Due Dates, Again

Just really quick this time:

• Please do turn in copies of your midterm paper to either of us sooner rather than later if you haven't already.
• Final blog posts [at least one, preferably two; more if you still haven't done the others] are due on the final date, 12/15.
• The final project/paper and you telling us about it or giving a short presentation [or what have you] is also due on 12/15 at 6 PM. As far as I know right now, it's in the same room; we'll let you know if the location's been changed.
• Self evals are also due to Julie and I during the final, 12/15. One faculty eval can be written about both of us as long as you talk about both of us, and can be turned into the Johnston Office in Bekins.
• Reading for 12/01 is Peden's essay from Craft and the article about translating Hemingway.
• Reading for 12/08 is the essay about translating Dickinson.

When Julie and I finish reading the midterm papers, you'll get them back. If you're worried about the sheer amount of ink on them, we just like to make comments.

Final Project Propositions

These are what you're turning in next class, 11/17. Because you'll have three weeks to do this with short classes and limited reading, including Thanksgiving Break, the final project/paper itself will need to be extensive. Because you also have a week to do this with no reading, the proposition itself should also be polished and the project should also be well thought-out. Julie and I are aiming for quick turnaround time for the approvals, so you should know whether or not you're approved [or if you have to be more thorough on your proposition] by 11/19.

Requirements for the proposition are:
• What makes you interested in the project? Why do you want to do it?
• What kinds of research will you need to do? More importantly, will it be feasible to do that kind of research?
•  If you're doing a translation, be sure to include a translator's statement [same as an artist's statement]; if you're referencing a translation [say, of a poem] that's in English, be sure to include that, too. We would, however, recommend that you not look at the published English translation before you do your own just to cut down on the amount of influence it has on yours.
• If you're doing a comparison of translations, be sure to state the translators and editions—i.e., you will need a bibliography.
• I am expecting that the projects themselves will be no less than ten pages. If it's a couple pages of translation, make sure that your translator's statement justifies the translation and addresses whatever other translations that you reference. Include whatever you think you need to include so that your translation will make sense to whoever reads it, regardless of their familiarity with the language.

 The final date is 12/15 at 6 PM in the same room as always—essentially just one more meeting at the same bat time, same bat place. This is where we're going to have the final meeting and do some sort of paper presentation, with details to be worked out later.


For those of you who either didn't present your midterms or were absent yesterday, you will need to bring them in and be prepared to present them on the 17th. Recall that two blog posts were due yesterday; the next two are due 12/15, the same day as the final. If you haven't posted yet, I still expect to see four from everyone. For all of you who wanted some more hands-on translation or comparing multiple translations and don't know what to post about, that is a valid topic for both the final and some blog postings...

I hope this wasn't already said

There doesn't seem to be any middle ground in the translation articles. By which I mean there is nobody that seems to be directly arguing for a synthesis of literal and radical translation in those terms. People have sort of wishy-washily approached the topic, but they have either been unaware of the two camps or have skirted around mentioning them. And when they have been mentioned it is because the person strongly believes in one methodology. Is it because people believe that the two are simply incompatible ideologies, or because there has yet to be anyone to posit a separate theory in as eloquent and insightful a way as Benjamin ?

I think both methods are utterly broken in their pure forms, as they both take a highly academic approach to translation. Literal has, inevitably, mounds of footnotes that only a scholar would wade through. Meanwhile, Radical seems more like the ultimate comeuppance thesis paper. Rather than taking an interpretation from a text containing multiple possibilities and arguing it, one takes the work and rewrites it to better prove their point. Maybe Radical translation's caveat about the afterlife of a work, which to me has always seemed more like Benjamin saying “Well, even though it isn't going to be a perfect translation we should still try as best we can because the end product will still hold meaning,” is more of a guideline than an impetus to promote the afterlife. Yet it always seems that radical translationists inevitably refer back to the death of the author, as a sort of defense of changing the mood of the work as a result of language difficulties. There seems to be a problem where radical translation risks not bringing enough of the original culture into the piece while literal translation overloads the reader with it. And if one just goes one direction and then takes, say, three steps back from the pure form, while still trying to engage that form, then they stop making sense as cohesive philosophies. It's like Radical Translation Lite and Literal Translation Lite: they are inevitably marketing ploys. A Radical translation is too radical so steps are taken back to avoid simply writing a new book, a literal translation is too difficult to parse and so steps are taken back, and so neither philosophy is really enacted. Maybe I've overstated the impact of radical translation (how often does it really, really come up outside of, say, Onegrin? (probably pretty often in a sufficiently complex piece)) but it still seems that both theories are functionally broken in key parts, though they have very useful components.

Deadlines and Due Dates: The Home Stretch

So you've got stuff coming up, guys.

1. MIDTERM: due 11/10/10

The midterm as planned is a 2-5 page paper that will connect 2-3 articles. You can discuss a theme, trace an author's thoughts or theories through other articles, or what have you, just to show that you're thinking critically about everything. The plan is that everyone will have those in final-draft-form with them in class on Wednesday, they'll present them, and then we'll discuss them. Any changes that need to be made will be, and then they'll be posted to the blog in all their glory.

2. BLOG POSTS [2]: due 11/10/10

Blog posts are essentially one-page responses to essays. They don't have to be exactly a page, you can just type them as you go, but at least two of them should exist on this blog by Wednesday (yes, after class is acceptable, so long as they're timestamped sometime around midnight). They show Julie and I once more that you're thinking critically about the articles and about the general concepts that are displayed in the articles. They can be as formally written or as blog-like as you will; just as long as you're getting your thoughts out of your head and displaying them to us in a coherent and well-written manner, it's fine.

3. FINAL PROJECT PROPOSITION: due 11/17/10

In class on the 17th, you're going to tell us precisely what you're going to do for a final project. Having things at least written down would be nice because I'm a very visual person, but if you can explain it either concisely or with great clarity, that would be fine too. This too will be discussed in class with people giving feedback. What kinds of projects, you ask? Ones that deal with analyzing translations, looking at a particularly notable translation, or doing a translation of your own with a "translator's statement" would all be appropriate examples. We can brainstorm in class, but you'll need to come up with some idea of what you want to do so that we can work from there (and, honestly, we don't have enough time to thoroughly brainstorm nine different finals).

Notes on the final classes:

Those on 12/01 and 12/08 are intended to be shorter classes for discussing the readings so that you can spend some time working on the projects, but we will schedule appointments to check on how the final projects are going, just in case there are kinks that are run into. Julie and I will figure out the details at a later time, but be aware that this is how they're going. You'll have a total of 61 pages to read over those two weeks with 46 of them being printed (I know, I know, print quotas, but the end is in sight and $4.60 or so away).

We only ask that since we're giving you a whole bunch of class time to think about and do the final projects that you do actually put thought and effort into them as you have been doing in the discussions.

The final is on 12/15 at 6 PM in the same room as always, so it's basically another class meeting. Bring your final projects for one last presentation/discussion, and then the class will be over.

I'm in the writing center Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays from 6-9 PM if you need or want to come see me. Please do talk to Julie for her office hours if you'd like to come see her, too.

Translation & Politics

Just as we're not supposed to talk about politics in casual conversation, we're probably not supposed to talk about it in relation to translation. But I will.

It is indeed Dangerous Translation when politics get involved. For instance, look at any of the readings we've done that have included a translation between two cultures that don't normally see eye to eye politically. It becomes a question of preserving culture while also imposing another culture and perhaps advancing an agenda.

Can something like Mein Kampf be translated without advancing the tyrannical (in my opinion) ideas of Adolf Hitler? Perhaps. This is where literal and free translation would come in. Especially if the target language has restrictions that prevent 'translating' ideas. Which it no doubt will. Literally translating it would lose a lot of the nuances to the piece. *Note that I have not read Mein Kampf so I am just going off of what I would assume, which is also dangerous...

Free translating would depend on the translator. Just as we saw in 'translating italian' there a numerous words for a word in another language that can be used. Should the translator choose the 'right' word, then the piece can take a direction that will allow the reader to read Mein Kampf as though it were just another book.

But it's not just another book. And the Korean play is not just a romance novel by Danielle Steel. There are cultural and political implications to the translation of these pieces that cannot be avoided.

So to answer my own question, no, one cannot translate a politically charged object without expressing it's fundamental ideas, which in the case of Mein Kampf, might lead to death.

I think the same applies to Religion. For instance, the numerous translations of the bible have shown that one is not unbiased when translating it. It gets tricky for me personally because people tend to translate the bible in order to get people to read it a certain way. So for instance Mein Kampf could be translated to breed new mass killers.

There are some translations that shouldn't happen. Poems. And Politics.

An Internal Clarification of Priorities.

Privately I have begun to rephrase our discussions in class around qualitative vs. quantitative translation. One school of translation aims to reproduce the source message in terms as clinically similar as possible, quantitatively reproducing the source works most basic expression, it’s words, in another language. The competing ethos essentially aims to evoke the same qualitative experience within the target language, but willing to shift and change word to word relationships and meanings as the translator deems fitting.

At first I assumed membership to the first school of thought, but as our discussions continue and our reading progresses it’s attractions grow increasingly dull. I admit being attracted to the air of authenticity given it by it’s refusal to change what it sees as the most essential part of a literary work. However, at heart I feel that the writing I most value is valuable due to the state into which it delivers me, not the specific word choice and placement within the text that moves me. Undeniably the best of literature will be replete with phrases that echo in me, but not every word of every sentence has hidden depths. Even were we to admit that the original word choice and phrasing, in it’s specifics and it’s vagaries, was of equal value to the source work’s excellence as the general meaning and emotional impact we would still be unable to translate it in it’s entirety, and as such it is the logical ground on which to surrender to the practicalities of translation.

To butcher another’s metaphor, you could tell me the composition, dimensions, weight, and temperature of a piece of ice, but only when I held it would I know it was cold. I wouldn’t deny that quantitatively true transmission of information is important in many fields of translation, there are many things I would wish to have translated in an exact manner. When cooking by recipe, signing a contract, speaking with a foreign police officer, in fact nearly everything except recreational reading I prefer translated as verbatim as possible. However, literature I read for beauty and pleasure should not be shackled by the disjunction between one language and the next.

Beyond this there is not much I feel capable or drawn to add. I am not advocating extensive unnecessary rewrites, and at heart I feel that this argument is one based on personal preference, I justify the method of translation which most draws me, but there is no objective way to measure one translation against another. I would, however, mention that I recently read “On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer” by John Keats, and that it is as eloquent an argument for a free translation as could be had. Keats wrote it after reading Chapman’s translation of Homer in order to express his new appreciation for Homer due to Chapman’s translation.



Much have I travell'd in the realms of gold,
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
Oft of one wide expanse had I been told
That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne;
Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He star'd at the Pacific — and all his men
Look'd at each other with a wild surmise —
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.



Response to Walkowitz's "Unimaginable Largeness"

Walkowitz specifically addresses “new world literature” in this essay but her thesis has wider implications for how we view all translations, masterpieces, and scholarly work (this is especially interesting to me!!). She presents two models. We are already familiar with the first model because many previous essays revolve around the capability of translation to capture the essence of the original. This first system focuses on literary masterpieces and their ontology; ability to convey that ontology marks the translation. The original remains the privileged, superior object: “[originals] have an ontological existence that defines what they are and what they will be; copies simply inherit that existence” (227). The first model thus proposes any meaning we derive from a translation must refer back to the original, much like the clones’ assumption they must find their “possible” to gain insight of themselves. The problem with this approach is just that: literature never acquires an afterlife because only the original produces meaning and the copy can only approximate that meaning.

The second model, the one present in Ishiguro’s discourse, opens up a whole new can of whoop ass. The idea of a network gives a book a rich afterlife. It also allows transformation of essence, and opens the system to infinite additions. The old system demands faithfulness and the new one privileges “analyzing how a work participates not only in its “original” literary system, the system of language in which it was composed, but also in the other literary systems in which it has a presence” (217). Literature in this context is social and collaborative; it participates globally through translation. This not only necessitates translation, it elevates it. If a work composes a network made of the original and many translations then the latter must be taken as seriously as the former. This is not to say: “art can mean anything—that it is what you say or see—but rather that the content of art will be transformed by expansive circulation and by the local interpretations that readers impose” (226). The network model also permits personal points of connection with a work not limited to those who read the original. Proust’s first editions and the influence of translated works on Ishiguro are both examples of this: “a book can be a unique object, too, both because translations create several versions of a text and because personal history distinguishes the social itinerary of one version from another” (222). To me, this statement contrasts Walkowitz’s concerns about the homogenization of culture and politics through translation in the introductory paragraph. If the network model produces personal points of connection it must be a diverse heterogynous structure.

Walkowitz advances comparison literature’s emphasis on phenomenology or form (consciousness of translatability, 219) instills a new ontology, an ontology that only comes out of this specific phenomenology. Ishiguro is interesting to Walkowitz because this idea of global comparison infiltrates the form as well as content of his stories: “His comparisons link together a variety of international themes, but they also prompt us to examine the shape and scale of that variety” (223). The essence of comparison literature therefore arises in its form. Could we then say that the essence of a work really arises in its diverse network? What attracts me to Walkowitz’s thesis is the idea that the meaning of a work is not fixed and in fact evolves over time.