MCLC: Sandalwood Death review (6)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: jiwei xiao <jiweixiao at gmail.com>
Subject: Sandalwood Death review (6)
***********************************************************

I agree with Prof. Jonathan Stalling that we should give more recognition
and visibility to translators. My previous experience as a translator told
me so. As I stated in my last post, not acknowledging Howard Goldblatt in
my review was a mistake, although the offense was unintentional. If you
don’t believe this explanation, you could go back to a MCLC post that I
wrote during our discussion (Oct.23, 2012, mclc posts are searchable on
google) of Mo Yan. If I was conscionable enough to cite the translator’s
name even in an email post, why would I not do so in a formal review? I am
also confused about the implication that I was, or we were, pillaging
Goldblatt’s work when I was using his translation but thinking and talking
all the while about Mo Yan’s work. It’s not a zero-sum game!

 
I understand that Prof. Stalling is using me and my review as an example
to make a point. I would be glad to be put on the spot if this struggle
meeting can serve a good cause :) But hostility and anger, no. It doesn’t
help anyone. Prof. Klein’s teeth-clenching rage baffled me. His ire was
quite misfired. Should my teeth be also clenched when he only complained
about my omission of the comments on the translation quality but did not
make even one-word comment on the review he was critiquing? The point here
is we can all be offended by something that we think others should care
about but do not. And we all have blind spots.

 
Again, I said I preferred Mo Yan’s originals because I felt that they
allowed me to appreciate his work in a more intimate way. This is just a
fact—you can’t force me to say otherwise. But back when I was revising my
essay for LARB publication, I realized that this was a personal
preference. I felt that if I wanted to follow it and compare the two
versions, it could be too complicated for a short review, and that a
couple of general sentences or even a paragraph would only cause
misunderstanding and harm. In any case, I had reservations about my
original comments; so I cut them. I guess, by impulsively revealing this
under the pressure of Prof. Stalling’s questioning, I forgot that I should
have heeded Mo Yan’s advice more strictly: don’t speak! Don’t ever speak!
:)

But seriously, Prof. Klein missed the fact that in my review I was NOT
talking about why I preferred Mo Yan’s original work to its translation.
By quoting Goldblatt’s translation at length and analyzing the work in
detail, I was trying to show the importance of doing a close reading of
the text. This effort to get more attention to the writing itself is not a
bad thing for the translator, is it? Maybe Prof. Klein should unclench his
teeth and read the actual review piece that he dislikes and belittles so
much—for at least once—before he lets himself carried away by passion.

Yes, I do think we argue because we care about things passionately; but I
fear anger and despise won't carry us far.

Jiwei Xiao