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