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