Fidelity, Creativity, and the Feminist Translator: Reflections on The Vegetarian

Fidelity, Creativity, and the Feminist Translator:
Reflections on The Vegetarian and the Patriarchal Obsession with "Correctness"

This week, I was really drawn to S.K. Yoon’s discussion of Deborah Smith’s translation. As I was working on the Japanese translations for this week, I found myself wanting to expand, or “write alongside”/“into” the original text. Without realizing it, I was living Yoon’s statement that “translation is not a copy of the original, not simply a linguistic transfer…[I]t necessarily has a creative dimension” (946).

I find the notion of fidelity very limiting – when critics obsess over “any kind of textual alterations” (939), they are viewing translation and translator as means to an end. Translator = vessel that carries the translation; translation = literal, unwavering, static. In reality, both translator (a human!) and translation are changing and evolving. I agree with Bassnett, quoted by Yoon, that translation “is a creative literary activity”, and that translators are “recreators” (174). Frankly, the more I engage with translations and translation theory, the more skeptical I am of the term and its appropriateness in labelling the process – something else must occur beyond literal “trotting.”

To that end, yes, I also believe that things like attention to grammar and syntax must be taken into account during the translation process. This is, perhaps, one of the only things that Tim Parks and I can agree on. Sure: idioms, registers, subject-verb agreement, and pronouns matter. But I’m not sure that the purpose of translation (or reading translations) is to swarm a text (or the translator) with red pen. I’m okay if the translator deviates from the source text a little – so long as they have a justification for their choices, as Smith does (feminist lens). A total preoccupation with “correctness”, fidelity, “originality” and grammar mistakes are patriarchal, colonial, and rooted in a hierarchical understanding of language and expression.

Smith’s comments in her 2018 Los Angeles Review of Books article are correct – “there is no such thing as a truly literal translation…[and] much of translation is about achieving a similar effect by different means.” She may be right when she questions if obsessions over aesthetics are ways of “avoiding talking about its politics.” It’s interesting that the two critics of Smith’s translation, included in this packet, are men. Could there be a gender bias here?

I was reminded of Emily Wilson's translation of The Odyssey, which, though I have not yet read it, is controversial for similar reasons. Wilson's translation has been labelled "feminist"; I've seen some folks on social media critique her work because it is not literal. 

Regardless, it’s clear that translation needs an interdisciplinary approach. It’s not just literal vs. creative, or original vs. translation, good vs. bad – we must understand translation choices within their context, and we must step into each new work aware of our biases.

                                                                                                                                                    Meg