Re: Tale of G.: Is it necessary to translate it--again?
- From: Phil Yff <phil.yff@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:39:20 -0400
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:55:31 GMT, Jim Breen wrote:
aesthete8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Is the work of such a complex, subtle and ambiguous nature as to defy
the ability of any translator to create a definitive translation?
No, but then "definitive translation" is a fuzzy target. One translator
(Tanizaki) did it twice; into modern Japanese.
English is lucky to have 3 translations to choose from. Waley's is
all over the place - it seems when he got out of his depth he just made
things up. The bits I've read of it are far too flowery for my taste.
Seidensticker's is very plain and almost austere. Royall Tyler's seems
the best of them. He's got a good ear for the poetry of it, and it's easy
to read. I doubt any of them can be called "definitive".
Seidenstrecker's translation is also available on the web:
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Genji/00000010.htm
In addition to the three complete translations, there are some incomplete
ones. Suematsu Kencho translated the first 17 chapters. My favorite
translation is Helen Craig McCullough's although she didn't translate the
entire work. I'm not qualified to judge how definitive her translation is
but it's aesthetically pleasing. I also like Tyler's translation. Not
only does it read well but he also provides extensive footnotes and
explanations.
Phil Yff
.
- References:
- Tale of G.: Is it necessary to translate it--again?
- From: aesthete8@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Tale of G.: Is it necessary to translate it--again?
- From: Jim Breen
- Tale of G.: Is it necessary to translate it--again?
- Prev by Date: Re: Tale of G.: Is it necessary to translate it--again?
- Next by Date: Re: Literacy
- Previous by thread: Re: Tale of G.: Is it necessary to translate it--again?
- Next by thread: Re: Tale of G.: Is it necessary to translate it--again?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|