I found Boris Dralyuk's relationship with Julia Nemirovskaya to be a desirable translator-author relationship. He puts his knowledge and skills to the service of the meaning that he sees polished out by Nemirovskaya's verses - he believes this meaning is worth distributing and "furthering" into other languages and audiences. The impression that I got is that this is something he would have done regardless of whether he would have been payed to do it. I believe everyone should be payed for their time and effort, and at the same time I believe the type of effort that should be there is the one that would be there either way; I don't see payment as needing to inspire effort but rather as rewarding and honoring it for already existing. There is also humility in Boris' attitude that I find admirable: "She wrote it and the least I could do is to translate it". He does not seem to be trying to create a space or a name for himself with his translations. Instead, in this case he tries to create more space for Nemirovskaya, through himself. He spoke outside of political agendas and academia narratives. If a subject, theme or topic is not supported by places where the money brew, will people still talk about it? It felt refreshing to hear someone speak from their heart about what they believed mattered. I often feel like academia is like a balloon that pumps itself from the inside, like it reinforces its own structure from within to continue existing the way it wishes to exist. There was also a mention of intuitive translation, and I wanted to add on it that like with everything, the use of intuition also requires honing and practice - on which a lot can be said and written, as well.
In my opinion, the escapism from meaning was illustrated perfectly by the controversy over the skin color of a translator. The meaning of the poem and its promotion seemed to be secondary at best, it was its social and political significance that was attempted to get "translated", with the constant looking over the shoulder so that those who hold the strings of the mainstream narrative "approve" of whatever needs approval nowadays. If the value of the poem lied not in its message of unity but in the fact that it is a person of color who composed it, then to "translate" this value, it must be a person of color who recreated this poem in another language, as well. That is why it does not matter if a white person can or cannot translate something - in my eyes, this debate isn't about the quality of translation at all. Any art ceases to be art when it gets political.
In regards to sexual metaphors, it makes absolute sense why the discussions over "faithful/unfaithful" translations lead nowhere and are like rolling the ball back and forth - because I think such discussions serve as a covert outlet for the power dynamics or power narratives that already exist in society. I would prefer to think of any concept as androgynous and having both female and male components, to an equal degree. When we treat something as strictly feminine or strictly masculine, we deny the yin and yang makeup of it, create an imbalance and ascribe to the reality that we want to see, rather than the reality that is. The result is stagnation, as can be seen in literary circles as much as elsewhere. The androgynous model would show that both the original text and the translation have an equal purpose of serving meaning by exploring the nuances of various insights. Whichever comes first is irrelevant because these are mere tools and lenses and pieces through which a bigger, newer picture is assembled. There is no hierarchy, only the path upward, toward higher truths.
-Ksenia
No comments:
Post a Comment