Thoughts on readings and the speech

I believe The World Is Not Enough by Jeremy Tiang hits right into the bull's eye: the politicization of geography and culture rids the content of literature of the perception of its essential purpose, which is conveying shared human experience, the one that transcends borders. A different country offers a different perspective and a different angle, yet it is not the angle itself that is to become the center point - what it reflects is what is of importance, in my opinion - and that's not even getting into how many different authors there can be belonging to the same culture, or how the culture itself evolves and borders get redrawn; in the end labeling and dividing is done for the convenience of navigation, not as definitive of certain characteristics. We therefore enrich our understanding not "because" something is different from what we are used to on a daily basis but through this something being different. 

In my opinion, the text Fiction of the Foreign ran into itself by beginning with pointing out that its "hollow praise" to label translation as sounding as if it was written in English and later by finishing with mulling on how foreign words and styles are likely to sound either funny and awkward or not foreign if otherwise. It looks like the underlying question is why foreign-sounding words and unusual expressions would invoke a smirk rather than curiosity. Perhaps, the issue lies in the judgement bias? 

I would like to also add that to me, a native Russian speaker, Dostoevsky sounds foreign. I think that is because, firstly, I grew up reading books in translation, for the most part, i.e. stories by foreign writers. Secondly, because my family has been residing in Kazakhstan for several generations - so the culture pertaining Dostoevsky's works indeed is foreign to me even if the language itself is not. 

What baffles me about a point brought up in A Fable For Now as well as in other texts, in one way or another, is the assumption of many translators that readers or viewers [of the play] might not "get" some aspects of the culture different from their own or overlook what's less than blatantly stated. It is an understandable concern, and understanding further what sprouts it would be interesting, in my opinion. To me, it seems that those who understand their own culture will have an easier time understanding other cultures, too - because certain structural similarities persist and upon deeper look differences become plays of representation whose veil can be lifted by a trained and discerning mind. Therefore, perhaps the crisis is not as much concerning the state of the bridges between cultures but intra-connections within cultures, themselves, and the level of their self-awareness. 

I think the Friday talk delved into examples of occurrences->responses within translation, and I wish it extended beyond mere reactions to phenomena that arise. For example, Esther Allen mentioned that the author changed the text of the story in newer editions and showed how that changed perception of what was written or how certain phrases could get translated. At the same time, she did not seem to propose potential reasons why the author chose to pursue such changes and what the changes, as well as the ability to make them, mean in the overall scheme of things - it undoubtedly feels interesting to look at this and that, yet it is also clear that there are not enough resources to re-translate all of the new editions that come out - and what is the necessity to do it, anyway? If details within the text matter, how do we develop criteria for what gets carefully translated and re-translated among the vast array of literature that gets written every year? If details are secondary, what is primary and how do we outline it? I doubt that choices should stay random or arbitrary, in the sense that they stay guided by hunches of what readers might find interesting or what could be enriching for them. In other words, I believe the world of translation could benefit from more guided and at the same time more coordinated and unified choices on part of translators in terms of what gets picked for distribution. If the author is chosen as "important" to translate, I wish it was formulated more clearly what exactly makes the translation important. 

-Ksenia