- Erika Leviant’s blog: “Translation as a Practice of Acceptance”
Having written my own reaction to this translation of an article written by Anita Raja (based on a lecture she gave at NYU Florence in 2015,) I really enjoyed reading Erika’s exceedingly well-written comments on it. She took an entirely different approach than I did and I was intrigued by hers – first, accepting that the article was written by Raja and, second, tackling the exceedingly difficult task of analyzing it in light of the suspicion that Raja is actually Elena Ferrante (or, rather, Elena Ferrante is actually Anita Raja).
I thought the discussion of the way Raja’s description of the relationship between translator and author borders on a romantic love was exceedingly perceptive, as well as her insight that the role in which Raja places the translator is similar to the traditional role of woman vs. man in a romantic or marital relationship.
Also fascinating to me was the way that Erika supported her thesis with the observation that Ferrante’s themes in L’amica geniale are reflected in (“embedded in”) Raja’s article when she discusses the inequality between translator and author and the way the interaction (in her word, “inequality”) between the two leads one of the pair (the translator) in directions she would not have gone and to destinations she would not have reached without the input of the other.
The questions that are posed at the end of the analysis (as well as Erika’s entire commentary) have given me much food for thought, as well as enjoyment.
2. Greer Egan’s blog “Raja Response”
It intrigued me that Greer, in her comments, focused on points not discussed by either me or by Erika. First, I particularly liked the illustration she included in her Blog of the two figures with strings coming from their heads (their thoughts) in a complete tangle. That cartoon illustration really illuminates what a complex task translation is.
I also thought her comment that “recognizing inferiority is the first step to overcoming it” was quite perceptive, although in my analysis of the Raja article, I noted that I am not quite willing to accept her thesis that the translator and the author are unequal (and the translator is subordinate) because, in my view, in some respects, the translator is superior to the author. It is the translator, after all, that has the “final say” (notwithstanding editors) as to how the author’s work will be presented to a foreign reader.
In my opinion, the description of the relationship between interpretation and invention was a good one – particularly Greer’s observation that there is a danger in translation that interpretation may move too far into the realm of invention. The phrase “labyrinth” is, I believe, an excellent metaphor for the target language. In addition, the use of dialect as an example of what I see as one of the major difficulties facing a translator, and the use of the quote from Camilleri on this topic, is an excellent way to make the point.
In sum, I thought Greer’s comments on Raja’s article were both clear and cogent.
3. Bill Caswell’s blog on “To what extent can a translation be referentially unfaithful?”
Bill Caswell’s very well-written discussion of referential unfaithfulness in translation really brought home to me an excellent point which I had not previously considered at length. Coming from the perspective of a history major, his observation that, in his field, substance is valued over style, made me reflect on the extent to which different disciplines present different challenges in translation – that is, the significance of the composition of the target audience – its depth of knowledge, scope of references, and its needs. A scientific article need not be poetic. Indeed, it probably should not be.
I am not certain, however, that I can accept 100%, the statement that “by not making alterations, and by sticking to the exact letter of what we are translating, we actually create something less faithful than what we would have created had we made more alterations.” If, by this, he means that an exact “word for word” translation is not referentially faithful, then, yes – it would be difficult to disagree. However, in my view, the translator always has to be careful not to alter the text to such an extent that the original meaning and intent of the author is lost.
I especially liked Bill’s description of the concept of faithfulness as “muddy” and his description of the “subtle senses and feelings” that the author of the original material “provokes within the reader.” And I thought his description of faithfulness as a “paradox” was very insightful, as was his use of Ungaretti’s poem Mattina to describe this concept. As a nitpicking reader who loves to write, and one who appreciated his use of the term “muddy” in describing the reality of the concept of faithfulness in translation, I wonder if, in his comparison of the two poles of this concept, he would consider using the word “clear” rather than “simple” to contrast with “muddy.” But that is just a would-be editor’s minor comment on an excellent and thought-provoking analysis.