After reading the article by Harry Morales that summarizes his interview with translator Gregory Rabassa, please answer the following two questions. Your responses (combined) should be between 400 - 500 words (more if needed). Have fun!
1. When asked about ongoing translation and the need to reconsider what he has translated, Rabassa says: "I am always having second thoughts. Sometimes after I have made a change I find myself going back to the original choice. Nothing ever seems static." When you consider the complexity of Marquez's work, what does Rabassa's comment show you about the nuances of translating literature? (Build on what you learned from Susie Jie Young Kim's article as you respond to this prompt.)
2. Rabassa also says, in the interview, that no "translation can really be called either definitive or final. Ambivalence and ambiguity come to the fore; words change subtly over the years; there is a sort of Doppler effect in meaning as time passes, so that both translation and original will present a different meaning now from what they did a hundred years ago." Consider what Rabassa is saying in terms of language, and literature, being living entities that morph and evolve over time. Think about a favourite book of your own and whether or not you believe it will have anything relevant to say to readers in 50 or 100 years.
Question 1
ReplyDeleteTranslating literature is a very complex and ongoing process. As Kim pointed out in the example of revising the translation of a poem she had translated previously, in the passing of time, the focus of the translator might change (e.g. from tone to meaning which Rabassa remarks as being the two main levels of translation). Rabassa furthermore comments that ‘I do not think that any translation can really be called either definitive or final’. His reasons include: the subtle changes of words over time and the general change of meaning of both original and translated works. Often we use precisely this change in meaning to discover and explore events and styles in history. For example, Shakespeare’s works are beautiful pieces of literature and still very relevant today but they also often lend insights into the time they were written in and we have to be careful not to ignore the difference of 400 years between being written and being read!
Rabassa also remarks on the differences of translating past authors vs. contemporary authors. It is interesting to read that the collaboration has both positive as well as negative impact on the translation. If we consider Shakespeare’s work again, it might seem incredible that his plays are still (or even more recently) very popular in other languages, considering he was an English play writer so many centuries ago. And yet Rabassa makes clear how the translation of Shakespeare’s works might just be less exposed to the ongoing evolution of translations precisely because they are not exposed to the original author and the time difference is so vast.
The art of translating has always fascinated me, specially when I compare books I read in German vs. the original English or visa versa. I very much agree with Rabassa, concerning the ‘different sound of languages’. If I consider the books I have read in both languages, the comparison he gives about translating the tone of a book fits absolutely perfectly: ‘Tone is the impossible part; it can only be approached, as languages sound so different. This process can only be compared to the transposition of a melody from one instrument to another’!
Rabassa was confronted with very complex literature and many layers in the works of Marquez. Tough ‘Chronicle of a Death Foretold’ might have even been a little easier than for example ‘100 Years of Solitude’, he had to not only keep the unlinear structure intact but at the same time stay true to the original ‘feel’ of Garcia Marquez’s writing style!
Another very interesting point Rabassa makes about the review of translated works is the fact that they should receive the same critique as the original. He states that ‘the important thing is that it is a novel or poetry, not that it is a translation’. I mostly agree with the statement, especially when we are trying to identify the meaning of the plot or the characterization of a certain character. This applies for example, to the discussions we had about the innocence (or lack thereof) of Santiago Nasar or the characterization of Angela Vicario. Still we should never forget, when exploring a translated work, the fact that it was originally written in another language!
Question 2
ReplyDeleteI have already partially commented on the quote of the second question: The meaning or at lest the relevance to the present time changes over the years. And sometimes we can only use old literature to examine the beauty of style or discover facts about the time it was written in. On the other hand, the I read, the more I find that the broader themes, such as the search for identity, the meaning of life, the conflicts in society, the relationship between genders, never fail to come up in ancient as well as modern literature! I believe this to be one of the most fascinating aspects of the art of writing. It very much reminds me of the art of sculpture with which I’m probably much more familiar than literature. Though all art is very transitory and progressive, it also seems to include a very common, or at least familiar factor, which in turn reveals something about a constant human nature. Sure, styles change and fashion almost proceeds at a dizzying pace but more often than seldom, I find old pieces of art (literature, sculpture, painting etc.) that remind me of a very present aspect of life.
Now taking all these experiences into account, I can conclude that yes, my favorite book at the moment might just have something relevant to say to readers in 50 or 100 years. Even if the topic or the style are ‘old-fashioned’, the work in itself will probably still reveal lots about our present day (which will then already be part of history). In general, I think it is always hard to determine which work will last in history and which works will go under after 10 years. Sometimes, the choices are rather obvious but sometimes it takes more than a century for people to discover an old piece of art and to learn to appreciate it (in music we have the extreme example of Mozart who died a poor-man’s life and who’s works are now some of the most played classical pieces of all of history!).
What Rabassa says about translation being ‘neither definitive or final’ fits into the process any art form undergoes throughout history. I think, acknowledging translation as being an art form and at the same time learning to ignore the fact that a work was originally written in another language, highlights the complex job a translator faces. It is though very clear that the translator does play a big role in making a role fit for future relevance or letting it go under in the sea of literary works that are floating around in the world of culture!
Questions 1:
ReplyDeleteMárquez’s work is indeed extremely complicated in the form that it is written, especially because he uses extensive amounts of magical realism. Translating his work is very difficult because it is extremely easy to lose something significant just because a language may not have an expression or idea to express something very clever that the original language expresses, just as Susie Kim said. Rabassa said that he always doubts his translations, often making changes, but then ends up sticking to the original version. This is very reasonable because there are so many ways to express an idea, yet having to know how the author wanted to express that idea then translating it into another language can be tricky in that the translator might not know which way the author intended that idea to be expressed. Also, I know that there are essential ideas in Márquez’s work that cannot be expressed in English since English does not contain type of expression; therefore, it is the translator’s job to think of all the possible ways to express that idea in English without losing too much flavor. As Susie Kim stated, translators are perfectionists, they never stop trying to find a better way to translate a work. We see the same dilemma in Rabassa’s situation. With Márquez’s works being so complicated yet brilliant, of course Rabassa feels that it is essential to keep the novel’s former glory by perfecting it as much as possible, therefore, continuously making changes. Yet, readers still find Márquez’s work in its original language much better than the translated version. This leaves the translator to question whether he could have perhaps perfected it more, and maybe if he should have stuck to his new choice of translating a particular phrase. In my opinion, it is impossible to translate a brilliant novel, such as Chronicle of a Death Foretold, into another language perfectly. There are only better versions than others; therefore, translators should focus on making it better and not perfecting it.
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteLiterature does indeed morph in the world of readers over time because a novel has to have a setting and atmosphere. A novel almost always includes a culture and their customs. However, cultures and customs also morph over time, thus, causing readers’ perception on novels to change from what it was when it was written. Even if a story is not set in the time of the publishing date, the author is still on the same page as his readers. The author’s perception is similar to his audience, therefore, the readers often agree and relate to the literary work much more than they would fifty or a hundred years later. However, in terms of language, literature morphs because culture morphs the type of language we use. Certain words used in a novel may not mean the same things to use than it originally meant fifty to a hundred years ago. Certain expressions and phrases can also confuse readers if it is from five to ten decades back. In our pop culture, we are used to language the authors fifty years ago never dreamed about hearing. Imagine if an author from a hundred years ago came to our society and read a classic contemporary novel, they would be just as confused, perhaps even more confused, as if we read one of their novels. We would interpret their work so differently that is just as if the work has been translated into another language. We may miss out on many clever expressions and important phrases. However, it may not be true for every novel, such as my favorite novel, Memoirs of a Geisha. This is because Memoirs of a Geisha does not use much contemporary language for us to interpret, it is only trying to preserve and introduce a special culture for more people to know. I do not remember many elements in the novel that separates it from a novel written today or a novel written in the past, although it is still beautifully written. I think that the novel will survive the evolution of literature and readers fifty to a hundred years from know will still find the novel a brilliantly written memoire that captures the stunning life of the same geisha we know today.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteRabassa’s comment shows that translating literature has very many problems to it. This was also expressed by Susie Jie Young Kim in her article. There are plenty of difficulties in translating literature due to the nature of the two different languages. Rabassa states that “the translator must respect the text on two levels: meaning and tone.” These two levels are very difficult to incorporate in a translation. The meaning will always be altered slightly and the tone will never be the same as in the original work. Rabassa explains that tone can only be approached. This is because languages sound so different. Rabassa also expresses the nature of collaboration between the author and the translator. He says that this collaboration has both positive and negative aspects to it. Rabassa explains that although theoretically collaboration should be helpful, the author can often be “deficient in English and yet cocksure of his faulty knowledge, and thus he makes impossible and incorrect emendations.” Collaboration is only efficient when the author and the translator can work well and closely together and if the author also has a good understanding of the language the work is being translated into. Rabassa also argues that “the proof that translation is an art is the fact that it cannot be taught; you can teach a craft, but you cannot teach an art.” Since translation has so many specific difficulties to it, it is impossible to teach to someone else. One has to have a strong understanding of both languages and the original text to be able to translate it effectively. As a result of all these different obstacles in the process of translation, it is clear that a translation will never seem perfect. The meaning and tone will always sound slightly different and therefore the translator will always have second thoughts about his translation.
Question 2:
I believe that language and literature will always be relevant to readers at any time even though they change over time. This is because as the meanings of language and literature change, the significance of these meanings also changes. So the significance of the meaning of a piece of text will be very different now than in the future. Therefore literature will always be relevant, no matter how old it is or how much it has changed. An example of this is the importance of great art works by famous artists such as Picasso and van Gogh. These artists were unpopular in their days when their works first came out. However long after they died, their artworks became hugely popular and highly expensive. The significance of their artworks greatly increased as time passed and the value of their meaning also rose drastically. Therefore a favorite book of mine now will still be highly relevant to readers in 50 to 100 years. However it might be relevant in different ways than it is today. This is because the readers in 50 to 100 years will value different meanings in literature depending on what is significant in the literature and language of those days.
language is never static.this is what rebassa is attempting to approach, the fact that language is always changing, morphing and creating new. think about the odessy. is it possible for us to grasp the entirety of homers work that was formed in a language that dates before christ! as a translator there is no definitive "right" way. this means that the translator is marching blindly forward feeling his way through the text. also the fact that translation cannot be taught. rebassa states an art unlike a craft cannot be taught. with his students rebassa is merely able to show them the right direction. he cannot show them the right way as with translation ther is no "right" way. in this sense translation could appear to seem straight forward, this is not the case. think of a cheesy foreign soap opera; in which the voice overs are in englidh. however they are done so bad that watching the soap opera is painfull and is completely ruined. (not much to ruin in my opinion) translation is like this, there is no easy way to go about it, those that do attempt to make it easy will find they have destroyed the essence of the work. such is the case that a translator must get down to the grit of the novel and hold onto what makes the book tick. the translator must aknowledge that "baggage" will be left through the process, however if a translator is able to preserve the meaning, tone and feel of the book they have been as we can say an adequate translator. there will never be a perfect translation as language runs on paralellel lines, like train tracks, only sometimes do these languages intertwine.
ReplyDeleteas i have said before language is ever changing, if we think of shakespears plays, we notice how incredibly strange they sound to be saying in the present. whilst both are of the same language merely one is older. i feel if the meaning of a book is strong and contemporary enough it will find a way to endure. think of ian flemmings 007 novels, in which the content of the books will forever inspire young boys to grow into her majesties secret service. if the meaning or the idea behind the novel is strong enough it will be able to survive. this can be seen with the new bond films. antoher book that brings up the idea of language is a clock work orange. in a clock work orange anthony burgess plays with language and creates a completely new language, although possesing the backbone of english. this play with language has made a clockwork orange "immortal" it means that for well a long time it will continue to stay contemporary to issues of the time. not just with the theme behind the novel but also because the language use causes the reader to question their own perception of language, language is an ever changing entity which requires great skill by the author to preserve their work in time. however in my opinion if the story is written well enough it will show to survive for eternity, think of homers odessy in which a tale as powerfull as that has been able to survive for well over a thousand years. this gives hope to me that some books will survive the constant flow of language and learn to persevere with time.
ReplyDelete1. The article about Gregory Rabassa clearly shows flaws that exist within translations. Translation is an ongoing process. Words, phrases, sentences, expressions etc..., can all be interpreted differently by different translators. When Gregory Rabassa says that he always wants to go back and change something or that he is always having second thoughts about something, he is trying to say that in translating there might be the perfect translated word but it takes a long time before that word is found. This is why translation is an ongoing process. As Gregory says this, he also means that there are many different ways that one can interpret something. Many words can describe the same thing in life but there is only one perfect word. This is why translations are so hard because there is only one perfect word or statement, which takes years of translating to find. Even if translators work in groups there are always different words or phrases that cannot be translated and translator always need to decide which word or phrase fits best. That is why translation is opinion based and sometimes there are problems that occur with different opinions among translators. This is why Gregory always said that he has second thoughts, and these thoughts are about which word or phrase fits best.
ReplyDelete2. Rabasssa has a point that no "translation can really be called either definitive or final. Ambivalence and ambiguity come to the fore; words change subtly over the years; there is a sort of Doppler effect in meaning as time passes, so that both translation and original will present a different meaning now from what they did a hundred years ago." This is because as I said in the paragraph before translators always on a search for the word or phrase that fits best. Words can constantly be changed in a translation because as words are brought into a language they might have a better meaning for the translated word. This then may become the best fit for that word but over time, another word may be found that fits even better. Therefore, this is an ongoing process. In addition, Rabassa clearly always has second thoughts about a word or a phrase and so do many other translators that is why translations continuously change over time. Any translator may suggest a word that can fit best and then once that change is made, the change needs to be made all over the world, which becomes this big process. Translators have a lot of stress on their hands because their work needs to be just as good as the authors or in some cases, with Rabassa for example Marquez says that he finds the English version better than the original. Rabassa thinks that he is just trying to be kind but this shows that the work of a translator should be as good as or even better than the original copy.
The article about Gregory Rabassa announces facts about flaws that exist within several different translations. All Words, phrases, sentences, included in translations may all be interpreted differently by readers, writers and translators. To Gregory translation is an art that takes time to perfect. In the article Rabassa talks about how he has to go back and forth changing his word choice to make his translations more fluent. When Gregory announces the art of translation as an ongoing process, he is implying that it is an art that takes time not only because of choosing the right word choice but also because when you are in the process of translating a text, there are several ways that a reader or a person can interpret things. In different languages many words can describe the same thing, but have different ways of describing the same thing. In the article Rabassa admits that translation is very difficult to do succesfuly since some translations take years to finish properly. In all Rabassa believes that translation is an opinion based process that takes a lot of time to finish properly. Gregory Rabassa is a successful translator that admits that translation takes time, and is difficult when it comes to choosing the words or phrases that fit in best.
ReplyDeleteIn the article when Rabasssa says no "translation can really be called either definitive or final. Ambivalence and ambiguity come to the fore; words change subtly over the years; there is a sort of Doppler effect in meaning as time passes, so that both translation and original will present a different meaning now from what they did a hundred years ago." Gregory Rabassa says admits to this because as a transator he is always searching for correct phrases and words that fit in with what he is personally translating. When he is translating different words he has to be careful and pay attention to details because words can be changed in his translation but the changed word could have a different meaning, or there could be a better word that enhances the proper meaning better. This develops the idea that translation is an ongoing process. When Rabassa says the above quote I think that he is trying to teach people that the art of translation is not easy and that it takes time. Rabassa says that “translation can never really be called definitive or final.” When he says this I think that he means a translation is never final because it can always be changed. For example when you look at very old books or written plays such as Shakespeare, there are several different translations meaning that there translations could have been changed several times. In all translation is never final because it can always be changed, and it is an ongoing process because of the difficulties translators are faced with when it comes to translating different texts.
Rabassa dwells on the fact that the true essence of a story gets distorted when translated. There is seldom a direct translation from one language to another. Literary aspects such as irony, pun, sarcasm, and caricature present a great challenge to transfer from one language to the next.
ReplyDeleteRabassa says in his interview “ there is always an urge to continue rewriting … there are so many things I would do differently at a time.” This shows that there is never a final version of a translation work. There are numerous ways to write certain phrases in another language and its impossible to chose. He writes that he changes his phrases but then goes back to the original. This portrays how tedious it is to keep the original meaning of a text when translating. He also says that words lose their meaning over the years and this affects the effectiveness of how the message is propagated to the reader.
I however, disagree with what Rabassa when he says that books will completely lose their meaning over time. There are several plays that were translated years ago such as The Good Woman of Zestman and Caucasion Chalk Circle by Bertolt Bretch who originally wrote the books in German. The translations of the story have no lost any of the original effect. Shakespear did not write his plays in modern English yet many books are studied at university and collage level. If individuals did not translate books then literature from many parts of the world would not have been discovered. The first president of the Republic of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, translated Shakespearean texts into Kiswahili so that they could be studied at schools nation wide. If the meaning and effect of the books original message were lost they he would not have bothered translating the books. Translation would be rendered a waste of time. However, people still continue to translate texts, which shows its importance in the world of literature. Although in certain works such as Tartuffe the satire is much more evident and profound in the French version the English version has enough to illustrate the comic effect the author was looking for.
When old books are read, they have to be read in context to the era the story was written in. when this is done the reader automatically knows what the writer means when he/she uses certain phrases and does not confuse them with contemporary speech. Within the next two hundred years I am sure works considered exceptional now will still be regarded as highly in the future simply because such books have a message so powerful, a few errors in translation wont hinder its effect on the reader.
1. Gregory Rabassa suggests the idea that literary translation is an art instead of an exact science. It is a trade infused with an inherent subjectivity. There is no way to define a precise translation from one language to another because words that convey the unique tone and style of the writer must be balanced with words that best fit the intangible flavor of the original meaning. Because there are so many competing objectives that one must aim for when translating literature, it is impossible for one translation to be verifiably better than another. Not only can different people recognize subtle differences in shades of a work, but also the same person can interpret a work in thousands of ways depending on their moods and surroundings. Thus, as Rabassa maintains, literary translation simply could never be “static”; the variables involved are far too numerous and volatile. Especially in Márquez’s work, which is so incredibly layered and laced with fine overtones, each word or phrase chosen will cast a slightly different illumination on the central ideas, like a glass bead throwing off multiple divergent silhouettes when shone upon by differently colored spotlights. For example, in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I remember one comparison in which Márquez compared the character of Santiago Nasar to a butterfly. When reading the Spanish version, I realized that in his comparison, there was one statement that could have been construed as relating to a butterfly “hidden by the shadows”, “consumed by the shadows”, or “made of the shadows”. When analyzing the book in English, it is thus important to keep in mind the deliberateness of the translator’s word choice and how it will inevitably imply aspects of the plot (like Nasar’s innocence) that are not necessarily there. This is why there can never be a final version of any translation; the translator himself (or herself) is unavoidably drawn into the story, and changes in their mindsets result in changes in the language of the novel.
ReplyDelete2. Literature does indeed change over the years as styles and techniques evolve, but once one journeys underneath these superficial changes in literature, it seems that the basic universal truths of humanity are always present. Humans seem to grapple with these truths so uniformly throughout history that although the times change, these struggles will never be ignored in popular art and culture. It is the task of the translator to adjust to the changing language and still represent the same truths. This is definitely a reach for a relevant example, but the first thing that I thought of upon reading Rabassa’s statement about evolution of meaning was the United States Constitution. It was written over 200 years ago, and while the basic truths (in regards to equality, freedom of speech, and democracy) it presents remain unquestionably applicable in our world today, the language used is so antiquated that politicians and scholars alike constantly bicker over the intended meaning and interpretation of these celebrated words. Over time, interpretation becomes freer, as people feel more justified in adding their own shades of bias to an outdated word. My favorite book, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, will undoubtedly be relevant to the human race for centuries to come. The passing of time will not diminish the power it wields to examine and twist the human moral code and provoke intellectual examination of the human disposition. These things never change. Although some of the charm and original spirit of some works may be diluted with the passing of time, for the most part literature seems to evolve along with the times, instead of being left behind by a changing world.
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteThe issue with producing a successful translation is the previously discussed fact that, meaning, nuances, forms of slang, language specificities, etc. will be extremely hard to correlate between the two countries, therefore leading to the translator having to reread proofs countless times. This could seem a tedious task, as Rabassa states “I abhor reading proofs”. This is due to the fact that when Rabassa was translating Marquez’s work, he would have the extremely strenuous task of validating the meanings in Spanish with the meanings in English. He wouldn’t be able to simply translate the work once, in a completely individual perspective. He would have to translate, whilst using the knowledge he had acquired during his reconnaissance travels in South America to pick up on new changes in the language, new meanings that could help express an idea in his translation better. His statement that language is never static refers to the dynamic nature of language as well. Therefore, considering language’s deep influence on translation, one must understand those meanings will change and could lead to the translation’s intent being deemed invalid. Being Spanish myself, I’ve been encouraged to read Cervantes’ “Don Quixote”. This incredible piece of work is astounding in Spanish, yet is laden with interwoven magic realism that is rather difficult to mechanically translate to English. When I read this book I understood it all only after having consulted specific journals explaining complex or abstract passages, diction and word choice. The translation of this work into the English language requires the translator’s complex knowledge on the mirror meanings of nuances in both languages. Therefore, when readers tackle this classic in fifty to one hundred years in the future, hoping that it still remains as an exemplar of classic literature, I believe that most of the original meaning will be lost, to the evolution of language. And as the evolution of language can be described to be downward sloping, Cervantes’ piece will be deemed ineffective when comparing it to its original intent.
Throughout the article Gregory Rabassa makes it clear that there are an infinite number of obstacles when translating texts from one language to another. Translation is a form of art that cant be taught and will never be perfect due to the various interpretations of a text. A work of literature can be translated in so many different ways depending on what the translator feels is most important in the text and how he/she chooses to maintain the message, mood and tone of the text. In some cases, the mood and tone of the text will inevitably change due to the very different sentence structures of another language. Another nuance of translation, is that some words may be used slightly differently in another language making it difficult for a translator to find an equivalnet that equally portrays the same tone and message as the original text.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Gregory Rabassa mentions that "translation cant really be called either definitive or final. Ambivalence and ambiguity come to the fore; words change subtly over the years; there is a sort of Doppler effect in meaning as time passes, so that both translation and original will present a different meaning now from what they did a hundred years ago." This is because over the course of many years, a language may change just like a person does. The things in which we choose to say things changes and our choice of words also changes. What Rabasssa means when he says that the text will portray different meaning now that it mayb in come hundred years from now, is that as time goes by thigns that people find significant changes. What the text is trying to portray as being significant not only at a cultural level but also universal level will be seen in a different perspective in many years from now depending on what people consider significant at the time. Issues change and so do perspectives. These changes may affect the different interpretations people have on a text but it should never change its significance. On the contrary, it should be viewed as being more significant because it gives us insight as to how the world around is forever changing.
I have already partially commented on the quote of the second question: The meaning or at lest the relevance to the present time changes over the years. And sometimes we can only use old literature to examine the beauty of style or discover facts about the time it was written in. On the other hand, the I read, the more I find that the broader themes, such as the search for identity, the meaning of life, the conflicts in society, the relationship between genders, never fail to come up in ancient as well as modern literature! I believe this to be one of the most fascinating aspects of the art of writing. It very much reminds me of the art of sculpture with which I’m probably much more familiar than literature. Though all art is very transitory and progressive, it also seems to include a very common, or at least familiar factor, which in turn reveals something about a constant human nature. Sure, styles change and fashion almost proceeds at a dizzying pace but more often than seldom, I find old pieces of art (literature, sculpture, painting etc.) that remind me of a very present aspect of life.
ReplyDeleteNow taking all these experiences into account, I can conclude that yes, my favorite book at the moment might just have something relevant to say to readers in 50 or 100 years. Even if the topic or the style are ‘old-fashioned’, the work in itself will probably still reveal lots about our present day (which will then already be part of history). In general, I think it is always hard to determine which work will last in history and which works will go under after 10 years. Sometimes, the choices are rather obvious but sometimes it takes more than a century for people to discover an old piece of art and to learn to appreciate it (in music we have the extreme example of Mozart who died a poor-man’s life and who’s works are now some of the most played classical pieces of all of history!).
What Rabassa says about translation being ‘neither definitive or final’ fits into the process any art form undergoes throughout history. I think, acknowledging translation as being an art form and at the same time learning to ignore the fact that a work was originally written in another language, highlights the complex job a translator faces. It is though very clear that the translator does play a big role in making a role fit for future relevance or letting it go under in the sea of literary works that are floating around in the world of culture!
1) Rabassa in this interview, states how translation is not just something that happens over night, he must sit there for hours and perfect it till his hearts content, and only when he feels it is right (hardly ever since he is always wanting to better it or always doubting his translations thinking there could be a better way to express it), then he would move on. Rabassa says that it is not writing the translations that is the hard work, it is proofreading, as when he proofreads he always feels the need to change it, or that " there is always an urge to continue rewriting". It can be seen through Marquez's work that it was not a simple regime, a lot of effort had to be put into the works to fully get what was in another language into english with all the right emotions and feelings, and without distorting the piece of work. So what Rabassa would be telling us about the nuance of translating literature is that it isnt something you just put down, it is something that takes a long time and effort to be satisfied for. Another thing is that translation cannot be taught, so it cannot be that a translator can go out and buy a few books or sit in a few lectures in order to improve his ways of translations or anything of that sort, it is an art, something one must master after a lot of practise. We can see that all translations are doubted, whenever read by the translator they are always wanting to change the words or try to find better ways to express what is being said
ReplyDelete" I do not think that any translation can really be called either definitive or final. Ambivalence and ambiguity come to the fore;words change subtly over the years; there is a sort of Doppler effect in meaning as time passes, so that both translation and original will present a different meaning now from what they did a hundred years ago". This is very true, if you think about it, things that were important a hundred or so years ago are not so important right now, in a non-literary thinking, for example technology has put us so forward these days, that before we may have been worried about what was going on in the world and would have to wait for ages to get the latest news etc, but now we have online sites to check news, the tv the radio etc, we really have so many resources, just like that, words change meaning, emotions that are attached to words change over time, some things become more important over time and somethings get buried down and are no longer significant. I think Rabossa means to say that with translation, either way can be stronger, like for example in a spanish to english translations the english version could stand out to be much better than the original because of perhaps greater literary value, however it could be the other way around where the original is much stronger than the translation because through translation it lost particular meaning and the text became dense. To avoid this, the translator "must respect the text on two levels:meaning and tone". Tone is very hard to capture as all languages have a variety of tone and sound very different. Satisfaction comes to the translator when they find that what they have translated relates and sounds exactly like what the original text was saying.Another thing is that in one place a word may be stronger than in another place, "The problem for interpretation is that what is commonplace in, say, Peru is exotic for the outsider". A good translator must keep the style of the original work in tact, and musn't change that, because that is the beauty of the piece, and that is why is it so tedious to translate. Languages also differ in the way various slang cannot be said in other languages." you cant say "aint" in spanish". Some languages are more easy going then others and so the translator has to find a commonground, "Since English is a much "looser" language, grammatically, than Spanish, the translator has to find some middle ground in syntax so that the aforementioned peasant doesnt sound like an academician". Some phrases/ words get lost in translation which is sad.
ReplyDelete1. In the article that talks about the interview with Gregory Rabassa clearly gives us the many different flaws that could happen when there are translations taking place. Translation goes on at every moment. Many different words and phrases are interpreted completely differently by translators, and depending on the level of language that they have, they will be different. The biggest problem with translation is the expressions because they are only used in that language, and most of the times can’t be translated to mean the same thing. Gregory Rabassa also comments on the problems with translating word by word. In many different occasions, he says that he would like to change some words. What he really means is that to find that specific word that he is looking for takes a long time until he actually finds it. Gregory Rabassa also talks about the different interpretations that different translators can come up with. People say that maybe translators should try to do the translations of important books in groups, the problem is that with many different translators in one room, the many different interpretations and opinions of what the word should be would most probably not get the job done quick enough.
ReplyDelete2. Language and literature will always be important to everyone in the world, especially to the many different readers that are out there. The problem is that language and literature don’t have what we can call meanings. It keeps changing due to the different opinions that people have about this topic. Any book that has been translated will probably have a different meaning than it does now. It is because of this that even though the meaning has changed, literature must always be relevant to people. There are many different examples that can be used to compare and contrast. Arts is probably the easiest. Music has been changing over the past 100 years. There have been many different times in which music has been more popular, but at every moment music has been relevant to everyone’s life. If we compare it, there could be an author that at this moment they might not be given as much fame as when they die. Their literature will become highly regarded and therefore will achieve more fame than they did in their whole life, just by the fact that the meaning of literature and language has changed.
1. Translation is not a short easy process. It is an ongoing complicated work. Its like is like a work of art and therefore, can never be thought. And there is no such thing as perfect translation. A good translation has to be true to its original work and that is not easy to do when punctuations, grammar and use of language is different in every language. And this complicity is also shown in Gabriel Marque’s well known novel Chronicle of the Death Foretold. His work is full of magical realism, gender issues and cultures. And translating this work requires staying true to all these literary devices that might not be as easy to get across in English. Even after facing all these, the translator has to go back and proofread his/her work. “Correcting and re-writing first drafts is not so tedious; but I abhor reading proofs; the is always the urge to continue writing” said Gregory Rabassa showing how one can never say a translation work is final and perfect.
ReplyDelete2. Rabassa is saying that language and literature changes and develops with time and human. The language we use is not going to be the same in hundred years from now. Just like us, language goes through evolution too. This makes the work of translation look even harder as one might try to translate a work that was done a long time ago yet will not able to stay fully true to the work because of language and literature as well as cultural differences. As Rabassa explained “nothing ever seems static” people from different backgrounds and period of times can interpret the work in different ways. When I look at one my favorite books; pass it forward I wonder, is it going to be as influential and entertaining in the next generations as it is now and sure enough; no it won’t.
1. Marquez’s writing style has a somewhat circular working to it. He would start from what should be the end of a story, work his way to the beginning and then to the climax and the conclusion, or something to that effect.
ReplyDeleteTranslating literature is an art which takes years to improve yet never reaching perfection. Different languages were initiated through different backgrounds, cultures, places and people. They are bound to be different in their expressions and when stories are written in different languages, the storylines do have clear distinctions between them.
“Second thoughts” occur when you are part of more than one background with which you are well-versed with. This creates a sense of perplexity when translating because contemplating on what would be appropriate for words or sentences or situations can be a difficult task. Take, for instance, Marquez’s work. Translating situations like the death of Santiago Nasar in Chronicle of a Death Foretold has a very different stance than if it were a work originally written in English. Also expressions like “O mother of God” in Spanish is much more serious than if stated in the English language.
I think that when Rabassa says that he finds himself “going back to the original choice”, he is referring to the change in circumstances as he moves on through the story and it would not be suitable to include that particular word or phrase especially after understanding the complex writing like that of Gabriel Marquez.
2. I do agree that the meaning and significance of words and language evolve over time because of the progress in technology, development of people’s thinking abilities and other factors. However, I think that this only refers to the mode of expression that is used in the past and what is used now. The message that a writer tries to communicate is almost always alike assuming the book talks about the same thing.
Although the beauty of language that was recognised in the past does not have the same glamour as of today, many at times the storyline can be affiliated with the situations in this era. Words that had beauty have been replaced by others or those that had a special and deep meaning have a less intensive significance. Take for instance the word ‘love’. It mostly used to be thought of as a deep feeling between partners that wanted to spend their life together, always be with each other, involve each other in anything they do and other such dynamics. Today, love is perceived mostly to be about sex, beauty and background.
Perfume is a book set in the medieval times which clearly affirms the ways of those days and the portrayal of scams and strategies is very evident as being that of the medieval age. These scams and strategies however, also transpire in our world today but emerge in a different manner. The meaning of the story would have been lost if it were written with the implications it has today. I appreciate this novel because it is different from the perception of things we have today and these are obvious throughout the story.
Prompt 1:
ReplyDeleteThis article further illustrates how translations are an on going process. Kim’s article points this out and so does Rabassa when he says “I do not think that any translation can really be called either definitive or final.” This can occur because words change over the years and also because there are no direct translations for some words, and this makes the process of translation more complex. He says that the translator has to “respect the text on two levels: meaning and tone,” and try to get these to come through in the translation. He also comments that a translation “should appear to have been written” by the translator in one chunk. The book should look like the translator “reads the whole book and then writes it” [again]. Rabassa also says that he doesn’t “think there are any theories to be had about translation” when asked if there is any theory that he subscribes to when translating. He says that “the proof that translation is an art is the fact that it cannot be taught,” which again illustrates his opinion that the book should look as if it was rewritten not translated line by line.
Rabassa also talks about the relationships that the original author and the editor have during the process of translation. He says that the editor must respect that the translator knows the foreign language and culture more, and the author must respect that the editor knows the language being translated into more. If this respect is created and no huge alterations are made to the translation, then they can work together well. Rabassa also builds upon the ability for a translator and writer to work together during the translation process saying that it only works well when they operate on the same “wavelengths.”
Prompt 2:
Homer’s the Odyssey is still widely read today. The same goes for Shakespeare's works. When I read a Shakespeare play, or part of the Odyssey or Iliad I can still relate to the text and find some message within the work. Good books, strong books, should continue to enchant audiences even when they are no longer in their ‘time frame’.
Novels can remain contemporary through a variety of ways, in my opinion the best way is implemented by Anthony Burgess in “A Clockwork Orange” in which he creates a new language (Nasdat) for his characters. The slang used in the novel will never go “out of style” as it never has existed in society, making it impossible for the meaning of those words to change.
Some novelists strive to put themselves out of the time frame. Lord Of the Rings is written in a style akin to the old stories, Beowulf or the Norse myths. The language in the novel is written to purposely seem like a myth and because of this when you read the novel you put it in this context, and use the alternate meanings of words (gay becomes happy etc...)
In my opinion while a books message might change over time, due to the changes within a language, a good book should continue to speak to it’s readers and have a message to convey. Translations are a perfect example of a books ability to carry through messages, even though translations change what a novel says, the over all message should strive to be the same. If you can maintain a message through languages why can we not maintain a message over time?
1. Rabassa’s comments show that translating literature is a tedious task that requires very difficult choices to be made. Rabassa claims that he is often second guessing himself. Many translators ask themselves whether there is no better way of expressing a certain selection of a work. The greatest nuance of translating literature as complex as that of Marquez is that only the translator can decide when he or she has truly translated a literary work and has completed their work. There is now word for word translation for every word that Marquez used in his original work. And if the translator is to do this best to their ability, there are still several aspects to consider such as writers style, messages that need to be conveyed, and emphasised to the reader.
ReplyDelete2. Marqueze’s published works were extremely complex. I can only imagine how difficult translating simple pieces of literature are, let alone a complex plot that has many layers to it. Rabassa says that no translation can ever be final, because there will always be a correction that can be made. Because most of translating works comes down to interpretation of a work, different translators will always have contrasting ideas. In the interview it is said that the two main things to consider when translating a foreign work, is to consider preserving the meaning of the text and the tone. The job of a translator can be very difficult, in choosing what is meaningful and what tone they comprehended from the work. Once again this comes down to interpretation of the text. The time and environment in which the translation is written will affect the translators work to a certain extent. This is because the translator has an impact on how the story will end up sounding, and what it will mean to the reader. It is so important to preserve meaning and tone in a translated work because the work then loses the original effect it had in its original language.
The nuances of translating literature would most likely be having to interpret it. The words written are not your own, therefore you cannot change them. People interpret literature differently, and so the final result of the translation all depends on the interpretation of the translator. Also, a translator would have to decide whether he or she wanted to translate the text word for word, or translate it so that it had the same meaning in different words. For example, the saying ‘raining cats and dogs’ could have a different meaning in another language. This presents great difficulty for a translator as well as a reader. Also, a great deal of tone and meaning would be lost in translation. Tone is different in every language. It would be difficult for a translator to present the same kind of tone in one language as in another. Translations can never be considered final. Language is always changing; slang terms that were used 40 years ago are not used now. Therefore, you will always be able to improve a translation. Also, a translated text cannot be definite, again because of interpretation. A translators’ interpretation of a text may change, or vary to that of another translator. Many translators translate passages over and over until it seems accurate. A translator could easily look at that same piece of literature years later and decide it wasn’t accurate. There are too many variables of translation and language for a translated piece to be considered definite or final. This proves that translation could have greatly changed Marquez’s work. Small details such as Spanish expressions or sayings would mean to readers in English. Spanish tone would also be hard to replicate in another language. The translation did not change the story, in the sense that the beginning, middle, and end were all the same. Therefore English readers are still able to understand the book, but a great deal of meaning may have been lost. The text would most definitely be more powerful or meaningful in its original language.
ReplyDeleteAnisa Ahmed
John Robert Haynes
ReplyDelete1. The difficulty translators face when trying to determine the author’s message of a work of literature is magnified when the author is none other than Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Marquez is the quintessential Latin American author, and preeminent in all things involving magical realism. Now, magical realism is known for its surreal aspects and unknowably complex metaphors and symbols. This obviously means a whole lot of work for the translators, as they must not only decipher the meaning of the words the author uses, but also what statement they were trying to make, and the potential impact on the reader. With authors like Marquez, who stacks layers of meaning in his works like buttermilk pancakes, the possible statements and potential impacts are multiple, as the author has the ability to address different issues on different levels. Of course, your run-of-the-mill reader will likely only graze the superficial surface of the meaning of the book, soaking up plot details and not much else. However, even the most analytical reader can study a book for weeks without fully uncovering every hidden nuance and symbol in the author’s writing. That means the translator has to analyze the book as well, trying to discover all these metaphorical bits and pieces so they can be conveyed to the reader in a different language. If the translator just appeased the casual readers with the base elements of the story, it would still be readable- but also incredibly shallow.
2. Language is always changing. Not just translating, but progressing, moving forward into the next level of communication. This brings to mind a speech by an English professor whose name escapes me, though his story doesn’t. He remarked on the increased use of contractions, suited to our hurried lives. He imagined a world where a son comes home, having missed dinner, and asks his mother, “Didjaeat?” her response being, “Didjew?” Now this may seem farfetched, but one must simply look at the literature of the past to see the trend. We are streamlining our language, making it as efficient at getting our words across as possible. This phenomenon is not restricted to contractions, but encompasses all aspects of the language. This may improve the clarity of our intentions behind communication, but it detracts from the power of our elegant and interesting words. When is the last time you heard someone use the word “bequeath” in a conversation? I believe this is the effect of the hectic pace of the modern age, and the vast amounts of information constantly being communicated. We no longer have time to enjoy our language, a sad prospect. Just as I find Shakespeare’s work to be extremely dense, and requiring intense concentration to decipher, (though still beautiful), the people of the future will view my favorite literature as a grueling task instead of a pleasurable experience.
Susie Jie Young Kim is expressing the difficulty of translating works into other languages as the result is never like the original. Different languages allow for different plays on words, and can give a completely different feeling beauty due to the history and background that comes with each language. When translators are translating a work the result is more their understanding and take on the text, rather than the original authors intentions. This suggests that as people read Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we are not receiving the story with the same cultural background embedded within the words, as someone who would read this work in Spanish. It is the same for all translated novels or poems, because in different languages we have different words, and sometimes there simply are not enough words available to express something in the same way. Expressions and sayings are also different in different languages, and therefore, when reading translated works, we are deprived of many small links to the writers background and culture. Kim explores all of these challenges in trying to capture the beauty of the original work, while trying to keep it as similar to the original as possible at the same time. She talks about how translators have to find a balance between making modifications to suit the second language, and also keeping to the original work. This has changed my view on Chronicle of a Death Foretold as I realize that even though we may have gotten the structure of the story, many small cultural details that create different feelings in the text failed to be included, and therefore the original must have been more interesting to read. I think that the original work, in Spanish, probably gave more life to characters and events as well, which is a shame as it is lost when translated. I think translating great works is a shame, because the translations can never display the same background and beauty as the original, but on the other hand texts need to be translated so that people speaking other languages can read it as well.
ReplyDelete1.) Gregory Rabassa explains how a translator is subjected to multiple complications when it comes to translating a piece of literature. This is because problems arise when converting the subtle difference in meaning and attitude which are presented within the piece. He explains how he as a translator, has to rethink concepts and ideas portrayed within the piece and tweak them to make them more apparent to the reader in the opposing language. These subtle differences appear not to be significant to the idea of converting the language, but Rabassa clearly disapproves of this theory. In order to translate a piece, one must fully envelop the meaning and the tone the author uses. This can only be analyzed by focusing on the feel the author evokes and what instinctive reactions the translator receives. Both of these concepts are related to how the reader, or the translator, effectively responds to the piece, emotion wise. Since translations are dependent on mere emotional reaction of the reader, no factors within the translation can remain consistent. As the tone and mood changes, so will the readers response, making nothing within the piece seem static. The only things that the translator must keep consistent are symbolic references made within the novel. Such include the terms and meaning used for certain concepts within the novel. An example of this in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the symbol of life evoked by the symbolic use of trees and nature. Rabassa had to carefully analyze in what context the ideas were used, to fully grasp the idea and meaning the author was trying to convey. Hence, once fully understood, the translator may grasp the true meanings and tone the author portrays.
ReplyDelete2.) The fact that no “translation can really be called either definitive or final” support the idea that nothing within a translation ever seems static. Since translations are a mere conversion of words, phrases, tone, and meaning the reader receives in a response to the authors way of conveying their ideas, nothing can remain constant. The feel such a piece of literature evokes is in definitively dependent on how the reader responds. This means that translators such as Rabassa must mix and match his response to the authors intent so that readers of the translation receive the same feel. Since a person’s response to literature is inconsistent, so is diction that is evoked over the years. As time passes, words change their meaning. The result is that the feel the piece portrays changes as well, causing controversy amongst the different meaning presented. This is what the Doppler effects suggests; after time passes, different people will have different perspectives concerning the tone and meaning of the novel, interfering with the actuality and ideas the novel portrays.
1. Rabassa’s ideas basically state that translation of a text will never be absolute or static. A work is always changing in its meaning. I do not agree with this statement. If a comparison were to be done on the Odyssey and Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the two translations are far from each other in respect to their style in English. I do think that the meanings of words change, but I do not think that a translation of a work should change too. There would be no individuality in respect to authors’ style. Something interesting that Rabassa states is that an inferior text can be a catalyst for a superior text. The difference between a superior text to an inferior one is the ability to entice the wanted reaction in the reader. When one text has the ability to entice the wanted reaction in the majority of readers, the work is superior. However, there are always exceptions; people who do not give the wanted reaction. This can be best described in comparison to theatre. For example, I know that when I am trying to depict an idea or a feeling to another person, I want them to react in a certain way. When I am acting, there are always a few people who do not get the same message that I am conveying, and this is simply because that is the way they see and it cannot be changed. Instead of changing the way the person sees, a translator will change what they see.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that words change in respect to their meanings over time. Shakespeare’s work is supposedly in the language of English, but the reader needs a completely different set of skills to decipher the meaning behind his works. When I read a work like Shakespeare, I see the basic picture, but I miss all of the more concealed literary devices in use. I do not have a profound enough understanding of English at this time to understand the true meaning behind their words. My favorite book is The Odyssey, even though I read it in English. It is a book that is able to captivate my soul and imagination more than any other that I have encountered. It is my favorite book because it makes me feel a certain way. I am able to lose myself in the words. These words that are used to describe the adventure that Odysseus were an influential part in why I chose the Odyssey, but definitely not the most prominent feature. Books like the Odyssey just have a way of speaking to me and making me see something. The quality of a book really comes down to its ability to make you show yourself meaning rather than how much it tries to show you its own meaning.