Seidensticker - Oscar

 Seidenticker's description of Japanese criticism of literary translations and how they perceive this exchange between Japan and Western cultures in particular interested me. As he describes it, translation between both languages is an endless matter of choices to make and concessions to give, none of which are perfectly satisfactory or adequate. The translator must come to terms with the fact that they are a dubious counterfeiter, that they will never be perfect in their translations. And so it does irk me a bit, like Seidensticker also seems to be, that critics assume that a translation is "bad" because of these choices - there simply are none that result in a perfect 1-to-1 copy, and dismissing that fact is just wholly ignorant of the field. I mean, basing quality off the comparison of proper noun counts?

There's also the matter of the jousting with editors. I feel like the noble way to think of translation is this grand, wonderous exchange of knowledge and creativity transcending barriers like language or culture, when in reality it often comes down to what will be the most successful product to push. Seidensticker describes Kawabata's writing as intentionally vague and ambiguous, like the confusion between who's waving the white cloth at the end of The Izu Dancer - it would be best to be ambiguous in the translation as well, as that was the intention, right? But perhaps to the editor, that ambiguity does not match the palette of western readers, and would result in a less successful product, which is a no-no. Frustration abound.