The C. Terry analogy felt like a stretch and incredibly dated, I'm inclined to disagree with the metaphor both for the comparison and what it's trying to say. I think that beautiful translations that retain a degree of faithfulness do exist. That said, I also think his definition of a perfect translation is too strict, to the point I wouldn't consider what he thinks to be a faithful translation as something possible. I tend to think that translation is more about conveying the main idea of one language in a format that's adapted to have a similar meaning in the other language. However, there is a degree of truth to his observations. When he was describing how long some sentences in Japanese are, that are unimaginable to translate word by word into English, I was reminded of the magazine articles that we had to work on this weekend. I also find the side rumination of how the type of language we are translating from or into lends to a different ease in doing so. I've had to translate stuff from my mother tongue to another South Indian language before, and it's always far more faithful than translating it into English, even though I'm far more fluent in English.
L. Riggs' analogy was far more elaborate, likening translation to transmigration. I appreciate how detailed his description of the translation process is, and I think there's a lot of truth in it. I find his distinction between the roles of translator and editor. The very role of an editor is to change the text and increase its readability. I wonder why the reduced authenticity that an editor would theoretically create is considered separate to that of a translator other than the translator's closeness to the text, and if C. terry would consider an editor's role in the completion of a finished manuscript as unfaithfulness as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment