Though it wasn't the focus of Hibbett's remarks, the section at the end during the Q&A when an audience member asked about how to translate humor made me pause. His reply was that one possibility is explaining the joke in a footnote at the back of the book, just leaving it in its literal wording, I suppose. But he stressed the importance of understanding that because humor is often so language-reliant in order for the punchline to work, we should accept that some bodies of work which are littered with puns will lose at least some of their substance when we try to translate them.
I found it kind of funny that a good portion of his answer seemed to center around strategically avoiding the need to translate comedy by picking texts with more universal humor (although I see his point). This made me think back on all the shows/movies in other languages that I've watched with English subtitles, because in this format you can neither provide footnotes nor cut out the humorous scene entirely (at least, if people are visibly laughing on screen). Translators have to address the issue of humor head-on in this case. Sometimes what ends up happening is the joke is literally translated, even if it completely falls flat in English. I can at least tell it's a joke from context, but as a member of the audience I greatly prefer when the translator attempts to substitute a joke that does make sense. I guess this might not always be possible, but I feel like there is usually some preferable alternative to just leaving the audience in confusion.
I think that while translating humor in a book is difficult, it is much easier than translating a film in this regard! You have the ability to re-write, rearrange text, and add your own details in if you wish to alter a joke so that it makes sense. This is why I somewhat disagree with Hibbett's advice about using a footnote. I'm sure there are times where it's necessary, but I don't know if it should be the go-to solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment