Colourful Language: Literal versus free translations

About ths blog : Communicating in any language

Art and illustration and gardening, and two languages: English and French - is there a link other than these activities being of interest to me ?

This question has arisen with my decision to launch this blog with my thoughts on what I do. Certainly, these are the interests and skills that I have acquired as I've stumbled along, sometimes with very little idea of where I'm going but are they too disparate for a single blog, which needs focus ? Possibly, but maybe they are linked by more than serendipity ?

As I've found that studying a language, art and more recently gardening, have put me in touch with people with whom I might otherwise not have had any contact, I can't help wondering if the common denominator is less my interest than the communication these activities have generated.
Learning a language, understanding another culture, is definitely about communication but so too is art where of course the language is visual. Gardening also facilitates communication (say it with flowers ?) as does any activity that allows you to link with people, share and exchange ideas. Sport - I do that too - is another way of coming together, pooling efforts and enjoying shared experiences. So maybe the link is the committed, constructive and creative use of our time that allows us all as individuals to be part of something bigger than ourselves : a community ?

Moreover, gardening, like art and illustration, but also learning to communicate in another language, creates colour (literally and metaphorically) in our lives and makes people... smile. And isn't the best way to start a conversation with a smile ?

So, perhaps when explaining what I do, which sometimes I find difficult to do because I don't fit easily into any nice, neat category, I should say : "I'm a communicator".

Monday 10 November 2008

Literal versus free translations

Yesterday, my reading of a recent post in Brave New Words (http://brave-new-words.blogspot.com) entitled The Best Translations ? (21/10/08) prompted me to look at the list of the 50 best translations from the last 50 years, as determined by the Society of Authors (http://www.societyofauthors.org/). This in turn has caused me to reflect on the criteria used to judge translations.

Translations are of course sometimes deemed good or bad according to how loyal they are to their source text, or how literal they are. This question of literal versus free translation has long been a concern for translators and readers of translation alike. Certainly, its a tricky issue, not least because how close a translator should adhere to the original text, respect the author's voice or conversely modulate the translation to suit the reader depends on a number of variables including the purpose of both the original text and its translation. Both approaches therefore have their potential merits.

Whatever, reflection on this subject has reminded me of comments on literature by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which I studied in my final year at university. I must say, I don't find Derrida's writings particularly transparent. Nevertheless, in an interview conducted by Derrek Attridge, documented in English under the title This Strange Institution Called Literature (published by Routledge), Derrida talks about literature as a repetition, a reiteration of an event (real or conceptual) and likewise he evokes the aptitude of literature towards transcendental reading. He discusses the instability of the meaning of a literary text, which, once in the public domain, is subject to a multitude of interpretations that result from the dialogue that the text prompts. A text is therefore organic, it's a living creature that has the capacity to evolve and to take on an existence entirely independent of its referent, i.e. its author (an idea reminiscent of Barthes' Death of the Author). In this respect then, the translator can play a role in this marginalization of the author as well as the text's liberation from its author's dominance and the evolution of its meaning.

So, it strikes me that a literal translation that is particularly conscience of the author's voice and presence in this living organism, this beast that is their writings, could be compared to the work of taxidermist who seeks to preserve at least the appearance of the animal in its original state, whilst a free translation submits to and willingly engages in the forces of evolution that must surely act on any text in the public domain. But again, none of this allows us to say which is right, a literal or free translation. Both fulfil a function. This is why for me, defining a translation as good or bad purely by the degree to which it acknowledges the author's voice, signature, presence, is misleading as surely the worth of a translation, beyond the basic issues of accuracy, should be determined according to its appropriateness. This is why I think when judging a translation it might be more constructive to give greater weight to the question of how much it satisfies the needs that prompted its necessity.

Ouf ! Heavy cogitations ! And sadly, I have no images to offer to lighten the tone of today's post as my usual computer has died on me. Needless to say, my thoughts today will be less on what makes a good translation and more on the practicalities of retrieving my precious files from the dark, mysterious depths of my laptop. Wish me luck !