Wang Xiaobo Translation attempt by me

[maizewen]

Hi, I hope this is an okay spot to post this. I've recently worked pretty hard at translating this essay by Wang Xiaobo, it's my first attempt really at translating anything, and I'd really appreciate any pointers or advice on style, form, grammar, anything. I'm a total amateur, but really looking to improve. Been studying Chinese for merely a year now.

 

Thanks so much for any help.

 

-Cam

 

《用一生来学习艺术》王小波

 

  我念过文科，也念过理科。在课堂上听老师提到艺术这个词，还是理科的老师次数更多：化学老师说，做实验有实验艺术；计算机老师说，编程序有编程艺术。老师们说，怎么做对是科学，怎么做好则是艺术；前者有判断真伪的法则，后者则没有；艺术的真谛就是要叫人感到好，甚至是完美无缺；传授科学知识就是告诉你这些法则，而艺术的修养是无法传授的，只能够潜移默化。这些都是理科老师教给我的，我觉得比文科老师讲得好。

 

    没有科学知识的人比有科学知识的人更容易犯错误；但没有艺术修养的人就没有这个缺点，他还有容易满足的好处。假如一个社会里，人们一点文学修养都没有，那么任何作品都会使他们满意。举个例子说，美国人是不怎么读文学书的，一部《廊桥遗梦》就可以使他们如痴如狂。相反，假如在某个国家里，欣赏文学作品是他们的生活方式，那就只有最好的作品才能使他们得到满足。我想，法国最有资格算作这类国家。一部《情人》曾使法国为之轰动。大家都知道，这本书的作者是刚去世不久的杜拉斯。这本书有四个中文译本，其中最好的当属王道乾先生的译本。我总觉得读过了《情人》，就算知道了现代小说艺术；读过道乾先生的译笔，就算知道什么是现代中国的文学语言了。

 

    有位作家朋友对我说，她很喜欢《情人》那种自由的叙事风格。她以为《情人》是信笔写来的，是自由发挥的结果。我的看法则相反，我认为这篇小说的每一个段落都经过精心的安排：第一次读时，你会感到极大的震撼；但再带看挑剔的眼光重读几遍，就会发现没有一段的安排经不起推敲。从全书第一句“我已经老了”，给人带来无限的沧桑感开始，到结尾的一句“他说他爱她将一直爱到他死”，带来绝望的悲凉终，感情的变化都在准确的控制之下。叙事没有按时空的顺序展开，但有另一种逻辑作为线索，这种逻辑我把它叫做艺术——这种写法本身就是种无与伦比的创造。我对这件事很有把握，是因为我也这样写过：把小说的文件调入电脑，反复调动每一个段落，假如原来的小说足够好的话，逐渐就能找到这种线索；花上比写原稿多三到五倍的时间就能得到一篇新小说，比旧的好得没法比。事实上，《情人》也确实是这样改过，一直改到改不动，才交给出版社。《情人》这种现代经典与以往小说的不同之处，在于它需要更多的心血。我的作家朋友听了以后感觉有点泄气：这么写一本书，也不见得能多赚稿费，不是亏了吗？但我以为，我们一点都不亏。现在世界上已经有了杜拉斯，有了《情人》，这位作家和她的作品给我们一个范本，再写起来已经容易多了。假如没有范本，让你凭空去创造这样一种写法，那才是最困难的事：六七十年代，法国有一批新小说作家，立意要改变小说的写法，作品也算是好看，但和《情人》是没法比的。有了这样的小说，阅读才不算是过时的陋习——任凭你有宽银幕、环绕立体声，看电影的感觉终归不能和读这样的小说相比。

 

    译《情人》的王道乾先生已经在前几年逝世了。虽然没有见过面，但他是我真正尊敬的前辈。我知道他原是位诗人，四十年代末曾到法国留学，后来回来参加祖国建设，一生坎坷，晚年搞起了翻译。他的作品我只读过《情人》，但已使我终身受益。另一篇使我终身受益的作品是查良铮(穆旦)先生译的《青铜骑士》。从他们那里我知道了一个简单的真理：文字是用来读的，不是用来看的。看起来黑鸦鸦的一片，都是方块字，念起来就大不相同。诗不光是押韵，还有韵律；散文也有节奏的快慢，或低沉压抑，沉痛无比，或如黄钟大吕，回肠荡气——这才是文字的筋骨所在。实际上，世界上每一种文学语言都有这种筋骨，当年我在美国留学，向一位老太太学英文，她告诉我说，不读莎士比亚，不背弥尔顿，就根本不配写英文——当然，我不会背弥尔顿，是不配写英文的了，但中文该怎么写，始终是个问题。

 

    古诗是讲平仄的，古文也有韵律，但现在写这种东西就是发疯；假如用白话来写，用哪种白话都是问题。张爱玲晚年执意要写苏白，她觉得苏白好听。这种想法不能说没有道理，但文章里的那些字我都不知该怎么念。现在作家里用北方方言写作的很多，凭良心说，效果是很糟心的。我看到过的一种最古怪的主意，是钱玄同出的，他建议大家写《儒林外史》那样的官话。幸亏没人听，否则会把大家都写成迂夫子的。这样一扯就扯远了。这个问题现在已经解决了，我们已经有了一种字正腔圆的文学语言，用它可以写最好的诗和最好的小说，那就是道乾先生、穆旦先生所用的语言。不信你去找本《情人》或是《青铜骑士》念上几遍，就会信服我的说法。

 

    本文的主旨是怀念那些已经逝去的前辈，但却从科学和艺术的区别谈起。我把杜拉斯、道乾先生、穆旦先生看作我的老师，但这些老师和教我数学的老师是不同的——前者给我的是一些潜移默化，后者则教给我一些法则。在这个世界上，前一种东西更难得到。除此之外，比如科学、艺术更能使人幸福，因为这些缘故，文学前辈也是我更爱的人。

 

    以上所述，基本上是我在文学上所知道的一切。我没有读过大学的中文系，所以孤陋寡闻，但我以为，人活在世上，不必什么都知道，只知道最好的就够了。为了我知道的这些，我要感谢杜拉斯，感谢王道乾和穆旦——他们是我真正敬爱的人。

 

Using a Life to Study Art - an Essay by Wang Xiaobo

 

I studied liberal arts and I also studied science. In classrooms the word art was always brought up, and science lecturers most of all. Chemistry teachers would say: doing experiments has an experimental art to it, computer teachers would say programming has a programming art to it. Teachers said, when doing science, actually one was doing art. Those that came before decided the rules, and now we follow them. While art is here to make use feel our goodness, maybe even our perfection. To pass on scientific knowledge is to teach you these rules, while mastering art is an impossible skill to share. You can only let it touch you softly, imperceptibly. Scientists taught me this, and a lot better than any liberal arts professor.

 

Without scientific knowledge its easier to make errors, and those without artistic development don’t have this problem and have the benefit of some being generally easier satisfied. If in a society, people don’t have very wide range of artist exposure, any old story satisfies them. To give an example, Americans don’t really read much literature, so they can freely go crazy over The Bridges of Madison County. On the other, in other types of countries, appreciation of literature is a fundamental part of their daily lives; so that only the best art can satisfy them. I think France is that country. The Lover caused a sensation in France. And as everyone knows, the author of the book was the late Marguerite Duras. This book has four Chinese translations, but among them the best is Wang Daoqian’s. I always think reading The Lover is really knowing the modern art of the novel. And reading Wang Daoqian you begin to understand what is the language of modern Chinese literature.

 

A writer friend said to me, she loved The Lover for its freedom of narrative, that it was the result of writing freed from restraint. My view is the opposite. I think every single paragraph was meticulously and with the utmost care laid out. Your first time reading you feel the largest impact, but if with finicky eyes you read it again, you discover that there sin’t a passage that can withstand being thought over closely. From the first line, “I’m already old,” starting a great transformation of feeling in the reader, winding up with the line “He said he would carry his love for her until he died,” bringing about an end of sorrowful despair. There is no less than precise control over changes in feelings. The narrative doesn’t hold on to the sequence of events as they unfold, instead it’s unfolding of events flows by a different logic. And I’d call this logic art. And this very writing style itself is an incomparable creation. And I’m sure of this because I’ve written like that as well: taking a manuscript and transferring it to the computer, transferring over every paragraph one at a time. If the novel is good you gradually find a thread, a narrative for it. You need to spend three to five times the effort than spent on writing its manuscript, to get a new novel, one that compared to before is not even recognizable.

 

Actually The Lover was changed like this too, changed until it couldn’t be changed no more, long before any publisher saw it. This type of modern classic and novels of the past are entirely different, the former needing more sweat and tears. And my writer friends hear this and feel discouraged: writing a novel like this isn’t exactly going to earn you much money, so why is it so unfair? But I don’t think its unfair at all. The world already has Duras, has The Lover, to give us a model, so writing like this is already much easier. And without a model writing like this would be baseless. But that’s the challenge. In the sixties and seventies France had a new kind of author, determined to change the way novels were written. And while their work was very good, none are as good as The Lover. With this kind of novel the bad habits and trappings of the past were thrown out - so that even with a wide screen and surround sound, watching films still can’t do what novels like this can.

 

The Lover’s translator Wang Daoqian passed away only just a few years ago, and although we never met, of my forebears I respect and admire him the most. I know he was originally a poet, and in the fourties he studied abroad in France, later coming to help in China’s development and modernization. He lived a bumpy life, that only later turned to translation. Of his work I’ve only read The Lover, but I feel its already given me a lifetime of benefit. Another work my life has benefited from is Mu Dan’s translation of The Bronze Horseman. From there I learnt a simple truth: literature is for reading, not for looking at. 黑鸦鸦 are Chinese characters, but read aloud they’re entirely different from those shapes. Poetry isn’t just rhyming, you have cadence; prose has speed and tempo, with stifling gloom, matchless grief, being solemn and dignified or with soul-stirring drama. This being where the meat and bones of writing lies. In fact, every one of the world’s languages has these meat and bones. Back when I was studying abroad in America, an old woman studying English said to me, one isn’t qualified to write English unless they read Milton or Shakespeare. Of course, I don’t carry the burden of Milton, because I don’t write English - but how to write Chinese, that’s my question.

 

Classic Chinese poetry was spoken with level tones, as well as it had rhythm. But if you wrote like that today you’d go crazy. But say if you use the modern vernacular, the question now is which one. Eileen Chang later decided she wanted to use soft words, that the Soft Vernacular of Shanghai was beautiful. And you can’t say this reasoning has no logic to it, but looking at those characters alone we don’t know how to read them aloud do we. A lot of modern writers have written a lot in the Northern vernacular, very consciously, and the results are usually very messy. I’ve seen these weirdly intended writings, like Xuan Tong Chu’s. He proposes we all write like Wu Jingzi in The Scholars, that sort of standard classical vernacular. And luckily no one heard him, otherwise we’d all be writing like old foggies. But this is was a long stretch anyway, and the matter is long settled. We already have a very articulate and vocalizing language, and we can use it to write the best poetry and the best novels. The language of Wang Daoqian, Mu Dan. Go read a few passages of The Lover or The Bronze Horseman and maybe you'll believe what I’m on about.

 

Basically we should cherish these greats that have gone before, but from the different worlds and perspectives of literature and science discuss them. I look upon Duras, Wang Daoqian, and Mu Dan as my teachers. But those teachers and the one that taught me math aren’t the same. The former gave me subtlety and the later, hard and fast rules to work by. And in this world that sort of stuff is hard to find. But apart from this, art more than science can bring happiness, and that is why I love my artistic forebears the most of all.

 

The above is pretty much everything I know about literature. I never studied it in university, and so I’m not exactly an expert. I only know that living on this earth one doesn’t need to know everything, just to know the best is enough. So for teaching me these truths I’d like to thank Duras, Wang Daoqian and Mu Dan. I truly respect them.

[Demonic_Duck]

My main criticism would be that you're aiming for too literal a translation. Worry less about whether you've exactly translated every phrase, and more about whether the result sounds natural, whilst maintaining the essence of what the author is trying to say. For example, I would translate the first paragraph as follows:

 

I read the arts, I read the sciences. It was generally teachers of the sciences who would mention the word "art" in class. My chemistry teacher said that there is an art to doing experiments; my computer science teacher told us that there is an art to programming. My teachers told me: how to do it correctly is science, but how to do it well is art; the former is based on what is right or wrong, but the latter can't be so clearly defined. The true meaning of art is to make your audience feel that your work is good, or even perfect. Teaching science is simply passing on the* rules, whereas there is no simple way to teach the cultivation of an artist; it can only be imparted through a process of osmosis. All of this was told to me by teachers of the sciences; I don't think my arts teachers were able to explain it so well.

 

Incidentally, I'd also be open to comments or criticism. I think translation is just as much of an art as it is a science.

 

*Original text has “这些”, but it isn't clear to me what “这些” is referring to. Either my understanding is lacking, or the author has written ambiguously.

[Angelina]

Aw

I am so moved by your attempt.

[L-F-J]

 

 

*Original text has “这些”, but it isn't clear to me what “这些” is referring to. Either my understanding is lacking, or the author has written ambiguously.

 

Because you were too loose in your translation and missed it the first time. It's referring to "判断真伪的法则" <-- 这些法则.

 

Here's my go at the first paragraph. 仅供参考:

 

"I’ve studied Liberal Arts, and I’ve studied Sciences. When hearing teachers mention the word “art” in the classroom, it was actually more frequently teachers of Sciences. My Chemistry teacher said there is an art to conducting experiments. My Computer Science teacher said there is an art to programming. These teachers said science is how to do something correctly, while art is how to do something well. The former has principles for determining what is true or false. The latter, however, does not. The true meaning of art is to give people the feeling that something is good, even flawless. Imparting scientific knowledge is just telling you these principles, but there is no way to pass on the mastery of art. One can only be subtly influenced. All of this is what my teachers of Sciences have taught me. I feel they explained it better than my Liberal Arts teachers."

[Angelina]

WTF the down vote? You can't be moved when someone decides to translate something you love anymore?

[roddy]

If it's just one and you can't see a reason for it, it's likely someone hitting the wrong button. 

[L-F-J]

Cam,

 

Upon further comparison of your translation to the original text, I wouldn't agree with the Duck that the problem is you're aiming for too literal a translation. There are many places where parts are actually left out, which means some of the original thoughts are not getting translated.

 

For example, the last sentence is 他们是我真正敬爱的人, which you translated as "I truly respect them". The full statement is more like "they are the people I truly adore". This may be a minor oversight, but in a paid translation, a client may find this too lazy and unacceptable. Another example would be 我没有读过大学的中文系 which you translated as "I never studied it in university". The actual meaning is "I've never studied in the Department of Chinese Literature at university". This would be considered a big mistake, as an entire point is left out.

 

Of course, on the other hand, if you go for too loose a translation, extra things that were never there can get inserted, like what I see in the Duck's translation of 后者则没有 as "the latter cannot be so clearly defined", when all that is said is "the latter, however, does not".

 

An example of this in your translation can also be found here; 假如在某个国家里，欣赏文学作品是他们的生活方式. Your rendering; "in other types of countries, appreciation of literature is a fundamental part of their daily lives". Now, not only are "other types of countries" and "a fundamental part of their daily lives" embellishments, the entire sentence as you've translated it has become an assertion, whereas the original sentence is a supposition. "If in a certain country appreciating literary works is their way of life..."

 

So, it is not a translator's job to interpret or embellish, but to translate as accurately as possible what is said, while maintaining natural language in their translation. Hopefully I've given a good enough example with these sentences and the first paragraph in my previous post. Each word in the source text has meaning and needs to be reflected in the translation, while maintaining natural readability.

 

Overall, in my opinion, style and form should reflect the original and not really be up to the translator. Since Chinese and English are not related languages, when a translator becomes too free in style, a lot of the original meaning doesn't get carried over while extra meaning gets inserted. I would care more about accuracy than "style", and therefore keep with the style and form of the original piece.

 

All that said, I think you've done a great job for having only studied Chinese for one year! There are places where the translation is incorrect simply because you didn't understand the original, but that's not an issue of ability in translation, but more lack of knowledge in the source language, which will be improved as your Chinese improves. Really, to be able to translate accurately and well, the first prerequisite is that you fully understand the source text.

[Mr John]

@Angelina

 

I wasn't the one that downvoted you, but I think I can guess why someone may have. When I read your comment it seemed somewhat condescending. The original poster obviously put a fair amount of time and effort into their translation, they also explained that they had only been learning Chinese for a year. As you didn't provide any feedback on the translation attempt itself, it came across a bit like a sarcastic, "nice try." Anyhow, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Given the fact that you're also a fan of the author, perhaps you could offer the OP some more concrete advice?

[Demonic_Duck]

@L-F-J: I think you raise some fair and valid points in regards to both my and maizewen's translations, particularly with regards to not embelishing or leaving things out. Perhaps my advice was unhelpful, but it was more directed at things like the first sentence: "I studied liberal arts and I also studied science", which I felt was an accurate literal translation but lacks the punch of the original: “我念过文科，也念过理科” (a criticism I could also direct at your translation, though to a lesser extent).

 

I disagree with your point here:

 

For example, the last sentence is 他们是我真正敬爱的人, which you translated as "I truly respect them". The full statement is more like "they are the people I truly adore".

 

I don't think "adore" is an adequate translation for “敬爱”; I'd say it should be something more like "love and respect" (more 顺口 than "respect and love"), or perhaps more idiomatically "look up to" (which may not explicitly contain the concept "love", but to my mind implies a feeling similar to the feeling felt toward a beloved parent). "Adore" doesn't imply anything about respect; you might say you "adore" your baby nephew, but you wouldn't say you "respect" him.

[gato]

"Admire" maybe?

[imron]

This is one of those things where simply translating word for word is going to be wrong.

 

When I saw gato's response above (without having read most of the original or the translations), I thought 'Admire' wasn't really a good translation for 敬爱.

 

For example, I can think of people in my life who I 敬爱, but to say I admire them (which might also be true) feels to me like it doesn't carry the meaning I would want to convey with 敬爱.

 

Then I went to look at how it was used in the original Chinese and I think 'admire' actually works very well as a translation in this case.  Think about what the writer is saying - he's talking about three people who he hasn't met and yet through their works he feels he has learnt valuable lessons and he sees them as being as influential as any of his real world teachers.

 

In this sort of context I think 'adore' or 'love and respect' really don't work at all, and 'admire' is actually very appropriate - though like the OP, originally I probably would have just gone with 'respect' had I been doing the translation.

 

After some thought, now I'd probably go with 'respect and admire', or maybe 'admire and respect'

[L-F-J]

it was more directed at things like the first sentence: "I studied liberal arts and I also studied science", which I felt was an accurate literal translation but lacks the punch of the original: “我念过文科，也念过理科” (a criticism I could also direct at your translation, though to a lesser extent).

 

What punch do you think it has? It's simply stating that the author has studied both Liberal Arts and Sciences.

 

You translated it as "I read", which would just be incorrect. 念过大学 means to have attended or studied at university. It's the same as 读书／念书. "Read" would have been too literal of a translation and changed the original meaning.

 

In my translation, I just added 've because the author was talking about his past experience. (念过)

 

I disagree with your point here:

 

L-F-J said

For example, the last sentence is 他们是我真正敬爱的人, which you translated as "I truly respect them". The full statement is more like "they are the people I truly adore".

 

I don't think "adore" is an adequate translation for “敬爱”; I'd say it should be something more like "love and respect" (more 顺口 than "respect and love"), or perhaps more idiomatically "look up to" (which may not explicitly contain the concept "love", but to my mind implies a feeling similar to the feeling felt toward a beloved parent). "Adore" doesn't imply anything about respect; you might say you "adore" your baby nephew, but you wouldn't say you "respect" him.

 

 

 

You disagree with the point or my word choice? The point was to be sure to translate the entire sentence. Perhaps "I truly respect them" would pass for conveying the message in oral interpretation, but not in translation where accuracy and completeness are required.

 

But I'll go ahead and defend my word choice too. 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adore?s=t

 

The first definition of adore is "to regard with the utmost esteem, love, and respect; honor"

 

I think that covers 敬爱 entirely, especially in this case.

 

The word adore is also used religiously in the second definition "to pay divine honor to; worship: to adore God". Adoration is reverence and strong admiration. In Chinese, 敬爱 is used in this way as well. Chinese Christians 敬爱耶稣, for example.

 

So I think adore is actually fine, though "respect and admire" is cool too, and I considered that, but 敬爱 is used as a single word here, so I chose a single word that also contains both meanings.

 

But more importantly, I think the author was actually romanticizing the expression of his feelings of respect and admiration for these people with his word choice, so to simply translate it as "respect and admire" is a bit too bland for the style. Hence, I think "adore" is even more suitable in meaning and style.

[imron]

but 敬爱 is used as a single word here, so I chose a single word that also contains both meanings.

In my experience, requiring every word in the source text to have an equivalent single word in the target text makes for clumsy translations.

 

 

The first definition of adore is "to regard with the utmost esteem, love, and respect; honor"

 

I think that covers 敬爱 entirely, especially in this case.

 

 

 

Adoration is reverence and strong admiration. In Chinese, 敬爱 is used in this way as well. Chinese Christians 敬爱耶稣, for example.

And I'm sure that would work in a religious context - which this is clearly not.

 

If we see how this word is commonly used among Chinese speakers and in what contexts then I think the one this matches closely and the one where I see and/or would use 敬爱 the most is at the start of written communication e.g. 敬爱的xxx.  That is, something basically equivalent to 'Dear' in English.

 

With that in mind, I think a suitable translation for the last sentence might also be something like 'they are truly dear to my heart', which I think I now prefer over the other alternatives.

 

As with any translation, you're always going to get different opinions from different translators and there's no one exact way to translate most sentences.  In arguing about 'accuracy and completeness' though I think that doesn't mean you are required to have an almost direct 1-to-1 mapping of source to target language.  Especially in literary translations (such as the above), where capturing the style and intent of the author is also important.

 

What I would normally try to do is break something down in the concepts that the source text is trying to convey - typically at the sentence level rather than the word level, and then think about how a native English speaker would express those same concepts.  Obviously there are some things that require a 1-1 mapping (e.g. names of people/things) but for others there is far more leeway, and allows you to produce a far better translation, where my definition of 'better' includes 'reads naturally in the target language'.

 

I readily admit that different translators have different definitions of what makes a 'better' translation and there is no firm agreement on that.

[Demonic_Duck]

 

it was more directed at things like the first sentence: "I studied liberal arts and I also studied science", which I felt was an accurate literal translation but lacks the punch of the original: “我念过文科，也念过理科” (a criticism I could also direct at your translation, though to a lesser extent).

 

What punch do you think it has? It's simply stating that the author has studied both Liberal Arts and Sciences.

 

You translated it as "I read", which would just be incorrect. 念过大学 means to have attended or studied at university. It's the same as 读书／念书. "Read" would have been too literal of a translation and changed the original meaning.

 

The "punch" I'm talking about is that it's short, concise and balanced: three words and five syllables on each side, of which three are exactly the same, and the others are in correspondence: 我念过文科，也念过理科。 I don't think this balance is possible to perfectly maintain in English, but I feel "arts and sciences" (which, when juxtaposed in such a way, don't cause any ambiguity) sounds much more balanced than "liberal arts and sciences".

 

I'm well aware what “念” means in this context. I chose "read" because it's a syllable shorter than "studied", merely a stylistic choice on my part. I think it can be inferred from context that "read" means "studied" here; I assumed this usage wasn't too obscure, though dictionary.reference.com gives it as "British".

 

In my translation, I just added 've because the author was talking about his past experience. (念过)

 

I agree with your choice here, my translation was sloppy on that point.

[L-F-J]

 

 

I readily admit that different translators have different definitions of what makes a 'better' translation and there is no firm agreement on that.

 

 

It depends too on the style of the content and how free you may want to get with it. It may also differ if one is translating something of their choice, in which case they can do as they see fit, versus translating content given by a client, where some clients will have defined standards for the translations.

 

Some clients will be very strict on accuracy, meaning each word in the source text that has meaning needs to be reflected as closely as possible in the translation, while maintaining natural readability in the target language. Which means anything that doesn't get reflected will be regarded as an oversight, while anything not reflecting the source text will be considered an embellishment.

 

This doesn't mean you're going for a 1-1 match, but means you are staying as close to the original meaning as possible. Otherwise it may become an interpretation rather than a translation. Interpretation is far easier. You only need to convey the message. You can also be as stylistic as you want, as long as it matches the emotions of the source. But in translation, you usually need to translate the original meaning more closely.

 

At least I'm always a bit disappointed when I see translations that are more interpretive and don't translate the original meaning of the chosen words. In translation, I always want to know what the person was actually saying as well as what they meant. I feel that way the reader gets the closest experience of understanding the author without having to read the text in the original language. Admittedly, it can be quite challenging to achieve that while maintaining natural readability when the languages are so different. But that is precisely what makes CN-EN translation a unique and difficult skill to acquire.

[L-F-J]

 

The "punch" I'm talking about is that it's short, concise and balanced: three words and five syllables on each side, of which three are exactly the same, and the others are in correspondence: 我念过文科，也念过理科。 I don't think this balance is possible to perfectly maintain in English, but I feel "arts and sciences" (which, when juxtaposed in such a way, don't cause any ambiguity) sounds much more balanced than "liberal arts and sciences".

 

I see. I had not considered that may be what the author was going for. Seemed a pretty plain statement of fact to me.

 

 

I'm well aware what “念” means in this context. I chose "read" because it's a syllable shorter than "studied", merely a stylistic choice on my part. I think it's obvious from context that "read" means "studied" here; I assumed this usage wasn't too obscure, though dictionary.reference.com gives it as "British".

 

Ah, yeah. That was definitely obscure to me and sounds odd to my American ear!   

 

I need to get back into some British television. They have much better shows and American shows are often knockoffs of them nowadays anyhow.

[mouse]

re: read meaning study

 

For me, it also has a class connotation (surprise surprise!). One reads Classics at Oxford, one studies Engineering at Anglia Polytechnic. But as my example shows, it tends to be used with a specific subject rather than something as broad as the arts or sciences.

 

I agree that there's no need to specify Liberal Arts, as Arts is fine and is more balanced. The fact that it's followed by "Science" makes the meaning clear I think.

[L-F-J]

Over the past few days, whenever I've found a moment of free time, I've been chipping away at a full translation of this essay for fun and practice. Then, starting over from the beginning, I've polished it to create logic and symmetry. I think it now reflects more closely the intended meaning while matching in style. It also reads more smoothly than my original contribution in this thread, which I did not give as much attention to.

 

It doesn't seem our OP has returned since starting this thread, which is a shame, but I would enjoy it if other members would like to comment on, discuss, or further polish what I have done. I'll post the full text below.

 

Shoutouts to imron, Demonic_Duck, and maizewen. You have all influenced my translation at certain points or in general.

 

____________________

 

 

Dedicating a Lifetime to Studying Art

By Wang Xiaobo

 

     I have studied Arts and I have studied Sciences, but when I heard teachers mention the word “art” in the classroom, it was most frequently teachers of Sciences. My Chemistry teacher said there is an art to experimentation, and my Computer Science teacher said there is an art to programming. They said science is how to do something correctly, while art is how to do something well. The former has principles for determining what is true or false. The latter, however, does not. The true meaning of art is to arouse a sense of quality, even flawlessness. To impart scientific knowledge is merely to explain those principles. It is impossible, however, to pass on the mastery of art. One can only subtly influence. This was all taught to me by my teachers of Sciences. I feel they explained it better than my teachers of Arts.

 

     Those without scientific knowledge are more likely to err than those who possess it. Those lacking artistic accomplishment, however, do not have this disadvantage. They still benefit from being easy to please. If in a society people are not well cultured in literature, any work might be to their satisfaction. For instance, Americans do not read much literature so they might even go fanatical over The Bridges of Madison County. If, on the other hand, enjoying literature is the way of life for the people of a particular country, then only the best will be able to please them. I think France is the most qualified to be considered this kind of country. The Lover once caused a sensation in France. As everyone knows, the author of this book was the recently departed Marguerite Duras. There are four Chinese translations of this book, the best of which properly belongs to Mr. Wang Daoqian. I have always felt that having read The Lover one has come to know the art of the modern novel, and having read Daoqian’s translation one has come to know the literary language of modern China.

 

     An author friend told me she really likes the free narrative style of The Lover. She feels The Lover was written unrestrainedly, that it was the fruit of free expression. My view is the opposite. I believe each passage of this novel was meticulously laid out. At first read, you will feel an enormous impact, but reread it with a critical eye and you will find that the layout of every paragraph is able to withstand scrutiny. The changes in emotion are under careful control, starting with the sense of boundless vicissitudes brought on by the first sentence of the book, “I was already old”, and coming to an end with the hopeless desolation in the final sentence, “He said he would love her until his death”. The narrative does not unfold chronologically, but follows the thread of different logic. This kind of logic is what I call art, as the literary style is itself an unparalleled creation. I am convinced of this because I have also written in this way – transferring a novel to the computer, passage by passage. If the original novel is good enough, you will gradually be able to uncover this thread. Spend three to five times longer than it took to write the manuscript, and you will have a new novel immeasurably better than the old. In fact, before it was handed over to the publisher, The Lover was revised in this way until no further revision could be made.

 

     A modern classic like The Lover differs from novels of old in its demand for more painstaking attention. The author friend of mine felt a bit discouraged hearing this. “Writing a book in this way is not likely to earn you more remuneration. Isn’t it not worth the trouble?” But for us, I do not believe so at all. The world already has Duras and The Lover. This author and her work have given us a model, making it much easier to start writing again. It would be most challenging for you to create this literary style out of thin air if there were no model. During the 60’s and 70’s, a group of authors in France were determined to transform the literary style of fiction. While considered good reads, their works could not compare with The Lover. It takes a novel like this for reading to not be seen as a bad habit that has gone out of style. Even with widescreen and surround sound, the feeling from watching a movie can never compare with that of reading a novel of this kind.

 

     Mr. Wang Daoqian, translator of The Lover, passed away just a few years ago, and while we never met, he is one forebear I truly respect. I know he was originally a poet, studied abroad in France at the end of the 40’s, and later returned to participate in the construction of our country. He led a rough life and only got into translation in his later years. Of his works, I have only read Qingren [The Lover], but it has already given me a lifetime of benefit. Another work that has benefited my life is the translation of The Bronze Horseman by Mr. Zha Liangzheng (Mu Dan). I have learned a simple truth from these men; that writing is to be read, not to be looked at. It is just a dense mass of characters when looked upon, but something entirely different when read. Poetry has not only rhyme, but also meter. There is also tempo in prose – bitterly deep and repressed or heartrendingly clear and resonant. Herein lies the power of the written word. All the world’s literary languages in fact possess this power. During my time studying abroad in the United States, I was learning English with an elderly woman. She told me that without reading Shakespeare or memorizing Milton one is simply not qualified to write in English. Naturally, I am unable to recite Milton and unqualified to write in English, but my question has always been how writing should be done in Chinese.

 

     Classical Chinese poetry emphasizes tonal patterns and there is meter in classical Chinese literature, but to write like this now would be crazy. It is even a problem if writing in the vernacular to decide which one to use. In her later years, Eileen Chang was determined to write in the Suzhounese vernacular because she felt it sounded pleasant. I cannot say this reasoning is unjustified, but I do not even know how the characters in such writings are to be pronounced. Many current authors are using northern dialects in their compositions. In all conscience, I must say the results are quite tedious. Qian Xuantong came up with one of the most peculiar ideas I have seen. He proposed that everyone write in the kind of bureaucratic language of The Scholars. Fortunately no one listened; otherwise everyone’s writing would have become pedantic. But I digress, for this problem has already been resolved. We already have a very articulate literary language with which the best poems and novels can be written; the language used by Daoqian and Mu Dan. If you do not believe me, go find a copy of Qingren [The Lover] or Qingtong Qishi [The Bronze Horseman] and read through them, then you will be convinced of my theory.

 

     The aim of this essay has been to commemorate these forebears whom we have lost, but while starting with a distinction between science and art. I regard Duras, Daoqian, and Mu Dan as my teachers, but these teachers differ from those who taught me mathematics. The former have had an imperceptible influence on me, while the latter have taught me some theorems. In this world, such things as the first are more difficult to come by. In addition, for reasons such as art being more capable of bringing happiness than science, for instance, I have greater love for predecessors in literature.

 

     The above is basically everything I know about literature. I have never studied in the Department of Chinese Literature at university, so my knowledge is limited, but it is my belief that one need not know everything to live in this world. It is enough to know the best. For these things I have learned, I must thank Duras, Wang Daoqian, and Mu Dan. They are people I truly revere and hold dear to my heart.

[Kenny同志]

 Either my understanding is lacking, or the author has written ambiguously.

 

 

Sorry for being off-topic, but I have been told by some native speakers that for a dead person, the past tense should always be used. Care to explain, Duck?

[Demonic_Duck]

Correct. Present perfect for a living person, past simple for a dead person. Seems like I was all over the place in this thread.