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