[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i think you're doing ok...


well the thing is that their identity is not EXCLUSIVE. they have a referent. just like the description of a delicious food can make your mouth water, even though you can't eat the description. here it's language refering to language, and therefore there is something edible that remains.

a great chinese food in new york might not be the same as a restaurant in hong kong, but you are eating chinese food after all-- in translation. you could argue "no, it's american, chinese-inspired food". sure, whatever...


yes, it's mutated no dobut, but you make it as if "deconstructed" was the sole thing one could do to a book. there are layers and layers of pleasure hidden, and some books survive it better than others. if your book is very close to its verbal structures (like joyce), the book is untranslatable. and yet i once met a chinese translator of joyce. he gave a lovely talk & explained his strategies. i don't want to sound like too much of an existentialist here but these heroic futile struggles can be a great source of meaning, much like in "the myth of sysyphus" by camus-- it's not putting the rock on top of the hill, it's the struggle that counts.

you know, as a bilingual creature i'm much more aware of the limitations of translation than a single-language person would be. there are so many untranslatable expressions i deal with every day, in both languages. i've even taught translation in college-- i'm very well aware of the limitations.

HOWEVER, or maybe *because of it*, i also know that translation can be a glorious thing. it doesn't 'rob" the author identity-- it preserves it the best it can for those who can't have it otherwise.


i worked on a translation of eliot's four quartets with a professor of mine-- a poet actually, not a real "academic". we went over and over and over it, never exhausting the possiblities, exploring multiple meanings, etc., and having to sacrifice many things-- but also preserving others. the fucker is the possessor of a poetic sense and ultimately that is what counts-- it's his poetic sense, "channeling" eliot if you will.


of course i agree with that, that is however rather obvious. where i differ with you is in my orientation towards it-- i don't see translation as a total tragedy; on the contrary, i see it as a heroic quest-- doomed from the start, yet beautiful and worthy of admiration. i read books in the original whenever i can-- i've learned french also because of this, and i can manage a little portuguese and perhaps (perhaps!) some italian. but i cannot know every language and therefore i'm eternally grateful to those who've given me the gift of countless books i would not have been able to ever access otherwise.



i think there are many levels in a text, some of which survive translation better than others, and all can be a justification for a good discussion. the quality of the discussion however will depend on the participants rather than the subject at hand.

Again, I'm really not refuting any of these points. To reiterate, I'm not denying that translations can possess their own literary 'beauty,' if you will. Nor am I asserting that deconstruction is the only worthwhile undertaking; I'm saying that such an undertaking is impossible given the altered state of the text. It's my personal assertion of why I would not particularly want to 'academically' discuss a translated novel.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

HOWEVER, or maybe *because of it*, i also know that translation can be a glorious thing. it doesn't 'rob" the author identity-- it preserves it the best it can for those who can't have it otherwise.

I would argue that such 'identity' as we speak of ceases to exist once it has passed through a detached medium. Preservation to the best of ability does not equate reproduction, and therefore, any result is skewed, whether you perceive said result to be glorious or inferior.

Can a translation be eloquent, stimulating, enriched, even to the point that it surpasses the initial work? Of course. IS it the original? No.

My point is illustrated rather well by the very issue you undertake with the inferiority of the Barnes & Noble translation (which I agree, is utterly painful). While both the B&N and Guerney translations refer to the same text, they differ drastically from one another, which serves to highlight the malleability of language that is inevitable in translation.

Again, I repeat, since it doesn't seem to be getting through - there are 'good' translations, but both the good and the bad are by nature mutations of the original WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

while all-inclusiveness is not possible in the context of this gogol reading, there is still the possibility of a very enjoyable exchange-- there is much that survives in translation and therefore it must be devoured. much more enjoyably so if in good company. if you're chicken, then simply run; but i dare you to read the translation and still make the best possible discussion.

'Chicken' of? I won't even dignify that with a response.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

oh, well, yes, not that. but again the poetry of a sentence is not ALL you can find in books. there are so many levels i would get tired of enumerating. by the way, characters can be a pretty interesting thing in a novel-- they are in many ways what is central to a novel and set it apart from other forms. i'm sure you have the intellectual resources to live up to other challenges as well-- don't sell yourself short; just try.

I have certainly never undermined the value of characterization in a novel; it is certainly the meat of some of the best writing in existence.

And thanks for your vote of confidence on my intellect; surely I will succumb to dreams of the provincial more easily with your buoying words of encouragement.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i'm sure he would love to if he could get under the tractor seat and wasn't possibly dead.

seriously, i hope you are not intellectualizing procrastination or making a baroque version of sour grapes, or looking for an excuse to avoid the pressures of a real-time discussion (hah hah-- yes im taunting). you're stuck with a dog, that barnes and noble thing. it's fucking horrible. get the right damn book. deconstruction or not, that guerney book is funny and delicious. D-E-L-I-C-I-O-U-S. like, hm, ersatz spring rolls.

Hmmm, an intellectual circle-jerk with patronizing pedants? Gee, I may not be able to keep pace. I do hope I preserved my dignity by throwing up this facade of a debate.

Treated like a stamp collection, where quantity and appearance are priority, the notion of 'intellect' becomes obsolete.

In short, over-inflated academics can suck a saggy tit.