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.