Comments on: Interview: “Kite Runner” Translator

By: minus273

minus273 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:17:10 +0000

I’m extremely put of by this disrespect for Chinese-speaking Muslims. Say, if the translator’s compatriots say in exactly the same language as his: 赛俩目 (salaam), 安拉乎艾克拜勒(allahu akbar), 因沙安拉(insha allah), why should not the translator make his Afghans say the same? In the same way, translators of Indian things seem to rarely respect the traditional Indian terminology of the Buddhists, relying on new translations/transliterations. But Islam and India exist in China, they should not be simply ignored for the ignorance/laziness of the translator.

By: Lillian Liu

Lillian Liu — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:12:51 +0000

Thanks for this insightful translation review. And all these rewarding comments. As a general Chinese reader Li Jihong had thought to “target”, I want to say, either some translators in our country might have underestimated the public audience’s reading experience or we general Chinese readers should start to ask what we read it for. Ironically, it’s not total Mr. Li to be blame on. There pervades a reckless and practical trend among general readers in mainland. A lot are holding a hunting-for-novelty view to read the world we don’t know and read and soon forget, just as one hundred years ago the West was reading the Central East. But I believe when the general readers enhance their reading taste or habit and know how to raise new request, translation will also grows diversified. As you said, foreignization will take the place of domestication.

By: Pages tagged "buzkashi"

Pages tagged "buzkashi" — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:06:49 +0000

[...] bookmarks tagged buzkashi Bruce Humes » Blog Archive » Interview: “Kite … saved by 7 others Spyro2008 bookmarked on 03/30/09 | [...]

By: Jesse

Jesse — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:36:20 +0000

*Interesting how you translate 国情 as ‘Chinese sensitivities’.
*I remember my professor in Modern Arabic history telling us about the invention of watan (from waTana, to dwell, reside, live, stay–Hans-Wehr) as ‘nation’ in the 19c. It’s not Quranic, as far as I know, and would seem to be explicitly secular, in tension with the more sacred umma of Islam. Interesting how it is used in Afghanistan (that less-than-obvious nation) in the context of invasion.

By: bruce

bruce — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:50:16 +0000

@Joy “Personally speaking, I am on the side of foreignization like you…”

Hmm. I’m not sure I’m on either “side.” In writing this piece, I wasn’t trying to argue in favor of either practice.

But I did want to say that:

— Translator Li Ji-Hong’s approach to translating Afghan words (many with Persian, Arabic roots) seems inconsistent with the approach of the author of the original, Khaled Hosseini. Hosseini chose to treat the words as “foreign” (he italicized them and used their pronunciation in Dari, etc.). Li Ji-Hong rendered them in just one language, Chinese, often in such ways that their foreign roots were entirely effaced. Yes, Li Ji-Hong’s practice is a clear-cut example of “domestication.” But what struck me is that the words — over 125 of them, or about one every three pages — were foreign in the original, and that this “foreignness” has not been replicated in the translation.

— Regardless whether you like Li Ji-Hong’s approach, his decision to keep everything in standard Chinese means that the Chinese reader’s “Afghanistan,” and the English-speaking reader’s “Afghanistan,” will feel markedly different. To me, this is interesting because it’s a good example of how a translator’s strategy impacts his end-product, and demonstrates that the translator is in fact neither “invisible” nor “passive.”

Many thanks for your thoughts!

By: Joy

Joy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:52:13 +0000

have not a chance to read

By: Joy

Joy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:51:15 +0000

I still have a chance to read the original and the Chinese translated verstion of this novel, but based on the above introduction and interview made by you, I learnt that most of the terms with strong Muslim flavor were translated in an approach of dometication. I have read Venutti’s The translator’s Invisibility and know the distinction between domestication and foreignization. personally speaking, I am on the side of foreignization like you, but to great extent, in theory. while, in practice, I must choose the approach of domestication by translating into the fluent and authentic Chinese like the Li Jihong because the majority of Chinese readers or clients prefer this kind of translation. Translation is such a complicated thing that no one person or theory can explain it fully,such as equivalence theory of Nida, Skopos theory or Relevant theory. Each of them makes sense to some degree.

By: Lucas Klein

Lucas Klein — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:48:41 +0000

This is a fascinating report. But I wonder: Venuti makes claims for an ethics of translation, that foreignizing translation enables diversity. His examples, though, are almost all from European languages; when you foreignize Asian and Middle Eastern cultures, you run the risk of essentializing their differences.

But that’s also a question for readers in most of the English-speaking world, where diversity has already become mainstream in most places. English readers are likely better prepared to be moved towards the foreignness of the text, a fact that prepares our view of foreignization as ethical. Can we make the same assumptions about the ethics of translation into Chinese as we can about translations into English? Mainland China is a less diverse–or maybe I should say, less integrated–place than urban US, Canada, UK, Australia… If The Kite Runner could have been published in Eisenhower’s America, would it have had as many italicized words? Could a translation have been as foreignizing?

Similarly, am I being ethnocentric if I can’t imagine how a book-length translation completed in about ten days could be any good?