"Prettification" and Translation as an Illusion

 The ideas from this week's readings were very striking to me. I think I began to notice it in class when we were discussing our translations of the haiku and tanka works, but through these readings I became very aware of the importance of style in translation. As someone who hasn't taken as many dedicated literature courses as many of the other students in this class, I feel that style in general isn't a consideration for many everyday readers, at least not explicitly. They may feel it in a work, especially with a clear contrast like straightforward vs "flowery" writing, but not have the thought to analyse it the way they might with more obvious features like meaning or metaphor. With this in mind, I really liked the comments that Davis and Nelson had with regards to their translations of Proust. When Nelson describes Moncrieff's translation style as "precious and flowery" as compared to the "ruthlessness" of Proust's original writings, it offered me a lot of insight into just how much tone could have an effect on the way a text is read. Nelson claims that translation is an illusion, not necessarily intentionally meant to mislead but certainly deceptive in some way, by presenting the translation as "the real thing". A subtle but impactful feature such as style seems like it would play a major part in this, by attempting to portray a kind of "prettiness", especially in older prose, that readers might incorrectly expect. Certain style's may seem more or less natural in different languages as well (with some languages having much broader vocabularies for various salient ideas in the culture), which could make readers feel out of place when the style is matched to the original. 

Davis' reflections on her own choices while writing, with the length of Proust's sentences, for example, gives a lot of insight into the different kinds of approaches a translator can take to style and the creation of this "illusion". It reminded me somewhat of the kinds of issues people brought up with the translations of the frog haiku, commenting on the use of the onamatopoeia feeling out of place in the style of the original. While it may feel like "prettification" or changes to the text better suit the expectations of the translator or reader, it is important, like Davis does, to reflect closely on the kinds of decisions that will impact the style of the translation over the original. In this case, an adaptation feels perhaps insufficient for readers who can't experience the original and may only be able to see the illusion. 

                                                                                                                     Kamryn