Wendy Lesser mentions how the purpose of a translator is to translate the author's voice. I thought about this, and I definitely think this is why AI translations are lackluster compared to human ones. AI can translate the words, but it can only use its own distinct AI voice—its incapable of replicating the author's.
However, I found it interesting that both Lesser and J. Philip Gabriel also made it a point that every translator has their own style of replicating the author's voice. It makes perfect sense though, since the translator has to use their own words, even if they are trying to replicate another's voice.
Gabriel also mentions that he doesn't consider translations as able to surpass the original, and I agree with this sentiment. The goal of a translation is to convey the same voice as the author. A poor translation can have a lackluster voice; but if a translation's voice were in any way "better" than the original's, it could not even be considered an accurate translation, since the voice must have been altered significantly.
With these thoughts in mind, though, it seems paradoxical to me how Emmerich sees a significant difference in the different translations of Haruki Murakami, to the point where it seems like a totally different writer. How can a voice be effectively replicated by a translator, but also sound like a completely different author? I'm a little confused how these can both be true, but Gabriel did acknowledge this paradox as well: as he mentions in his interview, certain things like humor can be extremely difficult to translate, and it often results in English translations seeming more serious and dark; according to him, culture is, after all, the "hardest thing to translate."
No comments:
Post a Comment