When translation goes off rails

[Luxi]

This article in the LA Times briefly mentions Ezra Pound's "Cathay" as an example of interpreted 'translations'. Some of Pound's poems, for example the Four Songs of Departure (p.28) are  not only convincing but nicer than some actual textual translations of Chinese poems, though he didn't know any Chinese. Actually, the notes by E Fenollosa, on which he based his 'translations'  were authentic. 

 

The LA Times article is actually about the Korean novel, "The Vegetarian" by Han Kang. The translation by Deborah Smith, which won the Booker International Price in 2016, is now causing quite an uproar in Korea. Makes one wonder how can a translated book be given such a prestigious international award without an independent check on the actual translation.

 

Interesting reading, for those interested in translation.

 

 

 

 

[Lu]

Indeed an interesting read.

18 minutes ago, Luxi said:

Makes one wonder how can a translated book be given such a prestigious international award without an independent check on the actual translation.

Oh well, just look at Mo Yan and Howard Goldblatt. On the other hand, Chinese publishing houses don't have editors that actually edit, so it's perhaps not entirely crazy for the publisher of the translation to suggest edits.

 

Over all it's my opinion that a translator should translate what the author has written, not what they would have liked the author to write. I suppose there can be room for adaptations, like Ezra Pound's and, apparently, Deborah Smith's, but it would be more fair to then present those works as adaptations, not as translations.

 

The Vegetarian has been translated into Dutch as well... from the English. I haven't read it, I don't want relay translations.

[somethingfunny]

I think this is the most important part of that article:

 

"One distinguished translator told me he felt the context and style were so different that it was more reasonable to speak of Smith’s work as an adaptation, not a translation.

 

But in some ways, the question is moot. Most readers of a translation will never read the original. Moreover, the “gains” of Smith’s effort, clearly a labor of love, have so far greatly outweighed any “losses”: Readers and critics have enjoyed the work immensely, South Korea has been placed on the world’s literary map, sales of both the original and the English version have exploded, and interest in Korean literary translation has soared. "

 

I read (and enjoyed) "The Vegetarian", but I did so while aware of the translator's relative unfamiliarity with the language.  I'd say that for people like us (people who use this forum), we are likely to have a more nuanced understanding of the translation process.  I think any uproar is unwarranted, and if you are going to get upset about translations then the only true solution is to learn the language yourself and read the original.  To understand the role of the translator, all you have to do is look at posts like this one.

 

[Lu]

I suppose the remarkable thing is not that Smith made a translation people loved (although that is a great achievement), or that she made small mistakes (foot instead of arm, ouch), or even that she embellished things, but that people (apparently) fell over each other in praise of her awesome translation skills without checking the translation.

 

8 minutes ago, somethingfunny said:

To understand the role of the translator, all you have to do is look at articles like this one.

You mean, to illustrate the fact that translators don't have perfect understanding either? Yeah :-) In my opinion, a good translator is not afraid to ask questions and look things up.

[somethingfunny]

Hah! I referenced that post to show two things:  Complexity of the process, and the level of effort that is required!

 

My interpretation of the Smith translation was how good the book was despite her limited language skills, rather than how good her translation skills were despite her limited language skills.  I might be wrong, but I believe she is a literature graduate, and I always attributed that quality of the work to that fact as much as her Korean skills.

[Luxi]

15 minutes ago, somethingfunny said:

all you have to do is look at articles like this one.

Good example you dug up there! 

I still wonder at awards being given to adapted 'translations'. How should the prize money be split? I suspect the judges may not have liked a more accurate translation of the original. And is the award fair to the other novels in the contest and their translators?

 

1 minute ago, Lu said:

In my opinion, a good translator is not afraid to ask questions and look things up.

Quite so! 

[roddy]

I wish I was good enough to write a Booker International winning mistranslation.

 

I'm inclined to cut the translator a little slack. First off, whichever way you look at it, she's obviously a hell of a writer. Second, we don't always know how good we are. I can't be the only one to have thought at some point "Well, I wouldn't have necessarily thought I was the best person for this, but people are paying me to do it and seem to be happy with the results, so..."  Third we don't (or I don't, maybe someone else does) know what conditions the work was done under. Harsh deadlines, editors asking if it couldn't be a bit more this or a bit more that.

[Lu]

1 hour ago, Luxi said:

I suspect the judges may not have liked a more accurate translation of the original.

But then what (or who) did they award? Did Han Kang win a prize or Deborah Smith? Should Han have written the book differently, if a different book is apparently better? Do the judges not appreciate actual Korean literature when they prefer the adaptation over a faithful translation? Should they appreciate actual Korean literature, or is it alright that they don't? Not that I need a definite answer to these questions, but they should be asked.

 

I also don't want to say that Smith is a bad translator, or that her translation is bad. But I think the choices she (and the people who didn't check her work) made are worthy of being discussed.

 

I agree with Roddy, especially on the 'well, people are paying me...' argument. I know I do feel a lot more secure in my work if I know there's someone knowledgeable between me and the printed book. I wonder if Smith ever had that person, or if she just went and did it.

[Luxi]

The award ($50,000) is shared between author and translator, I don't know whether the share is equal parts or what. 

I guess authors would think twice about complaining if a translation made their novel more palatable to judges and helped them win an award. Considering that sales of Korean literature in the UK have increased 400% since this prize was awarded, one can safely say it's something of a win-win situation. 

 

But I still think this prize was unfair and somehow it went more in the interest of publishers than in the interest of literature.

 

One of the 6 contenders for the 2016 prize was Yan Lianke's "Four Books" (四书) translated by Carlos Rojas. Maybe that's what bothers me most since I very much admire Rojas as a translator of very difficult literature, and Yan Lianke really deserves a first class international prize.

http://themanbookerprize.com/resources/media/pressreleases/man-booker-international-prize-2016-shortlist-announced

 

 

 

[Shelley]

Is it not the nature of translating to "change" it from the original?  In translations don't you expect it to not be an exact copy of the original by the very fact one language differs from the other. some things can be said in a few words in one language and take many more in another. In fact this is one of the reasons Twitter has given for increasing its tweet length by doubling it.

I think if the story and the authors ideas are preserved,  the means of telling it is not so important. Its when the story bears little or no relationship to the original that one can say the translator has overstepped his/hers remit. A good translator will make the work readable and bridge the language gap.

 

Also this is a story, if it was a technical manual or similar than exactness would be required.

[Lu]

26 minutes ago, Shelley said:

I think if the story and the authors ideas are preserved,  the means of telling it is not so important.

But a lot of authors choose their words very carefully and write every sentence and phrase for a reason. Some features are more imporant than others, and some authors think more than others, but generally I think a translator should do her best to stay as close to the original as possible, while still delivering a text people reading the target language can enjoy.

[Shelley]

3 minutes ago, Lu said:

But a lot of authors choose their words very carefully and write every sentence and phrase for a reason.

Very true, how would you even start to translate for example Terry Prachet into another language never mind Chinese

[imron]

I know for Asterix that they completely rewrote most of the jokes and puns so that joke/pun in language A was translated as a joke/pun in language B even if the contents and language of the joke were completely different.

[Lu]

Yeah, joke translation is one of the hardest (and most interesting) parts of translation, in my opinion.

Terry Pratchett has actually been translated into Dutch extremely well (from what I remember). I should reread some of it one of these days. The Roald Dahl and Harry Potter translations are also very, very good. It can totally be done, but it takes talent.

[dwq]

6 hours ago, imron said:

I know for Asterix that they completely rewrote most of the jokes and puns so that joke/pun in language A was translated as a joke/pun in language B even if the contents and language of the joke were completely different.

And personally I consider that crosses the bound of translation into the realm of adaptation.  And it is not necessarily a bad thing, it certainly works better if I want to be entertained rather than have a language lesson of why the original joke is funny.  But again I try to avoid translations at all if I understand the original language.