In one of my classes at Uni, my James Joyce obsessed poetry lecturer commented enthusiastically on an English translation of a Russian poem by saying that if the language was this beautiful after it had been translated, what would it have been like before translation.
For some time I have been interested in the concept of translation. In particular, texts that have been translated into English after being written in a language other than English. I only speak and understand English, so I can only look at this from an Anglo-centric perspective with the limitations (but I would also argue benefits) of having a singular and unchallenged view of the English language. I only understand the text as a product in itself and not as a variation of the original.
My problems with my poetry lectures assertion is the fetishisation of the original, particularly from the perspective that English is not as beautiful as other languages because it is not a Romantic language.
If you can’t read the original, no matter how highly praised or celebrated it is, it means nothing to you. If the text is inaccessible to you, than it is worthless. How can you comment that a poem would be more beautiful in the language it was first written in if you can’t read that language. It doesn’t matter how beautiful it supposedly is if you can’t read and understand it.
A translation should be viewed as a cohesive product in itself as it is problematic to perceive translations as being inferior simply by default. There are several different methods of translation. Poetry, in particular, is not translated word for word, but by imagery and meanings. There are many elements of poetry, like rhythm and rhyme that would get lost in translation if the translator didn’t take into account these elements and try to replicate their essence when remaking the text into their own language.
Essentially a translation is a completely new text. It should only be praised if it is a good text in itself and not as being a complimentary or referential text to the original. My poetry lecturer’s inference that the original text is automatically superior is simplistic and completely devalues the role a translator plays and the ability for a translated work to have merit in its own right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I certainly agree that translators aren't given the credit they are due - the skill it takes to bring a story from one cultural context to another while still maintaining the integrity of the text is so impressive when well done. Milan Kundera's work springs to mind there!
ReplyDeleteHi Jen, I am not familiar with Kundera's work but I will look at it. I totally agree that translation is an art form.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I do envy people with multi lingual skills when it comes to translations or reading the original texts.
ReplyDeleteYes, it can be very impressive when people know how to speak six or seven languages. But i think people also don't realise how only knowing one language can have a different perspective on texts that should not be undervalued.
ReplyDelete