Thoughts on Murakami Articles - Lane

I appreciated the numerous perspectives presented on Murakami's works in translation. I feel as though Murakami has always been a hot topic in reference to translated literature in particular; many authors, translators, and linguists believe that Murakami writes with the intent to be translated, especially given his affinity for Anglo-American culture and the English language. J. Philip Gabriel noted, in the interview with the San Francisco Bay Guardian, that Murakami is a translator himself who is very comfortable with English, and perhaps this even influences his authorial process. Though I'm also of the opinion that Murakami certainly aligns his works with the English language enough that a reader of the original Japanese might even believe that his works are translated literature, I think this brings to mind an interesting question that was on my mind while I was reading these articles (and that has been on both my mind and the collective mind of the translator for years): Is translation authorship in its own right? 

Michael Emmerich, Jay Rubin, J. Philip Gabriel, and Wendy Lesser all seem to have a somewhat unified perspective on this matter, though there are certainly differences in their thoughts. Rubin notes that in his translations, he's "not trying to explain the original, but recreate it so that it works in all the same gut levels" and "feeling to see if [the translation] moves [him] in the same recognizable ways" cross-linguistically. Gabriel, when translating humor, completely changes the semantic meaning in order to express the same feeling in the translated text. Emmerich notes that Murakami is "an incredible storyteller, but [he] would frame him in terms of who's translating him." Lesser discusses that her perspective of Sebald actually "consisted of Sebald plus Hulse," and her love for Murakami was more a love for Alfred Birnbaum. All of these views either seem to place the translator as an essential part of the existence of a work, or the translation process as more divorced from the semantic authority of the original than some are led to believe. When Rubin "recreates" the original to evoke the same emotions in the reader, is he playing the role of an author? If Lesser only loves Murakami through Birnbaum's voice, is Birnbaum the true author of Lesser's beloved texts?

Though it's true that a translation certainly cannot exist without an original, I wonder if there is anyone that believes that a translation is crucial to the existence of the original. If a work is written to be translated, is its creation incomplete without a translation? Or, as Gabriel mentions in reference to Kenzaburo Oe, the author's work with him on his translation led to the creation of a different final product than the original, a reflection of how Oe had really wanted the original to be. Is Oe's Somersault thus incomplete without its translation? Which version holds the authority? These are some questions that are interesting to consider when discussing translated literature, though there is really no definitive answer. (Though, of course, they can generate interesting discussions!)