mistranslation

今天中午看了新闻后在goodreads写了一篇书评，但是写完觉得并不畅快，为什么呢 - 我在用非母语努力描述文学翻译中给我带来的“暴力”感受。我记得《不安之书》的早期一个译本《惶然录》，不仅是对日记体进行了删减选编，还进行了很多中式美学文学的创作。我从来不懂葡萄牙语，也仍然不知道我为之动容（不过感恩朋友c我拥有了一本原本，也许n年后吧可以读）文字的原文是不是仍然能让我产生类似感觉。去年读到第二性的macat analysis，说法语到英语的翻译也有不小争议，译者是一个男性动物学家，最初译本中删掉了近1/3页数，错误翻译了很多哲学概念，扭曲了原文的含义。我们这里避免讨论qualification的问题，尽管动物学家和Deborah Smith在这一方面都有很大的嫌疑。对于《素食者》，感到很清晰的是，获得奖项认可无论布克奖还是诺贝尔奖都和英语译本的关系分不开。不贴近原文的翻译，不一定会减少作品对主流受众的影响或知名度，但它影响的是读者如何感受和使用它。我可以理解那些无心错译，也可以理解那些文化交界对译者无意识下的影响，但我不喜欢有意识地为了ta推测的受众口味进行的改写、变形和迎合，这让我作为读者感到并不平等。而这一不平等的感受，在非英语、女性写作、东方世界和明显的西方环境比如更受认可的奖项对比下，更加加剧。

Two years ago, I took a course on contemporary literature by East Asian women. The Vegetarian was on our reading list (Kim Jiyoung, Born 1982, Convenience Store Woman, Last Words from Montmartre, Folding Beijing, and Severance). I really enjoyed the course, which focused on themes of feminism, queerness, and identity. And it was refreshing, as I had grown tired/sick of the implicit or explicit violence present in text from a male point of view. For example, in Blindness, which I recently read, it’s so obvious that the book was written by a man. Based on the premise that everyone in the world suddenly loses their sight, among so many possibilities, the author chooses to write about women being voluntarily humiliated by a group of thugs, of course, for the good of the rest. It feels like male writers repeatedly reinforce certain narratives, by males and for males. That’s why I found it a relief to read literature that offers different perspectives, often by womxn—ones that almost feel free from the violence we encounter so frequently in the real world.

However, issues still arise—due to translation. Translation itself is a form of violence. Translated texts are always adapted/reworked/composed to align with the prevailing ideologies and poetic trends of the target time and culture. This “manipulation” by translators often points to the problem of unequal power relations between different cultures. I believe translation is rewriting, and it’s unavoidable. But the question is: to what extent, and should a translator take liberties, and what are their roles and responsibilities as mediators?

I read The Vegetarian by Han Kang in both Chinese and English, and it’s hard not to notice the divergence between the texts. I even used an AI translator to compare them.

The Chinese version seems to stay close to the original according to my own judgment by comparison and online references. I wrote a review two years ago and still feel the reasons why I loved the book:

- I felt the depth of the novel’s metaphors, symbols, dreams, and colors. Through three chapters and three perspectives, the story reflects three stages of transformation, each tied to a different part of the body. The more I read, the more captivated I became. From the suffocating gaze of her husband, to the portrayal of art as a construct reflecting male desire, and then to the idea of sisterhood—we are connected not only biologically but also by social roles. Is it a dream, or will we ever wake up from it? “世上所有的树都跟手足一样” (“All the trees in the world are like kin”)—burning trees, a burning forest.

翻译或许是一种磨损，但有的东西仍然可能能穿透语言的。书中的隐喻，符号，梦境，色彩。三个章节，三种视角，三个阶段，我们身体的三个部分/器官。越读越觉得精彩，从窒息的 毫无回顾的目光，到艺术作为包装 男性凝视又折回了自身，到姐妹 不仅是生物也是社会角色上的相似和连接。这是不是梦呢，又会不会醒来。“世上所有的树都跟手足一样。”燃烧的树木，燃烧的森林。

On the other hand, the English translation detracts significantly from the novel’s original text (one of the refs: https://koreaexpose.com/deborah-smith-translation-han-kang-novel-vegetarian/). A short review I wrote two years ago:

- Reading it side-by-side with the Chinese version, it quickly became clear that something was off. After some lookup, I found that there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding Deborah Smith’s translation. Other than some outright mistranslations, she altered the repetitions—which could have been poetic in a way—and even rewrote sections to cater to English readers’ tastes. Isn't it a kind of Orientalism? The translator’s choices seem to “underestimate” the reader, implying that an “exoticized” version would be more accessible to the readers. But how can we know if readers might obtain a deeper understanding by confronting cultural gaps directly, rather than through a distorted lens? This translation feels like a fragile and artificial bubble for the readers. At the very least, a more honest translation should be offered, or it should be clearly marked, on the cover, that substantial changes have been made. The book is remarkable, but it’s unfortunate that the English version doesn’t allow its true depth to shine through.

中英文对照阅读的，越看越不对劲，搜了才知道关于英文译者的争论。除去一些错译，译者不仅去掉了原文本的重复使更符合英文阅读者的审美，还为了帮助“理解”而换词、改写，真的不是一种带orientalism的媚俗吗？现在除了审查之外难道也有很多中文译者在原文上自由发挥？我想也不会改写到人物形象都发生变化的地步吧。这种成功对于原作者也许是值得庆贺的（影响力上来说是，但是别的方面也许不），但是译者简直像个投机者，这种刻意为之的翻译明明就是在低估读者。你怎么知道文化隔膜是怎么渐渐变薄的呢。有没有可能读者们会在某一个时刻联系虚构、视觉和现实达到更深的理解呢？而目前，这样的译本制造的是一个难以察觉而不真实的泡泡。至少应该有更诚实的翻译后再来谈加工，或者醒目标注此翻译有很大改动。

For those who can, I recommend reading The Vegetarian in a version closer to the original language.