Capitalist erasure... among other musings.

In a capitalistic society, we are prone to capitalistic erasure. To get more people to see the play, it must become more palatable to the target audience, and to become more palatable to the target audience, it must look more like the target audience. Is it more important that we get a "culturally appropriate" rendition of a work or that our translations look more like the original work? Listening to Tiang's example of changing the joke across languages and regions, I realize something has to be lost to engage the audience (there are many more instances of these types of changes, some are more significant than others).

I greatly appreciate Tiang's perspective on collaborating with living playwrights (and authors) rather than just translating the old things. In a collaborative scenario, we can ask: Do you want to be sure the audience laughs, or would you rather keep the joke as is? 

The idea of capitalist erasure also raises another question: Is it more important to get some version of these plays to another stage rather than one that better encapsulates the original at the cost of some understanding? The essay we read talked about the balance of a restitutive and projective aim and how the art actually rests on the compromise between these two things. It is impossible to look upon a work and translate it without some level of projection of one's own limitations of perspective and knowledge, not just the translator, but of the audience. The idea of stealth-glossing also caters to an audience with limited perspective (unavoidable), which is much more challenging to pull off within the context of a play. 

I still don't know how to convey my own ethics regarding translation (if this wildly rambly blog post isn't enough evidence...), but much of it revolves around the original author's intent and trying to preserve the text without making it unattainable for my audience. In translating, I know I want to elevate the original author's voice over my own. I know I want to refrain from imposing myself on the work. And I don't mean that every translation I do needs to be a word-for-word, literal translation, no tiny deviation to be made; I just don't want to try to "improve" it or make it more "palatable" to catch an audience's attention.

I am also beginning to realize there isn't necessarily one ethical approach. Each translator brings something to the table that we might not have seen otherwise. I feel the transparency in which we regard the translation could be improved. Still, I think each can be viewed as a valuable display of creativity in their own right. Along with more effective transparency, I also feel the critical conversations we have around the practice of translation is also important- if only to keep translators honest and to gain a greater appreciation for the original work (though I feel the conversation can be vastly crucial outside of those outcomes). 

I don't know how to accomplish this well amid all the other limitations I am working with. But, for the sake and sanity of my project, I need to continue grappling with these questions- as they will influence the type of translations I produce. My priorities will determine how I approach translation, which is something I notice the more I hear the views, perspectives, and priorities of other translators. 

                                                                                                                                Lauren