���Ĵ�ý

Yesterday’s Boston Globe has one of the great contemporary translators, whose translation of Olga Slavnikova���Ĵ�ý�s 2017 was recently released. (Here’s a link to K.E. Semmel’s review of 2017 that we ran last week.)

Q. What is a good translation?

A. I think a translation is considered ���Ĵ�ý�good���Ĵ�ý����Ĵ�ý� when the reader likes it, even if it���Ĵ�ý�s tough going. Bulgakov���Ĵ�ý�s ���Ĵ�ý�White Guard,���Ĵ�ý� for example, was known for years in the Glenny translation, which was a pleasure to read but had little to do with the original text and omitted crucial bits; everyone but Slavists loved it. I hope that my new translation reproduces the full range of devices and effects of the original. Incidentally, our capacity ���Ĵ�ý� and willingness ���Ĵ�ý� to appreciate difficult texts seems to have changed, particularly for canonical texts.

Q. In what way?

A. I think we���Ĵ�ý�ve become more receptive to foreign elements. Constance Garnett, whom I will defend to the end of my days, is now criticized for not being faithful to Tolstoy���Ĵ�ý�s text, for setting his books in what feels like an English garden, but in my view it cannot be bad when a translation gives people access to works that they would never otherwise have read. As I was saying, though, our taste for foreignness has increased. A simple example: 50 years ago, names of Chinese characters were translated ���Ĵ�ý� ���Ĵ�ý�Peach Blossom���Ĵ�ý����Ĵ�ý� and the like ���Ĵ�ý� whereas now the preference is for the transliterated Chinese names. There is an ongoing debate among translators about ���Ĵ�ý�foreignizing���Ĵ�ý����Ĵ�ý� and ���Ĵ�ý�domestication,���Ĵ�ý����Ĵ�ý� but wherever a translator���Ĵ�ý�s choice falls, today it will probably be closer to foreignizing than it would have been 50 years ago.