As discussed in one of our previous classes, people from different parts of Japan speak different dialects. There are many arguments relating to how those dialects should be translated into English. Seidensticker states that "dialect is too much of one time and place." What do you lose when you choose not to translate the right dialect? Do you agree with Seidensticker's words?
Seidensticker argues that "what may seem bowdlerization may be something subtly different" and that it is crucial to maintain the same effects upon reading the translated work. These same effects affect how the audience reacts to the author's work; therefore, the translator should prioritize sticking with the desired mood and tone of the written work. He also provides an example for Yukiguni where he has been accused of bowdlerization by changing the word "finger" to "hand." He explains that this choice of word was due to avoiding unnecessary sexual context to the original Japanese text. If a translated work reflects the same mood, tone, and effects that the Japanese author has created, should some bowdlerization accusations be forgiven? (Such as the example of Seidensticker's Yukiguni)
The discussion at one point touches briefly on the topic of translating works by a writer of a different gender. Seidensticker claims that "if a man can enjoy a writing by a woman, then, surely he can translate it." He furthermore mentions how he feels that a woman's writing language differs from that of a man because women tend to write in pure Japanese. Is there a clear distinction for writing styles of different genders? To what extent should translators take into consideration the author's gender when producing translations?
No comments:
Post a Comment