Translation Question Week Three

"The clumsiest literal translation is a thousand times more useful than the prettiest paraphrase" (113). I'd like for you all to consider that comment, particularly in light of Schleiermacher, Borges, Jakobson, and Eco. For haven't most of them championed translations that defy literalness, that even presuppose its impossibility (or at least illegibility)? What particular baggage does Nabokov (an emigre' Russian polyglot and literary provocateur) bring to bear on this argument? What does he mean, for example, by a literal translation's supposed "use" value? What, in other words, lurks behind that comment? What does it tell us about Nabokov's theories of translation? 


So, the thing that killed me about Nabokov, was the fact that the man was a tennis pro in France, a translator and writer in three languages (Russian, French and English), and an amateur butterfly collector (or something like that.) That baggage, the knowledge of so many things, is what Nabokov brings to this argument of literality. For him, it seems that so much of translation comes from learning about what is happening and giving that to his reader. He brings up the question of “can a translation…keep the form of the original, its rhythm and its rhyme” while being faithful to the whole text (119). He believes it can happen, since above that question he mentions the idea that literal translation is redundant because anything that is not literal is not a translation. I think, for Nabokov, the translation is supposed to bring the reader into the world of the writer. Footnotes are utilized to explain things to the reader, since twentieth century English readers would not understand aspects of ancient Greek works. I think his idea of a literal translation’s use value speaks to what it offers the culture it is going into. For instance, the use value of a Dante translation would only work if it was a literal translation with numerous footnotes about the allusions and references. The translation’s use directly correlates to what it teaches a culture. That’s the reason for footnotes. That’s the reason for literality. That’s the reason behind usefulness. Everyone else (translators) don’t teach us with their translations because they make translations too accessible by already shifting the piece to fit the culture. Mary Jo Bang and Nabokov wouldn’t get along at all.