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
No comments:
Post a Comment