Translations

[Zhu]

Hello,

I have a few questions about translations and translators. I'm very interested in hearing your opinions. Translators seem to have a thankless profession. They invest time and lots of work into a translation, yet they usually don't get the recognition they deserve and are often underpaid. Only in Germany have I seen names of translators on book covers. In my native country, and in many other countries their names are hidden inside. The original author gets the honour, as if he wrote the translation himself.

I find it hard to classify a translation. It's not equal to the original piece, but it's not a completely original work either. It's an interpretation of a work. Meanings, rhythm, structure, nuances... all disappear (or are added), willy-nilly, simply by converting the text from one language into the other.

Can a book (or author) be judged by its translation?
Should more attention go to translation in literary courses and education?
Is the translator undervalued?

Thank you,

Zhu

[JBI]

There is a difference between Classical and Modern translators, popular and scholarly translators, and also some degree of difference in between genres.

The more classical the novel, and difficult the language, the better prestige. So that the original translators of Onegin got good press; All the translators of classic Japanese works, besides being excellent translations on the whole, due to a rather strong movement toward Japanese scholarship that started in the 50s, also came with introductions, and centered around Academics.

As such, I could see a translator moving popular Spanish fiction as invisible, and wouldn't pay them any attention. But when you get a particularly good one, their names become famous. The problem is that most deal with prose, and prose, if difficult, isn't that hard to translate well. The interpretation is merely reinterpreting idiom, not rewriting poetry.

[David Lurie]

Can a book (or author) be judged by its translation?

Who is the judge and why is he judging it?
It makes a huge difference if the person involved is a dilettante or a scholar, I can accept from a dilettante a behaviour that I would find objectionable if it came from a scholar; this is for the serious side but literature is also fun so everyone of us - scholars and dilettantes alike - is judging books he knows only in translation.
A further difference: what is the original language? I don't know Arabic but people I know who speak it tell me it's impossible to translate it, a point of view I accept since I am aware of how many shades of meaning are lost even when the translation regards Latin languages (Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese).


Should more attention go to translation in literary courses and education?

Here in Italy literary courses - at least at university level - deal only with the original language, then we have schools for interpreters and translators, there is a certain degree of interplay but I think the main issue is with the publishing industry, let's face it: ideally an author's production should have a unique translator, alas it can't be done for various reason (the translation rights are owned by different publishers et cetera).


Is the translator undervalued?

There are good translators and bad ones, when I want to read a novel in a language I can't read I always try to choose the best possible translation (speaking five languages I have a wide range of translations at my disposal).
The translator is undervalued by the publishing industry because he/she has no marketing value, authors are brand names, translators aren't or if they were, it would be for connoisseur only.

[JBI]

Still, nobody actually studies a work in translation in depth; once you reach the post-introductory level, you will need to deal with the original. Translations are for those who do not study, or to serve as an introduction. Nothing wrong with that, as I admit I will never learn every language; Will know half a dozen or so proficiently by the end, and then work on getting better at those, but there is great literature from everywhere.

Still, prose translates rather easily. Some things are lost, perhaps, but for the most part, novels move well over space.

[David Lurie]

Still, prose translates rather easily. Some things are lost, perhaps, but for the most part, novels move well over space.

Have you ever translated a novel?
Saving the story is easy but what about the writing style? especially when you are translating an author who has a very personal one? and what about a language - think of German - with unique syntactic structures?
The real trouble when you translate is not words nor syntax - one way or another you can make them work - but culture, thanks to DVD's audio and subtitles options dubbing in cinema gives us examples of this more easy to perceive. Speaking of "in the mood for love" director Wong Kar-Wai explained that the advance in time of the story could not be evident to international viewers because he had chosen to portray time through food and dishes - cooked in the movie - strictly connected to the seasons in the Hong Kong of the Sixties where the film takes place, Wong concludes saying there is no way - nor dubbing nor subtitles - to translate this information. Novels - much thicker and longer stuff than films - present similar issues almost at every turn of page, you can solve them, but it's not that easy ;)

[JBI]

Have you ever translated a novel?
Saving the story is easy but what about the writing style? especially when you are translating an author who has a very personal one? and what about a language - think of German - with unique syntactic structures?
The real trouble when you translate is not words nor syntax - one way or another you can make them work - but culture, thanks to DVD's audio and subtitles options dubbing in cinema gives us examples of this more easy to perceive. Speaking of "in the mood for love" director Wong Kar-Wai explained that the advance in time of the story could not be evident to international viewers because he had chosen to portray time through food and dishes - cooked in the movie - strictly connected to the seasons in the Hong Kong of the Sixties where the film takes place, Wong concludes saying there is no way - nor dubbing nor subtitles - to translate this information. Novels - much thicker and longer stuff than films - present similar issues almost at every turn of page, you can solve them, but it's not that easy ;)

If people are seeking such an in depth discussion, they ultimately will learn the language; simply put, serious scholars of texts deal with the text in the original language; you cannot write about Dante in English, despite however many good translations have come out.

Most people are just looking for the gist; that's what a translation is. Novels are easiest, as I said, because you can change the idiom without losing too much of the feel; you can rewrite them in another language, while still maintaining most of what is important to the novel. Is it a precise science? no. But, from what I can tell, Dostoevsky and Dickens have not suffered too much from translation; Dostoevsky is said to be better in English, and Dickens' David Copperfield was a major text in China at the beginning of the 20th century - those are quite distant gaps, but I think the texts carry through.

Now, if you tried to translate Hart Crane - well, good luck.

[ennison]

Translation is an art. Good translation requires not just technical knowledge of a topic and the vocabulary of two languages it also requires a sensitivity to idiom, proverb, irony and allusion in two cultures. Translating poetry is the most difficult task.

[hack]

Jose Saramago said that authors write books but translators write literature.
I probably will never learn to read Portuguese. If I did, I still would not grasp the
intricacies that Giovanni Pontiero is able to express with his beautiful and artful
translations of Saramago's originals. I can accept that, as much as I might
regret it. English translations of Bruno Schulz, for instance, are unable to enlighten
the reader as to the use and meanings of various Latin words and phrases that
are used by Shulz throughout the original Polish text. It is the responsibility of
the reader to search out these hidden nuances, where such enlightenment is possible.
Translation IS art, some of it is bad, some of it is good, and some of it is transcendent.

[Pryderi Agni]

If people are seeking such an in depth discussion, they ultimately will learn the language; simply put, serious scholars of texts deal with the text in the original language; you cannot write about Dante in English, despite however many good translations have come out.

Most people are just looking for the gist; that's what a translation is. Novels are easiest, as I said, because you can change the idiom without losing too much of the feel; you can rewrite them in another language, while still maintaining most of what is important to the novel. Is it a precise science? no. But, from what I can tell, Dostoevsky and Dickens have not suffered too much from translation; Dostoevsky is said to be better in English, and Dickens' David Copperfield was a major text in China at the beginning of the 20th century - those are quite distant gaps, but I think the texts carry through.

Now, if you tried to translate Hart Crane - well, good luck.


Jose Saramago said that authors write books but translators write literature.
I probably will never learn to read Portuguese. If I did, I still would not grasp the
intricacies that Giovanni Pontiero is able to express with his beautiful and artful
translations of Saramago's originals. I can accept that, as much as I might
regret it. English translations of Bruno Schulz, for instance, are unable to enlighten
the reader as to the use and meanings of various Latin words and phrases that
are used by Shulz throughout the original Polish text. It is the responsibility of
the reader to search out these hidden nuances, where such enlightenment is possible.
Translation IS art, some of it is bad, some of it is good, and some of it is transcendent.

JBI makes translation feel like the lazy man's penny dreadful, which it's probably not. Sure, translating a work can have terrible results; I refer you to Seidenbacker's translation of The Izu Dancer by Kawabata Yasunari as an example. But when it works, it hardly resembles the "gist" he's talking about.

Which is where Hack's reply comes in. :iagree: fully with what he's saying; most of us (even scholars of, say, comparative literature or non-literary fields) can not-and probably will not-learn all the languages in which literarture is written; :svengo: is just about the only result that follows. This is where translation comes in, as a time-saver and a gloss which gives us a general idea of where the relevant passage might be in the original.

[kiki1982]

Can't read everything, but I seem to agree with JBI that prose is easier than poetry. However, one needs to take into account all kinds of quirks, including sentence fetishes and strange puntutation that might not be easy in the target language... But then find something that has the same effect instead of abandoning it. altogether.

Nuances I don'tbelieve should be lost. With a lot of thought, it should really be possible to convey them. For most expressions about body parts there are ones to be found in the target language. For most double meanings there are satisfactory alternatives to be found... if one looks hard enough. And I think there lies most of the problem. Some translators do not take their time and end up making huge mistakes. And I mean huge! One not only has to take into account the meaning of the sentence and the absolute meaning of that expression, if it is one, but also which theme that expression fits into. That is of the utmost importance. Reading about the book beforehand is a good idea. I have the impresson that at last some translators only take the meaning of the sentence and then translate and of course lose the double meaning of the text in doing that. Also colloquialisms are quite important, because they give flavour, and they should really be translated by colloquialisms as well, as far as possible.

Some of the literal crap one sees on ProZ.com makes you wonder... But problem is of course that the ones that can actually judge the translation are far in the minority because most of the world is not so lucky as to know several languages. And then you come across as a know-it-all. Still, there are good ones around, I suppose and they should get credit.

Oh, and I don't see why one should not try to make a translaion as neutral as possible. I have a true problem with translators who make interpretations, because a translator is what it says on the tin: he translates. If he was one who makes interpretations, he would be called, yes, an interpretor and that he is not. A work of literature is something that embodies a great deal. It has a soul. Take half of the meaning away and you have an empty box.

[Zhu]

First of all, thanks for all your replies and insights.

JBI, what's a good translation and what's a bad one? Well, a bad one is easier to identify, but what constitutes a good translation? Is it a translation that stays as close as possible to the original, a translation that aims to keep the original flavour? Or rather a translation that's more accessible to the source culture?

You say a translation is merely the gist of another work. And that's precisely why I made this thread. Is translation underestimated, undervalued? Doesn't it deserve its own place within Literature? Should the translations of Dostoevsky, which you say are superior to the originals, deserve their own place in Literature?

Endnotes, footnotes and introductions are great. Sadly too many publishers are set against them. American publishers actually prefer foreign texts to be dumbed down for the American readership.

David, what language the original was written in is irrelevant. Nothing is untranslatable. The problem is that the translation isn't always beautiful, concise... Therein lies the difficulty of translation.

You are correct about translators being undervalued by the publishing industry because they are not a 'brand name.' My question is, why shouldn't they be?

Why not promote translators? Why not put their names on the cover (they did the work after all)? Why not give credit where credit is due?

Kiki, thanks for your contribution. A few questions: how can you know whether or not an author intended to make something ambiguous. If the author is dead or unavailable, it's impossible to find out. It's merely a guess. The translator has to interpret. Translation is interpreting.

How can a translator make a neutral translation? He has to make translating choices, and these may be well considered, but personal nonetheless.

I've been reading a bit of translation theory and the sheer difficulty, the choices a translator has to face are something most readers do not consider. I can tell you want thing, translation is not simply transferring words, idioms, colloquialisms and expressions into another language.

[mal4mac]

Endnotes, footnotes and introductions are great.


Don't they reveal a failure in the translation process? The original didn't have Endnotes, footnotes and introductions. Why should the translation? Doesn't a vast scholarly apparatus distance the reader from the book? The average reader coming to Tolstoy wants to read a novel, not a vast amount of scholastic detail from Professor's X and Y.

[Zhu]

Don't they reveal a failure in the translation process? The original didn't have Endnotes, footnotes and introductions. Why should the translation? Doesn't a vast scholarly apparatus distance the reader from the book? The average reader coming to Tolstoy wants to read a novel, not a vast amount of scholastic detail from Professor's X and Y.

No, not necessarily.

A translator has to build a bridge between one culture (source) and another (target). In every culture there are things, which cannot be explained in a subclause or by adding a modifier (two methods that are used by translators). These things can be references to historical events, public figures, customs, laws, political situations... Things that are clear to the readers within the source culture, but aren't clear to the majority of the readers in the target culture (the readers who will read the translation).

A translator may leave those terms and reference without adding any information. The cultural connotations, the importance of these words are lost (unless the reader actually goes through the trouble of looking everything up). Quite often, these terms are simply omitted or replaced by generic terms, or similar terms in the target culture, which again means that some meaning is lost (especially when they simply omit sentences, or even passages).

Endnotes and footnotes can offer a great solution (that's what I should have written). It allows the foreign to remain, yet it offers an explanation, which, in some cases can be of vital importance. These notes are usually written by the translator, not by professors.

At any rate, if the average reader doesn't want to read footnotes or endnotes, he can simply decide not to read them. It won't really spoil the enjoyment. And if he does, for some strange reason, wish to know a little more about a certain expression, word, name etc. the explanation is right there.

[kiki1982]

Kiki, thanks for your contribution. A few questions: how can you know whether or not an author intended to make something ambiguous. If the author is dead or unavailable, it's impossible to find out. It's merely a guess. The translator has to interpret. Translation is interpreting.

How can a translator make a neutral translation? He has to make translating choices, and these may be well considered, but personal nonetheless.

I've been reading a bit of translation theory and the sheer difficulty, the choices a translator has to face are something most readers do not consider. I can tell you want thing, translation is not simply transferring words, idioms, colloquialisms and expressions into another language.

It is not about authorial intent, for me. Partly of course, but books, certainly the older they get, are interpreted in a vast amount of ways. Not only authorial intent matters. Authors mostly don't even know themselves what they meant. It is rather the possible interpretation that should be conveyed. Because books are versatile and they need to stay versatile. Asking the author, ironically, might just lose you some info in most cases...

By a neutral translation I mean that one needs to ask the question what the word means on a first level, what connotation it has and what the possible interpretations are that could occur. All too often connotations are ignored and only one imposed where that wasn't really necessary.

Ironically, translators need to read, not merely translate, but that needs time and more time. It makes one realise what choice one makes and what theimplication of that choice is. I have the impression translators do not want to award that time to read all those things to it, or editors do not want to lose any time,and so it is, to me, sometimes, ignorance that prevails and moves translators to interpret too much. Also constanty being told that one needs to interpret will not help. There needs to be some 'first time wonder' when one translates proper lit and not merely 'what does this word mean and how to interpret it'-attitude. My husband has worked with translators and they have a word-for-word approach and cannot enjoy a play of Shakespeare although students of lower level classes could.

Of course it depends on the language, but the translations from French to English and German to English I have seen speak for itself in terms of seeming ignorance in some cases.

[mal4mac]

No, not necessarily.

A translator has to build a bridge between one culture (source) and another (target). In every culture there are things, which cannot be explained in a subclause or by adding a modifier (two methods that are used by translators).




Much can be,though, I wish translators would do more of this, sometimes all the reader needs is a fact, not a footnote. For instance, in Dostoevsky's C&P Zimmermann's is mentioned early on. His original audience knew this as a famous hat shop, most translators add a lengthy end note telling people this, only Coulson, that I know, of simply added the necessary detail and translated it as "Zimmermann's famous hat shop". Purists will now be shaking their heads and complaining about deviating from the original text. Fine. Purists can make their own translations. For me, and surely for most general readers, Coulson's solution is optimal. (In the end I bought Coulson's translation - the first few pages read very well in "Look Inside!", and (fortunately!) she kept up the quality.)

The note makers usually want to show off too much and give far too much detail of historical events etc, usualy far more than the "lowest common denominator" of the author's target audience. This can really detract from the flow of reading a novel.

I think it's alright to omit sentences of minimal importance to the aesthetic merit of the story. If you allow the translator to go this far then you make him a much more import character, perhaps one deserving of having his name on the front page. One who does get his name prominent is Robert Graves (he of I Claudius fame etc...)His translation of Homer's Iliad was very free, for instance Homer never mentions the sea without adding that is "wine dark" - a nice metaphor once, but repeated hundreds of times is rather wearing. So Graves simply omitted it after the first use!

What meaning is lost here? This repetition was used for "stress" and "memory enhancement". But we don't stress things this way in our culture, and don't need memory enhancement 'cause we have paper.

Footnotes are probably necessary for most classics, but I wish they would keep them to a sentence to a page, not a page for a page....

The notes are not always written by the translator. When they are they are usually better, because the translator is generally more interested in helping the book than gaining a reputation as a heap big scholar. A good example is Edith Grossman's Don Quixote - just enough footnotes to keep the story moving, and not weighed down with endless notes on medieval literature. (Note also, aginst your original complaint, she 8does* gets her name on the fornt page, in large type. Translators, note well - get it right and you do get your name in lights... conversely, many translators should be grateful that their names are hidden...)

I need some footnotes to help me over significant hurdles, but am often faced with having to read many pages of incredibly boring excess verbiage. I can't simply decide not to read the notes, I would be lost without some help.

If I do wish to know a little more about a certain expression, word, name etc., even with excessive notes, that information is often not there. I then need to Google all the doorstop books of scholarship to find what I need. Fair enough, but usually I don't want to dig into recondite details, I just want to a read a novel!

The default translation for me is *minimum notes*, *maximum* domestication. Scholars may have their own literal translations, with voluminous footnotes, but why should they impose them on me. And please don't say scholars know best, if you say that, you need to read Middlemarch immediately...

[ennison]

I do not read Russian so the footnotes etc. are a means to widen my view of what I am reading if I am reading a translated Russian text. They shouldn't be intrusive but a native speaker of a language is bound to have a readier grasp of the allusions, puns etc in creative writing than a foreigner and even the best translator may need to provide the "backlighting" to basic translation at times.