Intersted in Japanese Literature?

[Alcibaides]

In many
cases, this filter is powerful enough to obscure the beauty of the
original work. Poetry is particularly affected by this problem;

very

rarely do translated poems even approach the quality of the

original.

I'd go futher: I'd say NEVER does a translated poem approach the

qualities

of the original. It is a translation. Neither from French to

Spanish nor

from Japanese to English.
But I don't think, as you seem to, that in translation one LOSES

qualities.

I think they are--translated.

Novels rely less on the features of the languages, but any good

writer

will use every quirk of his language to his advantage--something

that

works against a translator's efforts. Why should a translation not

get

adversely affected?

I think you are saying that to translate a work is to denigrate it as

art.

I don't agree. If you are saying that it is "less" than the author
intended I do agree. I think it is possible translate the work of a

palid

writer by an excellent translator and make a BETTER work. You seem

to

think that the process of translation is inherently lessening of it's
"quality", "wrong", poorer, etc.

Whoever told you great literature is valid in any language was

pulling

your leg (or had no clue).

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not (although I was exaggerating a bit).

That was a joke. Read again.

Literature is indeed valid in any language. A work
does not lose "validity" in translation. By the token,

"colorizing" a

classic black-and-white film denies validity as film to the

colorized

movie. It certainly wasn't what the filmmaker had in mind, maybe

not what

they wanted. But the new incarnation is not "invalid" as film.

It is possible to make a translated work read very well. It is by

no

means easy; if you're fluent in two languages (I suspect you

aren't;

at least you don't sound like you're widely read in multiple
languages), I suggest you try translating a section from any

classic

work from one language into the other.

I'm not a professional translator of fiction, are you? In any case

whether

I'm widely read in many languages doesn't invalidate my opinion, or

bolster

your point. These are opinions.

Make sure you deliver the tone,
atmosphere, everything you feel in the original--any third-year
language student can do a word-by-word translation. Oh, and good

luck

transplanting word plays correctly--they are crucial parts of many
literary works.

I had no idea you were talking about translation by students.

Consider all

I've said invalid.

A few translators do manage to pull these off. Unfortunately, these
great translations happen almost as infrequently as great works,

and

the readers who need the translated versions (i.e. those who cannot
read the original language) have no way of knowing whether it's the
original or the translator who is responsible for the mediocre

result.

You're now speaking of volume and I doubt you really have a view on

how few

or many "good" translations of fiction have taken place in our time

or in

another. But back to my point. If the reading experience is good and
meaningful it is good and meaningful.

If you can't even tell the difference between a good and
bad translation, we might as well stop discussing this whole topic

now.

Well upstream it seemed I had to be a multi-linguist to validate my

view.

Now my ability to distinguish a good translation is paramount. This,

I

sense is a good time to stop. Soon you'll be calling me an

illiterate.

Hmm. I've got a response for you. I concede. You're right.

Japanese is

untranslatable. All other languages are: given whatever criteria you
consider important.
I think you're concepts of purity, accuracy and precision take

precedent to

the artistic experience. If we discount the reader in total, none of

this

argument need take place. It can all be handled by scientists in lab
jackets.
Click.
///--- Gerry

You obviously have a very basic idea of both Meaning and Art. I would
venture to say that you have little or no experience in creative fields
(and probably no real exposure to serious philosophy). The problem of
translation has occupied almost every serious thinker in history, and
the issues surrounding that discourse has been a major preoccupation of
all artists concerned with making with meaning. Arguing whether or not
it is an issue at all seems shocking to me, as an artist.

First of all, Mr.Yamashita has never stated in your debate that
Japanese is the only untranslatable language. He mentioned Chinese,
Latin and English as examples within his own realm of experience. He
never said that translation was "evil".
Human beings are revealed to one another through their ability to be
understood through speech (text), which is what makes literature so
vitally important. If you take a word in, say, German, for example, for
which there is no equivalent in English, and change it, what could be
more damaging to the experience? Terms are so important in
understanding the tone and meaning of any text. I can't even imagine
the difficulties in translating Chinese or Japanese into English, which
have completely alien alphabets. Some people do a fair job of
expressing the ideas of the author- I would never seriously use a copy
of Machiavelli's The Prince translated by anyone other than Leo S. Paul
De Alverez. He's the only one who can keep the terms straight. But I
know that I need to read the original in order to get the complete
value of it. A friend of mine who is studying at the University of
Tokyo, who is a fellow Kobo Abe devotee, is always amazed how how much
richer the experience of reading Abe or Karantani is in original.

[Gerry]

[Moderator's note: much included text deleted]

Holy moly! This has got to be a record! You're piping up in a
discussion from almost eight YEARS ago.

You butchered the formatting in response so it was difficult even to
know what it was for a while: I cleaned it up just out of curioisity
to find out what it was all about. Then I whittled out some of the
more egrigious statements with which I took issue.

Post by Alcibaides

Well upstream it seemed I had to be a multi-linguist to validate my
view. Now my ability to distinguish a good translation is
paramount. This, I sense is a good time to stop. Soon you'll be
calling me an illiterate.
Hmm. I've got a response for you. I concede. You're right.
Japanese is untranslatable. All other languages are: given
whatever criteria you consider important.
I think your concepts of purity, accuracy and precision take
precedent to the artistic experience. If we discount the reader in
total, none of this argument need take place. It can all be handled
by scientists in lab jackets.

You obviously have a very basic idea of both Meaning and Art.

It's always a surprise to see someone begin an discussion by making
assertions about the principles. Your first statements concern my
life, my experience and sweeping genralizations about these--about
which you know nothing. As suits the approach of a MODERATED group, I
will not participate if you continue in that vein.

But your're wrong, Meaning, Art and specifically translation have been
a matter of great concern to me most all of my life.

Post by Alcibaides
I would venture to say that you have little or no experience in
creative fields (and probably no real exposure to serious
philosophy).

Wrong again. I've been an artist, in a couple of disciplins, for the
past 40 years. I might point out that there are many artists that don't
agree as a group on matters of meaning in art. So concludes the
preliminaries regarding our bona fides.

Post by Alcibaides
The problem of translation has occupied almost every serious thinker
in history, and the issues surrounding that discourse has been a
major preoccupation of all artists concerned with making with
meaning. Arguing whether or not it is an issue at all seems shocking
to me, as an artist.

I never argued that it was an issue, I argued over the facets that some
considered important in the issue. I argued over the casual judgment
of "validity" in a reader's response if it did not line up with the
author's "intent" as if either were fixed and given. Neither are. I
argued with many other things, none of which you've addressed
specifically.

Post by Alcibaides
First of all, Mr.Yamashita has never stated in your debate that
Japanese is the only untranslatable language. He mentioned Chinese,
Latin and English as examples within his own realm of experience.

I don't care about the limitations of language selection, they are all
translatable.

Post by Alcibaides
Human beings are revealed to one another through their ability to be
understood through speech (text), which is what makes literature so
vitally important.

"Understood" is relative. In the course of reading a book there are
myriad feelings and concepts and moods. Not only does that
undergo change in a translation, it effects change based on the
environment of the reader. Both you and Mr. Yamashita seem to think the
reader is a blank slate that brings nothing to the table. That a book
exists in a vacuum of fixed meaning constucted in minute elements that
can only retain their utility if unchanged. I find that laugable.

If the reader is moved by a text they may not have been moved by the
author's original intent. How can they, with anything so complex as a
novel, be paraded through a vast emotional parade, lock-step,
concluding with the sentiment and conclusion the author had intended?
Preposterous. It doesn't work any any art whatsoever, whether music,
fiction, film, or dance. It probably doesn't even work in the simplest
of art forms.

Post by Alcibaides
If you take a word in, say, German, for example, for which there is
no equivalent in English, and change it, what could be more damaging
to the experience?

Please! You state the word "damage" like it was another givern factor;
any change is disaster. Hardly.

"It was a very splinge day, my fingers could barely find the pencil in
my pocket. I warmed them by the fire."

How damaging was that to the context if you didn't know that "splinge"
meant cold? Very little. None. There is no fixed damage (or lack)
inherent in translating the "untranslatable word".

Admittedly there are words that don't exist in all languages. But the
idea that feelings and thoughts are untranslatable doesn't wash for
me--in matters of art. One simply has to find an approximation. Each
word is only a nail, each paragraph is only a board. In the end it's
the total construct that matters--except to academics and mechanics.
This, of course, is critical to translators and people who are learning
the target language. But for an audience member it's lineage isn't
particularly important.

I'm not saying a bad translator can't ruin a good book for the reader.
And certainly poetry provides additional and almost unsurmountable
difficulties. Hey, it happens in FRENCH, it needn't be isolated to
some very very special asian language or other.

But even among those things that are "untranslatable" the question can
NEVER be whether the artist's intent was retained--how can one know
what the artist's intent was? You can't. You either get the original
or anybody's guess about the original. Using either of these (again
one may be inferior) the reader will come away with their very OWN
experience. But as I point upstream, it's conceivable that you get a
better book from a better editor. The same could be true of a
translator.

Every translation changes the book. Every editing sessions changes the
book. Every crying child in the next room changes the reading of that
book. These are givens. Is the book *invalidated* as art by the
process. Yamashita thought so, I do not.

Post by Alcibaides
Terms are so important in understanding the tone and meaning of any
text. I can't even imagine the difficulties in translating Chinese or
Japanese into English, which have completely alien alphabets.

Well here's a clue: these languages still dispense they same verbal
constructs; nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. And more importantly they
still tell stories about the comings and goings of people on our
planet, love and death and boredom, just as they do in in any other
country with any other language.

Post by Alcibaides
Some people do a fair job of expressing the ideas of the author- I
would never seriously use a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince
translated by anyone other than Leo S. Paul De Alverez.

Well you've got to have standards, don't you? :-) As for the rest of
us, maybe the experience is more important that the academic certainty
of "correctness" of the translation.

Post by Alcibaides
He's the only one who can keep the terms straight. But I know that I
need to read the original in order to get the complete value of it.

Can you tell me what that "complete value" is, and whether it is
applicable to all brains and hearts other than yours? You cannot.
Because the sense you make of it, at it's conclusion, is not the same
sense of it that any other mortal, "validated" by a good translation or
otherwise, will make.

Post by Alcibaides
A friend of mine who is studying at the University of Tokyo, who is a
fellow Kobo Abe devotee, is always amazed how how much richer the
experience of reading Abe or Karantani is in original.

Good for him. I can appreciate that. The more I know and study of
Japanese and of Portuguese the richer my exerience becomes of all art
that I encounter from these cultures. That doesn't make my experience
more "valid" and needn't draw me any closer to the purported "Intent"
of the writer. In fact I think that knowing more about the culture, in
it's entirely, makes the work richer by understading better it's
context.

That means that in order to understand the fiction from another country
is more about knowing the culture than it is the mechanics of their
langauge.

Some by again, say in 2012, for another go-round!