Creativity and Betrayal: Translation of The Vegetarian

The readings this week both focused on The Vegetarian, a Korean novel by Han Kang and its translation by Deborah Smith. While the translation launched both the novel and the author to international recognition, it was widely criticised, especially amongst the Korean community, for its infidelity to the original text. Sun Kyoung Yoon notes that multiple critics described the translation in their discussions as a "betrayal" of the source text, both in style and in actual translation. 

These papers were interesting to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, I actually read this exact translation of The Vegetarian in high school. We had read other works in translation including classical Greek dramas like Medea. When discussing those texts, we did talk about how translating a work that was originally in a now dead language would pose a challenge, and how we had to be aware of the way that translation may have changed the text. Interestingly, in the case of The Vegetarian, no such discussion was had. I think that perhaps there was the assumption that a translation of a contemporary work by a living author in a commonly used language would somehow be inherently more accurate. The readings from this week really call that in to question, and I feel that they show how important it is to view any act of translation as a potential "infidelity", regardless of recency or familiarity. 

The other particular point of interest to me was Deborah Smith's own comments in one of the short articles. She notes an issue of "cultural imperialism" which I find very interesting in this context. While she does point out that Han Kang achieved international acclaim for parts of the book unrelated to the translation, and is an incredibly accomplished author, I think it is still important to critique the translation. There is no way to know Smith's intentions with her choices for this novel, but it does strike me as odd the kinds of changes that were made. Changing the style, while it does allow the book to reach a wider audience, also betrays what several identify as a Korean literary tradition. By adapting a book to be read by more audiences we also assume that it must also for that audience, perpetuating this "cultural imperialism" that wants media and life to be shaped for a certain kind of person. 

There are many questions that remain to me for this translation. As was discussed in the lecture on Friday, Han Kang is living, and Smith could have had contact with her about the translation. Did they work together, and if not, then why? While I can appreciate the frustration of a translation that betrays and lets down the inherently cultural and political understanding of the original, I wonder why, exactly, this happened and what a more faithful translation would look like. 

- Kamryn Schult