James Wood Response + Ted Goossen Reflection - Lianbi

Commentary on Ted Goossen talk:

Ted is really friendly and kind; I was happy to get to know him from the seminar, pre-seminar talk, and from the time we spent traveling from and to the airport. The part I liked most about his presentation was his reading of his own book excerpt and the discussion on stakes of Japanese translation of Western concepts, in particular western love 爱 vs. 恋. I also liked that he gives off the kind professor vibe throughout, and that he asked our opinions about things and was curious about our experiences as translators. I was very glad to meet the Monkey translator and professor there too (please forgive me for forgetting her name)–it was moving to hear how much a magazine was able to help her become a better translator.

However, I would say that I was not satisfied with the way he responded to different translation questions and problems. I felt like he did not answer some of my questions. I think he takes a strong domestication approach to translation and editing translation, but he does not seem to own that stance and provide arguments to justify choices like eliminating all footnotes and keeping sensei but not san. Also the lecture seemed not so well prepared. His lecture was actually structured around a couple points of curiosity Rose and I mentioned in the car. There was no powerpoint or other presentation material, which would have assisted audience understanding. Also, personally I don’t like this rationale behind having us read “Creta Cano” and the reason for publishing it. I think he was basically saying “Because it is Murakami. Murakami means people would read it. Usually we don’t get to publish Murakami because the New York Times gets to publish first, but this time the story was so creepy that we got it.”

Commentary on James Wood readings:

James Wood’s reviews of translations are beautifully written, very engaging to readers, and quite academically rigorous at the same time–both reviews situate the novels in their respective genres and compare them to other famous literary works. These two reviews surely did make me want to read the books. And the visuals are really cool and on point! His reviews are sort of like movie trailers to me. Exciting but also a bit puzzling; I can’t quite follow all the quotes and elevated language and abstract ideas. He also seems to assume quite a bit of literary knowledge from the readers. What do we feel about that?

As per usual we don’t see much attention paid directly to translation. James does point out that these works are translated, provide translators’ full names, and the dates of original and translation publication, but the rest of his writing makes it sound like the original and the translation are one. I don’t blame him for it, after all these are published in the New Yorker and we want people to believe the translation is as good as the original. What I wonder is, however, what his review process was like. He makes it sound like he is an expert on German, Austrian, Turkish literature, does he read the original languages as well? He also makes it clear in these writings that the books are foreign, or even exotic… yet relevant to American readers. Is that an intentional move or is it just what his reading experience naturally entails? Also, he likes to throw in exotic foreign words from the novels. To me, it further confirms the idea that the translation is equal to the original.