I found this debate courtesy of Mark over at ReadySteadyBook. There’s a discussion on Language Hat about the liberties that can legitimately be taken by translators; the post links to the following extract from an article by Ros Schwartz:
In Orlanda, by Belgian author Jacqueline Harpman, one of the characters suddenly switches from the formal “vous” to the informal “tu.” This is a crucial moment in the narrative. The speaker is a prissy, bourgeois woman of thirty-five. She is addressing a young man with whom she entertains a somewhat ambiguous relationship. For the Francophone reader, this unwitting switch from “vous” to “tu” signals an important shift in the woman’s feelings. The problem for the translator is how to convey this to the English-speaking reader with equal subtlety, when we only have the word “you” for both “tu” and “vous.” The characters are already on first-name terms, so that is not an option. I decided to have the woman put her hand on the man’s arm.
As-tu remarqué que depuis tout à l’heure tu me tutoies? Elle ne s’était pas rendu compte et rougit violemment.
“Haven’t you noticed how you’ve suddenly become quite familiar with me?” She had put her hand on his arm without realising and blushed deep red.I think this works in terms of cultural equivalence. And that is what translators need to do—find cultural as well as linguistic parallels.
Others disapprove of the audacity of this ‘translation’, provoking a debate which could run and run, as has been amply demonstrated by the reams of replies to the post.
I notice that one reply in particular suggests that in cultures which are very rich in literary translation, where indeed these works form a staple of many people’s literary diets, it is necessary for translations to be as palattable as possible to the reader, even if that means jettisoning some of the original cultural significances and linguistic play. By contrast, the writer asserts, in those regions (such as the UK and US) where there is proportionately very little literature in translation and readers have a vast stock of native-language literature with which to satisfy themselves, translations which are faithful to the original, at the cost of ease of reading, are a luxury that can be afforded.
I can’t help but think that the writer has got this the wrong way round. My own personal views on the duties of the translator notwithstanding, surely where foreign fiction is neglected, it is necessary to do all that we can to bring it to a wider audience, rather than accepting and even encouraging its marginalisation?
That said, I also don’t necessarily agree that very free translations are the only means of securing that wider audience, and I do believe that the example provided by Ros Schwartz is a step too far. It’s important to remind readers that every work of translation is essentially a new work, but beyond that, it’s important to get the books out there in the first place.
Ellie
