problems with translating Japanese titles so he ended up taking a few liberties with them, which I found to be both strange yet understandable. For instance, he mentioned that he translated Aoi Hana, into Aguri, instead of the expected The Blue Flower. Contrastingly, I do understand why he would do this -- maybe not for this specific example, but for other pieces, because having translating a few titles in class myself (mainly the Newspaper/Magazine articles), I noticed that Japanese titles tend to sound unnatural when translated literally. Later on in the text, Hibbett recalls consulting his friends about matters in the source text which he did not quite understand, and receiving five different answers from five different people. When I read this, I instantly wondered if Hibbett would have used open source A.I.s such as ChatGPT or Bard to generate hundreds of responses to receive lots of unique feedback and opinions if they had existed back then. If so, in this regard, I could see why A.I. could be useful for translation; a tool for getting translators to think more and consider different approaches, rather than a tool to directly assist translators with the translation process -- how it is could be abused as a machine instead. 

H. Hibbett Response (Camille)

I found the different strategies in translating Manji to be really interesting, I, like Hibbett, was puzzled by the French choice of Svastika. I'm not sure that any reader, especially a European one, would take that title to refer to anything but the symbol used in WWII. Additionally, I was a little confused by the choice of Quicksand over other ideas like Whirlpool or Maelstrom. Hibbett does mention a connection between quicksand and a metaphor in the text, but the impression I got from that section was that the metaphor only appeared in the translation, not the original text. I suppose the title works then as a justification for said metaphor, but my instinct would be to scrap the added metaphor and use a title more similar to the original meaning of the Manji, rather than make so many modifications. 

Hibbett's idea of fidelity to the source language, rather than directly to the text, was also interesting to me. It raises the question of what it means for a text to seem Japanese (or French, German, etc). It ties into another idea he mentioned among some critics, that a translated text should sound strange, as it is meant to be a foreign work of literature. There's a balance to be found, I guess, between adapting the translation so that it reads well to a foreign reader, and maintaining the original character of the text. 

Howard Hibbett on Tanizaki (Grace)

Howard Hibbett on Tanizaki - Grace :)

The talk given by Howard Hibbett on the works of Tanizaki was a very interesting read, as Tanizaki's works and how they have been translated are vastly different from what we have read about in class. Tanizaki, at least to me, seemed to be a very provocative individual who was not afraid to include controversial elements in his works, from ero to guro. However, incorporating such content did have its consequences, most notably, according to Hibbett, Tanizaki's failure to win the Nobel Prize and the harsh criticism he received from American and Japanese academics (Despite both praising the Genji, which includes rape, pedophilia, and misogynistic elements). Contrary to this, it appears that there has been a renewed interest in Tanizaki's works, particularly with international audiences. So, translations of his works are a necessity.

Whilst translating Tanizaki for an international audience, Hibbett encountered a plethora of issues that had to be sorted out before his translations were sent to the printing press. First of all, Tanizaki's provocative, comedic imagery would be difficult to translate into different languages due to their subtly. Hibbett does not explain how he deals with such imagery, but from the examples he gave, it appears that he opted to use descriptive language at times to shift readers' focus to these masochistic elements, such as what he did when translating A Portrait of Shunkin. While I am unsure if he is translating accurately, as the original Japanese is not given, his subtle, yet descriptive language captures the subtle masochism in Tanizaki's work.

In addition to his handling of Tanizaki's comedic masochism, Hibbett also had to deal with a controversial title that would not be received well by international audiences, particularly those with high Jewish populations: Manji. I very much agree with Hibbett's decision to change the title, especially with the end of World War II not being that long ago. However, I do not agree with the new title, Quicksand. I feel that Whirlpool would be a much better title, as the metaphoric symbol of manji coincides with that of swirling water. Why change the medium from water to sand? Was there a metaphor involving quicksand in the novel? Was this for aesthetic purposes? Using Quicksand feels like Hibbett strayed too far from the original text. Either way, I am glad that I haven't encountered extremely sensitive subjects yet in this class, as I am still not sure what I would do in that kind of situation. I am generally in the camp of "don't vastly alter the original text," so I would feel uncomfortable censoring sensitive elements, but I would still feel morally in the wrong if I did not censor anything. I think that this is a good topic to bring up in class for this reason! Overall, Hibbett highlighted a few issues that he experienced while translating the works of Tanizaki, an interesting man who often inserted controversial elements into his work, and explained possible solutions for dealing with these issues. While I do not necessarily agree with the execution of his methods at times (Quicksand), I do believe that he gives good advice on how to deal with sensitive subjects, most notably Tanizaki's masochism, whilst still maintaining the meaning of the original text.

"A Live Dog" and "Notes from Interlingual Hell" (Racky)

 When I was reading "A Live Dog," one part of the text got my attention because it was a really interesting statement. In the text, he said, "Translations are like women: if they are faithful, they are not beautiful; if they are beautiful, they are not faithful."  After this sentence, he even said, "It might be added that translations, like women, must avoid sounding ridiculous if they are to succeed. " I am not really sure why he is being sexist; however, he made important points about how the writing style is different between Japanese and English. 1) Avoiding unnecessary phrases is critical in order to write concise sentences. 2) Repetition is often used in Japan because the sentence sounds better, but it is less appreciated in English writing. Besides these parts, he stated the most difficult part of translating from Japanese to English, is that the expression is different between Japanese and English even in the same circumstances. This is why literal translation is preferred, but one needs to pay attention to meaning.  

Riggs describes the importance of metaphors in Japanese and English texts. If metaphors are specifically related to Japanese culture, then direct translation is not favorable in order to convey the true meaning to English readers. In this case, a reference needs to be posted to avoid the reader's confusion. Structure of the sentence is also different between Japanese and English. Japanese text often has a topic sentence at the bottom and an explanation or context at the top; however, this type of writing style is not preferred in the English writing situation. In English writing, the topic sentence is on the top, and the explanation is on the bottom. However, this is a very difficult case to arrange the order of the sentence from Japanese style to English style because it might not make sense in English writing style. Sometimes author puts the sentence order by order for some reason, and the translator should not change the order. This difference in writing style causes some trouble in translation. 

C. Terry and L. Riggs Readings (Daniel)

    In Terry’s article, I found it very interesting when he talked about all the issues that arise regarding the fact that Japanese and English speakers do not say the same thing in similar circumstances, as is the case when a person begins to eat dinner. It was also extremely interesting to learn more about how there are very few words in Japanese for which there is an exact equivalent in English. I have found this to be the case from personal experience, when translating things in Japanese for my family in the States, and also while translating English for my family in Japan. There are very similar words, but they typically carry slightly different meaning or tone, which can quickly complicate things. I also found it interesting when he brought up Vladimir Nabokov, and how translating between languages within the same family may provide easier parameters to work within, as there are many more words that mean exactly the same thing. However, with languages that are distinctly different in a variety of ways, such as Japanese and English, you as a translator have to adapt to the changing nuances when translating a piece of work into another language.

    In the next article, Riggs further explored the reasons behind the challenges of translating Japanese magazines or essays. In line with what Elliott Sensei said regarding translating the magazine article from class, Riggs explained that Japanese magazine articles tend to employ long and potentially overly descriptive titles that might not translate well into English. One thing that surprised me in particular when further reading this article was the fact that topic sentences or thesis statements in Japanese essays and some articles are often situated toward the end of a paragraph. While I was somewhat aware of differences in sentence structure in Japanese writing, I will definitely pay more attention to these differences.

C. Terry and L. Riggs (Matt)

In both readings, I found it interesting that they brought up points about how translation can't just be directly translated between languages in particular between Japanese and English. I think when I began to try to translate, my first thought was always to directly translate just so that you could keep the meaning between different languages, but after trying it and reading it out, you can tell that there are certain nuances between the languages that just feel unnatural or awkward in translation. I think in Japanese as well, the writing is much more descriptive in longer bits, compared to English where things can be more concise. Especially when you are trying to keep the attention of the reader, it can feel like if you directly translate it from Japanese to English, then the point could get lost to the reader. That's why I think when trying to write the translation into English, the translator should be conscious of capturing the meaning in a way that keeps the English reader interested since there are cultural nuances in how Japanese readers compared to English readers might find something interesting. One thing in particular I find hard to translate is how the topic/subject of a lot of Japanese sentences can be left out, but is implied by the context surrounding it. In english, this can be a lot more difficult if it is not at least described explicitly within the text. There can also be a mix of things that are being talked about, so translating this from Japanese to English can be difficult at times since you might not know exactly what the sentence is talking about.

C. Terry and L. Riggs (Bruce)

    Both readings describe the process of deconstructing the original Japanese text and restructuring it to make it "better" in English. This process is often necessary owing to the differences between the two languages in terms of not just language, but also convention. For example, Japanese authors often tend to be repetitious, vague, and rhetorical. Some conventions in Japanese, when directly translated, often seem childish, pompous, or in general, somewhat strange. Other conventions are more structural. For example, in an essay written in English, there is usually an introductory paragraph which will contain the thesis. Furthermore, each body paragraph will start with a topic sentence that loosely describes the contents of the following paragraph. In Japanese, the order is often reversed, where the thesis is often presented near the end (or not at all), and the topic sentences of a paragraph are at the end. In all of these cases, the translator must decide to what degree they want to interfere with the original work. Some translators may think their role ends after the first draft, in which they have successfully written the work in English, and it is up to the editor/rewriter to remap the text in accordance to regional preferences. Other translators might go the whole hog and restructure the entire text themselves, of course with the blessings of the author, and if not available, the editor and publisher.
    I am intrigued by both translators deeming the direct translation to be "bad writing" in English. In fact, both of them had scathing remarks to say, calling it "sophomoric," "condescending," among other things. Terry mentioned the "taishu" readers being his target audience, which makes me wonder if a general reader would really notice these details, or if they're obvious enough for readers to the degree that it will impact sales. 

C. Terry and L. Riggs (Micah)

 "A Live Dog"

I found Terry's writing to be insightful because many of the points feel obvious, but was something that I never had seen expressed in writing before. For example, the tendency of Japanese writing to have words or phrases that are considered unnecessary in English. The example Terry uses is "gozonji no yoni," which they say is being unnecessarily condescending, which I fully agree with. But, when reading it in Japanese, I would never have thought twice as it is not uncommon to see. Just that if you were to translate it in English to something such as "as you know," it feels both unneeded and condescending. Another point Terry brought up that I was glad to see written was how long Japanese sentences are. Again, reading Japanese text I don't feel that sentences are too long as I can understand them clearly. But once I am given the task to translate that sentence, I see the issue with it.

"Notes from interlingual hell"

Rigg's writing brought up an interesting point of adapting how you translate based off of your audience. I agree with them in the necessity to add completely new sentences or paragraphs to provide context in certain situation. The lack of knowledge of things that are widely known in one culture but not in another can significantly impact the understanding of the text. So despite not sticking to the original, it definitely improves the translation overall. In the same vain, the importance of reorganization of text was something that I never had given though to. Rigg gave the example of restructuring an academic paper in order to make it clearer for people in the West. While I knew that sentence structure and the directness of Japanese writing differed, this point by Riggs made me realize how the entire structure could be seen as confusing to someone in the West.

C. Terry and L. Riggs Reading Responses (Cat)

 I enjoyed both readings as they both contained a lot of insight into how difficult certain types of writing and even just how difficult certain types of sentences can be when it comes to translation. It was interesting to see how much Terry stressed that direct translation, especially for a language such as Japanese, really isn't the way to go. Especially with the idea that many American/ English readers are somewhat lazy and do not want to feel hindered while reading, a translator must work to make the peace flow while containing critical components and possibly omitting non-critical ones. He stressed that this can be difficult, especially if the author is not alive, as sometimes it can be hard to decipher what the author was attempting to stress in a particular sentence and that it is up to the translator and editor to figure it out. Riggs, in her piece, goes on to discuss how Japanese magazines or news writings have their individual reasons for being difficult to translate. Once again, English readers seem to just not enjoy reading so a lot of reformation needs to be done to make a catchy title and make body text that follows a pattern and has a plot. English readers seem to enjoy having everything laid out for them especially when it comes to everyday journalistic pieces so it is up to the translator to find a method of translation that works best for them to accomplish these goals. 

C. Terry and L. Riggs (Kelly)

 Charles Terry brought up an interesting point where he says "translations are like women: if they are faithful, they are not beautiful; if they are beautiful, they are not faithful."Although a bit misogynist, I can definitely see where they were going with this. A pointer Terry brought up is that Japanese and English speakers do not say the same thing under similar circumstances which I agree with simply because they are two separate languages. Understanding this when translating and taking liberties to omit or clarify is an important yet difficult balance to maintain. When speaking in Japanese, I find often that I can't simply think of what I want to say in English and translate it over to Japanese in my head. It's crucial to remember important details of Japanese where for example, the word "no" tend to be avoided. I also find that Japanese sentences can be quite a bit longer than English sentences so knowing where to break up sentences to create shorter English ones to maintain clarity and focus is also where we can say the translation becomes less faithful but more beautiful.

 Lynne Riggs on translating essays or magazine articles hit a lot of the points we came across in class as well as when I was translating it alone. First was the title which is definitely very long in Japanese articles whereas English articles usually start with something short and eye catching. It was interesting to learn that Japanese thesis or topic sentences may come at the end (or may not even be stated at all) when in English essays, that is usually the first thing said after providing some context. This is something to definitely keep that in mind next time I have to write in Japanese.

Reading Response (Jordan)

 I like how Terry broke down the aspects of Japanese writing that are viewed as normal to Japanese, but unnatural in English. I never thought about it myself, but now that I read about the differences I find myself reflecting on Japanese texts I've read in the past. It seems like a common trend among the various differences is that writing in English may be more straightforward than in Japanese. The tendency to state the obvious, to repeat things, and even rhetorical questions are all seen as unnecessary in English texts, and will therefore often be omitted. It's interesting that most of the differences involve leaving things out that were in the Japanese text, as opposed to adding things. I wonder if someone translating English to Japanese would feel as if the text is missing certain elements, and take it upon themselves to add it, in the same way someone translating Japanese to English would want to omit certain elements. Terry mentioned that when he is asked by an American how to say something in Japanese, he often tells them they shouldn't say that in Japanese. This is one of the most difficult elements of learning a new language, because often you know what you would want to say in English, but not only do you have to wonder how you would say that in Japanese, but if you would even say it. There may be a more natural response than what first comes to mind. This means you have to develop a unique style when speaking in a different language, which is one of the most challenging, yet intriguing, elements of learning Japanese for me. 

C. Terry and L. Riggs Reading Comments (Jane)

Terry brought up a lot of good points that I read in my Wakabayashi Chapter (CH7). He used an analogy about the relationship between the faith and beauty of women to describe the paradox in the translating process that I thought was perfect. It really does feel as if a perfect translation sounds incorrect because of the format of the writing. However, if the formatting sounds right, the writing is now different from the original. This constant battle that translators have to go through has to be standardized in my opinion because it will help translators decide when they have taken too much liberty, especially because a lot of changes can be justified in some way that disregards the author's intentions. The majority of omissions Terry recommended made sense. Especially when it came to the "silence" which can be translated into words or not depending on the intentions behind that silence. It highlights how a difference in language is not the only barrier between two groups of people. The cultural standards of speaking and writing also differ and have to be recognized while translating to help with making hard decisions regarding altering texts as a translator.

Riggs's two methods of reading through a text before translating made sense. In my experience, I do a little hybrid of both. I read the article paragraphs at a time so that I can read the whole paragraph and understand any vocabulary I don't know. From there, I go into translating what I thought I understood from my initial read before going back into the text, going sentence by sentence, to get technical wording straightened out. I think the amount of restructuring involved in translating academic text is very interesting. In a sense, it does not mean the translator is making the article their own because the content is not being changed. It is almost like its own type of translation in which the format is translated to be easily understood by the reader whose culture may form writing differently. 

Musashi Response to the reading.

"A Live Dog"

The fundamental problems in translating from Japanese mentioned in the textbook were obvious points but still helpful to be reminded of. For example, I agree that since Japanese and English are two different languages, there are no perfect correspondences, or writing styles such as the length of sentences or words to translate the meaning exactly the same. I especially find it interesting about the writing and reading habits presented in the textbook. I did not notice how written words in Japanese books are considered to be more important than spoken words, but it's completely the opposite for books in English. Authors often try to write as they speak in English books. I did not realize that until I read the textbook and it was fresh and interesting to know. I also learned the importance of considering the audience, who the reader is to suit the style. 

"Notes from interlingual hell"

At first, I was a little disagreeing with the author's point that translation is transmigration, and the original piece has to be obliterated and reincarnated into a totally different work. However, as I read through the text more, I started to understand what she really meant. In the two methods to approach the first phase of the task, I personally liked the first method mentioned. I believe that since it's only the first draft, the main goal is to get a broad image of the context and the second method mentioned would take too much time. Moreover, understanding the cultural backgrounds or precise meaning in the context by looking up every detail should be like the final phase, in my opinion. The further steps to complete the translation were similar to what I usually do and it was very helpful to know that what I was doing was not wrong.

Response to the Terry and Riggs Readings - Grace

 Response to the Terry and Riggs Readings

    Both readings highlight common challenges that translators of Japanese works must face and how these problems may be dealt with. The first reading, a series of notes by translator Charles Terry, brings up several of these challenges that threaten the balance of producing a faithful, but stylistic, flowing translation. Terry uses a particular phrase to describe his problem with what he deems as 'faithful' (accurate) translations: "It has been said that translations are like women: if they are faithful, they are not beautiful; if they are beautiful, they are not faithful" (Terry 16). This phrase is not only misogynistic, but it isn't wholly correct when put into the scope of translating a work from Japanese to English. For example, one challenge that Terry addresses is the distant relationship between the English and Japanese languages. As a result of this distance, common words and phrases in Japanese, such as 'itadakimasu,' have no English equivalent, making translation a meticulous balancing act of accuracy and comprehensibility. Terry chooses to omit phrases such as 'itadakimasu,' however there are solutions to such phrases. For example, as an avid manga reader, such words and phrases are often still translated into their designated English equivalents, such as 'itadakimasu' becoming 'thanks for the meal!' I understand that this may sound awkward in some cases, such as when the atmosphere is more gloomy, but I do believe that silence is not always the answer to this particular problem. Terry does however provide translators with some helpful solutions to common translation issues, such as dealing with long sentences in Japanese. With his example passage from Musashi, he illustrates how complex Japanese prose can become, citing one sentence in particular that extended to over 4 lines in the text. He then combed through the text, citing what to keep and what to omit, using the habits of English readers as a basis for his decisions. I found this to be very helpful for my own translations. He also discusses the amount of indirectness present in Japanese texts, which we have pointed out previously in class, such as with the use of the word muzukashi instead of ie. So, while I did not appreciate Terry's pompous, misogynistic attitude, he did provide a few helpful pointers that I found to be important to consider when translating.

    The second reading, written by Lynne Riggs, is a very light-hearted, humorous piece that lacks the arrogance of the previous article. Riggs, while providing fewer pointers on translating from Japanese to English, does provide helpful information on how to structure an English translation of a Japanese essay or journal article. For example, I was not aware before reading this article that the topic sentences or thesis statements in Japanese essays and some articles come towards the end of a paragraph or even at the end of the entire piece. This is very fascinating and most definitely something that I will keep in the back of my mind when translating the upcoming texts for this class. She also notes the importance of selecting a title that is eye-catching and easily digestible for English readers. She also points out that occasionally the editor changes the title completely, so the translator might not even have to come up with a suitable title. This is very interesting!

    Overall, both readings provided helpful pointers to consider when translating a text from Japanese to English, that extend from the distance between the two languages, to the differences in textual organization in Japanese essays in comparison to English ones. 

C. Terry and L. Riggs Readings (Umi)

 C. Terry, “A Live Dog”:

In Charles Terry's paper, he brings up interesting points regarding the difficulties of translating between Japanese and English; points of which I have not heard of nor considered before. For instance, I found it fascinating to learn that Japanese writers tend to employ a written language that is very different from the spoken language. As Terry mentions, Japanese texts "contain many peripheral ideas that an English writer would omit in the interest of clarity and conciseness", which makes me wonder if translators tend to omit a lot of Japanese words or this was something Terry preferred to do. This is because, as mentioned in my previous blogs, I have read my fair share of translated Japanese literature by Haruki Murakami and Yukio Mishima so I am now wondering if a lot of the details from the original works were omitted, meaning that I may have "missed out" on unique elements of the Japanese author's writing style. Lastly, Terry had a very interesting point about the approach for translating Japanese works: literal translation yields something that is neither easy to read nor very pleasant to the ear. Further, Terry mentions that if he were to make the changes that he wanted to, he could be accused of not being faithful to the author's style. However, Terry questions later on that if he were to translate more literally (which may produce something irksome and rather foreign-sounding in English), would he still be faithful to the author's style? to which I believe no. I understand why Terry posed this question and I honestly cannot see the issue of modifying the style slightly in order to convey the same message with the same feelings associated with that message. 

L. Riggs, “Notes from Interlingual Hell:

In her paper, Lynne Riggs describes the process of transforming Japanese magazine articles to English not as translating, but as transmigration, a concept I found to be rather humorous but at the same time suitable and realistic. In her paper, Riggs breaks down the various elements of magazine articles and the ways of tackling the translations, some of which I did not even realize were distinct from one another (i.e. restructuring the text vs the lead paragraph). In the same vein, her first point was about having an inviting title -- which I understood because Elliott Sensei discussed about this in class. Similar to what Elliott Sensei told us, Riggs mentioned that often times it is more suitable to not literally translate the title because Japanese magazine articles tend to use long, and possible unnecessarily descriptive (if it were translated into English) titles. Furthermore, Riggs addresses other aspects of magazine articles which I found to be very informative and useful as I have to complete a magazine translation for this coming weekend. At the end of the day, I hope I am able to apply some of the concepts that Riggs taught me and other readers, notably, a point that mentioned how Japanese magazine articles tend to contain a lot of metaphors, wordplays, literary allusions, dialogue, etc., which often do not emerge gracefully in English without going through contortions. 

J. Carpenter (Jane)

 J. Carpenter has a unique background as a translator that I think is very relatable. In the textbook, she goes into depth about how translating certain onomatopoeias was difficult because they convey a feeling that can not be described the same way in English. The best you can do in this situation is find a similar phrase that still sounds natural. I know when I am translating works myself, or even when I am simply having a conversation, I struggle with finding the English equivalent of some Japanese feelings.  In my opinion, the Japanese language is able to convey emotions in a way that sometimes English can't. Because it is easy to express the emotions that a word or phrase is aiming to convey but harder to find the word that fits it in English, I really appreciated Carpenter discussing that feeling of frustration while translating "Doki Doki" vs "Waku Waku"

In the interview, the part that stood out most to me was the portion discussing the hours and number of people involved in the transaction of the novel. To be able to coordinate that many people to translate a novel together and work so closely with them despite the distance truly shows that translating is a passion for them. It also brought to light how one sentence can be interpreted in so many different ways when being translated by different people. The idea that one word, omission, or addition can change the meaning of a sentence to the extent that it did is incredible.

J. Carpenter Readings (Matt)

 In the J. Carpenter reading, it was interesting to see her talk about the  interpretation of onomatopoeic words in 'Welcome to Mozart.' I was intrigued by her reasoning behind the word choices for expressions like wakuwaku and dokidoki. I always have a hard time translating onomatopoeia in my head from Japanese to English, so I agree that trying to come up with a way to translate this to English in writing can be quite difficult especially since at least when you are talking, there is a way to express tone which can help with understand what it means, but in writing, you may need to be more explicit which could be difficult if you want to be able to keep the translation concise. I also found Carpenter's analogy for translation to a coloring book very interesting. As a coloring book is already outlined with what it should look like, the outcome can look completely different depending on how you color it. Similar to translation, everyone can have different translations, equally as good, but feel and look completely different. This perspective provided me with a fresh approach to translation and altered my perception of the translation process. It makes me think about how each translation has a unique way of translating the same text. In the interview, what interested me the most was the journey of transforming a rough draft into the final product. It really does help getting a second set of eyes to take a look at the translations cause sometimes you'll miss something, or describe something more than necessary which could have an impact on the overall meaning.

J. Carpenter Reading (Camille)

 First of all, it was nice to hear a seasoned translator describe the process as "playing around with sounds and ideas until something sticks". I have found it easy to get frustrated with myself for not always having an intuition for how something should be translated, so hearing that sometimes it truly is just a matter of trial and error was comforting. I enjoyed Carpenter's general philosophy on translation, it feels very functional to me. I particularly appreciated the discussions on translating wordplay and humor, where she described how she and her students translated the Jerry Lewis movie Geisha boy. I thought she handled it very creatively - I wouldn't have thought to make a similar wordplay with another character's name if the original wasn't translating well. My instinct might have been to just abandon the joke if it was really impossible to make it work with Watanabe.

The waku waku/ doki doki conundrum is tricky, although in this case I'm not sure I agree with pitter patter. I understand Carpenter's line of logic, but to me pitter patter conjures images of footsteps rather than heartbeats. Especially since she describes the feeling as "fluttery", I wonder if there isn't an onomatopoeia in English that is more evocative of that. 

J. Carpenter Readings (Bruce)

    I really enjoyed reading Carpenter's essay in the textbook. Her tone is so genuinely enthusiastic, it's hard not to get caught up in her passion. It also helped that I fully agree with many of her talking points, especially about translating the spirit of the text. I think it is pretty apparent from my previous writings and some of my discussion points in class that I tend to dislike purists when it comes to translation. The impossible is often demanded of the translator, without acknowledgement that sometimes two languages are simply incompatible in some ways. When it comes to colloquialisms and humor, which are representative of the history and culture more so than the language of the author, the translator needs to prioritize. I happen to agree with the take that the "spirit" of the text is often much more than the semantics of the text. There is no reason to keep a translation "technically" correct if it loses the charm of the original text as a cost. 
    One interesting declaration she made was "to be a good translator, you need to be a good reader." Just as interesting was the context in which she had made that declaration. She described how, in accordance to The Text Does Not Err: Novels and the Job of the Reader by Ishihara Chiaki, the reader should always hold the text to be absolute. If there is something that seems to be a mistake, assume that you do not understand. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems to me that she is equating author and text here. After all, as a translator, she often deferred to the author as a reader defers to the text. Of course, I think she brings this up in context of perceived technical errors like miswriting a name, etc., especially since she often translates non fictional texts as well. However, because I have seen so often the reverence that many people have for the authors of a text, I would like to take this chance to challenge the absolutist statement with some literary references of my own. The post-modern essay The Death of the Author suggests that the text is a not an absolute entity as the author demands it to be. The author may very well claim to be the god of the world of their text, but we are the ones to experience it. Therefore, our experiential interactions with a text has as much to do with the author as the workings of our world does with Jesus. A book is not complete after being written. It is complete after being read. The late Toni Morrison had this to say:

"My writing expects, demands participatory reading. The reader supplies the emotions. Then we (you, the reader, and I, the author) come together to make this book, to feel this experience."

That is to say, the author supplies us with but a scaffold for us to flesh out. Now, in this paradigm, the translator's job seems much more daunting! Rather than simply conveying the meaning of the author, who is often one person, or at most a small group of people, a translator is expected to maintain this fragile scaffold in such a way that, across the boundaries of language, it retains the purity and pluripotency to encourage a reader to draw their own conclusions, with out being tainted by the suggestive filter of someone else's lens.

J. Carpenter Reading (Micah)

 Reading about Carpenter's struggles with translating onomatopoeias was something that resonated with me as someone who grew up speaking Japanese at home. Carpenter touched upon how "doki doki" and "waku waku" were two that were particularly hard to translate. While for this example in particular I felt that the distinction between the two is not that ambiguous, this sheds light to the general challenge of translating onomatopoeias. There have been many instances where I have tried to explain a situation to someone in English, but the words to describe the vibe/feeling of the situation that would come to my mind were Japanese onomatopoeias. I would be able to eventually explain the feeling, but it would take a lot more words than the onomatopoeia itself. With this in mind, I think that it is impressive how Carpenter translated the art piece's onomatopoeias in small amounts of words.

Another part of the text that stood out to me was the way Carpenter described translating. Carpenter compares the art of translation to a coloring book, in that you are given an outline on what to do, but it is your own artistic choice when choosing the colors to use. When put this way, it really highlights how much power the translator has. For me, I believe with this in mind it will push me to be more creative and stray away from the literal text. 

From the interview, the biggest takeaway I had was how much collaboration is necessary with the original author in order to have an accurate translation from both a technical and qualitative lens. Carpenter talks about how they worked with Mizumura in the translation of a story, and how they literally spent time going over every word in the book. Carpenter went into further detail about how much effort that took which leads me to believe that collaboration is key if you truly want to have an accurate translation.

J. Carpenter Readings (Cat)

 Both of the readings discuss in great length how important it is as a translator to seek outside verification and help when translating a piece of work. Whether it be from the author themselves, an editor, other translators, or even just people you may know, they may be able to offer a different perspective or a different translation that you have never thought of before. Even with a new perspective however, a translator needs to keep in mind that the text and its meaning should not be changed but instead the work should focus on how to keep the original meaning which still creating a new and different sentence in the language that the text is being translated into. It seems that with modern texts, many translators have been going to and working directly with the original author which I think is extremely smart and something that should continue to be done. The author and their input really helps clarify what they originally meant in the first text and how they may want to convey/ whether they agree with the translators translation or if things need to be played around with more or changed entirely. Talking and working with individuals really helps bring a work together and makes it the best it can be.

J. Carpenter (Kelly)

I found J. Carpenter's discussions on onomatopoeias quite interesting because every language has such unique onomatopoeias for the descriptions of the same sound. For example, the English woof woof compared to the Spanish guau guau and German wuff wuff. The discussion of how to translate doki doki and waku waku was interesting because in English, there isn't really an equivalent translation. The English onomatopoeia for heart sounds is lup dup which ends up sounding kind of lame and very clinical compared to the Japanese onomatopoeias where the words exude fluttery excitement and the feeling of being lovestruck. Carpenter ends up choosing pitter patter, which I also think is a good choice but a little lackluster compared to doki doki.

In the interview with J. Carpenter, I loved seeing the translation rough drafts and comments before the concrete final draft. It gives insight into the process such as things that seem necessary but simply disrupt flow or not needed as well as what we can add back into translations to make them more "whole." Seeing different translations by different people for the same line can really allow us to see what's being emphasized by everyone and what is "redundant" and simply something we can just leave out to have the translation more cohesive. Its definitely similar to what we do in class and seeing 4 different translations for he same text simultaneously lets me see quite quickly what I should focus on and to cut out some small details that either make the translated version sound awkward or redundant.

J.Carpenter Reading (Racky)

 In J.Carpenter's reading, there are numerous curious stories. I was impressed by how she began to have an interest in translation. She received a different impression from the same novel because how the author translates his/her text is different from other translators. Eventually, these differences in translation determine if one translation is better than another one. In the reading, she was intrigued by the translation of spirit. "ドキドキ" and "ワクワク" are one of the examples. Both mean exciting; however, there are slight differences in terms of the impression people receive. "ワクワク" is merely excitement about something that has not happened but going to happen soon. "ドキドキ" often means exciting but also means nervous. When you are receiving a college decision, you feel "ドキドキ." There are many words that do not have specific differences in meaning if it is English, but there is a difference in Japanese. 

Another point she makes in the text is that the translators are required to understand all details, such as the way characters talk, behave, and think. Because of language differences between Japanese and English, some conversations make sense in Japanese but do not in English. Therefore, translators are also required to understand what words or grammar should be used to correctly convey true meaning to readers. In this process, consulting with the author is the most critical step because the translator's job is to correctly tell the true meaning and situation in the text.

The interview with Carpenter describes how important it is to talk to the original writer when translating. At one point, Carpenter stayed with Mizumura in Karuizawa to work on translation together. Collaborating with the original writer and making sure the translator's understanding is correct is essential in not misunderstanding the text. 

J. Carpenter Readings (Daniel)

  In Jumping into the Pond, I found it particularly interesting how Carpenter translated the onomatopoeia in Welcome to Mozart. I found it fascinating to read about her thought process for why she selected the words she did for things such as わくわく, どきどき, and もりもり. There are definitely so many subtleties within Japanese onomatopoeia that make it difficult to translate into another language such as English, especially when that language does not utilize onomatopoeia to the same extent. 

I also really enjoyed Carpenter’s analogy for translation, when she compared it to a coloring book. She explained, “You’re stuck with this picture that somebody else drew, and you can give life to it in your own way.” I found that to be quite profound, as it provided me with a new way of approaching translation and a new way of viewing the process of translating a piece of work. I also found it extremely interesting when she talked about Arthur Binard translating his own work into English from Japanese. I had never really considered what it would be like to translate something that you had personally written. I feel as though since you know the work better than anybody else, you could get away with omitting or adding more content since you yourself know how you want the story, poem, etc to be received.

    From the interview, what I found to be most interesting was the process through which Mizumura, Stephen Shaw, and Carpenter would all develop a rough draft into the final product. I found it fascinating to see how certain parts were cut out, altered, and even put back in the final version. It really showed me how sometimes tedious translating is, but also how organic and fluid the creative process can be.

Jumping Into the Pond (Jordan)

     I enjoyed reading about Carpenter's struggles in translating various Japanese onomatopeias. Although I wasn't familiar with all of the cases she talked about, the text had me wondering about certain onomatopeias that I am familiar with, such as the difference between waku waku and doki doki. I wondered what I would answer if someone who was learning Japanese asked me what the difference between these two words is. After disclaiming that I'm no expert and that what I say should be taken with a grain of salt, I would provide what my idea of each word is. The first difference that I feel when conceptualizing each word is that doki doki can be associated with both feelings of love and fear. It's meant to sound like the sound of a beating heart. Waku waku makes me imagine the anticipation of something about to happen. Carpenter's description of these words was similar to what I would have said. Carpenter compared translation to coloring in a coloring book. She compared the outline the author provides to the translator and the act of translating as coloring it in. As a translator, you absolutely must use the outline provided to you, but the responsibility of giving it life is up to you, as the outline is colorless when it's given to you. Based on my interpretation of this comparison, it appears Carpenter feels like she has great freedom when translating. You can "color" it in any color you want, and she even says "you could put a little tree over here" if you thought it was necessary. She described the rules that bind you as "joushiki". Basically, as long as adding something or changing something seems reasonable it's free game. I suppose determining what is reasonable and what isn't is the challenge. 

Response to the Carpenter Readings (Grace)

Responses to the Juliet Carpenter Readings - Grace

Juliet Carpenter's various accounts of her experiences translating Japanese literature into English (and occasionally producing bilingual materials as well!) were very interesting to read. In the first reading titled "Jumping into the Pond," Carpenter opens the article by discussing her experience translating a bilingual children's book about Mozart that included interactive components such as buttons that would play music associated with particular feelings felt by Mozart in various sections of the work. She struggled with translating Japanese emotion-based words (ワクワク、ドキドキ) into English equivalents due to how similar of a feeling that a few of these emotion-based words give. In the end, Carpenter ended up taking great liberties with her translations of these words (ドキドキ -> pitter patter, for example). I personally feel that Carpenter strayed too far from the original Japanese. While she tries to keep the translation in the same realm as the Japanese original by trying to incorporate heart-based sounds into her translation, I believe that 'pitter patter' falls more into the realm of gentle rainfall than that of a heart beating or fluttering. I would have translated ドキドキ to 'badump badump' to maintain utmost accuracy to the original Japanese.

However, I did enjoy how she went about explaining the role of a translator. She, like the other translators, discusses the importance of being creative whilst maintaining the integrity of the original text. She does however offer a statement that particularly resonated with me: "...but so much of what I do is actually on an instinctual, gut level that sometimes it is hard to articulate just why something came out a certain way." I had often felt this way while translating texts for this class. Sometimes there is no particular reason for my word choice or how I structure my sentences; it just sounds right. I had felt uncomfortable bringing this up in class up until now because I feared that I would sound stupid or too emotional. Hearing a seasoned translator bring this up as a valid reason for making choices whilst translating made me feel more valid in following my gut instincts.

In the second reading, an interview with Carpenter conducted by Professor Elliot and Lynne Riggs, I was surprised by how closely Carpenter worked with the original author on her translation. I was especially surprised by how well the Japanese author could compose English sentences. This is something that we have not seen very much so far in class. Both Carpenter and the original author's dedication to the translation was awe inspiring, especially because both had other obligations outside of the translation, such as teaching and writing. Carpenter comments that she and the author would put in 8+ hour days in order to finish the translation, which, while not the healthiest of behaviors, was still awe-inspiring nonetheless.

Musashi Kuwa Response to reading

 Jumping to the Pond

In the article, she shared her experiences translating various works, and especially her story of translating a bilingual children's book about Mozart was very interesting. These days, I have been reading articles about various types of difficulties in each writing style, and I completely forgot the challenges of children's books because when I read them in English or Japanese, the words used in the sentences are very easy since they are for kids. However, that is exactly what makes translation harder because of the limitation of word choice to use. She emphasized the challenges of nuanced emotions such as "ポカポカ” and”ドキドキ" and I completely agree with this. These phrases can be only translated well if you have an understanding of culture, humor, and feeling in both languages and as she said, the translation will only get better with persistence and continuous learning in languages. Lastly, it was very interesting when she talked about her experiences working on translating a book about Buddhism. She mentions how difficult it was not to add concepts of her Christian influences into the translation of Buddhism. It was fresh to know the process of translation is closely connected with the translator's background and how it could be easily influenced.

Interview

In the interview, it was very cool to learn the details of the actual translation process such as getting to read the real drafts and how it takes to complete translated sentences. I also did not know that the translator spent that much time with the author to complete the translation and it was very cool for me because I thought that translation was always just working alone. 

J. Carpenter Readings (Umi)

 Jumping Into The Pond:

In this article, Juliet W. Carpenters discusses her experiences with translation and I feel as if I got a lot of insight on the delights as well as the challenges of being a translator. In her paper, she discusses onomatopoeias in children's books which often gave her a hard time (i.e. どきどき, わくわく, ぱぱぱっと, etc.), which introduced me to another challenging aspect of translating. For instance, up until this point, I have been aware of a lot of the challenges that comes to English <--> Japanese translation such as cultural differences, humor, sentence structure, etc., but I had completely forgotten about the existence of onomatopoeias until Carpenters mentioned it. Later on in the article, she discusses the intricacies of translating Japanese poems. More specifically, she mentions that you can keep the images in the same order in translation, but other times you can’t. And just changing the order in which the images occur in a poem makes it a completely different poem -- to which I completely agree. Especially after reading the different translations of the haikus and tankas during class time, I even thought that some of the translations were not necessarily "poor" per se, but they were sort of changing the overall mood of the original poems. 

True Collaboration on A True Novel

In this Carpenters interview about her translation process of Mizumura's "A True Novel", I was fascinated by Carpenters' stories regarding the translating procedure behind the scenes and working with Mizumura to finalize the translation. Throughout the interview, the main topic is Juliet's partnership with Mizamura and I really liked hearing about the way they creatively collaborated with each other to work their own ideas into the translation, and it really made me understand the mutual respect that translators and authors have for each other. Later on in the interview, Elliott Sensei brings up specific details from "A True Novel" and asks Juliet key questions about why she chose to translate certain things the way she did. I feel as if this gave extremely valuable insight into the way Juliet, and not just Juliet, but the way translators think as well as how they have to cooperate with their authors to add miniscule details here and there even if they do not necessarily agree with it. To conclude the interview, I noticed that Elliott Sensei hit Juliet with a bunch of simple questions which only required short answers which I believe was to give Juliet a break after answering some tough questions regarding her translating process, which I found to be kind. Overall, I enjoyed hearing about Juliet's collaboration process with Mizamura and I feel as if my respect for translators deepened more after hearing about all they have to go through when translating. 

R.Pulvers and Beichman

In Beichman's reading, there are many interesting points regarding how the translation of a poem affects people's perceptions. A poem often includes numerous cultural and artistic factors. In other words, if the author successfully translates the poem from English to Japanese or from Japanese to English, people can not just indirectly share their points of view with people from different countries but also understand different perceptions from different languages. But can we translate a poem that does not merely translate words for words but also includes what the author truly wants to share? A quote from Roger Pulvers's paper says this: I believe, is that textual correctness — the literal meaning of the original — is a prerequisite of a good translation, but not the deciding factor in the art." This sentence clearly shows that the translation of the poem is mechanical translation but rather making choices of what words can express what the author is saying in this poem. 

"Ame ni mo makezu" by Kenji Miyazawa is very difficult to translate because the sentence itself is very simple and short; however, because it is simple, people's ideas of what the author is trying to say in this poem are varied. The first sentence of "Ame ni mo makezu" says, "Not giving in to the rain" … or … "Unyielding to the rain." Both sentences are grammatically correct but give different impressions to readers. If the translator chooses the wrong words or grammar, then readers cannot truly understand what Miyazawa was thinking and saying. 

Specifically, the translation of the poem requires a lot of understanding of the text. In addition, poems usually have less amount of words and sentences. Because of this unique structure, readers can easily misunderstand the author's ideas. In the poem translation, deep understanding of the text is the first and the most critical step.

R. Pulvers and J. Beichman Reading (Daniel)

To begin with, I found the article by Pulvers to be extremely insightful, particularly in its breakdown and analysis of the meaning of “tone.” I found Pulvers’ way of explaining tone as the “voice” of the poem to be very unique, but also quite understandable. I agree with Pulvers that a translated poem must speak in the same tone or “voice” as the original text, as it is not simply the literal meaning you are trying to translate, but the deeper essence that makes poetry so impactful in the first place. Nonetheless, I found this to be somewhat of a departure from what we as a class have read regarding translating texts such as novels, where there is much more of an emphasis on not trying to add or take away anything, but being as faithful to the original version as possible.

The article by Beichman was equally insightful, and I found it very interesting to be able to read about what goes through a translator’s head when they go through the delicate process of translating poetry. I found that similar to Pulvers, Beichman believed that it is inevitable that a translator must impose their own changes upon the original poem in order to preserve the feeling, rhythm, and tone of the original. The techniques and strategies Beichman showcased were all extremely interesting, although I did find myself in partial disagreement with some of her choices. In particular, her choice to change how Yosano Akiko’s poem is visually written seemed to me to be overstepping certain boundaries. I believe that a translator of poetry must make omissions and additions in order to preserve the same spirit of the original, but completely altering the left-hand margin more and more to the right seemed like slightly much.

Pulvers and Beichman Reading (Camille)

 I really enjoyed the way Beichman described the goal of translating a poem as creating "the poem's second self in a new language." While this is especially true for translating poetry due to the importance of sound, rhythm, etc. to the form of the text, I think it also offers a helpful perspective for translating literary text. I'm working on having a less rigid strategy for translation, and I think accepting that something will necessarily be lost in the translation can help focus on what can/need be preserved in translation. 

In a similar vein, I thought Pulver's advice to step away from the original syntax in order to get closer to the text was interesting. In some cases I definitely agree, focusing too much on the structure of the original syntax can be counterproductive. I think that the translator just needs to be careful in cases where the syntax is a key part of the form.

R. Pulvers and J. Beichman Reading (Bruce)

    This calls back to a discussion we had earlier in class. I forget the context, but I remember bringing up Hyett and Thurlow, a translation duo who visited us as guest speakers last semester in LJ251. When discussing their process, they claimed that the purism that many critics feel, that desire to retain what makes a poem "Japanese," is fundamentally flawed. As such, their process is heavily reliant on feedback from English speakers. In response, someone in our class claimed, then, that translation is pointless, and readers should just read the original works and learn the actual language. Clearly, the difficulty in translating poetry is universal. However, the process described by Pulvers, that of "assimilation" and "re-creation" essentially echoes what Hyett and Thurlow feel. It is pointless to translate poetry literally, because then the poetry would be lost. It is then upon the translator to take on the burden of destroying and rebuilding certain elements to translate the feel and aesthetic, rather than the meaning of the poem.
    Another interesting point, this one being brought up by Beichman, is how much translation influences the main field of poetry itself. According to Beichman, the intense love and appreciation of western poetry drove many Japanese authors and critics to translation, which in turn shaped many aspects of modern Japanese poetry. As such, translation can never be pointless, if only as an exercise to extend the love of a certain media. 

R. Pulvers and J. Beichman Reading (Cat)

 The reading by Roger seems to nail the concept of poetry often having a feeling or a sense of musicality to it when reading to one's self or event out loud. Specifying that not only should the translation make sense and identify with the concepts of the original text, but it should also follow a scheme that is similar to the original text and one that the readers can follow and immerse themselves into. Janine expands on this in the translation of Red Fuji. While placing "road" onto the next line doesn't make sense, it actually keeps the originality of the peace as well as the strange feeling of moving the word onto the next line like in the original.

Additionally, Janine dives into other translations in which even the change in simple words such as "only" vs "on" in Wagauta, the meaning of the line not only changes, but it becomes more clear to the reader. And since the meaning is more clear, that means that the translation also becomes closer to the original text. Other things such as choosing different formatting structures or reducing syllables are also unique techniques in preserving the original meaning. While changing the structure, they almost allow a new structure to be created and used for the purpose of conveying the same idea. Janine discusses how translation has had many arguments regarding how many lines a tanka should be translated into and in the end it seems like poetry in itself doesn't convey to a structure but instead a purpose and a meaning. And therefore if you are able to convey that in addition to a flow of some sort you are doing it right. 

-Catherine Vess-O.

Translating Poetry (Jordan)

 I found it interesting that Pulvers said "distancing yourself from the syntax of the original may be the way to get closest to that original". I think there is a lot of truth to this, and anyone with experience learning another language will probably understand it. Instead of translating the syntax from one language to another, one must first transform the syntax into meaning, tone, and voice, as Pulvers calls it. From this abstract concept of the original work, the final translation must be created. This doesn't only apply to literary translations, it also applies to speaking a new language. You may start with a sentence in your native language that you wish to express in the new one. It may be tempting to go straight from one to the other, but as Pulvers said you must distance yourself from the syntax before making the translation. This is how you avoid sounding unnatural. 

The question of is can poetry be adequately translated is an interesting one. As Beichmana mentions, it is likely because poetry relies on sound and form for its effect, and these are not easy to translate alongside the meaning of the original. Poetry seems to provide a difficult task, but also seems to provide the most flexibility in the translation. For example, Kafu's translation of La Lune Blanche changes the meaning of the original poem. Typically this would be seen as a violation of the original, but in poetry sometimes the most accurate translation is not the most literal one. Poetry is comprised of many different elements, not only explicit meaning, and the translator can decide which elements to focus on preserving between translations. 

Musashi Kuwa reading comments

 Before I read the texts, I always thought translating poems was very difficult to serve the same quality of work without adding any translator's thoughts or opinions. Because the poem is very vague and can have multiple meanings depending on how readers perceive it. It is not possible to just translate it literally so the translator has to understand the poem first and then he/she can work on translation. However, that will add some taste of translation and I believe it will never be original. 

After reading the articles, it made me think that even though it might not be perfect, it can be as close as possible to the perfect translation. Multiple examples and some tips to translate the poems helped me understand how to make the translation better and it was very interesting to learn. I learned the importance of word choices. For example, he was talking about how adding one word in translation could completely change the visual imagination of readers. Since poems are more visual images and are only with few sentences, one word means much more than normal paragraphs. The rhythms and flow are essential and I agree with how they try not to translate literally and choose the right words the way. But, I worry that the liberty of word choice might allow the translator to create completely different poems from the originals. Therefore, I disagree with that part a little. I still believe that the poems are the most difficult text to translate. 

R. Pulvers and J Beichman Reading (Matt)

 In the R. Pulvers reading, he talks about how sometimes when translating, you need to distance yourself from the actual translation to see what the sentence is actually trying to say. This reminded me of the idea in the Wakabayashi book where you can take a look at the sentence in a different perspective. In the example that was given, we see that instead of saying that "he won't give in" to the rain, wind, and snow, he changes it to be a positive perspective where they are "strong" in the rain, wind and snow. It is nice to see the application of seeing things from a different perspective is used not in just daily sign translations, but also in things as abstract as poems. He also talks about how if you want to be able to match the meaning from the original language into the translated language, you need to be able to match the tone in both languages. In the same example, I do feel like having it translated to something where the feeling is a "I won't give in" type of feeling, then it kind of lose the rhythm in english. To achieve that similar tone in both Japanese and English the example of "Watashi wa zettai ni makenai" does feel like the tone would be close to "I won't give in", but since that is not how it is written in the original, I like the translation of using a different perspective of being strong.

In the J. Beichman reading, they talk about the different ways of being able to translate the meaning, rhythm, and tone between the different languages. Sometimes they find that following the structure of the original language makes for similar tones/rhythm, but that might not always be the case. I found it interesting that even visual line breaks can completely change the feeling of a poem. The one that stood out to me was the difference between "black frozen" on one line, and "black frozen road". The black frozen as a stand alone made more of a feeling of desolation, compared to the latter which you just imagine a road. It's cool to see that in poetry, there can be a little bit more freedom in the translation, because you want to be able to give off the same rhythm and tone as the original language so that the reader is able to get that same feeling as if they were reading it in the native language.

R. Pulvers and J. Beichman Reading (Micah)

Both Pulver and Beichman's texts focus on the ways in which translating a poem from two unrelated languages is possible, despite many thinking otherwise. There were many parts of their texts that I agreed with but there also was something that I did not fully agree with. Both pointed out that while having literal translations were necessary as a base, in order to successfully translate a poem, the translator had to step back and understand the context in which the poem was written in. This could be understanding the time period it was written in, where the original author was from, etc. With poetry's most important parts being rhythm and flow, I believe that this is very necessary as well. With an understanding of the context, it can open doors to switching out words from the literal translation with seemingly unrelated words. I think that that this is a necessary good, but when too much liberty is taken is when I disagree.

As mentioned, I believe that straying away from the literal translation can be good, but once the meaning begins to change is what I have a slight issue with. Both texts make the point that in order for a translation to portray the voice of an original poem, the translator has to take matters into their own hands and go beyond the literal translation. The example in Pulver's text where they decide to start the first three lines with "Strong in the ... " despite the literal translation being "I won't give into" makes sense as it doesn't completely change the meaning. But in the example in Beichman's text on the translation of "La Lune Blanche," the meaning changes. The original text describes a lover calling out to their dear one, but in the translation, it reads as if the moon is calling out to the forest, which are two completely different meanings. I think that this is taking it too far, and although some wording can change, I don't think the meanings should.

R. Pulvers and J. Beichman Reading Comments (Jane)

 Pulvers's perspective on poems is something I agree with as well. Although the goal of translating is to translate the text the way the author would like (which is usually direct), when it comes to poems, the author's intentions are slightly different. Authors in poems are writing to invoke emotions out of readers through rhymes and their poetic writing style. When translating, sometimes the words would not evoke the same emotion once translated. I think Haikus are a great example of this. The syllables are the most important aspect of this style of writing, but once translated, the English words would not have the same syllables. This must be a struggle for translators trying to stick as close to the definition of the words but also reaching this qualification.

Beichman goes into more detail about the specific aspects that Pulver went over which helped me see the challenges being applied in actual translation. I feel like they were pretty repetitive with the point they were trying to get across but did a great job of using different poem styles as examples to show the different challenges faced in different mediums. I think the most interesting realization for me was the act of putting the "spirit" back into the poem. From many of our previous readings, translators made it very clear that their job is to solely change the language of the text and not the meaning. Including our own opinions was a crime. However, with poetry there seems to be more leniency with that. Beichman brought up a lot of the translators thought processes when changing the direct translation to another meaning of the text that some what deviates from he author's original text. And yet, these translations are praised and set as an example for what should be done in translating a poem. I thought that double standard was interesting and gives poem translators a little more room to translate according to their interpretation and what they felt when reading the poem themselves. 

R. Pulvers and J. Beichman (kelly)

In Beichman's text, he brings up the difficulty in translating poetry which I agree with because it is for no other genre that the rhythm, rhyme and flow take upmost importance. Previously, we discussed that it's important to translate not only for accuracy but also to preserve the mood and subtleties of Japanese in novels and stories so I can only imagine how much more difficult to translate poetry. Beichman emphasizes that so much is lost so "a great deal" must be put back in which I can see how that is happening in the examples given. In the example of Keene's translation, I really liked the use alliteration to mimic strong Japanese assonance to keep the same sound of the poetry. While, of course, translated poetry is never going to be exactly the same, I think translators do a really great job of combining both direct translations with certain omissions and additions to make it "feel" as authentic as possible.

Both texts emphasize the fact that great poetry can be translated, although not as accurately as some people would like. Pulvers emphasizes the fact that a poem's "voice" is everything and to an extent, I agree. We romanticize and read poems for the rhythm, flow and the message it delivers, not how well it was directly translated. If anything, the strange Japanese to English sentence structure would do little to enhance our reading experience. While we cannot "salvage the language" in its entirety, in translating poems, maintaining the feel, rhythm, and theme is the most important for an enjoyable read.