I think there are different situations when a translation must be "faithful" or "beautiful." For a translation to be "beautiful," as Charles Terry describes it, it must be transformed to be as easy for an English reader to digest as possible.
This process often requires omitting the characteristics that make the text distinctly Japanese. Sometimes, it requires removing unnecessary repetition or metaphors that aren't comprehensible in English. I found myself succumbing to a "beautiful" translation as I was working through the magazine article.
"Beautiful" translations seem to be necessary in modes where you are informing the English-speaking audience, and you must be as clear with your language as possible. The magazine article had many extremely long sentences with many modifiers. I follow a similar process to Lynne Riggs, translating everything verbatim on the first draft, and my translated piece was totally unnatural. It seemed to be just one run-on sentence followed by another run-on sentence. The product became much more legible after splitting up certain sentences into separate ideas.
In this case, I agree with Riggs that the translating process is taking something wide, expansive, and free-flowing and forcing it into a form-fitting box of English conventions. This belief toward translating inspired my title for this discussion post. Every time I am translating, there seems to be a battle between accuracy and clarity, and the victor is determined by a balancing act between the two.
I think a translation is best "faithful" in literary pieces. I think what is most important in creative work is an original voice. Even if a metaphor or comparison is less common in English, I believe it should be kept. You lose a lot by trying to make a translated work more palatable to a certain audience, especially because many people look toward foreign literature for a new perspective or style of writing.
Kenna Ward
No comments:
Post a Comment