Regarding Edward Seidensticker, On Nagai Kafu and Kawabata Yasunari

     Seidensticker says a lot in this reading. One of the things that I found interesting was how he was talking about how the Japanese critics would count the number of pronouns in the original Japanese text and compare it to the number of pronouns in the translated text (which would be lower) and use it as a point of argument in how the translation is a bad one. I find this as a rather funny way to find fault in a translation. Depending on the translation and what the text is, things like the number of pronouns don't make or break a translation. Especially how these two languages are drastically different in how things are presented. If removing some pronouns are required to maintain the rhythm of the sentence, then the removal of them should be done. Which now goes into the Seidensticker's philosophy of translating. Italians call the translator a betrayer or traitor, Seidensticker thinks of them as counterfeiters. As counterfeiters, you should imitate the original to the best of your ability, not changing anything. Seidensticker's example of counterfeiting a one-dollar-bill goes like this, if you are recreating George Washington on the one-dollar-bill, you should recreate his imperfections and what is shown, you do not prettify. To prettify George Washington means to make him a handsomer boy would only make for a bad counterfeiter. You don't make the counterfeit better than the original, you shouldn't be able to distinguish between both the original and the counterfeit. If your translation is praised to be better than the original, you didn't translate the piece, you made it into something else. This isn't something in the scope of what a translator should be doing. 

Brian