Anita’s blog on “Translation as a Practice “ by Anita Raja
Anita challenges Raja’s concept of the “inequality” of the translator to the author. She gives a very entertaining analogy: that of the relationship between a pilot and a co-pilot who have to navigate over a treacherous high mountain peak. Both of their skills are needed for the safety of the plane. I agree that both writing and translating are difficult and highly skilled tasks. But the whole idea of discussing equality between writer and translator is spurious. It is comparing apples with oranges. There are first rate writers as well as first rate translators But writer and translator don’t exchange roles. The creative credit goes to the writer, and in that sense the translator by default is completely dependent on the writer. If I may add my own analogy, the relationship between a composer and a musician, or an actor and a playwright maybe more apt. . A musician depends on the score, on the creative genius of the composer. He can interpret the music with great skill for his audience but he still has to follow the score. Both the writer and the translator might be outstanding in their own fields, but the translator can’t be mistaken for the writer; he has to follow the script. However, I agree that ”the translator is the ultimate arbiter of the final work presented to the target audience”, and the quality of his translation can either promote or diminish the critical evaluation of the writer. But what is paramount that a translator introduces the author to new audiences to enjoy his work.
Ungaretti: Veglia&Mattino Bill Caswell
Bill’s analysis of Ungaretti’s poem Mattino is different from the other blogs’s translation of this poem. He pays close attention to the sonic quality of the words and he points out that the meaning of the words is secondary to their sound and feel. He notes that in the original both lines contain many of the same letters and and the same sound. So he choses to reduce the poem to its evocative skeleton fby two words that implies illumination and are related by the plosive “b” sound of ”brightness” and “brilliance”.
There is no translation without some loss. Bill transposes a very personal statement into an impersonal one. I think Parks would agree with Bill’s choice. In Ungaretti, as in Joyce, the rhythm and sonic quality are of paramount importance,. On the other hand, Anita Rija might disagree for she maintains that the translator has to be inventive, but at the same time be devotedly faithful to the original, even if the translation might result in “unattractive language”. I wonder what Ungaretti’s reaction would be to Bill’s translation. I think he would like it.