Loosed in Translation discussion

Who are your favorite translators?

What books have they translated?

If there are multiple translations of a book and you have read them too, why do you prefer the work of your favorite translator over the others?

Ryan, give us a lead. What prompted the question?

Well, aside from a desire to know more titles that are not in my radar, I’d like to hear what people look for in a translation (whether or not they speak the original language). Is it the literal fidelity to the original, or is it a looser interpretive kind of translation, or a certain kind of balance between the two? If one does not speak the original language, is it the readability, smoothness of the prose, or the perceived flow of the writing, or some other qualities of the writing?

I’ve read in the past week two negative assessments of two new prominent translations: The Pevear-Volokhonsky translation of Doctor Zhivago which was given a very poor estimation by Pasternak’s niece in The Guardian (link) and a mixed review of Lydia Davis’s version of Madame Bovary in the LRB (link). While the arguments in these reviews are convincing, I’m not ready to shrug off these new versions, mainly because the other works of these translators were considered to be very good. Perhaps the reviewers’ ideas of what the translation should read like do not correspond to the approaches used by the translators in "interpreting" the novel? It’s quite subjective. Just as appreciation of works in original language is a matter of taste, it seems that so are translations.

So I'm curious as to how people personally choose or assess their favorite translators/translated books.

Well, you certainly give us the lead on this one. More than enough grounds to continue. Thank you.

The best translation I think I've ever read is Alphabet by Inger Christensen translated by Susanna Nied. I'm not sure what else she's translated, but this book length poem has a very unique structure based on the alphabetical progression and the Fibonacci sequence. So technically I'm impressed. But more than just technically, the translation reads so naturally, as if it were written in English.

I think the original was more structured, in that a lot of it rhymed also. Please correct me if I'm wrong since I don't read Danish. I feel like Nied made the right decision in making it not rhyme, but following the other constraints (mostly), as the rhyme thing would have sounded too sing songy, and the off kilter sounds and repetitions of Nied's translation are just right. It's like she made the perfect balance between fidelity to the original, and original english interpretation. I just can't imagine the poem being any other way.

Favourite translator got be frank wynne his books always seem to keep a poetic edge to them

In the case of Murakami, a comparison can be made between Jay Rubin's and Alfred Birnbaum's translations of Norwegian Wood. Reading the first few chapters side by side, I prefer Birnbaum's version.

Here's a comparison of the opening of The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.

Jay Rubin:

"When the phone rang I was in the kitchen, boiling a potful of spaghetti and whistling along with an FM broadcast of the overture to Rossini's The Thieving Magpie, which has to be the perfect music for cooking pasta.

"I wanted to ignore the phone, not only because the spaghetti was nearly done, but because Claudio Abbado was bringing the London Symphony to its musical climax."

Alfred Birnbaum:

"I'm in the kitchen cooking spaghetti when the woman calls. Another moment until the spaghetti is done; there I am, whistling the prelude to Rossini's La Gazza Ladra along with the FM radio. Perfect spaghetti-cooking music.

"I hear the telephone ring but tell myself, Ignore it. Let the spaghetti finish cooking. It's almost done, and besides, Claudio Abbado and the London Symphony Orchestra are coming to a crescendo."

those two versions are quite different. the first thing i note is that one is in literate past-tense and one is in present-tense: is this usual in japanese or murakami in particular? what arguments for which voice used? i confess that, being an essentially unilingual reader, i have long since decided that details/exactness of writing is something i want less than spirited interpretation and that poetics means not the words used but the metaphors etc.

i understand many 'pulp' fiction from the us actually improves in french translation... and did borges once say: 'the original is unfaithful to the translation'?

In Chinese, sentences have no tense unless you specifically put a tense on them... so I'm guessing Japanese works similarly.

I was struck by the different lengths of sentences... the Rubin translation being only 2 sentences and the Birnbaum being 6. Or 7 if you count the semi-colon as a semi-sentence-end, which I sort of do. The rhythm of these two excerpts are very different... one long and flowy and the other is short and choppy.

Also the Birnbaum has a lot of 'tone-play'... with 'but tell myself, Ignore it.' instead of just 'wanted to ignore' and 'there I am, whistling' instead of 'and whistling'. Birnbaum's seems much more playful and Rubin seems matter-of-fact. I wonder how the original works with tone.

Jimmy wrote: "The best translation I think I've ever read is Alphabet by Inger Christensen translated by Susanna Nied. I'm not sure what else she's translated, but this book length poem has a very unique struct..."

For those interested, I just found an interview with Susanna Nied talking about her translation of alphabet: http://circumferencemag.org/?p=1012