Reading Comments 11/3- Sarah Watanabe

     Both readings this week discussed the dialect further as well as how audience's knowledge and expectations can alter a translator's choices. It was also interesting to see how each translator interacted with each other because though we could tell their personalities and theories on translation from past readings, when they interacted sometimes their ways of seeing things came to a head. The round table discussion regarding dialect was interesting because it was pretty similar to our class's discussion, which said that if a good equivalency exists, it should be used but could be disastrous if used improperly. I did find it interesting that Siedensticker said that it should be avoided unless one is a genius at dialects, which I thought was an interesting generalization because I think a lot is lost when dialect is completely left out. 

    There was good discussion about staying true to the original text, but one question brought up which I found interesting about Copeland also touched on briefly was whether a man should translate a woman's writing. Copeland stated that she set out to translate particularly influential women's writing and speech that led to social advancements for women, which seem to be especially meaningful for women. However, I don't think that necessarily means that men should be banned from translating all of women's works. Lastly, Copeland discusses the difficulty of using lots of katakana when lots of technical or foreign words are used. Because of the length it adds as well as the physical shapes that the katakana has can be jarring and interrupt the flow of reading but it's often unavoidable. One notable example is that my aunt was telling me that she had a great deal of difficulty reading Harry Potter simply because of the large amount of characters and their names were all written out in katakana, making it difficult to keep track of characters as well as simply making the writing much choppier than in the English version. Thus, I know it's generally avoided to change names altogether but I do understand why a translator would be tempted to do so. 

11/02 Questions for Hearing Voices: My Encounters with Translation (Rebecca Copeland)

 

Copeland quotes Professor Edward Seidensticker’s description of translation as “a series of dilemmas.” She then describes how writing a perfect translation is nearly impossible. Do you think this is true?

Copeland writes about Sharon Sievers’ error in translation, as she translated the title of a speech “Flowers in Salt.” However, when Copeland read through the article, she could not find any mention of salt. When she wrote to Sievers questioning her mention of salt, Copeland realized that during translation, “it is not just the word that you must consider but the power that resides around it.” What does this mean?

She writes about the two Genji translations by Arthur Waley and Edward Seidensticker, and how these translations vary due to context and period in time. Although these tow translations are expressing the same novel, how will adjusting to context appeal to readers?

10/26 - Reading Comments

I certainly see why e-books are becoming more popular, and I myself prefer them as well, especially for textbooks since it helps making looking things up much simpler. However, I do have to agree with the reading that if a cover is beautiful, it would make me want to buy it. I remember in high school, I won an Edgar Allan Poe collection book that had a beautiful binding and cover. Even though I had only read one of the stories, I love it because of how great it looks. And I think that is really indeed is the advantage of books, because people love to see beautiful and/or fascinating things.

I really enjoyed the TED Talk, it was both entertaining and informative. I liked that Kidd used translation and interpreting to describe the creation process of a book cover. It reminds me most of when we were translating poems. We had to understand the meaning behind the poem in order to be able to recreate a version of it into English. The artist must really understand the book in order to appropriately transfer that into something visual.I enjoyed the various techniques he used, such as the juxtaposition of Dry and the moist effect for lying effect, and the aging of Buddha across the binding to make the series visually appear much more connected. There is a lot of information that the artist must convey to the audience in order for them to pique their curiosity and want to read the book upon seeing it. Although the expression “Don’t judge a book by its cover” is often used to deter this fact, it cannot be helped that people judge things by sight since it is one of our 5 major senses. When people browse they won’t take the time to read the summary of every book, just the ones that catch their attention.

Reading Comments 10/26

 

I agree with both the video and the reading's sense that e-books are certainly convenient, however, if i'm going to do any extended amount of reading, typically, (and I don't think this applies just to me personally) a physical book is preferred. It's why e-readers like the kindle have gone through such trouble to attempt to replicate the look of a physical page of paper with a digital screen. People enjoy it. There's just something to be said about owning, and finishing a hard-copy of a book. It can even be used as a display of art, if it's stylised enough (which seems to be what the publishers are going for these days). However, I think that the debate of whether to buy physical or digital copies depends on what kind of book you're going to get. If it's a fiction/non-fiction novel, then I'd rather have the hard-copy. If it's a textbook, I'd rather it be digital, as lugging those around is a total pain and is incredibly expensive to buy. If it's a dictionary (especially a translation one), I'd much prefer it to be digital, purely for convenience sake. And then, there's a scenario I've been in recently while reading a Manga in Japanese, where I've been able to split one half of my iPad screen to read the manga, and the other half to have the dictionary app open at all times to be able to draw and look up any kanji that I don't know. The ability to use my iPad as a tool while reading this has been absolutely invaluable. I can't even imagine how miserable an experience that would have been 15 years ago. 

10/26 Reading Comments

 

No matter how often people may claim otherwise with the old saying, first impressions are important, even (or perhaps especially) when we’re talking about books. I definitely think the book cover is important, and reading and listening to insights on how they are designed was really interesting. Something I thought was particularly notable was in the TED Talk, when he describes the job of cover designing as somehow like translating. Certainly, when we translate, I feel like it is not so much that we are just trying to move words from one language to another, but rather we are trying to capture some sense behind the words, and how they feel to a native speaker of the language; and from how it is described, cover designing seems to be a very similar job to that – for instance, I think of the example he raised of the two biographies, where both were about a person’s life, but since one felt more like a conversation and the other like a detailed observation log, their respective covers were words and a picture.

I do think the point about e-books raised both in the article and the video was worth consideration. The designer mentions that there is an experience you can only get with physical books, which I definitely do agree with to an extent, and this is supported by the statistics cited in the article, where the paper edition of 1Q84 vastly outsold the digital edition. There is definitely something about the way a physical book can interact with our five senses that are somehow lost when moving to the digital. However, I do wonder if there are ways to enhance the digital cover in some way which we could not replicate in the physical.

10/26 Reading Comments

It's interesting that translating a book doesn't just mean interpretation of a text from from language into the next. What I didn't realize as we move into the post-pandemic world of people not as willing to go out to a bookstore, is that publishers and translators alike have to recreate the way people see books. From the first glance, people will either decide to or not to pick up and take home a book. And the fact that they have to in a way "re-advertise" their books is more effort on the part of everyone involved in the process. 

10/26 Reading and Video

I agreed with both the reading and the video. The most interesting comment from the TED talk was that the title should not be the same as the cover. He gave the example of having the book cover be an apple when the title is also Apple, and he said it's like calling the reader an idiot. I never thought about book covers that way before, so I'd definitely like to go to Barnes and Noble to see which publisher thinks I'm an idiot. I also liked his idea of the "typography in denial" like when he used water in the book "Dry." That would definitely catch my eye if I saw the cover.

Regarding the reading, I completely agree that a cover will make it or break it for me. It could be a good book, but I really won't pick it up unless it has a good cover. I feel like years ago physical books were becoming obsolete, but in recent years with interior decorating getting more popular among people my age, I feel like physical books are making a comeback. That is if they have a good cover. It's like coffee table books. People who own them will RARELY pick them up, but they have them just for decoration so they better have a nice cover or be from prestigious brands such as Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc.

readings for 10/26

The cover designer said that the book cover is what the book content is suppose to look like, and I think that quote is very interesting. I never understood why people used the term "don't judge a book by its cover" because the purpose of a book cover is so that you can use it to accurately judge the contents. I think that the way the book is packaged and presented is half the battle when it comes to getting people to read it. In modern day when we go to a bookstore or library, there are so many books in every genre, that no one will stop and read the summary of every single book. A nice book cover gets the job done fast, and if done right - it will gets the job done will too.

In addition to that, when it comes to e-books vs physical books, I always prefer e-books. Although I would like to have shelves filled with books to carry around, I find that books in America are extremely pricy. I've found that books in Asia are always much cheaper than books in America, and I never quite understood why. As much as I like touching paper and enjoying the packaging, my wallet will simply not allow me to do so. 

Readings for 10/26

 While ebooks are definitely gaining popularity, I always find myself more drawn to having a physical copy of a book. Somehow, even though everything is digital these days, there is an element of intangibility when it is on a screen. I am absolutely drawn to the image of paper books, and they also have a much different experience in my opinion. In cases where books are, as this article mentions, treated like aesthetic pieces to obtain, I am even more excited to collect the physical copy of a book. Especially if there is a whole series of books, I would like the collection to be from the same print so that it looks like it goes together. Even if the book is one that I own already, it is probably problematic to my wallet that I'd consider buying it again with an aesthetic cover, especially if my copy has become a bit worn. I think having this new distinction between digital and physical media might actually breathe more life into literature.

10/26 Reading Comments

I think it's completely accurate that an eye-catching or interesting cover compels people to buy the physical version of a book. It's a sort of first impression that attempts to hook you into the contents of the book, much like the title or maybe even the blurb if there is one. Although e-books may be more portable, accessible, and in most cases cheaper, there are certain things that reading electronically doesn't provide; In my experience, having an actual hardcover book in your hands and physically flipping the pages makes for a more memorable read as opposed to e-books. You're more able to attribute parts of the story with physical parts of the book and reaching the end of the physical book just sort of gives more satisfaction/fulfillment. And if the materials used to create the book are high-quality, it makes the read that much more enjoyable.

On another note, my experience with e-books and physical books is more along the lines of collecting. If I've read the online version of a book and I thought the story was particularly good, the next time I happen to be in a bookstore I might consider purchasing a physical copy. Typically, reading through the physical copy of something is more enjoyable than reading through the electronic version for me. The same also applies to shows or movies that have been produced based on a book; Unlike shows/movies which usually have a time constraint and as a result have to cut details out, a book provides more detail and allows for a more leisurely read.

10/26 Reading Comments

We all know that we shouldn't judge the book by its cover, but it is also true that a good cover could lure a reader in and make them discover a great book. I was once, too, was interested by a cover of a book, was interested enough to look it up, and finally decided to buy it. Content of the video and the article, though, delve even deeper into this matter, when book publishers have to also consider the existence of e-books. Manga and video games I own are almost all in physical form, but sometimes I consider things like moving, my bookshelf that is almost full, and I consider buying things in digital from now on. However, some feelings still keep me in the physical world, the excitement when I unwrap the plastic cover and when I open to see the first page is still there. Good designs and some extra precious values that come with it add to that excitement even more. There's also the feeling that when things are in your hand and it feels like you really "own" them, unlike when you buy things digital. Reading the article and watching the video for this week remind me of those merits, and I think I'll still keep buying things physical for a while.

10/26 Reading Comments- Sarah Watanabe

     We always say to not judge a book by its cover, but when taken literally, the fact that book designers exist at all is proof that it does. In many cases myself, I have been drawn to an interesting book cover which led me to read a book I never would have picked up otherwise. In his TED Talk, Chip Kidd mentions that book designers are somewhat of a translator or interpreter because they have to take the content of a book and its title and transform it into something artistic and captivating. This was an interesting point which I had never thought about but I think actually connects to Nathan's reading last week, where he says that translation should be done by grasping the meaning of a piece and translating the intended meaning rather than the words themselves. Book covers seem to be the purest form of this because there is art and visuals seem to be able to convey something beyond words. 

    However, one thing that the TED Talk made me wonder was how the cover and the meaning changes when it switches from hardcover to paperback. Some covers can be transformed without loss but it seems that some covers such as the Naked cover that Chip Kidd showed seems to rely on the sleeve, and that aspect is crucial to the design. Another phenomenon that may impact book design in Japan is that when people are reading books, especially in public, they often cover the book covers with brown paper given to them by the bookstore. Presumably the reasoning is that others don't know what book is being read, especially if it's something embarrassing or personal, but after seeing the thought and effort that goes into book design, it seems like a shame to have so many covered up. 

10/19 Comments

    In John Nathan's talk, he elaborates on a "strategy of fluency" as a method of ensuring fluidity in translations by ridding the work of cultural and linguistic differences. Personally, I feel like overwriting cultural context is in some ways trapping the reader in their own world and doesn't allow for the exploration of other cultures with their own cultural norms. Reading works outside of one's own language is a way to, of course, interact with literature outside of say English, but it's also a way to learn about another culture. Linguistic differences, I think, might be inevitable since things like grammar are crucial to the reading experience, but I do think cultural differences should be retained to some degree. This reminds me of our first translation with oseibō which could be kept oseibō or translated to holiday gift or some variation of the translation. 

   For Hibbett's talk on Tanizaki, I found myself somewhat amused by the mention of Tanizaki's emphasis on ero, guro, and nansensu (admittedly, it was mostly because of how silly nonsense sounds in katakana). Reading on, I found it interesting how Tanizaki often thought about the European world and painted it in such a fantastical way, much like how Japan is often depicted abroad, yet he didn't seem to want to actually go to Europe. As mentioned by (I think Madalyn), I'm curious is Tanizaki maybe didn't want his view of Europe to be destroyed or warped from going to Europe. I also find it interesting how now, though Japan is often put on a pedastal abroad, people generally want to go to Japan, unlike how Tanizaki seemed to avoid the abroad experience to Europe.

10/19 Comments

 

A point that Hibbett brings up, which reminded me of something we’ve discussed before in class with regards to Murakami, is a text where Tanizaki uses hiragana and katakana to distinguish between two in-story authors of certain parts of the text. In the Murakami text, we mentioned that the two different narrators used different pronouns for “I”, and the distinction was made in English translation with tense, where one part is rendered entirely in past while the other is in present tense. I thought that was a really clever way of approaching the issue and making the distinction very clear, but on the other hand, Hibbett says that he simply chose to attempt rendering one part in a more feminine voice. This strikes me as interesting since I think it would probably be a lot subtler and harder to spot for the English reader, but at the same time it would probably, in terms of the sense conveyed, be a more faithful rendering, so to speak.

John Nathan touches a lot on faithfulness, and I think his points are particularly fascinating. In particular, it seems to me he draws a parallel on how since a language is always in flux and changing, so too can the original work change, especially in relation to and in interaction with translations. I thought this was an interesting concept, especially in relation to Japanese, which has a lot of old works which would be hard to understand to someone completely unfamiliar with Classical Japanese, even if they were perfectly fluent in the modern.

10/19 Comments

 I really liked how Hibbet reflected on how you feel an intimacy with the text even if you don't perfectly understand something, and even when he gathers input from his friends then he doesn't feel obligated to make a statistical choice. I think this is a challenge, but a necessary skill that translators need to have because you have to make sure that your translation is an independent interpretation of the original, without being limited by what others may say. I'm also noticing a common theme, that in most of the interviews of translators we've read so far, people seem to agree that translating humor is the hardest part. I think that might be because with humor, there are so many cross-cultural references that are impossible to unravel without losing the comedic aspect. 

With Nathan, I found it surprising when he used one of his own translations of Oe and explained how he thought his translation was "wrong." He said that it was too neat, that his passage doesn't do anything, and that it's "much too sanitized." I'm not sure if this is a struggle for all translators, this was certainly the first time I've heard of it, and I wonder if this is due to the fact that the translator doesn't feel like they've captured the "essence" of the original author's voice.

10/19 Comments

One of the interesting parts of the Hibbet piece is where he's talking about how he translated a variety of titles. One of the titles he had to translate was Manji, the Buddhist swastika symbol, something that would have an entirely different meaning in the west. It's interesting, I wonder what Japanese people thought about it in the time he translated the book, or if they were largely aware of the alternative meaning of it, like many young Japanese are not today? He also mentions that he likes to take "a few liberties" titles, something I think, based on my very limited translational experience, is often necessary when translating Japanese titles to English. He also mentions that before he translates, unlike some translators who like to sort of just go for it without having read the work beforehand, he likes to read it until he feels he knows the text well, and then translate. And then he goes back to the Japanese again, investigating details and consulting matters he doesn't entirely understand with friends. He also mentions that there's been times where he's asked 5 different people about something, and they've given 5 different answers. I think this can be one of the beautiful things about translation, in that there are many particular areas that are subjective, and you just have to decide on the interpretation that you like best.

A common theme with a lot of these translators is, is that no matter how much time they dedicate to a particular translation, it seems that there are almost inevitably mistakes, be it linguistically or contextually. I think it's perhaps important to remember this going forwards, as certainly we too are bound to make errors like this.

10/19 - Reading Comments

 Both of the readings by Howard Hibbett and John Nathan expressed a common theme of cultural differences and the act of translation in reference to being as loyal to the original or varying to accommodate for the language it is being translated to. When Hibbett was describing his translation process for The Key, he spoke of how the husband and wife used different kana within their diaries. As a result, he read various books by female authors in order to learn how their dialogue differentiates for the wife’s diaries. Although the most helpful book ended up being written by a man, it still emphasized how much a cultural difference can cause the translator to go at lengths to retain at least some of that distinction between the diaries. I know I certainly haven’t read enough books to pull a feat off such as that. Furthermore, he spoke of Manji, which is the Buddhist swastika symbol. Of course, the connotation with swastika in the west is wildly different. This is of course troubling for the translator since they must maintain some of the original title but also attempt to remove the negative connotation that results from a direct translation. This sort of reminded me of one of our previous readings where the author of a poem changed their own poem somewhat drastically into English due to a motherly complex that would arise in English versus the Japanese version. As for John Nathan, he spoke more of the translator’s duties. He spoke a lot of how translators should not attempt to remain exactly the same as the original since it may cause the author’s original voice to be lost, but to find a way to maintain the cultural and linguistic differences while transforming its readability to that of the translated language. A quote that I thought was good was that people see “translation as important not because it transmits some kind of an essential meaning from one language to another, but because of what happens to both the original and the translation, the target language, as a result of translation.” I think this quote summarizes what it means to be a good translator. Anyone who understands the other language can get the meaning across, but a good translator is able to convey that meaning into English, as if the Japanese author would have intended to write it if they were writing in English.

10/19 Reading Comments

 Hibett is a very interesting case, in this article having primarily focused on one author. What is fascinating to me is that Tanizaki has so many translators and translations of his stories, I wonder how they influence others or if many translators look at other translations. It's also very interesting in the aspect of "aestheticizing" Japan. And with the accusation of writing an "exotic Japan" I really think it has heavily impacted modern views on what Japan is. Of course, the "Cool Japan" movement also didn't help with establishing a generic aesthetic of Japan. In contrast, the fantasy of the West is also surprising. I know there are cases where Western culture is glorified, but it stood out to me that Tanizaki enjoyed this romanticized vision of the West, but had no intentions of going there. I wonder if he didn't want the image to be destroyed, or if he wanted it to remain in abstract. But then, wouldn't that pose the same threat to creating an imagined Japan to Western audiences?

I enjoyed Jonathan's comparison between the Japanese text and the translations. The success in translation to him is retaining the author's voice. And this is such a hard thing to do when the voices exist so differently between Japanese and English. However, I think that it is possible to capture styles and meanings if you are good at reading the language and also the people. I liked how he also referred to awkward wording as "translation-ese" because it really does feel that way sometimes. When you've tried to translate something perhaps too close to the original that it just sounds outlandish in the English. As he mentions in the article, translation is done in a lot of different ways and states that even the original text is a translation in a way. 

10/19 Reading Comments

 

While I was reading the readings by John Nathan, I especially enjoyed the Questions and Answers segment. While answering a question about translation, he gave an example of a translation he did for a book by Kenzaburo Oe. He states that Oe’s books are “full of excess and wildness, which, if reproduced in the abusive fidelity mode, would look like bad English.” He describes the difficulty of translating writings from authors who write like this, “So to take this all on and let the author be prolix, or let him be repetitive, or let him be overdone, or whatever it is, takes courage.” As previous readings have stated, there are certain aspects of Japanese writing, such as repetition, that are essential to the story but do not sound good when translated into English. This puts the translator in a difficult situation, as they would want to maintain similar tones and accurately characterize the writing. However, when translated literally, a lot of Japanese phrases and sentences would not make sense in English, simply due to the differences in culture and speaking patterns. He recalls when The New Yorker wanted to publish a piece of Oe’s book Rouse Up, O Young Men of the New Age. Although difficult, he tried to “preserve a lot of the clumsiness and wildness and awkwardness in the Oe text and not to clean it up and hide it.” However, as this sounded awkward in English, the editors at The New Yorker made the translation neat and clean, removing all of the excess wildness that Oe had originally written. 

In Hibbett’s reading, I thought the question about the problem of naturalization or assimilation of the text to the target language was interesting. As there are many cultural and language barriers and differences between Japanese and English, I would find it especially difficult to accurately translate Japanese literature into English. Words and phrases that would read normally to a Japanese person might often sound very strange when an English reader reads a direct translation. He states “There are all the particularities of culture- from artifacts, often unfamiliar, to behavior.” He then follows up by stating that he tries to avoid footnotes, which makes it difficult for him to accurately translate an aspect of culture without explaining it in the text, or adding a footnote. However, he says that nowadays it is easier because facts and information about Japanese life and culture are more widespread tot the English-speaking world. 

10/19 Questions for Howard Hibbett

 1. Hibbett talks about Tanizaki's dubious critical status in Japan. What did he lack that leads Japanese scholars to think this way?

2. What are the trio of tendencies found in Tanizaki's works?

3. The canon, or the established list of master works, comprises of three authors. Who are they, and for what are they often criticized?

4. Howard Hibbett was asked to translate The Key. Why was it so difficult to translate?

5. Hibbett states one of the biggest problems a translator will encounter is translating titles? Which novel had "the most daunting" title to translate and why?

6. For what body part is Tanizaki most famous for having an interest in?

7. What are some of the faults translators can make (46)?

8. Who was the most difficult author for Hibbett to translate?

10/19 Reading Comments

    As mentioned in the section of Nathan's text about how the strategy of invisibility which could be thought of as the phenomenon of an invisible translator, translators are often felt obligated to remove signs of linguistic and cultural differences; to sort of "domesticate" and rewrite the original text into a transparent language. However, rendering oneself invisible when translating a text often has the side effect of also causing the voice of the original author to diminish. It's interesting to consider the trade-off between preserving the original voice of an author versus compacting and reshaping the text into a manner that people of the other language are able to read and enjoy it. The numerous cultural and linguistic differences between English and Japanese make the task of translating whilst preserving style and cultural elements to be quite difficult and sometimes impossible. It is seldom possible to have a perfect one-to-one translation of an original text with all the intended meaning and nuances intact.

    Another interesting point, this time mentioned by Hibbett, is the example of difference in symbolic significance apparent in the Buddhist swastika symbol versus other contemporary views of the symbol. The Buddhist swastika symbol is something that symbolizes abundance, prosperity, and plurality whereas in other parts of the world the swastika symbol is something that has a very negative connotation. When it comes to translating culturally significant symbols, one also has to keep in mind the connotations that it might have when translated to other languages. Hibbett mentioned how instead of translating directly as "swastika", translating it into something like "crossing lines" would have been an interesting alternative that avoided the negative connotations of the symbol whilst sort of maintaining the complexities associated with the title.

10/19 Reading Comments- Sarah Watanabe

     Through Hibbet's writing it was interesting to hear about how much translators actually read, especially of different styles of writing to help them figure out how to best translate their works. Hibbet also mentions the issue he faced with the title of a book which referenced the Buddhist swastika, which has a very negative and different connotation in the Western world. This is an interesting example of how the timing at which a translation is published can greatly affect the wording that a translator chooses. Certain events can deter a translator from some words because of their new meanings and connotations. On the flip side, old translations can be misconstrued because of the new meaning of a word that came about after the translation was published. Lastly, Hibbet brought up an interesting point about dialects which I hadn't thought about before, Dialects seem to exist in many languages but are highly culture specific as well as having specific sound patterns, thus making them hard to translate. I think dialects are hard too translate accurately because though there are some similarities that can be drawn, it's hard to replicate and there is a potential for offending people. However, removing it could remove a key aspect or feel of a text. 

    In contrast, Nathan's piece gave me a lot to think about as his opinion seemed quite removed from the conflicts other translators have cited. In terms of the idea that the real conflict was between assuming the original is unmoving or dynamic, I agree to an extent but find it hard to agree with him because it seems to be an impractical argument. Even if we try to understand what an author means through the symbolic nature of one language to convert it into another, it means we must find meaning beyond words, which though possible, is very difficult and requires deep analysis. Though translators and their abilities are amazing, this seems to be quite a tall order as it requires mastery of both languages and a working understanding of linguistics that might be hard to find, even amongst many accomplished translators. Thus, I doubt the achievability of this viewpoint even if it seems to have some basis of truth. 

10/19 Questions for "On Mishima Yukio and Oe Kenzaburo"

1. Nathan argues that the dichotomy between translating literally and translating intention is a false dichotomy because they both work under the assumption that the original is complete and unmoving. How do you think translation changes when one assumes that the original is dynamic?

2. Natan argues that because language is a symbolic representation of objects and concepts, there is an inevitable discrepancy between the author's writing and intended meaning. Does this argument make translating into English while retaining Japanese writing style or cultural elements permissible? 

3. The invisibility of translation is mentioned as a "strategy of fluency" to get rid of cultural and linguistic differences? Do you think too much is lost when the translation caters to the new language's audience and culture? Or do you think leaving cultural references creates an unnecessary barrier for a new audience's understanding? 

10/13 Comments

        I think Terry's notes on Japanese-English translations was both interesting and enlightening in that he points out things that I never really noticed when reading English novels vs Japanese novels. I would preface that I'm not the most avid reader of novels in either language (especially because I enjoy books on history and psychology rather than fiction nowadays), but of the novels that I'd read when I was younger, it had never occurred to me that English and Japanese be so different. Thinking back, when I was reading a light novel series called Youjo Senki (a military fantasy & SF fiction series that even my parents had some difficulty reading; I had to keep a dictionary at hand), the sentence structure was long and elaborate with multiple layers, which didn't exactly help with understanding what was being said when combined with difficult military language. Still, I didn't find it particularly frustrating, and like Terry mentioned, I really did skim the text, albeit slowly. For English novels, I think the last novel that I read was Pride and Prejudice in 10th grade which (while I did find boring), was a simple read and most of the content was straight to the point. 

        Even looking at the paragraph above, I can see some of my poor habits from Japanese fiction writing and English fiction writing merging. My sentences do tend to be long and can be more complex than it needs to be. I will, at least, note that it's worse in Japanese, but still I find it interesting to see the influence of my writing in each language. 

        I also found Terry's point on the lack of true equivalent words in English to Japanese and vice versa interesting. I've gotten used to it and therefore haven't ever thought of it deeply, but reading his point on "ham" for example, made me chuckle as I recalled that ham indeed wasn't really ham in Japanese. It's similar to the word purin or "pudding" in Japanese, which refers to (usually caramel) flan. I found myself in quite the conundrum when I was telling my friends how my mother loved purin and when they gave me very strange expressions (well, they also didn't know what flan was so it was quite the experience). 

        Finally, to move to Terry's central point, I also don't know if translating word for word is the correct form of translation. Well, I suppose it is correct, in that it is loyal to the definition of translation, but whether it's a good translation is a whole other story. I think with novel writing, I'm inclined to agree with Terry that ensuring the translation is easy to read is important, as is the case for magazines or articles which are aimed at the general public. I'm a little more hesitant to say the same for poetry where an author's word choice is especially carefully picked, as well as more official literature like newspapers and scientific journals, but the latter two are obviously written differently from Japanese novels. 

10/13 article comment

I thought this week's readings were very interesting and insightful, however before I begin discussing the articles themselves, I would like to point out a phrase in Terry's article: A Live dog. They said that "translations are like women: if they are faithful, they are not beautiful; if they are beautiful, they are not faithful. It might be added that translations, like women, must avoid sounding ridiculous if they are to succeed". I agree that this concept is accurate to what Terry is trying to say about the job of translating itself, however relating it to women - I took a personal offense. Just later in the same article, Terry made clear that American readers do not like to be offended by the text they're reading. Well it seems that this text proved itself right! Aside from the misogynistic comment, I agreed with his thoughts on the job of translating. I agree that one of the most difficult thing when translating is trying to not sound offensive in the English translation. Phrases such as "it's a given" sounds slightly degrading in English, but perfectly normal in Japanese. However all in all, I feel that all the problems with translation that Terry pointed out all roots from the difference in culture. I did a mini test myself translating between Chinese (a language that is very similar to Japanese, and close to Japan geographically), I found myself heisting a lot less, and that it was actually much easier than English 

I also liked Rigg's method of calling translation 'transmigration' instead. I feel that the term transmigration is a term that aligns better with translating Japanese to English due to the fact that they are two languages that are very distant from one another. Distant meaning that the countries in which the two language originated from - England and Japan - had no contact throughout most of history, and only gained contact in the last few hundred years. They are distant history wise, and distant location wise. 

10/13 Reading Comments

 

I thought that Terry’s pointers were very interesting. Although I didn’t like his introduction paragraph about how translations are like women, I appreciated his other pointers about translations. Terry’s points made me realize certain things in translating Japanese to English that I had never realized before. For example, he talks about repetition, and that Japanese writers often use repetition, but when translating, it usually reads better in English when the repetition is omitted. He also states that rhetorical questions are often used in Japanese writing, but they should not be included in English translations. He says that if the translator translates the rhetorical questions from Japanese writing into English, it would make the writer sound “childish or pompous, neither of which is desirable.” I thought that the example of itadakimasu was very interesting, as this could not be translated into English. This is not only due to differences between the English and Japanese languages, but also their respective cultures. It would be very difficult to come up with an English word or phrase that reflects the accuracy of the meaning of itadakimasu.

In Rigg’s writing, I thought that it was interesting how he went through the steps of effectively translating Japanese writing. I found it very relatable when he was describing the two main ways a translator approaches a task. He stated that you could either move one sentence at a time, creating a draft from the first reading of the writing. A drawback to this method is that the translator wouldn’t know what happens in the end, which could cause misleading translations. I thought it was interesting how he talked about this, as it was very similar to what Carpenter said in her interview in the readings from last week. He also states that the other approach is to read through to the end while looking up words or background as you read. Although this method can be slower, I agree with Rigg that this will ultimately lead to a better and more accurate transition. 

10/13 Readings - Glenn Ee

 

I thought that the readings this week provide a fairly novel perspective on translation. While we have seen discussion of taking liberties from the original text prior to this, these readings seem to take this almost to an extreme, the Riggs reading in particular recommending a great deal of restructuring and editing of the translation’s first draft. It seems to me that this is quite an interesting contrast with, say, the Seidensticker reading, where he discusses his translation of the opening lines of Yukiguni, and talks about how he would have liked to keep the translation closer to the text of the original, even despite internal rhyme possibly making it awkward in English.

I think that the point that Charles Terry brings up about considering the audience might be one of the key issues here. It seems to me that in translating more literary works, it may be more important to keep close to the original text; whereas, for instance, in popular novels, as in the Charles Terry reading, it is more important to keep the reader’s attention by choosing to preserve the brisk pace, and in expository writing like in the Riggs reading, conveying the original arguments and information in a coherent manner is of paramount importance – hence the need to shuffle the structure to present said information in a way the English reader can easily comprehend. Working with poetry last week definitely made a point about how the form of the original can change how you approach a translation, and I think this really does drive the point home even further.

10/13

     Charles Terry raises some interesting points, and then offers solutions to variety of particular phrases or techniques often found in Japanese writing that I either never considered, or have yet to encounter thus far in my 'career' as a translator. The first point he makes is about omitting the translation of phrases like "needless to say", as he characterizes it as being  "nearly always a sign of bad writing in English". I'm not sure I entirely agree with him on this point, as if there was no use for the phrase then it wouldn't exist. Although, I can understand the argument, in that perhaps one should be more comprehensible in their writing to the extent that the usage of this phrase is no longer warranted. He continues on and informs us many instances in which bits and pieces of the Japanese should be omitted for the English reader, as it either doesn't make sense, would be considered insulting due to the description or line of questioning,  or just would not be mentioned (e.g. itadakimasu). For me personally, I think Charles Terry's 'pointers' will change the way that I approach translating a text from here on out. When translating, I often feel the need to try and include absolutely every little detail and cultural nuance in the English, and as a result I think the quality of my work has been negatively impacted. Every week after reading these articles, I somehow  feel that the difficulty of translation increases with the knowledge obtained from them, yet they make me more aware about the flaws in my own work.

Comments 10/13

 While I don't particularly agree to the opening of Terry's notes, I did think a lot of the pointers were actually very useful. I typically find it difficult to stray too far away from the original Japanese when I am translating, but the difference in writing was really something I hadn't considered much before. The difference in what makes writing good in Japanese and what makes writing good in English is a really interesting point. I think I've experienced it the most in the differences between essay writing. So seeing what shouldn't be included in the English translation, like repitition and rhetorical questions, did make sense. However there is one part that I think isn't exactly true. At one point, he mentioned that English writing is like its spoken language, while Japanese writing and spoken language are very different. I would argue that literary writing in English is also quite different than its spoken language. Overall though, I thought this article was very useful with tips to keep in mind while translating. 

The second article seemed to support the changing of the source text quite a bit. Much more than I have read in past readings. I thought there was a bit of a questionable sentiment in this article, with the idea of incomplete information in the Japanese source material. I don't necessarily agree with Japanese being less organized or having a lack of flow. I think formatting is absolutely different between the two languages, so that has to be dealt with with reconstructing as the article pointed out. I did enjoy the solidarity of the difficulties of translation mentioned in this article though. Translation involves so much research, work, and effort beyond just translating, and it is great to see that acknowledged. It is also nice to see a realistic article about how in modern translation, and between such different languages, there has to be additions and changes made to the source text in order to retain the "meat" of the text, as the article puts it. 

Comments: 10/13

 "A Live Dog: Some Pointers on Translation."

    That's uh, quite the opening line there isn't it? 

    This was a fun read, I think. The author's matter-of-fact and dry style of humor certainly got a few laughs out of me (although its age is fairly apparent), and a lot of his more pessimistic and jaded comments about readers, both Japanese and English-speaking, struck me as interesting insights. Unfortunately, I find myself largely unable to make judgements in either direction regarding his pointers, if for no other reason than that I refuse to use the words 'good' and 'bad' in reference to anyone or anything other than myself, in which case I have a strong tendency to go for 'bad.' I do, however, find it interesting that the author himself did not seem to suggest that his method of translation was necessarily the best; rather, he seemed to position it as a viable solution to the difficult problem of moving texts from Japanese to English and vice-versa, akin to the use of logical induction in proofs. And so, I thought it was interesting! I didn't have to squint much to see where he was coming from with a lot of these tips, and I may even employ some of them in my own translations when I can't find a path forward myself.

^_^ / 10

"Notes from Interlingual Hell: The Translations of Essays and Journalistic Prose."

    Also a fun read! I like the proposition that translation is itself an artform rather than just some clerical process. What with the amount of time it takes me to translate anything at all, the idea that my own efforts are artistic in nature is validation of sorts, nice to think about (that's how I've been justifying all the time I've thrown into these things). If you think about it though, really anything can be art for its own reasons (at least I think, I don't pretend to be an authority on this stuff); the ideas that flow through the head of a translator while they're at work may in many cases be similar to those that pass through the mind of a painter as they sit at their canvas, or maybe even a mathematician as they search for a proof of some outlandish mathematical idea. I think it's a nice thought --- anyone that deals in work requiring original, creative thinking ought to be called an artist, and valued as such, I think! Wouldn't that be nice?

^_^ / 10

10/13 Reading Comments

When I was reading "A Live Dog", the passage that talked about the difference in standards when it comes to certain literary techniques between English and Japanese, I found to be quite relatable. In the translation homeworks that we have completed so far, there were instances where I thought the Japanese text to be quite repetitive and a one-to-one translation would almost appear to mock the English reader. Of course in an English text, the reader still has to be reminded occasionally who the subject is within a paragraph. However, Japanese seems to be capable of both completely omitting the subject at times from entire sections, and including the subject in every sentence of entire sections without seeming unnatural. I also thought it was an interesting point to omit certain details in Japanese-to-English translations that English readers wouldn't bother reading; Specific societal/cultural details might be too difficult to follow or simply of no interest to an English reader. When reading "In Interlingual Hell", I found the section talking about translating titles to be quite insightful. I should've read this before translating the magazine article but, I thought it was a good point how titles need not be a literal translation and rather can draw on the content of the article for inspiration instead. A good title should be one that entices readers into the text which is not often achievable when translating literally.

10/13 Reading Comments- Sarah Watanabe

     These readings hit on many of the points we have seen in other writings by translators such as deconstructing a text before reconstructing it in a new language as well as the tradeoff between good writing and staying faithful to the original text. One point I found particularly interesting and new was how Riggs discussed the involvement of the editor in translation much more than other translators have. I had imagined editors being a second set of eyes and as the name suggests, someone who edits. Though Riggs describes editors in this way, she also described them almost as if they were a partner who a translator passes their baton (the writing) over to after a couple of drafts. One sentence in which she wrote, "Editors do, on the other hand, enjoy a convenient distance from the text," stuck out to me. It made me wonder how much editors know about Japanese language and culture and if they don't have an extensive background as Riggs suggests, if this could create issues. Though I understand the merits of having someone more distant from the original looking at the drafts of a translation, I also wonder how much is lost in the process of an editor cutting parts out because it would not be understood quite as well by the new audience. 

10/13 Reading Questions and Comments

 Notes from Interlingual Hell:

    Questions:

    1) Which method of translating is more helpful to translators? Riggs mentioned two: the first being reading the piece as a whole and then creating a "rough-draft" skeleton, or taking the time to research all unknowns as you are reading? 

    2) What are some of the difficulties in translating a title? Is there anything that gets lost when moving from one language to the next?

This reading actually broke down the criteria of translating an essay. I found it really interesting to learn that Japanese essays don't have much of an "opener" as we're so used to reading in English papers. Riggs wrote about the fact that translators have to change cultural references or figures to things that a foreign audience will understand, in a way that still carries the same meaning and nuances with those sentences. From the opening, to the body structure, to even the title choice, there are a lot of moving parts for the translator, and then even having to be available for consulting with the editor after the first draft is done. I do agree with Riggs in that there should be at least two people working on a translating project at a time, given the laborious nature of the task. 

A Live Dog:

    Questions: 

    1) When translating didactic writing to English, even though English speakers prefer not to read didactic writing, is there some kind of feeling or meaning from the original that is lost if they are left out?

This article was actually really interesting. I was surprised at this text. Terry made English readers almost sound a bit picky- which is not wrong. I agreed with all of the points he made in his outline, especially with the differences in Japanese vs. English reading and writing habits. It's fascinating to have these pointed out, because I knew exactly what he meant when he said that English readers prefer not to have clichés, or that English don't like to be asked didactic questions. I wonder if in Japanese, essays of this type have a tendency to almost look down upon the reader? Maybe my perspective as an English reader is skewed, so I'm not sure if that has to do with the social hierarchy or anything, but at least the examples Terry provided almost made the sentences sound elementary-like (e.g. ningen wa doubutsu de aru). 

10/13 Reading Comments

 When I was reading "Notes from Interlingual Hell" I think of academic or magazine paper that will be fundamentally different from the ones written in English, and fixing like rearrangement, omitting, and inserting would make them easier to read in English. Since for these types of texts, style or identity of the original author do not matter much, as their jobs are to inform people. Now that I read "A Live Dog," I was surprised at first that the mentioned "fixing" would also apply to works like novel too. I understand why once I read Terry example of the "animal" and Musashi paragraphs. Translating them while keeping all of the details would make a very annoying English passage. This matter is something that never crosses my mind before and make me really appreciate Japanese to English translators even more. I also like Terry's comment on "faithfulness" that it does not only have to be about translating everything, but also about keeping the text interesting and appealing, or even, readable to the target audience.

10/13 Reading Question for "Notes from Interlingual Hell"

1. Riggs states the problem of fundamental difference between structure of English and Japanese essay/article that makes it hard for a translator to translate from Japanese to English, to what extent should a translator change the structure and content of the text to make it "suitable" for English readers?

2. For the problem of Japanese article structure being hard to comprehend, how can a translator conclude for themselves if the problem is with the issue of difference in structure or the problem is with the original text being bad in its quality? Also, when the text is hard to comprehend, can a translator really conclude that the original paper is at fault? Could it be that it is intentional by the original author?

3. With many solutions Riggs state for "creating a good English essay out of a monster manuscript," for example, rearrange order of sentences in a section or adding or deleting a sentence to clarify the point, is this really a job that a translator should be responsible for? Shouldn't these be a job for an editor-in-charge, or even, the original author of a paper to improve their own text?

10/5 Reading Comments

 I liked how Carpenter said that Mizumura's contribution to English literature was weaving together the "I-novel" and true novel. I also really liked how the book made it sound like Carpenter added in some context for the English reader, but in actuality it was Mizumura who wrote it in order to bridge the gap for those who might not know Japanese culture as well. I appreciate authors that keep their audience and those even outside of that audience in mind when they write.

It was interesting that Carpenter liked Seidensticker so much. I did like his translation of Snow Country, but in his article that we read earlier, he made it sound as if he was being criticized from every angle. I also found it really interesting to read her translations from the picture book and how she broke down her thought process for every word. This just reminded me of how much time and effort is put into the translating process and this just furthers my respect for those who do it.  

10/5: Comments

    Carpenter's conundrum with onomatopoeia is something that I relate to quite a bit, especially when in a scenario where I have to explain what a certain onomatopoeia means. Like when explaining Japanese grammar structures, there's a learned, almost instinctual component to understanding onomatopoeia for me in Japanese, making explaining difficult. When I was in a position where I had to translate between English and Japanese for English speaking students and Japanese speaking students, I struggled to explain the difference ほかほか and ぽかぽか as well as ぽつぽつ, ざーざー, ぽたぽた and ぱらぱら, the former being for temperature and the latter being for rain. I found a way around it by explaining through a scenario, like what Carpenter does with pitter patter, but it was still a little difficult. 

    I also really love how Carpenter equates translating to coloring a coloring book. It's a metaphor that I really like because you're of course bound to the lines and to some extent you can cover something by adding a tree or animal, but still, at a certain point, you edit to the point where the lines can't be seen. This makes it an original art piece and not coloring within the lines, which would be unfortunate if you were trying to color within the lines. 

10/5 Reading comments

 I find Carpenter's metaphor of translation as painting a picture very interesting. Based on this metaphor, I thought that as a translator, we should not be allowed to paint a different color than the original author wants, but we actually did that all along. When language doesn't work the same way, we have to consider changing something (maybe shades of colors, in this metaphor) to make the translation comprehensible for the target audience. When jokes don't convey the same meaning, we change it entirely like the example of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Buddha. This would be changing the color and the dress in the painting. We did it all along, and different painting by different translator would have different shades and color too.

Another thing I find really interesting is the case of the murder mystery novel where she was asked if a plot twist would make a translator re-translate some parts before the revelation, and Carpenter said that you must understand the text to translate and never let that happen. I wonder, though, if the text is instead serialized and you can't know what's going to happen next. Could some details you decided it was extra and would let it lost in translation become crucial later in the story? What would the translator do if this happens?

10/5 Reading Comments - Glenn Ee

 

It does seem only natural that when dealing with technical terms, one would need to either look them up or ask an expert about them to ensure accuracy. Something that Carpenter mentioned which I thought was much less obvious, though, was capturing how people in a certain field speak, with her example of the biker in The Hunter. I think any relatively small group of people brought together by, say, a common hobby, would have their own little catchphrases recognisable by all of them. If something like that comes up in a translation, I’d definitely want to be able to consult someone in that group, since it just wouldn’t sound right to anyone reading it otherwise.

In the readings, Carpenter also discusses at length two authors who were heavily involved in the translation of their work: Arthur Binard, an American writing poetry in Japanese, and Minae Mizumura, whom she worked with very closely in translating A True Novel. While it is of course impossible to tell without ready access to both of their works, from the examples given it seems to me like Binard was much more willing to readily change significant parts of his original work. Perhaps this reflects on the differing natures of poetry and prose translation more than anything, but I thought it was really interesting to take note of.

10/5 - Reading Comments

Reading through Carpenter’s passage made me realize a lot of obvious things about translating that I should have before. For one, I never really considered onomatopoeia, but in actuality it is quite abundant. It is everywhere  in comics, and can sometimes appear in books and dialogue too. It made me wonder for when there is no equivalent. Do we do what Carpenter did? What about in comics, when a sentence isn’t suitable? Furthermore, the issue that the author who translated his own poem had was quite interesting as well. Usually, we have been considering when something doesn’t sound right in English, needs a little more info, or if there is something that English speakers wouldn’t understand like juku. But this is the first time that I’ve seen just a casual topic causing such a misunderstanding in English. I think this was a very interesting issue that could cause a lot of problems for the translator. Another thing is the accurately translating how a character is as well. In the interview, there was a passage that Carpenter and Mizumura collaborated on. While the rough drafts both were translated well and sounded good in English, they did not capture the “sharpness” that Mizumura wanted until the final. Moreover, things like character dialogue is also something that is more than just being able to translate properly.

10/5 readings

 

    One of the things Carpenter points out is that she had at one point read a Natsume Soseki novel and was not impressed, but had read another and thought it was really good. She emphasizes the fact that whether you enjoy a book that's been translated from another language or not can be severely influenced by whether or not you like the translator's style of writing. It's possible that the author isn't to blame if you didn't like a book, it may have been the translator's taste that wasn't to your liking.  

I found it interesting that she says you're not really able to change the picture when translating. You can maybe add a tree here and there, but you can't get rid of the person standing in the middle of the frame. However, she mentions a rare exception to this rule. Arthur Binard's self-translation of his Japanese poem only used the word "mother" once, whereas in Japanese it's mentioned many more times. This isn't the kind of change that we can usually get away with as translators, I don't think.

She also mentions that when translating Japanese poetry, you have to decide to start your poem with the bit at the end, or the bit at the beginning. Much like with what we had to do over this weekend when translating the haikus and tanka, you just have to do the best you can, as it'll never come out the same as in the original. It can be especially tough to keep the same feeling with the translation of a Japanese poem, especially because of it being SOV, rather than SVO in English.

In the interview, she gives examples of the evolution of a couple of the sentences in the book "A True Novel". I found interesting the variation between the first and final drafts, as well as seeing where the author had wanted more attention, like when she wanted more focus on the moonlight. The dedication to the translation of that book is incredible, considering the fact that it took 3 years and the effort of 5 different people to pull it off.

10/5 Reading Comments

I found the readings this week to be quite insightful. Carpenter's comments on the certain key elements one should pay close attention to are particular useful, providing another approach to the difficult task that is translating. I quite liked the analogy of how translating is sort of like coloring in a picture. A translator's job is to provide both the skeletal structure of an original text (making sure the integrity of the content is maintained), while also breathing life into it. We're allowed to decide the color with which to fill in the picture and perhaps even add small details that don't take away from the piece as whole, but you can't take out somebody that is already there. The outline provided must be followed.

I also thought the section where Carpenter brings up Arthur Binard was interesting. A special case where the original author was also the translator for the poetry. According to Carpenter, Binard only mentioned his mother one time in the English version whereas in the Japanese version it was mentioned several times. His reasoning was that mentioning his mother too many times in the English version would make it seem that he had a mother complex. It's interesting how cultural differences make it so that in one language it would be perfectly normal to mention the same subject multiple times over and over, and in another language it would seem obsessive. Since Binard was the translator for his own poetry, obviously not all translators will be able to alter the original content as much as Binard has done so during the translation process. Carpenter asserts the point that creativity plays a big role in translation. A translator must play around with combinations of words and ways that things can be said to eventually arrive at a satisfactory or perhaps a compromised solution.

Overall, the readings were quite enjoyable to read. I was kind of shocked that the whole process of translating and editing took just over three years as mentioned during the interview text. Goes to show just how arduous translating can be. Though, also quite rewarding and fun according to Carpenter.

10/5 Reading Comments

 

I found the interviews with Carpenter to be very interesting. I liked how she said, “You have to strike a balance between being creative and not changing the feel or intention of the text.” I strongly agree with this statement, as when I am translating, I often find myself struggling with creativity, as I try to stay loyal to the text as much as possible. I realized that there is indeed a lot of creativity in translation, although it might not seem like that from readers. I also thought it was interesting how she brought up the example of a murder novel when discussing translation strategies. She stated that it’s essential to truly read through and understand the text before the translation process starts. Although this concept might seem obvious, when translating, sometimes I translate as I am reading the original text. However, this could be misleading as it’s essential to understand the entire story to avoid making mistakes and having to re-translate. 

Another thing I thought was interesting was Carpenter’s justification for using slurs in her translations. She states that in translation, it is absolutely essential to have a feel for how people talk. This is important to communicate all aspects of characters, so the readers can accurately picture the story. Carpenter stated in her translation of The Hunter, the characters all had distinct personalities and voices that had to be communicated in the translation as well. She then states that although she usually avoids using slurs in her translations, she used the f-word in her translation for effect. She says that it was essential for her to use an offensive word, to communicate the character’s feelings. She also uses an example from her translation of The Hunter to depict how difficult it is to choose the correct words in English. She says, “Thanks that don’t sound wrong in Japanese may just not work in English, and you have to change them.” When I am translating, I come across this problem quite often as well.

10/5 Reading

    I found many interesting statements in "Jumping Into the Pond," starting off with Carpenter's comment that one translation can make you dislike an author's work, while another can make you enjoy their work. I'd like to try reading an entire book translated by two different authors to see if this statement is true. I also agree with Carpenter's comment that translating humor is difficult. I can barely understand humor in English, so translating humor from another language would be extremely difficult. I agree that you should show your translations to a willing reader. My first draft of 「夜のくもざる」was a mess, but with help, it became succinct and understandable. I really enjoyed Carpenter's analogy to a painting that someone drew because it's really true. There are studios where you recreate an artist's work as closely as you can, but in the end it will never be the same. I've always wanted to try it out, and even though my work will not be identical to the original, my creativity will be shown through my painting. I was confused when Carpenter said you have to be a child in some ways to translate, but I understood when Carpenter said we have to be the child reading the book, or the parent reading it to their child. Always make it clear and succinct.

    Carpenter was once asked what would happen if a translator read until the end of a book and find that the killer isn't who they thought it was gonna be, and whether that would force the translator to change the translation. Carpenter says she would never translate a mystery without knowing first who did it, so I wonder if there are some translators who translate without having read the book. Is the general rule that you read the book before translating?

    Regarding the interview with Carpenter, I enjoyed reading about the process of translating and collaborating with Minae Mizumura. I'm shocked that it took 3 years tho! I do enjoy the title A True Novel.

10/5 Reading Comments- Sarah Watanabe

     This reading by Carpenter was very interesting because the overall themes about translating and the difficulties involved are similar to the other readings we have read, yet she brought up some points that were distinctly different from other translators. She discusses the onomatopoeia, which Japanese has an impressively large amount of and can be used with one verb to greatly alter the emotion and feel of the action which is hard to capture in English. I think it is extremely difficult for any non-native Japanese speaker to understand, let alone translate, as there are so many and they don't all have clear cut definitions. Carpenter touched on this briefly but besides the challenge of simply translating the meaning, a lot is missed because a lot of Japanese onomatopoeias don't translate into English onomatopoeias but other forms of speech instead, so the repetitive nature as well as the sound is often lost. 

    Another interesting challenge that was brought up was the use of technical terms. I myself have noticed that when writers, not even translators, don't extensively research or get a second opinion on the use of more technical or specific terms, it sounds very unnatural. One example that comes to mind is I've read a lot of dialogue where a character, who is written as bilingual by a non-bilingual author, will often say things like "Oh I forget to switch sometimes" which doesn't sound natural or realistic at all. In this sense, I do find it important to discuss such things with someone who has direct experience and connects to Carpenter's point about being humble and never assuming you're right from the beginning. 

10/5 - Questions

1. In the Mozart children’s book described by Carpenter, there are various forms onomatopoeia used to convey emotion. When translating this, how do you determine between using similar onomatopoeia in English, e.g.  “ba-bum” for the heart, versus words and phrases like Carpenter did? Moreover, what are some examples of Japanese onomatopoeia that have no English equivalent and how they should be translated?

2. Carpenter brings up the poet Arthur Binard, and how he translated his own Japanese poem into English. One point Carpenter emphasizes is that Binard changed some of the original text to prevent English readers from misconstruing the character having a mother complex. In situations where details must be preserved, but doing so may cause issues due to cultural differences, what is the most ideal way for a translator to approach this?

3. Carpenter notes the importance of creating authentic dialogue for The Hunter, as well as understanding technical jargon in Waiting on the Weather: Making Movies With Akira Kurosawa. Both of these go beyond simply understanding both languages. What are some ways a translator can overcome these challenges assuming they cannot receive the help such as Carpenter had?

10/2 Reading Comments

 I thought the article by Carpenter was really helpful, especially by talking about how she handled certain struggles. She also had some other perspectives on translation that were a bit different than what I usually hear. Instead of word for word translation versus sense for sense translation, she mentioned translating the 'spirit' of the original. This is really interesting, because it helps the translator open up a bit more, while maintaining accuracy. She described cutting or adding parts for the sake of maintaining that sense of the original. Her examples of the onomatopoeia in the children's book captured how difficult it is to find an equivalence in English. But knowing what the source text is trying to convey, you can use the appropriate English to describe the Japanese. 

In the interview as well, she mentioned that there were times in the translation that call for additions. This can benefit the reader, and I thought it was really interesting that when these additions are made, they can be retranslated back into Japanese. But I think it is important that she mentioned that additions aren't made without a lot of consideration. She emphasized that if something doesn't make sense, the translator shouldn't first assume that it was the problem of the author. In order to really make a good translation, the translator has to really understand the Japanese. From there, the translator can decide what really needs to be said in the translation.