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.