MCLC: Sandalwood Death review (9)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: lklein <lklein at hku.hk>
Subject: Sandalwood Death review (9)
***********************************************************

In response to Jiwei Xiao's posting (#6 in the thread):

I didn’t write what I wrote to express "teeth-clenching rage," but rather
frustration. I'm sorry that wasn’t clear. I teach in the translation major
in the School of Chinese at HKU; my research and teaching center on how
Chinese is translated and Chinese translates. To me, the study of Chinese
literature and the study of translation are very much integrated and
overlapping projects, and to engage with one is to engage with the other.
But at the same time, I understand that not everyone sees it that way. I
find this frustrating, which was what I mean to express with "I clench my
teeth at how far we are as a profession from really understanding the
nature and natures of translation"--frustration and resolve, not hostility
and anger. Again, I'm sorry you took it that way.

I don’t think I was critiquing your review, but rather what you wrote
about it, and what it reveals about how we as a field view translation
(like Jonathan, I hope this isn’t a personal issue). But I'm happy to say
something about your review: I think it offers a lot of helpful context
for the curious reader of English who may know very little about China,
and I especially like your point, toward the end, that most "critics were
too busy lambasting [Mo Yan] to read his tomes line by line. They did not
see an author alert to both the empowerment and perils of performance, and
by implication, the treacherousness of writing as a form of public
performance." If I were writing it, I might have used that as an entryway
into a discussion of Goldblatt's performance as translator.

I also understand, if I follow you correctly, that you cut your discussion
of the translation because, while it might respond to other critics such
as Anna Sun, whom I quoted, it might also sound derogatory to Goldblatt or
not strike the kinds of positive notes you were after for Mo Yan. I get
that. But this underscores, I think, my point about comparing a
translation to an original being a categorical mistake (not that you
shouldn’t have your own preferences; I like avocadoes and don't like
airplane rides, therefore, I prefer avocadoes to airplane rides, even if
it is a categorical mistake!). The point is, comparing Goldblatt and Mo
Yan puts us in a no-win binary; I think there are productive and
insightful ways to discuss literary translation, and I don’t think saying
either "the translation is better than the original" or "the translation
is worse than the original" gets us there. As you say, it’s not a zero-sum
game.

Finally, I agree with Kirk that the translator's name should be next to
the name of the author, especially in venues like Chinese Literature Today
and Path Light.

Lucas