Peter Constantine Lecture and Carlos Rojas Readings - from Suis

 Peter Constantine’s discussion on dialect was very helpful and served as a great summary for the important factors to keep in mind when translating relevant texts. I was particularly entertained by the comparisons between his translations of certain phrases and the way his editor rendered it. It’s surprising to see how slight changes in word choice can make such a difference in the tone of the dialogue. I’m currently translating a text with a considerable amount of dialogue so his lecture was very helpful in having me think about the importance of dialogue and time (the story was written in 2007 but set in the late 80s) and how those two things were related, and whether I should opt for an 80s sense in my translation or not.

Carlos Rojas’s introduction to The Disappearance of M was so fascinating to read and it made me feel very invested in the works he discussed. I am definitely reading his collection of short stories when I have the time. I aspire to write an introduction as captivating as his. I am particularly concerned with this idea of the “untranslatable” that Rojas discusses several times, as well as such works that “resist translation” (9). I have encountered these instances many times when translating from Japanese to English. I was also reminded of Gisele’s presentation and the poet Gozo Yoshimatsu who incorporates so much in his poetry that is dependent on the original form such as sound and visuals. Rojas touches on this with his translation of two Chinese characters that are distinctly different in the source language but have the same phonetic reading (9). I’m not so sure about his renditions–Yu and Yur–and I am interested to know what others think. I have also encountered the same issue when translating from Japanese where two kanji characters might read the same phonetically but have different kanji characters and therefore different meanings inherent in the language. I am reminded that translation is sometimes a series of choices and solutions.

In the translation of The Disappearance of M, the second paragraph gave away a “translated feel” to the text with a sentence that reads to me as a bit clunky: “Beads of perspiration covered the entire exposed surface of his body, and his shirt was completely soaked with sweat” (1). For some reason, I have a feeling that “perspiration” was used in an attempt to find another way to say “sweat.” (Maybe it’s just me.) I was also a bit confused by the description of the bridge, I wish someone could illustrate it.