Boris Dralyuk was such a sweet, passionate, funny, and interesting speaker! I think he was one of my favorites so far. I loved hearing him read the poems in Russian and in English, and the way he talked about his translational choices was extremely personal and heartfelt. He expressed his feelings very clearly; I particularly enjoyed him talking about the poem Neighbor, and how the images ruminated on the pain of the actual images (for example, the boiling water) vs. the person in the boiling water. How the pain of objects translates to the pain of being human, and how poets and children share in a worldview that is somehow naïve and profoundly mature at the same time. It was such a good talk!
Reading the S. Bassnett piece on Translation and Gender, I was struck by the line "the risks of cultural appropriation through translation," and how many translators include prefaces to "remind readers of the complex interlingual and intercultural processes that the text has undergone before reaching them." This seems like an obvious fact to me, and if it were included in a preface of a translated book I was reading, I can't promise that I would take the time to read it :') The piece mentions Ambai complaining about the ways English translators have shaped Indian writing to fit their own preconceptions, but sadly, no examples are given. I'm curious how this affects other cultures as well. I know we talked about changing the Lotus flower imagery in class (which I disagreed with), as well as the egregious use of women in kimonos/cherry blossoms/etc. on Japanese-translated book covers, but I want to see more examples of the actual content of the work being culturally appropriated? Unless the translation could be considered cultural appropriation in and of itself? This topic fascinates me. Also, why the alliteration was more important than the meaning of the title Tres Triste Tigres, I couldn't understand-- but I also haven't read the piece or know what it's about.
The Metaphors, Women, and Translation piece made me wish that there was another Greek translator coming to discuss Greek plays and translation. They mention Athena and Medusa, but famous Ancient Greek women like Clytemnestra, Medea, and Jocasta were coming to my mind, and how translators go about translating not only the ancient texts, but all sorts of writing that references these famous plays. Although maybe I should've just asked more questions when Karen Emmerich and Ersi Sotiropoulos were here?
The news article raises an important question: is it more important that one's intentions when translating are in the right place, or their lived experiences are shared with the original author? I see no issue with Marieke translating Amanda Gorman's work, as her intentions are to spread Gorman's message, and a translation is not intended to be Marieke's take/opinion on the original. However, I don't know if I have the right to have an opinion on this as a white woman, myself. The NYT piece was also really interesting to read, and I think having a translation controversy this big is in itself a huge win for the translation community. If problems are arising, it means people care, and people caring is good! I agree with the sentiment that limiting only black people to translate black people, only women to translate women, only trans people to translate trans people etc. etc. is harmful, but at the same time, if black translators were overlooked when seeking people to translate Amanda Gorman's poetry, clearly that may be signaling a systemic issue.
Sarah
No comments:
Post a Comment