MCLC: Sandalwood Death review (1)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: Stalling, Jonathan C. <stalling at ou.edu>
Subject: Sandalwood Death review (1)
***********************************************************

I was quite excited to discover that at long last the LARB had published a
review of Mo Yan’s Sandalwood Death. As the editor of the CLT Book Series
that published Howard Goldblatt’s English translation of the novel at the
beginning of 2013, I had all but given up on the LARB reviewing it. By the
time I reached the end of this substantial review, however, I had to face
a rather peculiar and unsettling reality: after nearly 2,400 words, the
reviewer, Jiwei Xiao, never mentions the fact that the book she is
reviewing is Howard Goldblatt’s English translation of Mo Yan’s novel. I
may be a bit more sensitive to this omission given the fact that I, as the
editor and a translator myself, am quite excited by the attention
Goldlatt’s translation is getting from the translation community: the book
has already been nominated for several awards, and, in fact, only a few
months earlier Goldblatt had been interviewed by LARB about his
translation work!

http://lareviewofbooks.org/interview/translating-mo-yan-an-interview-with-h
oward-goldblatt

So while Xiao quotes liberally from the English text (sans citations), she
never mentions even once that the book under review is not《檀香刑》, which
was 
published well over a decade ago, but is instead its English translation.
Of course, any review of translated literature will necessarily focus on
the merits of the original, but at the very least professionalism requires
a reviewer to acknowledge the work of the translator in some form. Most of
the time readers rely on a review to find out whether a book is a good
read in English, so it is important for a reviewer to offer a critical
opinion on this matter so the reader can make an informed decision. In
this review, however, the reader is invited to enter the original text as
if it were still in Chinese, yet miraculously transparent to the English
reader’s mind.

The reviewer spends a fair amount of time discussing the “dissonant
sounds” upon which “the novel was inspired,” and while Mo Yan’s aural
ingenuity naturally rests at the heart of the reviewer’s commentary, it is
important to note that these aural textures were delicately and boldly
translated into English by Goldblatt. In fact, I would argue that these
challenging moments constitute some of the most formally experimental—and
successful—moments in Goldblatt’s esteemed career. When I first read the
translated manuscript, I marveled at his ability to imbue the English with
a parallel set of aural textures (rhyme, meters, vocables, etc.),
producing often uncanny results.

Yet this is not really what left me feeling so uneasy. Instead, I fear
that there remains a deep and stubborn refusal to take translation (and
translation studies) seriously enough within both Chinese Studies and our
broader public literary culture (after all, the LARB editors must have
first read this piece before publishing it). I am not going to speculate
on the latent ideological (or epistemological) conditions that undergird
moments like these, but I do feel we must take such opportunities to
refocus attention on the collaborative nature of world literature
translated into English. As most people know, literary translators are
incredibly important cultural producers and yet most of them struggle to
make a living wage from their work. In fact, a recent report by the
Conseil Européen des Associations de Traducteurs Littéraires concludes
with the following observation:

This survey clearly shows that literary translators cannot survive in the
conditions imposed on them by "the market". This is a serious social
problem on a continent that is meant to be developed, multilingual and
multicultural, but it is also and most importantly a very serious artistic
and cultural problem. Indeed, what does it say about the quality of
literary exchange between our societies if literary translators are forced
to dash off their work just to be able to earn a basic living?

The objectives outlined by UNESCO in its 1976 Nairobi Recommendation are
far from being realised, that is the least one can say. It’s time to act!
(www.ceatl.eu)

What is true in the European context is even worse in the US (and for
Chinese-English-Chinese translation, the pay scale of which is often
calculated in RMB as a way of lowering the cost). Translators work for
many of the same mysterious reasons writers do—not because it pays well
(though I hope this can be remedied soon), but to contribute to the
cultural work of our time, to participate in the global conversation of
literature itself. If our work as translators is not discussed in reviews
of our work (or even simply acknowledged), when, pray tell, will it be?

It is important for me to note, however, that I believe Professor Xiao
would have gladly incorporated her thoughts on the translated nature of
the text had it been brought up in the editing/review process, or if it
had been listed as a prerequisite on the LARB contributor information
page, or if there existed broader university support of and
academic/prestige capital invested into translation inside the realm of
Chinese Studies. So I do not wish for the instructive moment of this
review to be reduced to a critique of this review alone (for clearly
Professor Xiao has many interesting things to say about this novel), but
as a general reminder to all reviewers (and to those of us who publish
them) to spend a moment engaging with (or better yet, exploring) the
translative nature of world literature, for this is our responsibility,
not to mention one of the great joys of our work.

Jonathan Stalling
Chinese Literature Today