Copeland + roundtable

 Both readings seemed to have touched upon the same kind of topic which is the imperfection of translation, Copeland expands on this saying that translation is a result of one's past experiences, mentors and the like and I think that point was quite interesting, Seidensticker too somewhat mentioning this as he said that his translation was greatly influenced by his mentor, so basically every translator is kind of like a filter, and in that regard you'll get a different translation depending on who you ask. This also plays into one of the points of the round table I found intriguing, the point about "translating what you like". One of the members mentioned that people should only translate what they like and in doing so, you better know how to represent the author's feeling and convey them properly. On the other hand, another member disagreed saying that having a lack of sympathy for the author allowed him to better translate him/her, and that was quite interesting to me, and maybe that both sides are correct, some works might be better without sympathy to the author, and maybe sometimes as a translator you "think" you know what the author's envisioning but maybe that's just an accumulation of past experiences and the like.

Both readings had some examples of good and bad translation, the ones standing out to me mainly being the salt in the first reading and the hand/finger in the second. Where Copeland learns that the expression is more important than the actual metaphor, hence the loss of salt I think, in the original, Seidensticker went for hand instead of finger, which is interesting as he got criticized for it although he probably thought that at the time of translation, a hand would've been more appropriate. So it seems there are cases in which changing a metaphor can be good, and there is a balance between the original metaphor and the meaning behind it that must be met.

Jon

Copeland and Roundtable

 Copeland

This reading was very interesting. I was very much in agreement with what she was saying until the part came when she was talking about translating "Grotesque." She raised an interesting point about what being faithful to translations means and what Seidensticker said about not "reshaping" the original. Although I know it is related to sales and money etc. but I think it is atrocious for her to allow the editors to cut down and edit out characters. I think it destroys the purpose and faith of many readers who trust in the translator to translate all the elements from the original. I do not think that giving the same reading experience to a western audience is the same as keeping not "reshaping" the original. It feels like they are almost coddling the western audience. I feel like anyone who chooses to read a translation, will be prepared for some differences in style and atmosphere and it is an insult to their intelligence to purposefully make it easier to read by cutting out things from the original material. I do not blame Copeland because she was under a contract and there is a transaction involved but I feel like I personally would not be able to let that happen if I was in her position. 

Roundtable

This reading was a little bit confusing because the translators called each other by their first names but they only wrote out the last name for when they were speaking. It was interesting to see the back and forth flow of different ideas all at once. I will definitely need to reread this and take notes because I definitely got confused about who had what kind of different opinions. To answer Brian's question, after reading all the opinions on dialect, I do think that dialect should be translated because it can be a very important identity marker that defines a character. Dialect is very important for characters in non-translated work so why shouldn't it be for translated works? 

Celine

Copeland, Roundtable comments

I actually do hear, well not hear as in hallucinate, voices when I translate. It usually depends on the particular type of text I'm working on, but as I was working on the next part of Kagi, I heard Professor Elliot's voice in my head telling me that I was forgetting something. I couldn't figure out what I forgot, but I'm sure it was something important. When I do work for commercials, I usually hear voices from old commercials that I saw on TV. I suppose in my case it isn't always the way that Copeland describes, but it's more of the text bringing back relevant memories, which sometimes can help, but sometimes just get in the way. A lot of times the voices or the things you associate with the text can be helpful, but they sometimes make it difficult to bring yourself to cut something out that you can't bring with you, for example, or make changes. Which in a way, answers how I feel about deletion. Especially when your language pairs are as far separated as Japanese and English, deletion is something that you'll eventually have to face. There are too many differences between the structure of the language and the audiences the original text is for and who the translated text will aim to reach, that eventually, by your decision or someone else's, eventually deletion will happen. I've sort of made my peace with it, but there are occasionally times where I will try me best to keep something that I can't keep. 

For the roundtable, I was personally hoping that Hibbert would on the choices he made in translating Kagi, but unfortunately he passed the question onto someone else. Like Alex touched upon in the questions, it was very interesting to hear (read?) so many opinions on what to do regarding accents. While I don't think that there is a good solution for what to do with an accent, partially because there are no exact equivalents, especially how you consider how much information an accent gives you about a character, I do agree that with the person from Osaka, contractions would have suited Osaka-ben better than they would have the other. 

Steven

Copeland and Roundtable Comments

 Imperfect translations are an interesting topic to think or talk about. Not everything is able to perfectly one for one translated from one language to another. In some instances, there is not always a feasible or reasonable answer. I do not think that this is necessary a flaw of translating. Similar to how art is open to anyone's interpretation, a translation of a sentence or phrase in one language by one person is most likely going to have differences compared to someone else's translation of the very same sentence. In my opinion, as long as the general idea is retained then any translation can be deemed fitting or correct. 

Seidensticker mentions having to decide whether or not it is better to translate the untranslatable or not translate the untranslatable. I can see why there are merits to not translating the untranslatable, such as not butchering the original meaning, but I believe that making any sort of attempt at something is better than not taking any sort of leap of faith and not trying. Seidensticker was referring to dialects when discussing this topic. Dialects are difficult to translate, however it is not impossible to replicate in another language. We had discussed the topic of dialects before in class, and I thought that the solution of creating a new dialect was a very intelligent and efficient way of dealing with this dialect conundrum.

-June 

Copeland and Roundtable Discussion

 One topic that resonated with me is how as a translator, you often run into many untranslatable elements and no translation is perfect. Often times, it's easy for me to look down on my translations especially for the more complex ones, but I have to remember that Japanese and English as so far from each other typologically that there's no way a translation could be perfect. Translation in this case is about getting the point across in a way that sounds good in English (or any other language). Another point about changing details that are less loyal to the original appeals to me more than it did in the past. As I've been going through assignments, I've been happier with myself when I translate in a way that favors style over loyalty and in the past I felt the exact opposite.

One thing I never thought about that I found interesting was choosing something to translate that falls within your style. This had me thinking about what my own style as a writer is and what I prefer to translate. So far, my favorite pieces to translate were the more casual stories and magazine articles.

-Ariel

Copeland and Roundtable discussion comments

 Both articles discussed how imperfect translation is an obstacle eventually faced by all translators. Over the course of taking this class, I have encountered the problem of untranslatable phrases and words as well. I found Copland's explanation of the topic to be very thought-provoking, as she argues that cutting out entire scenes or translating sentences slightly differently than the author originally intended can be seen as a form of correct translation. She argues that translation shouldn't be focused on creating a word for word copy of the original text, but that translators should focus on translating the experience of reading the text from the original language to a foreign language. Because American readers and Japanese readers are accustomed to very different styles of literature, it is important to translate what is necessary for both readers to be equally enrapt in what they are reading. The round table discussion also addresses this issue. Many of the speakers argue that it is the translator's job to be as faithful to the original text as possible, but that it is expected to run into passages that just don't translate over into English properly. 

Reading these articles made me realize that perfect word for word translations are pointless if they don't keep English speakers engaged in the text to the same degree as a Japanese reader. In my opinion, translating a reading experience, rather than merely translating words, is the true job of a translator. As such, cutting things out or adapting translations to fit nuances created by the author is a crucial part of the job. 

Alexa

Round table discussion questions

 Richie starts with a quote from Dryden, "first know what is peculiar to the author's style" and then "give his thoughts either the same turn, if our tongue will bear it, or if not, vary but the dress -- not alter or destroy the substance." Do you agree with this? When translating, do ever find yourself in the position tempted to alter or completely remove "substance" that the readers might not understand or hold little to no meaning. Or do you try and "vary but the dress?"

Do you think the quality of your translations depend on the type of work you are given? If you feel close sympathy with the author or the works that they have done, would that result in a better translation compared to something that you didn't. Which leads to would you translate something that you didn't like (in a more professional setting)?

Seidensticker says, "We have to admit that some things are untranslatable and, yet they go on being translated. Now is it better to translate the untranslatable or not to translate the untranslatable?" Seidensticker thinks its better to translate it. The thing he is referring to is dialect. Do you think that dialect should be translated even though there isn't a one-to-one translation for it? Is it worth the work to keep dialect while translating?

What are your thoughts on bowdlerization in English translation and are American readers just fairly prudish? Should erotic themes in Japanese texts be kept during translation or the traditional "Victorian idea that a novel should never bring a blush to a maiden's cheek" stay upheld? 

Brian

Copeland and roundtable comments

 Copeland

When translating I don't hear a specific person's voice, but I do try to emulate the general style of the type of writing I am translating, based on my knowledge of the genre I've acquired through reading. Although if I were to start developing a consistent work relationship with a certain author as many translators do, I'd probably start hearing their voice as a writer. I definitely relate to Copeland's struggles early in her translation process, being frustrated with "untranslatable" words or phrases, and trying to find the perfect translation of an idea. It was interesting to read about the different styles of book covers of a few different novels, after discussing the importance of them in class last week. Also the point about the ownership and credit given to translators, even seemingly insignificant details like whether the translator's name is put on the cover or the title page are debated in the publishing sphere. I understand Copeland's hesitancy with deletion in translation, but I am of the opinion that if deleting certain parts improves coherency to the new audience, it is not such a terrible thing to do. I wouldn't go as far as to agree with the publisher's that apparently believe that a translated work must read like it was never translated at all, but comprehensibility is above all important.  

McCellan

It was very entertaining to read the back and forth between the translators in this transcription. As they discussed, choosing a work or author that matches your style or level seems to be not a necessary choice, but might be a good practice as a translator. In this interview in general, they speak a lot of the importance of good relationships between the author, translator, editor, and publisher, and I do believe many of them have developed very close bonds with their authors, whether living or passed. It was interesting to hear how they tackle the challenge of dialect, although they don't seem to have grasped a clear answer either, it's really a case by case issue. Overall, many interesting points and a good conclusion to this series as I understand it.  

-Joanne

Copeland, Roundtable Discussion

    For Copeland, I found the beginning where she talks about her experiences as a new translator interesting. Starting out, the feeling of wanting to translate faithfully and translate everything is something I felt when I first entered this class. And as Copeland learned, I too learned that the endeavor is practically impossible. So then comes the question of what to sacrifice; it’s difficult in certain scenarios to keep the original context and at the same time expect to have the audience understand it.

    A good point Copeland brings up is dialect; translation becomes even more complicated when dialects are brought into play. I’ve seen works where characters with rural Japanese accents have been translated to have country accents, but then one must wonder if it’s an appropriate adaptation given the original context. We’ve also discussed in class the idea of creating an original dialect for the occasion, but of course not every translator has the ability to do it effectively.

    As for the roundtable discussion, it was interesting to see the translators’ individual voices as they interacted with each other. Each brought their own experiences with language into the discussion, and even their experiences with other translators. One part that stood out to me was Seidensticker’s criticism about Waley’s translation and how Waley left out the Suzumushi chapter. Seidensticker noted that Waley disliked ceremonials, while he himself enjoyed the chapter.

    As Copeland mentioned as well, the roundtable discussion eventually touched upon the topic of dialect. A good point that was made was about how a lot of translated novels are about the middle-class, so the speech style would reflect similarly. For example, Seidensticker recalled his experiences with translation the Tokyo dialect vs. the Osaka dialect. He was told that people from Osaka tended to favor contractions more. The translators also had differing opinions of how to translate dialect, such as interpreting accents. It goes to show that each translator thinks differently, and one will approach a work differently than another.

Alex

Copeland Reading Questions by Nina

1.Copeland stated: ”In fact, the whole time I translated I was in dialogue with Edward Seidensticker, wondering what he would say, how he would react. ” Did you think of someone’s voice while translating? What(or who) do you think influenced you the most in your translating process?

2.According to Copeland, when translating, it is not just the word that you must consider but the power that resides around it. It is about the import of the text as a whole rather than words as individual motes of meaning. What do you think is the most significant to bring out the “power” in translation?

3.Do you think some extent of the deletion is necessary? If you are about to translate a “concept novel,” will you agree to cut off some passages to avoid the parts that may be difficult for Western readers to understand?

Late comments on Bosman and Kidd

    The readings and the video of this week were interesting. The choice between e-books and paper books has always been a hard decision for me to make. But I am the kind of person who would buy books on account of covers. If the cover looks great, I would like to purchase and collect them on my shelf. Before I read Bosman’s essay and heard Kidd’s talk, I hardly thought of the purport of the book cover design. Most of the time, I chose books by feelings and aesthetics, and for some weird designs, I usually thought of them as surrealism. Now I love to consider the effects that the book cover has on the content of the book, as well as the purport of the design. 

    In the Ted Talk, Kidd introduced the cover of Murakami Haruki’s 1Q84 and also addressed how great art can become a great trade, and I think that is fascinating. He also led through the way he came up with the design —— It is possible to tell a story through the cover of the book as well(though I think it is unnecessary in most cases). Kidd also mentioned the unique experiences of reading a paper book rather than an electronic one. I felt the same. Especially when I go to a bookstore, the smell reminds me of almost every book I’ve read, making me feel calm and sound. But in other cases, as I came to Boston only for schools, too many paper books are troubles for moving around. So as for me, to get the best reading experience, paper books are absolutely better choices, but it does not mean that e-books are not necessary to exist.

NIna

Bosman and Kidd

    The reading and video from this week were very unexpected and I was not sure what the connection was to our class on translations, but I now think that there are several points that are quite relevant. Firstly, a book cover maker needs to translate the general meaning or themes of a book into a different “language”, the language of art. It needs to not only inform but also intrigue the consumers who are buying it. Secondly, when books are translated from language to language, publishers tend to also choose to change the cover of the book to “translate” the art to fit the language the book is now in. This is very interesting as a metaphor for the actual translation of language. The overall changes made from language to language crossed a cultural barrier the same way the cover art will need to. Not sure if I am going too far with this but it was very interesting to think about. 

    About the Bosman article specifically, it is ridiculous to me that people would rather read with electronic devices rather than collect physical books. I have so many books in my room that I have no idea what I am going to do when I graduate. I love to collect books and when they design more cover art and make them fancy, I have such a strong urge to collect all the versions. But I can see the appeal where the more aesthetically pleasing covers will have on people who may buy them as presents. I would always prefer any physical books to e-book though. 

Celine

Bosman and Kidd commentary

I really liked the expression that Kidd made, which is that the cover designer will become an interpreter and a translate once they read the book. Because cover design is the very first thing we see when we look at the book and the very first impression of the book is made by the cover design. Cover designers have to be creative to attract attention but also have to make sure that the cover design reflects the content of the book. I believe that when I’m choosing which books to read, cover design is definitely one of the factors that are affecting my decision, so the way he expressed designers as interpreters and translators was very interesting. After watching Kidd’s TED talk and reading Bosman’s writing, I thought that paper books allow cover designs to be more effective on readers because there are not many things you can do to the cover designs in the e-book. For instance, Kidd mentioned the book Buddha has an image of Buddha getting old when you put all the books in the series on the shelf, but it is harder to see when it is an e-book. You can only see this when you have those books on the shelf. Personally, I prefer reading paper books rather than e-books because I feel like you can really dive into the world of the book when you read a paper book and I think this links to Kidd’s point where he mentioned the smell and feel. Also, Bosman mentioned creating fancy cover designs to attract readers and I think that it is a great way to bring people back to paper books.

Mitsy

Bosman and Kidd comments

     The gradual migration from physical to e-book is something I generally think that we should all make our peace with, but that doesn't mean we should start mourning the loss of physical copies. There will always be a place for physical copies, and even if there weren't, there is plenty of place still for a good cover art. Art for books mirrors advertising for me personally, in that it doesn't ever really disappear, it just changes mediums. Although a future generation and the ones that come after may have less and less contact with physical copies, I have faith that teachers of that future generation won't let their students use e-books primarily, even if it is only because nobody in their right mind would trust a child only open an e-book during class. A general moving towards e-books on the other hand can also be something to be celebrated, since it makes so many more texts available to people who wouldn't be able to read them in the first place. 

        The comments by other students about how the book cover designer mirrors the translator, I really have to agree. To some extent the translator also has to make the same binary choices as Kidd talks about in the ted talk. Show or tell, like he describes, or explain or leave vague, in the case of translation, for example. It is very interesting how well the idea of distilling the entire story down into a few pages resonates with me, but I can't really explain why. It feels sort of like you need to understand the whole story, before you can start translating the sentences to me, personally. 

Steven

 

Bosman and Kidd Post

    Both the article and the Ted talk discuss the topic of book cover designs. One of the most common phrases in English is "Don't judge a book by its cover", but it is funny to consider that most books are actually judged based on their cover. Unless someone has prior knowledge on a book, the cover of the book is the first thing that someone would experience of it. If the design of the cover is not compelling enough, then that book has low chances of hooking the reader. I would say for me personally that the synopsis or summary of a book is what hooks me the most, but the cover of the book would probably have to persuade me into flipping it over and reading the summary.

    Chip Kidd's ted talk was one of the most entertaining ted talks I have watched. He is such a great public speaker. Kidd and Bosman both stress the differences between physical books and e-books, but I have always felt that they are basically the same aside from the obvious fact that one is physical and the other is digital. A good cover design is still needed for a digital book, but I suppose that a design for a digital book can't be that intricate like Kidd demonstrated for physical book covers. Bosman mentioned that for physical books a consumer is essentially paying for a better cover design. I personally think that e-books are way better in regards to saving money, but I do understand the merits of owning a physical copy. There is something about reading from physical paper that is missing on a digital screen.

- June

Bosman and Kidd

 The readings this week were certainly different from the usual and was definitely interesting. It was an interesting insight into the thought that goes into book covers and the shift to e-books. The fact that these two readings are from around 2011/2012 was interesting to me as I feel as though the viewpoint of this matter hasn't really changed, and the points brought up in both readings are still just as valid today. I do agree with most of the points brought up, I don't think that physical books will every become obsolete, but just a more luxurious method or more traditional method of book owning. The experience of owning a book is always going to be different from an e-book, and as Kidd said, you can't experience any smell or feel through an iPad. E-books are definitely more convenient, portable and accessible and I think that perhaps different books benefit through each medium. For example, a textbook doesn't really need to be eye catching or hard printed, nor does it have to be kept very long so having that in e-book form would, in my opinion, be optimal. But something like an artbook would have no use as an e-book, where you buy the book to appreciate the art and perhaps look nice on a shelf, there's no point storing that on your device. So there are definitely still use cases for physical books and I don't think they'll be leaving anytime soon.

Jon

Bosman and Kidd

 Bosman and Kidd both provided many examples of unique book covers, and each gave me a huge sensory impact. I usually have a divided purpose when it comes to choosing an ebook or a physical one. For academic purposes, I tend to buy ebooks as it is more convenient in terms of searching specific content within the book. For novels, however, I would prefer physical books to get the physical texture of the pages. Though I am not a fan of collecting books, I do think a creative book cover would be better than a plain one. Though the book cover has no effect on the story, it is like an art piece that is worth spending money on.

I like how Kidd mentions that a books designer gives form to content and manages a careful balance between the two. I also like how he said that after a book designer reads through a book, he or she becomes an interpreter and a translator. You want to lure readers to pick up the book, but you don't want to give off the story too. In a way, it is like when we are translating Japanese text into English: we want to attract English readers to read while not changing the original meanings.

Iris

Book Design

 This subject is near and dear to me, because I have an interest in design and I actually like physical books more than I like e-books. The reason for that is that there is this aesthetic quality to physical books that e-books don't have. I also find it easier to concentrate with a physical book. In the article, I thought it was interesting the tactics being used to avoid a complete e-book takeover. From a marketing standpoint, the idea of making something visually pleasing is one of the cardinal views. Catching a viewer's eye is the first step in creating a connection to something. I was surprised hearing the amount of detail that goes into cover design specifically. It sounds like such a daunting task to trap an entire book's essence in a very small space. There is so much that could be missed.

I was also very excited when the article mentioned Madeline Miller's Song of Achilles. I became a huge fan of her after reading "Circe" and I bought the physical book. The cover is of Circe's face and inside the book is a map of the island she inhabits. To me, this made the book feel special because I could now visualize the place where the majority of the book takes place. I would come back to the map after reading Circe's intimate descriptions of her island prison. That added something to the reading experience, so I can understand the importance of book design because I will be buying a hard copy of "The Song of Achilles." 

Ariel

Bosman and Kidd

 Both the reading and the Ted talk were both interesting. It's different from what we have done up until now so I was a nice breath of fresh air. They both talked about book cover designs and how they impact what the readers think of the book. But the form of book covers is slowly losing its meaning as physical books are being outshined by ebooks. They now use different techniques and other means to make people just pick up the book. Which goes against the saying, "Never judge a book by its cover" that I always heard when I was a kid. This is ironic in the way that books now have to make an interesting cover to even tempt someone into picking it up.

Brian

Design of books

I liked Kidd mentions "try experiencing that on a kindle." I use a lot of e-books, but also am sad about the physical book being decreased. I won't say it is impossible or meaningless to make a fantastic e-book cover, but it definitely feels different, and it shall be studied in a different way. Sometimes I wonder why the book covers change when a book is published in a foreign country. I saw many book covers from awful ones to the fantastic ones, but now I realized I didn't really try to appreciate them.

At the same time, I'm not really sure if the book covers can be appreciated by everyone, because I was one of the people who did not focus on them. Fancy, clean, and attractive book cover could interest people and make them pick it up, but as it goes suggestive and requires interpretation, it might went too far.

Looking at the book cover, I feel they are created not only from the content of the book but also based on the time period, cultural background and social trend. Every author wants a cover that fits with their book, and it is undeniably important part that decides the first impression of it, but it is also hard to have a perfect one that considers every each aspect.

Hyngsoo

Bossman and Kidd

I enjoyed watching the ted talk on book cover design, as I had never considered the level of detail which goes into creating a single image to represent an entire book. When coupled with the article on the current societal transition from paper books to e-books, cover design takes on an entirely new level of importance. Based on the New York Times article, I agree that books will never become completely obsolete. E-books are becoming more mainstream due to the convenience and ease of access. However, with the level of artistic flair and creativity that goes into printing a book which will catch the eye of consumers, purchasing paperbacks may become like collecting art pieces. In my opinion, keeping up with modernizing cover design is the key to keeping paperbacks relevant in the decades to come. Readers in the future will likely purchase e-books with their main intention being to read them, while paperback purchases may end up being display pieces in people's homes. 

Alexa

Comments on Bosman and Kidd

 Based on the reading, it makes sense that books with extra details in their design are becoming more popular in the publishing space. Practically, an ebook is cheaper and a more efficient way to read, so now physical books are becoming almost like a collector's item that people want to admire. It's almost like we've come full circle with book design, it started with extremely detailed, expensive, handmade books. Then transitioned to cheap, minimalist paperbacks in mass production, and now it seems that fancier copies are becoming popular again. Of course book design also serves for how the book is perceived, advertised, and appeals to audiences. I myself am highly influenced in my choice in reading by the style of book cover. It's not even so much whether I like the specific cover or not, as this point, book covers have become so identifiable by genre, to help readers recognize what type of book they're getting into. For example, dark, computer generated fantasy novels covers versus minimal, colorful modern realistic fiction. I also consider what edition of a book I want to keep when growing my personal library. Some books like Harry Potter have had multiple republishings with different covers and sets, but there's definitely some that I want to own more than others. 

For the Ted talk on book design, the point that they made about a book designer's responsibility to the reader, author, and publisher stood out to me. They also mentioned that is was like a form of translation, using the contents of the book to create a design for the outside. In one part, the speaker also said a book cover is like the haiku of a story, using haiku as a metaphor. I wouldn't agree with this metaphor however, because while short, they are not abbreviations of something, but rather something wholly individual. 

-Joanne

Bosman and Kidd

Bosman:

As we are moving more into the digital world, publishers are putting more effort into designing an eye-catching book cover to keep attracting consumers to buy printed books. Bosman’s article touched upon having physical copies of the book be worth buying and keeping so that people won’t buy the e-book. I do think that as we move into e-book, people are more likely to start purchasing books from places like kindle because it is convenient and environmentally friendly. For me personally, I also think e-books are a lot more convenient than owning physical copies. However, when I really enjoyed reading a book, I would purchase a physical copy to keep it for memory. I think having an eye-catching book cover is a plus but not always necessary because I tend to read books that are more famous than having a well-designed book cover. 

Kidd’s TED Talk:

One particular part of the TED talk that I found really interesting was how Kidd said designing a book cover is like translation. They have to translate a piece of a lengthy piece of literature into a single page of a book cover, and I think that is extremely difficult. I came into this translation class thinking all I have to do is translate a piece of text from one language to the other. I didn’t think it would be as difficult as I expected. However, there are so many differences between the two languages that I can’t just translate literally. I think this is the same thing as translating the text into an illustration. There are so many images that people can come up with while reading, but having one defining image that represents the entire book definitely requires a full understanding of the text. 

 

Sophia

Comments on J. Bosman, C. Kidd

    We’ve all heard the famous phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”, but as the article and video demonstrate, many people do. The cover is the first thing a potential buyer sees when they browse through the shelves, and the first impression the book makes on them. Thus, in order to convince people to open a book and see what it’s all about, the cover has to be appealing.

    In the past, book covers were relatively simple. But now, publishers are taking more liberties with designing book covers, from unique covers to different paper. Personally, this is one of the reasons I prefer buying physical books over e-books. With e-books, all the books you want to read are in your hands. However, there’s something so satisfying about collecting different kinds of books, displaying them on your shelf, and see the pretty covers each time you pull one out to read.

    With the push for more unique books, designers can take a lot of creative liberties with their covers. It’s more difficult than it looks, too; there are various elements to consider when designing a cover, and the person must have an artistic skillset and a creative mind. The cover must also reflect the contents of the book itself, which requires the designer to have read and understood the themes present. Like in the TED Talk, the cover of the book My Name is Red is clever and tells a story in itself. Thus, the cover of the book is arguably just as important as the work itself. After all, if no one’s willing to open the book, then it’ll never be read.

 Alex

Hibbett and Nathan Reading

 In Hibbett writing of Tanizaki Jun’ichiro, I was surprised that Tanizaki was described as “Enfant terrible,” but Hibbett also said that Tanizaki was a productive writer, very famous and wildly accepted during the age, and was at the same age as his professor(who sounds quite like Murakami Haruki for us). Though I think his comments on Tanizaki’s personality are kind of subjective, from another perspective, I felt that Hibbett as the translator of Tanizaki’s work, and he actually knew Tanizaki(or Tanizaki as a writer) very well.

The question about Katakana and Hiragana is inspiring and worth spending time thinking about. For me, I couldn’t come up with a perfect solution right now. But what I was thinking was that besides separating them by translating to different tones between women and men, which seems to be necessary, sometimes changing the typefaces may be helpful for a distinction between women and men(but that’s something the editors and the publishing house should consider).

Also, I agreed with his idea of avoiding footnotes in a nonscholarly work that is intended for pleasurable reading. I’m the kind of reader who likes footnotes because I can learn more about the cultural background/history from the footnotes. But I must admit that sometimes footnotes are distracting. I kept thinking about the significance of footnotes recently and realized that there are situations the footnotes should be avoided, which is what Hibbett mentioned.

In Nathan’s reading, I like how he stated on “It asserts that language is intrinsically in flux and stable and incomplete: it is in motion…If the “original” is not fixed, but actually destabilizable, then it’s possible to see an interaction occurring.” There seems to be a momentum between the translation and the original texts, and I think for the translators, the original texts must not be “fixed”. 

Nina

Hibbett and Nathan Reading

     The Hibbett reading introduced me to Tanizaki. I had never heard of him until now, and I am kind of interested in reading a translated version of one of his works. In the reading, Hibbett mentions several aspects of translations that he considers as resistances and pleasures. He does not directly list this as a resistance of his, but the problem he had with trying to convey masculine katakana and feminine hiragana in English was an interesting one to me. I suppose that one could just convey the difference using italics or maybe a different font, but the interesting method of figuring this problem out through usage of masculine and feminine tone is more appealing. He stated to find pleasure in beginning and finishing a translation, and I also agree with this statement. Being able to look back on my finished translation is a very nice feeling.

    John Nathan mentions a "strategy of invisibility" in the reading from him. In the same sentence, he also refers to it as a "strategy of fluency." Majority of the readers of a translated piece are expecting it to be able to be read with ease in their language. There may be some in the audience that want the translation to "sound foreign", but I assume that the vast majority simply desire readability and fluency over the foreignness. This sort of domestication of the original text into an English book is interesting to think about since a translator tries to preserve the contents of the original text as best as they can. This effort could be seen as wasted if the translation simply does not read well, resulting in a dissatisfied audience of readers.

June

Hibbet and Nathan

 Hibbett mentioned how he went through many works of female writers to find the right tone and voice. Similarly, I also found myself searching for many newspaper articles to grasp the style and tone of English news. I also went through many interpretations of the haiku and tanka we did previously in order to fully understand the author's intention. It brings to understanding the importance of knowledge when it comes to translating. It was also interesting how the two faults Hibbet stated were somewhat contradicting — the first being to improve on the work and the other being to fail to improve on it. I think this means it is important to make changes while being faithful to the original texts, thus achieving a balance and preserve the "special flavor" of the original.

On the other hand, Nathan mentioned a thinking that language is in motion; translation is like the afterlife of the original, showing an interaction between them. It is interesting how language can be described as "unstable and mutable". The idea of "modes of intention" was also fascinating; I liked how translators are able to find ways to convey meaning from one language to another.

Iris

Nathan and Hibbett Comments

 Nathan:

The most thought provoking aspect of Nathan's talk, to me, was when he asserted that a translation is "secondary and serves the original". He speaks extensively of the process of "domestication" of foreign texts, and how a good translation must find a balance between conveying the intended meaning by the original author and restructuring sentences to sound fluid to the native ear of the target language. Nathan argues that a translation can never be as "good" as an original, and that it should supplement the original text. Breathing new life into a foreign text requires the translator to take the liberty to change the text to a certain degree in order to suit their new audience. 

Hibbett:

In Hibbett's speech, I took note of the difficulties he had with translating the word manji and with handling dialects. Because the manji symbol elicits very different images than its original meaning when viewed by foreigners, finding a suitable translation proved very difficult. I found it particularly interesting that the French translation of the word was svastika. I feel that the images associated with the word svastika detracts from the original purpose of the title, and that Hibbett's discussion of different ways to express the concept carries a lot of merit. 

As far as conveying the nuances associated with varying dialects while translating goes, Hibbett stated that rather than attempting to translate the dialect word-by-word, he attempted to create a unique and particular tone in the dialogue he was translating. I thought about this, and came to the conclusion that, while dialect can prove nearly impossible to properly translate, creating a distinct manner of speaking applying only to dialogue in the writing containing dialect in effect reproduces the original intent of the author. Sometimes, reproducing an author's original intent in a creative way is more valuable than attempting a word-for-word translation. 

 

Alexa

Hibbett and Nathan

Nathan mentioned how misreading just one syllable or one letter in Japanese could make a huge difference in meanings and it was very interesting because I’ve never thought about this issue. It does not happen that often in English, however, when I thought about Japanese, many words that sound or look similar and there are even words that look the same but have different meanings depending on the context. Especially if the reader is not Japanese, there might be some confusion or misunderstandings due to similar words such as “Kowani” and “Kouni” as he mentioned. I also thought that it is very interesting that the Japanese have kana and katakana, which are different characters but conveys the exact same meanings but creates different tones, and that they don’t have any equivalence in English. I agreed when Hibbets mentioned distinguishing kana and katakana using Italics since that is the only way to create similar nuances in English. Furthermore, I agree with Hibbets that titles are always difficult to translate because titles in Japanese tend to have no subjects so when literally translating into English, the title will be naturally longer and less concise. He gave an example of “Manji” and I was surprised that how much research and effort the translator has to put in just to understand and find the best way of translating the title. The title is very important in any book because that provides the first impression of the story to the readers so it makes sense but this made me realize again how tough it is to be a translator. 

Mitsy

Hibbett and Nathan

Near the end of the reading, Hibbett talks about the theory of translation and he agrees with Seidensticker that it is not helpful. There are two major kind of faults, or virtues as Hibbett says. The first is "naturalizing" the translation, or improving on it. One of the dangers of naturalizing the translation is that it will dilute its special flavor, to reduce the work to the natural idiom of the target language. In the process of flattening out the translation, it ends up bland and colorless style of what it was. Which Hibbett says happened to some of Natsume Soseki's translated works. The other virtue is failing to improve the work, or trying to not eliminate whatever in it might seem strange. I feel like the second virtue is something that I would fall into quite often if confronted by it.

Both of these readings were difficult to follow for me personally but something that struck out to me about the Nathan reading was regarding about the people who read Kenzaburo Oe. They say his language is translationese because he was read many foreign novels and he doesn't write in real Japanese, his Japanese has been poisoned, contaminated by modes of intention. Where Nathan defends it saying, "It's nonsense to say that it's traslationese. It's a language of his own which he has created, and it is at pains to be different to itself and strange to itself." This is something I just don't understand. And majority of the reading is based off this concept which lead to me not really understanding the majority of the reading. Nathan goes on talking about Mishima's Bitoku no Yokomeki and it's literal translation and says it is unstrained and moves along nicely which I don't understand because I do not get that impression when I read it. 

Brian

Hibbett and Nathan

Howard Hibbett

This reading was very interesting to me, especially as an English major. I loved learning more about Japanese writers and their parallels to other authors. This also seemed a bit easier to read than Nathan's speech which is even more literary. One thing new that I learned from his speech is about the more theoretical side of translations. The readings before had mostly talked about grammatical techniques and language-specific methods but Hibbett talked about how he had referred to other works of literature and translation while translating. This week and last week, I had also found myself looking up other magazine and newspaper articles to make sure that my translation fitted the style of language that I was translating into. This was also the case while I was translating the poems from before. From this, I also started to understand that a translator doesn't just need to be good at both languages, they also need a wide range of knowledge of world literature. 

John Nathan

Nathan skips the part about his personal history with translation and goes right into a lot of theory. I liked what he said about bringing in the author's “voice” into his work as a translator, but it is definitely very difficult. Even a bilingual person switching between languages will have a different “voice” for each language. Therefore, I realized how good it is that there is specialization amongst translators where they are translating many works of one author, thus grasping their style. I also realized the importance of editing and changing their work afterward as one’s skills and understanding mature. I think I will also need to reread both of these articles in the future after I read more of the literary works mentioned throughout. 

 Celine

Hibbett and Nathan

 Hibbett's ideas on resistances and some of the futility in translation was interesting to me, I agree with being stumped on the idea of katakana vs hiragana and trying to translate those two diary entries. I would have no clue how to translate that since it's kind of like having two alphabets, accents/ dialects is another interesting topic he brought up though, in my mind it seems easier than Hibbett envisions but our standards are different, it's interesting how he finds that to be one of his resistances since I'd imagine just translating some country dialect into another country dialect, but in doing so you might lose some sort of background or context to it so maybe it's not as easy. He also mentioned around this part of the two diaries, that he has looked at some Italian novels for inspiration and used that as a reference for his diary translation. Italian seems like it would use a completely different system of translation for Italian to English but the fact that he still uses it for reference is interesting and furthermore impressive that he even managed to find a reference. 

I think this second reading was more interesting, from the anecdote of the baby sea urchin all the way towards Oe's style of writing. The anecdote felt quite humanizing, I didn't think translators would make such errors and am impressed it managed to slip the eyes of both editor and author alike. Especially since the reading also says that Oe draws inspiration from various languages as well as in particular William Blake, it seems like that would be quite a rare mistake. Reading about the different writer's styles in this reading was also quite interesting, how Oe's language "has been judged to be an assault on the traditional mode of intention..." makes me want to try reading a bit to see the difference and compare it perhaps to the other author Mishima that from the little passage included seems to have quite a elegant use of language. It seems like it would be really hard to translate Oe's work without losing the flavor. There was also a part of the reading that dealt with "in between" translation which was quite interesting, I'm not sure how Japanese today would feel about it and whether it would be the same, but I think that if you were to read something half-translated in English, it just wouldn't feel nice to read, so personally I'd rather not read it, unless the original was meant to be like that.

Jon

Hibbet and Nathan

 Between the two readings, both offered very interesting views on translation, particularly on the translation of one or a few authors, Nathan of course touching more on the theoretical, referencing quite a few popular theories in the field of translation studies. The viewpoint he has on Kenzaburo Oe's writing as being a language of his own making, and relating it to a song is also a very interesting take in comparison to a landscape of literature that is all largely prescriptive in manner. His statement that the voice of the author drops in relation to the invisibility of the translator is also an incredibly interesting take on the matter, however I digress. Retranslation as mentioned in the prescribed reading questions is something I think most of us in the workshop are familiar with, as I'm sure there are many present who have some form of root in fansubbing or scanlation, and given the amount of content that particular community outputs, retranslation is something that I'm sure most of us have encountered. Having followed the community for a pretty substantial amount of time, perhaps one of the biggest issues in retranslating is minor adjustments made for domestication purposes, be they voluntary or involuntary, and these more often than not go unnoticed by the re-translator, who is typically only capable of understanding the language of the translation to begin with. 

Hibbit's reading on the other hand was very personally interesting, having spent two weeks going over Tanizaki's Kagi myself. While Hibbet does in fact lobby criticisms towards Tanizaki and others, I unfortunately can't say that I've read enough of him to have an educated opinion on the matter. Criticizing the author however I can't say is quite as rare, particularly from my biased point of view as a more commercial translator. I criticize an author or a creator at least twice a week. As a matter of fact I just got finished being upset about an author a few hours ago. I do however very much agree with the assessment that Tanizaki is a storyteller, at least from what little I have read from him in Kagi, and it does present many questions about how best to translate the text. Like many other texts, lines can be very long and stretch what is possible in English without being unreadable word soup, and the format of consisting of two separate diary entries, written in different types, adds even more difficult questions. On a much lighter note however, it is very interesting to hear that he likes to write a lot about feet, and in hindsight that makes a lot of sense. 

Steven

Hibett and Nathan

Hibett

I was really intrigued by the criticism of Tanizaki's work. In particular, what interested me was the comment that he lacked "thought." What this means is that there was a lack of political and or social concern, as well as a lack of outlook on life. This had me thinking about literature as a whole and the fictional genre. In writing, it is necessary to always allude to real-life occurrences or societal issues? I also narrowed in on the point made on the faults/virtues of translators. One of them was failing to eliminate what seems strange. I started to think about what this meant and what could be considered strange when translating. In instances like this where personal judgement is needed, the most minor mistake or failure to convey the original's voice can mess up the whole translation. It is all about finding a balance between the two languages and maintaining the voice. This makes translation a very delicate art.

Nathan

A point that confused me was when Nathan mentioned how in translation, to be faithful, one must get our of the way and let the original command entirely. I thought that maybe this was talking about loyalty in translation and keep the original feel and cultural content. I also felt that the invisibility of the translator comes into question when translating languages that are so genetically different (Japanese and English). While the translator is invisible, as in they are loyal enough that there is no improvement or loss of the message, there is no way to remove the translator's style. A lot of translation is re-writing and coming up with equivalents that are unique to the translator. In this sense, while translators are invisible, there is a huge piece of them in each work, no matter how loyal.

-Ariel

Nathan and Hilbert response

 Nathan and Hilbert shows how they interpreted all the different type of sentences while keeping their sense, which I felt interesting and also helpful. While translating many different texts during the course, I'm concerning how to keep the original sense of the sentence. From narratives to monologues of a character, there are many different context and atmosphere that a sentence can have. I liked them focusing on a specific author, because it excluded the differences that the author could make and made the differences that the sentence types make more clear. In the reading, I felt like they are confident because of their experiences with the author. They refers many different writings and quotes what the authors mentions, which showed that they are keep researching and studying about the author. 

When we've mentioned about the confident translator in the previous class, I thought it could be dangerous to be confident. I thought a translator should doubt continuously on their translations and becoming confident increase the chance of mistranslation. This week's reading was long and difficult, but it let me understand what becoming confident translator means. It might not be the purpose of this specific reading, but I'm glad did. I felt they are able to keep their translation great because of their experience, which also makes them confident. By being familiar with the writer's manner of writing, such as Oē's assault and Tanizaki's exotic humor, the translator will be able to produce good results in a constant quality.

 

Hyungsoo

Hibbett and Nathan

Hibbett:

Hibbett spent a lot of time talking about the authors of the work he translated in the past before talking about his translation on The Key. He talked about how the secret diaries were written in masculine and feminine style, and also in different styles of kana. I am curious to see how he ended up translating the piece. He also discussed the problems when It came to translating titles. The title doesn't seem like something that you can directly translate from Japanese because it has to match up with the rest of the story. Because the Japanese language has a lot of ambiguity, it is difficult to use the direct translation for a title because it wouldn't be parallel to the rest of the story. He mentions that he tries to avoid reading other translations of the work before he formed his own understanding well enough. Personally, while translating Yukiguni and the poetries, having a translated version right next to the original influenced my final translation because I would always refer to the translation when I'm not sure how to translate a sentence rather than thinking more about how I can translate on my own. 

Nathan:

Nathan, along with other readings we have read by translators, talked about translating faithfully and being an invisible translator. Every translator seems to struggle with translating faithfully. Will the voice of the original author stay if the translator makes themself invisible? I think it depends on what language the person is translating in. If the two languages are more homogenous, then translating faithfully should not be a problem. But if two languages are heterogeneous like Japanese and English, it is more difficult to translate faithfully while making the work enjoyable to read for an average English speaker. However, I think it all comes down to personal preference. It was also interesting how Nathan talked about the mistranslation in "Annani Toi no ni". 

Sophia

Hibbet Reading Questions from June

 When translating The Key, Howard Hibbett mentions that there was a major problem because of the dialogue of the husband being in katakana and the dialogue of the wife being in hiragana. If we were assigned the task of translating this or something similar, what approach would you take when translating the dialogue to English? Do you think that your writing tone is inherently masculine or feminine? Or do you think that your tone is a mix of both? 

Hibbett also mentions various resistances to translation and pleasures of translation. What are some "resistances" that you have come across yourself when translating? What are some pleasures that you have found from translating? Hibbett said that he finds pleasure in beginning and finishing a translation, do you also find these parts of the translation process to be enjoyable or are other parts more enjoyable for you?

Translating dialects from Japanese to English is a topic that Hibbett brings up. How would you tackle the task of translating dialects? Do you think that dialects in Japanese are able to translated well to English? Or do you think that the translated dialect would lose aspects of the original?

Hibbett and Nathan comments

 Hibbett 

offered a great detailed background of the writers they work with, and brings up some interesting points that must be considered when working with publishing companies and cultural differences between the country of origin and the one to which it is being translated. I was intrigued by the trio of ero, guro, nansensu, which I had not heard of but is an example of the difference in what is considered appropriate to publish in different countries. Hibbett apparently approached some racy scenes in The Key with direct translation, and left it up to the editors to censor anything, which there didn't end up being much to edit. Another example would be the Manji title which has far more sinister connotations as the swastika in Western countries. They also mention some of the Japanese gendered writing style points that are hard to relay in English. I like how they always looked to other translators or previous work to inform their decisions in translating, taking ideas from experts doesn't seem like a bad idea. I also agreed with the rule they considered, which is that translators should only translate into their native language. I think it would be extremely difficult to produce a natural sounding translation without a complete grasp of the language. 

Nathan

As I have read a few of these essays on translation, I'm definitely starting to pick up on the common issues that seem to trouble all translators. For example Nathan brings up the question of faithfulness to the text, and compares the stances of numerous historical translators, for which the opinions really can vary. This shows me that there isn't a right answer nor will there ever be, because it's simply up to personal preference. Another common part of all these essays are the abundance of metaphors translators use to try to explain their struggles, which I all find quite entertaining. Nathan's example of the shards making up a larger vessel was an especially unique take. It was equally interesting to hear about Oe's unique blended writing style, which I'm curious to read more of if I get the chance in the future. 

-Joanne

Comments on Nathan Reading

    The first thing that caught my eye at the beginning was the amusing anecdote of the baby sea urchin and alligator. However, it does shed light on how a simple mistake can easily make a bigger difference, and even change the whole meaning of the passage itself. In addition, the article touches upon familiar topics, notably with the “strategy of fluency.” Every translator approaches their work differently; however, they all have to find a balance between making the text understandable to their audience, but not completely remove the culture embedded within. Whatever choices the translator decides to make, the most important thing to not erase the voice of the original author.

    The criticism towards Ōe’s language being an “assault” on traditional Japanese is an interesting take. In school, we are taught to embrace and immerse ourselves in different cultures. Seeing an author’s work criticized for taking inspiration from other countries contradicts that. Also, the phrase “real Japanese” is used in the article. But what really constitutes “real Japanese”? Can it even be defined?

    Lastly, in the section about Blake, the mistranslation he made with “The Land of Dreams”, even though it was an unintended blunder, it actually aided the original author in seeing how readers view his work. If translations of a work all make the same mistakes in the same places, then the author would have to ask the question of why these mistakes were made. In doing so, it helps see their work in a new light in a way they may not have thought about either.

Alex

Comments on Hibbett Reading

    The first aspect that stands out to me when Hibbett begins is that he spends a good amount of time talking about the author whose work he translates. He goes into depth about Tanizaki’s history and experiences, but what interested me the most was the criticism directed at the author. According to the speech, critics described Tanizaki as a “storyteller” and Hibbett notes this as a disadvantage. He acknowledges this as unexpected, but it still surprised me that a usually praise-worthy trait for an author could be seen as negative. In addition, Hibbett talks about Tanizaki’s controversial history of “aestheticizing” Japan. This was one of the few times I’ve seen a translator criticize the person they’re translating.

    Something that I agreed with Hibbett on was avoiding footnoting in nonscholarly works. With these kinds of works, it’s easier to replace words or phrases with something the target audience would understand better. However, with scholarly article and other more professional works, it’s sometimes impossible, and even detrimental to the meaning of the original work, to substitute words in.

    

    Hibbett also talks about retranslating works. Personally, I don’t think it’s wise to, and believe it’s best to translate from the original whenever possible. Hibbett already cites errors that translators, including himself, have made during their work. These errors, when translated across more and more languages, can easily be accentuated and completely warp the original meaning of the text. It’s interesting to see it being acknowledged though; it goes to show that the decisions that translators make affect not only how their audience sees their translations, but the original works themselves.

 

Alex

Terry and Riggs

 The "live dog" reading felt like quite a wild article, the ideas he presented were quite interesting to think about, whether I agree with them or not. He begins his article with the analogy of "live dog better than dead lion", the implication that a readable translation is better than a exact one, meaning he thinks that prioritizing readability over accuracy is the way to go. I agree with this sentiment but the extent in which he thinks of translating though, takes it to the extreme. It's evident he thinks this way through his metaphor of women as well, being either beautiful or faithful. I don't think that translating japanese to english is as extreme as he makes it sound, the feeling that you get from reading this article is that translating is impossible and there are many things to be omitted, things that can't be translated, and things in japanese that don't exist in english. Like I said earlier, I think there is truth to it but it can never be used as an excuse for poor translation.

The Riggs reading was more interesting in my opinion, I like the thoughts about titling and that it should be enticing, drawing the reader in. It shouldn't be too different from the original title, but in it's own language have the same draw as the original. The following part about the structure of the text was particularly interesting too, I'd never really thought about the structure of a text but indeed, for essays and the like, it would be hard to translate the structure and indeed, it would take a lot of work to translate it as a proper, concise english text. I would have no idea how to restructure it considering essays in japanese may flow differently to that in english, and the order of ideas would vary greatly. It would definitely be interesting to try though.

Jon

Terry and Riggs

I like how Riggs said that when we reconstruct the text, we are not simply acting on the words of the text, but also "thinking along with the author, grasping his or her reasoning and thought." I feel it is when we can try to understand the author's intentions and think of a way to show the same idea in another language. Terry also mentions how he thinks "translation that is faithful to the spirit of the book is one that has the same degree of action and movement." It is interesting to think of the reader's pace when he or she reads translations; it is another factor to take into consideration when it comes to adding and reconstructing information.

I think the importance of translation is to keep the essence of the author while switching to another language. In terms of metaphors, Riggs mentions how a metaphor can be successful in one language but fall flat in another, so I believe it is necessary to make changes as long as we preserve the core of the author. On the other hand, it seems that titles vary a lot, most likely due to their purpose of grasping attention. Riggs also states that the title should reflect the whole text instead of solely the original title words. This reminds me how I could have been creative with this week's magazine article title; it is unfortunate I submitted it before reading the readings. One thing I think will be fun is to translate as a team, where one does the rough draft and the other does polishing, as mentioned by Riggs. 

Iris

Terry and Riggs

I believe it is hard to decide whether to be faithful to the original texts in many cases. Riggs’s idea of translating Japanese titles to English inspires me. He mentions: “the best choice of a title depends on the kind of publication and the tone of the piece, and can either be created by the translator or editor or forged from a line or phrase found in the first translation draft(p73).” To address the discussion question about changing metaphors as well, I think it depends on what kind of book/essay I translate. For example, if the book I translate is very academic, the targeted readers may be very familiar or experts in the field. In that case, I don’t think it is necessary to change metaphors in most cases as I suppose the readers can understand the cultural differences and get what the author wants to say in the original texts. In other situations, such as Murakami Haruki’s novels, which are written for all the readers ignoring their native languages and cultural backgrounds, it is significant to change or even add metaphors for the audiences. I would like to be as faithful as possible, but I must admit that in some situations, being faithful to the original work is not the most important thing to consider. 

Terry’s article mentions some ideas that first to my ear. I never knew “needless to say” and “it is well known that” are signs of bad writing in English before (though I didn’t use them much either). I also like Terry’s suggestion that “it is necessary for the translator to avoid insulting the reader by implying that something not known to the reader is known to everybody else (p24).” This point is something that I would possibly ignore when I do translation, and actually, it is essential to pay attention to avoid it. 

 

Nina

Terry & Riggs

Terry

This article seemed very outdated. I checked the date, and it was published in 2009 but the ideas presented seemed very old-fashioned. For example, right from the beginning with the comparison between translations and women. Another out-of-date opinion Terry expressed was how he thought there are only 4-5 people who are truly Japanese and English bilingual. These seemed like very insulting, limited, and ignorant opinions. So, when reading the rest of this article, I’m not sure if I was just affected by this but I did not really agree with a lot of what he had to say about translations. I did like the analogy of a live dog being better than a dead lion and how that can apply to translations. However, there seemed to be a lot of generalizations and assumptions made about both English speakers and Japanese speakers. He uses a lot of phrases such as “almost every instance”, “nearly always”, and “never” which shows his narrow view on a lot of things. I think you should never assume any type of absolutism with the way that language works. His tone throughout is also kind of pretentious but I may just be biased at this point. I did like the examples that he provided for his pointers which seem helpful, but they can’t be used for every single instance. This is the same for the dead lion live dog analogy which is not applicable to every translator and type of translation. 

Riggs

This article, while also published in 2009, was a much easier read for me compared to the other one. It is also set out in a similar way, giving instructions and tips on translation.  Although it doesn’t have the same problem of outdated ideas, this article is much more vague. It doesn’t give any examples with its instructions to the point where if you replaced the word “Japanese” it could be about the translation of any other language. It was interesting to read, however, as it seems to deal with more of the method towards translation rather than the act of translating.  

 

Celine

Terry Response

     "In English, it would be insane even to try to put all this detail into one sentence, or even one paragraph. In Japanese, presumably the small points make the description seem more vivid, but in English t"ey are distinctly in the way" (Terry 29)

    What I felt while translating with this week's magazine is the same with this quotation. Of course, the text that Terry referred is far away from the magazine article, but the thing is that Japanese sentences are usually more dense than the English ones.

    For example, a sentence can be written without subject in Japanese. It's ok even if reader cannot know if something is singular or plural. In Japanese sentences, things those should be included in English sentences, are usually omitted, because the reader need to figure out based on the context. Taking off all the unnecessary parts, the rest words are full of meanings, and the sentence becomes denser naturally.

    I'm not saying which language is better. Such Japanese sentences can be more efficient in terms of conveying the point, and English sentences can be more kind and helpful in terms of conveying the context within the sentence. If the sentence and text is long enough to provide some context, it is a bit easier, but in unformal texts, it is super hard to fill up the necessities.  felt it desperately with this week's magazine translation. In fact, I've been feeling it desperately for over 3 years. I'd say Korean is way more closer to Japanese, which makes me so bad in English. This is my senior year but I still am having difficulties, which shows that it is not so easy to fill up the gap of difference between languages. 

 

Hyungsoo

Terry and Riggs

In Terry's reading, he discusses a lot about how difficult it is to stay faithful to the original while translating. There were many points that Terry went over that explains the difficulty in translating faithfully: stating the obvious, repetition, rhetorical questions, etc. He talks extensively about how translating these topics into English would basically turn an English reader off from reading. To which I actually agree. Something that I noticed when I'm translating is that I like staying faithful to the original. Naively so. But when I see these arguments against it, I just can't seem to disagree with them. I know it is true. I know that these things would make the translations awkward and just down right terrible to read. But I still like to translate literally. It just feels like I'm doing a disservice to author when I remove something from the original to translate. Maybe it is something I should fix going onwards.

In Rigg's reading, she talks about the techniques she uses to translate different parts of a text: the title, lead paragraph, etc. I feel like most of the points she talks about we haven't really had a chance to do yet. We haven't had to make a title or make a lead paragraph of a translation yet, or at least in the traditional sense. But the points she makes could be relevant to our next translation text, the newspaper article? Something else she talks about is the methodology of translating a piece. Translating as you read along or translate after you have finished and understood everything. I don't think you should translate as you read along because I feel like you just don't understand the original text yet. The only advantage I see in translating as you read is that you digest the text as a reader and it allows for a more reader-like translation? I believe that you should have finished the text first and understand it before translating it. If you don't, why are you translating the text? If I was a translator and wanted to translate something, it would be something I really wanted to translate because the text really interested me or I want other people to also read it. I wouldn't be translating something I am reading for the first time. 

 

Brian

Terry and Riggs Discussion Post

    Near the beginning of the Terry reading, he mentions that "it is an unfortunate fact that many common devices of Japanese writers do not accord with the accepted standards of good English writing." I could definitely agree with this sentiment. From the readings and translation assignments, the differences between Japanese and English writing conventions have been made glaringly obvious. One example of something that is fine to do in Japanese and the opposite in English that I have noticed myself is the use of repetition. I have found it to be common in Japanese to do this with names, and when translating, I have repeatedly chosen to omit the use of the name past the first time that it is mentioned. Like Terry mentions, translating these phrases results in not so proper English, therefore requiring a decision to include or remove the repetition. 

    In the Riggs reading, I found the section discussing the approach of a professional translator to be insightful. He lists two ways of producing a translation draft. One being a quick and rough draft where it is being done while simultaneously reading the piece for the first time, and the other being a thorough draft involving a careful read of the piece from beginning to end and some contextual research before starting to translate. I think that the second method is most likely the better approach as it is careful, but the first one may be the better method of creating a draft as it is essentially the pure process of drafting. The first approach is also more optimal in terms of time since it is being worked on as you are reading. Later on in the Riggs reading, he also mentions the traits of a good English title. So far for assignments, I have been directly translating titles, but Riggs mentions that titles do not have to be "a straight translation of the Japanese title." I agree with the statement that a good title invites readers to read the rest of the piece. It is interesting to then consider how much of a different title should be allowed, assuming that it is still relevant to the piece of course.

 

June

    

Terry and Riggs

Riggs in his commentary outlines two approaches to translation, one in which the translator translates the text word by word as they go along, and one where they read to the end and then start translating, after they have done the research on the text. To me, the question of which approach I use has long been solved, and I doubt there would be anything that would ever change my mind that it is in the translators best interest to read and digest the text beforehand. It is my observation that translators tend to be strongly attached to their first drafts, and translating text where proper background knowledge and research is needed to fully understand the intricacies of the text, it is a disservice to the translator to create a draft that they might unknowingly become attached to, while it may obviously lack the details necessary to be the basis for a good translation.

More interestingly though Riggs discussion on titles and how they inevitably go through change is one I think many people would be prone to disagree with. In many of the texts we go through in class however, there is significantly less leeway for innovation, but retooling a title is something that in many other forms of media is incredibly necessary. The magazine article this week, for example, is better served with a more liberal translation for a title. Along with a litany of modern content, from Youtube video titles to product names, a literal translation is oftentimes not only difficult to parse in English, but detrimental to the purpose for what the media is attempting to do. 

In the same vein, Terry offers many insightful views on exactly how he thinks a text should be translated. His thoughts on the matters, to some, will likely be a point of contention, but they are I believe, not without value. On the contrary, I can only agree with the majority of them, and many of the points he makes are very eye-opening. Particularly the many phrases he considers to translate to nothing, and that it would be better to leave them out entirely. In terms of delivering the author's will to the audience, whether this act goes against such a concept is likely at the individual's discretion, but personally I find it exceedingly hard to disagree. 

 

Steven

Charles and Riggs readings

In Terry's reading, he touches on some common problems that come up when translating Japanese and how to go about solving them. One quote that stuck out to me was the one about how a live dog si better than a dead lion. To me, I felt that this quote meant it's better to have something that makes sense rather than a more loyal, larger mess. Some comments I found particularly helpful were omitting certain phrases and in doing so, understanding the sentence is easier.

Another point that he mentioned about Japanese writing is how often writers avoid being definite, and the topic and details surrounding a topic are often omitted. What I gathered is that often getting the gist of what is being talked about is enough, rather than understanding everything as you read. On top of that, often things are addressed later or at the end of works, so there is some waiting involved. This is contrasts English writing that favors conciseness. In translating, part of the struggle is making the English translation palatable to a Western reader. This means that removing some of the rhetorical and repetitive aspects of Japanese writing is necessary. He sates that remaining completely loyal to the original would mean losing readers.

I also liked the argument in Rigg's reading about transmigration versus translation. When translating Japanese, a huge battle is breaking up the original into its base parts and rebuilding into something new. I often feel that in translation, I understand what is being said, but the exact translation wouldn't work, so I am always looking for English equivalents. Riggs states that most of the work comes after translation, where writing, editing and changes are the new priority. 

-Ariel

Terry and Rigg Commentary

Terry:

Terry discusses how difficult it is to translate faithfully because the way Japanese writers write is very different from the accepted standards of good English writing. For example, Japanese writings tend to be really repetitive, include many rhetorical questions, and state the obvious. Because Englishiwriting emphasizes concision, it is up to the translator to decide whether they should keep the Japanese-style writing or completely omit what would be considered 'bad English'. When I translate, I like to keep the passages more concise, even if that means I'm not translating faithfully. I do that when I feel like the extra writing will not add much value to the translation and the understanding of the passage. 

Besides the content of this Terry's essay, I also want to point out the way Terry started the essay with the discussion of women. I do not think labeling women as either "faithful" or "beautiful" is in any way appropriate and relevant to what he is trying to express in the rest of the essay. 

Riggs:
Riggs talked about the two ways translators approach translating: 1) translating sentence by sentence as you go without knowing the ending of the book 2) translating after reading and fully understanding the entire book. I feel like it is better to translate after understanding the text fully especially when translating from Japanese to English. It is already difficult to translate accurately because Japanese and English are very heterogeneous. So important parts of the story may get lost during translation when you don't know the story before you start translating. For homogenous languages, however, I don't think it'll matter as much which method the translator uses. 

Sophia

Charles and Riggs commentary

Until I read these writings, I never realized that how unique Japanese-style writing is and how difficult it is to translate to English. For instance, Charles mentions “the argument begins with an assertion, continues with a rhetorical question, proceeds with the reasons for the assertion, and concludes with a repetition of the assertion” and I never thought that this is unique and so different from English until I read this. Since I am used to the Japanese way of writing and I like it, I think that it is unfortunate how the Japanese ways of expressing things get lost during the translation process. However, at the same time, as Riggs mentioned, translation does not have to be a literal translation of Japanese as long as it delivers the correct meanings. Since I started taking this class, I noticed that I tend to translate literally rather than translate the meaning and adjusting to English. In other words, I believe that I am more of a faithful writer than a beautiful writer, using phrases from Charles’s readings. Therefore, I learned a lot from Riggs’s writing where he provides advice on translation. Especially the restructuring of the text part was very useful because I tend to follow the structure of Japanese sentences, which sounds awkward in English sentences. Moreover, I agreed with the metaphors part because I also felt that metaphors in Japanese texts are often very hard to understand for foreign people since they are cultural-specific, so we often need to clarify what the metaphor means. 

 

Mitsy 

Terry/Riggs Comments

 Terry:

What a terrible way to start the essay with that offhand remark about women, which I think is both untrue about women and translation. Being faithful in translation doesn't have to be literal or exact. Terry seems to have quite a pessimistic mindset, based on the negative perspective with which he looks at the differences in language between Japanese and English. He brings up repetition and rhetorical questions in Japanese as inherent problems that must be dealt with. Also I think one should be wary of making as many generalizations as he does when thinking about Japanese versus American writers or readers. His point about the difference in Japanese between written and spoken language is an important one however, and something that I do not think I could translate into Japanese. I was probably most shocked when Terry said he believes there are no more than four or five people who are bilingual in Japanese and English, even at the time he wrote this, it couldn't have possibly been true. 

 Riggs:

The point Riggs brings up about differences in audience when it comes to translation is an interesting one. Should a translator try to match the comprehensibility to a similar audience or translate so that as many people as possible can understand in the second language? When she talks about her beginning approaches, the second more thorough one seems very similar to how we review the materials in class, which I also agree helps a lot in my process. I feel like transmigration is a good term and refers to the translation of not only language but also culture and style that one has to do. It is like the piece has to immigrate to a new country and assimilate to the customs there. I feel like her points about restructuring the text will be especially important when approaching works such as the magazine article. 

-Joanne

L. Riggs Reading

    Riggs has a unique way of viewing translation, if the first sentence of the article is anything to go off of. She describes the translation as if it was alive, such as talking about translation having a “soul” and being reincarnated, and then later about reworking the “body” with its meat and bones. It’s certainly an interesting visual.

    Something that Riggs talks about that I don’t think gets acknowledged as much as it should is how exhausting translation can be. On the outside, it may seem simple: just match a word with the other language’s equivalent. But a lot of cultural divides, language barriers, the need to do research in advance, and the choices to make about wording and preservation of the original text makes translating a much more complicated matter than it initially looks. A translator has to know the contents of what they’re translating; they have to immerse themselves in it, and sometimes, as Riggs says, put themselves in the author’s shoes and follow the author’s thought process.

    The ending of the article gives some food for thought. No translator can translate 100% faithfully, so the only way to truly understand the original work is to learn the language and culture itself. Not everyone has the time or luxury to do such, so the best we can rely on is translations.

 

Alex

C. Terry Reading

    In expressing his thoughts on translation, Terry doesn’t mince his words. One note that stood out to me is that the usage of common phrases is, as he puts it, “a sign of bad writing in English.” Yet, they are used liberally in Japanese works. So translators have to make the choice of whether to keep the phrasing in or omit it. On the topic of omitting words and phrases, in some scenarios, it may actually be the best choice. The example given in the text is before a meal, Japanese people will say “itadakimasu.” However, in English there is no such courtesy. It’s interesting to see that an important aspect in Japanese culture is nonexistent in somewhere like America.

    In addition, Japanese written language is much different than conversational language, while in English, they are similar. This makes translating dialogue and transcripts different than written works. Furthermore, every work has a certain rhythm, which Terry acknowledges in the notes. If a work in Japanese is a fast-paced novel, then the English translation should be the same. People’s views on translation will also differ depending on what they’re translating from. For example, Russian translator Nabokov believes translating word-by-word is the best approach; but words in Russian are very similar to words in English, and there aren’t as many linguistic barriers. It’s not as simple with a language like Japanese, so the translating process will differ.

    The most important point I think Terry brings up is “if no one is going to read what is translated, there is very little reason for translating it.” The translation should be readable, and manageable for its target audience. Otherwise, they may stop reading due to the translation being too difficult or incomprehensible. Then what is the point in even translating it in the first place? Sometimes it means taking out details or adding more for clarification, but what’s important is to preserve the original’s meaning.

Alex

L. Riggs Discussion Questions

    In the article Riggs outlines two ways to approach drafting a translation: translating word-by-word without looking up anything or reading through the work to the end and doing research before standing the translation. Which approach do you agree with more? Which do you think is more effective? And which approach do you think you take when you translate?

    Out of the elements of the translation process talked about in the article (title, lead paragraph, metaphors, etc.), what do you struggle with the most? What do you spend the most time on?
    

    One of the aspects Riggs touches upon is metaphors and the difficulties of translating them over. Do you agree with changing metaphors so they become easier to understand for the target audience, or adding metaphors to make the text clearer? Or do you believe a translator should stay as faithful to the original work as possible?

 

Alex

Questions for discussions

1. Would you rather translate beautifully or faithfully?

2. Do you think that translations should be completely literal?

3. Do you think translation can be perfect?

 

Mitsy

Juliet Winters Carpenter Commentary

After I started this class, I soon realized that the unique ways of expression that Japanese is very hard to translate. They all have very similar meanings but have slight differences. Japanese people know they’re different because they have been knowing Japanese since they were born, however, it is difficult to distinguish for English speakers. I was able to relate to Juliet Winters Carpenter when she was talking about the differences between similar words such as “wakuwaku” and “dokidoki.” Also, while I was reading her piece, I realized that there are so many words related to the spirit in Japanese that are like onomatopoeia because I associate those words with sounds. Furthermore, she mentions the humor and playing around with words and names of characters and how she ended up using that humor to a different character, and I thought that is very interesting. When I read this part, I remembered how when movies, anime, or TV shows in Japan are brought overseas, sometimes the names of the characters are completely different, which I thought is very weird at first. For example, Tanaka-san turns into Mike in the English version of the movie. Another interesting part I found was when she mentioned “pa pa pa” because I use this phrase pretty often. I thought about what exactly this phrase means and realized that even though I use it often when I am asked to give a clear definition, I cannot. Because it is more of a nuanced and feeling problem. After I read Juliet Winters Carpenter’s writings, I realized that Japanese has many words that can be distinguished by nuances rather than definitions.

 

Mitsy