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.