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