On the one hand, I concede with Nabokov here; a literal translation, even if 'clumsily' transposed, seems more conducive to the purpose of translation. I cannot discern the benefits of producing an ornate and aesthetically sensual paraphrase when it risks masking or convoluting the translation. Nabokov smartly underscores the necessity of transliteration, of establishing and providing a concise, palpable translation; yet, for Nabokov, this requires (or seemingly so) the translator to approach the text (in transit) with clinical scrupulousness. Though not necessarily a bad or poor route to take, it does appear exclusive.
On the other hand, I think Nabokov is a little too catty, a dash too peppery. That is, though I understand and see the value in literal translation, the practicality of absolute, word-for-word transliteration(s) seems improbable and nearly impossible. By extension then, this Nabokovian theory of translation not only disregards those words which cannot be literally translated, as well as those that when translated bear no sociocultural sustenance once transposed into a different language, but also undermines former theorists and their application of translation. In doing so, I think Nabokov, to an extent, manages to create a type of caste system within translation theory--essentially underpinning himself as an elitist, as, somehow, endowed. Nevertheless, Nabokov's theories (as we've found with the others) offer both advantageous and suspicious conceits.
I agree wholeheartedly. It seems as though Nabokov translates for a particular audience and expects the remainder of his readers--should they decide to read his translation--to educate themselves through either copious amounts of footnotes or through a complete understanding of the "mother" culture from which the work is translated. However, I see his point. Should we interchange allusions and cultural references for our own because we don't understand them? What do we lose in terms of understanding another culture?
ReplyDeletePersonally, a merging of Damrosch's theory and Nabokov's would allow for a marriage of knowledge and understanding between two cultures. Damrosch discusses how the original context should not get in the way too much. Similar to Mary Jo Bang's and James Clive's translations of Dante, the text can be translated into current, relevant terms and issues. However, if one were to turn down the extremity in which translations are conducted [lean more towards Clive's form of translation] and couple them with copious footnotes to teach the reader about the original culture, then Nabokov's "argument" for educating readers would be invalid. You can educate and still "update" the work into the 21st century.
Hope this makes sense and that I didn't ramble too much.