What do you think?
Rate this book
譯者的難題：美國翻譯名家的9個工作思考
(Traditional Chinese Edition)
有人認為，翻譯是文學的窮表親，是必要之惡，虛有其表的繡花枕頭——正如義大利古老諺語所說的「譯者即叛徒」。但也有人認為，翻譯是跨文化理解及豐富文學涵養的捷徑。本書不談上述兩種極端的看法以及日漸抽象的翻譯理論，而是聚焦在：翻譯的終極目標是什麼？人們形容一份譯文「忠實」（忠實於什麼？）是什麼意思？翻譯過程中是否無可避免會流失原意或增添語意？翻譯重要嗎？如果是，原因又是什麼？馬克．波里佐提毫不避諱提出自己的意見，寫下這本既是實用指南，也是宣言的著作，邀請我們同情譯者，別將他們視為「叛徒」，而是作家的創意夥伴。
波里佐提曾翻譯諾貝爾文學獎得主派屈克．莫迪亞諾、福樓拜等名家之作，在書中探討翻譯是什麼、又不是什麼，以及翻譯如何能發揮功用，或是徒勞無功。他說：「翻譯遊走在藝術與技藝、原創與複製、利他與商業，甚至是傑作與劣作的邊界。」他提醒我們不只要解讀翻譯作品，也要去解讀翻譯這個「行為」，別視之為待解的問題，而是值得慶賀的成就。
有人認為，翻譯是文學的窮表親，是必要之惡，虛有其表的繡花枕頭——正如義大利古老諺語所說的「譯者即叛徒」。但也有人認為，翻譯是跨文化理解及豐富文學涵養的捷徑。本書不談上述兩種極端的看法以及日漸抽象的翻譯理論，而是聚焦在：翻譯的終極目標是什麼？人們形容一份譯文「忠實」（忠實於什麼？）是什麼意思？翻譯過程中是否無可避免會流失原意或增添語意？翻譯重要嗎？如果是，原因又是什麼？馬克．波里佐提毫不避諱提出自己的意見，寫下這本既是實用指南，也是宣言的著作，邀請我們同情譯者，別將他們視為「叛徒」，而是作家的創意夥伴。
波里佐提曾翻譯諾貝爾文學獎得主派屈克．莫迪亞諾、福樓拜等名家之作，在書中探討翻譯是什麼、又不是什麼，以及翻譯如何能發揮功用，或是徒勞無功。他說：「翻譯遊走在藝術與技藝、原創與複製、利他與商業，甚至是傑作與劣作的邊界。」他提醒我們不只要解讀翻譯作品，也要去解讀翻譯這個「行為」，別視之為待解的問題，而是值得慶賀的成就。
173 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 7, 2020
27 people are currently reading
450 people want to read
About the author
Mark Polizzotti
77 books36 followersMark Polizzotti has translated more than fifty books, including works by Patrick Modiano, Gustave Flaubert, Raymond Roussel, Marguerite Duras, and Paul Virilio. Publisher and Editor-in-Chief at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, he is also the author of Revolution of the Mind: The Life of André Breton and other books. He currently directs the publications program at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
July 5, 2018
I was excited to read this book. I read a lot of things in translation. I have multiple translations of things like the Iliad, the Bible, War and Peace, Brothers K, etc. And I was the English editor for a new translation of Books 2-4 of the Czech novel The Fateful Adventures of the Good Soldier Svejk During the World War, Book Two. (See also my review of that book posted on Goodreads and on Amazon.) This book under review here mostly lived up to my expectations.
Švejk is one of those books that has been called untranslatable. The main issue we dealt with was the tension between preserving the special feel of the Czech, on the one hand, and producing a smoothly readable text in English, on the other. This is a long-standing issue in translation, and this book under review seemed to repeat this issue over and over for the first few chapters. But then it finally moved on.
One of the interesting things I learned (p. 15) is that "modern English offers a functional vocabulary of more than 500,000 words, three times as many as German (at around 185,000) and five times as many as French (fewer than 100,000), making it the most diverse language in the world." That makes sense, since most English concepts have a word from Greek and a word from Latin origin, at least. Also, English takes in influences from many languages, whereas the French Academy tries to prevent such influences. (The author did not give vocabulary numbers for Russian, but my recollection is that Russian is like English in having many near-synonyms.) You can see how this alone can create difficulties in translating between a vocabulary-rich and a vocabulary-poor language.
The author has a lot to say about what can or should be accomplished by a translation. I liked this comparison (p. 53): "I think of it as analogous to a good cover version of a favorite song, one that might not sound like the original but that finds the essence of the song and re-creates it differently; that makes the listener hear the song in a way that both preserves and renews it." I love comparing cover versions, so this really resonated with me. The author continues (p. 54): "It has to speak to the reader in a way that justifies the original's claim of being worthy of translation to begin with. It has to be convincing." Amen.
Švejk is one of those books that has been called untranslatable. The main issue we dealt with was the tension between preserving the special feel of the Czech, on the one hand, and producing a smoothly readable text in English, on the other. This is a long-standing issue in translation, and this book under review seemed to repeat this issue over and over for the first few chapters. But then it finally moved on.
One of the interesting things I learned (p. 15) is that "modern English offers a functional vocabulary of more than 500,000 words, three times as many as German (at around 185,000) and five times as many as French (fewer than 100,000), making it the most diverse language in the world." That makes sense, since most English concepts have a word from Greek and a word from Latin origin, at least. Also, English takes in influences from many languages, whereas the French Academy tries to prevent such influences. (The author did not give vocabulary numbers for Russian, but my recollection is that Russian is like English in having many near-synonyms.) You can see how this alone can create difficulties in translating between a vocabulary-rich and a vocabulary-poor language.
The author has a lot to say about what can or should be accomplished by a translation. I liked this comparison (p. 53): "I think of it as analogous to a good cover version of a favorite song, one that might not sound like the original but that finds the essence of the song and re-creates it differently; that makes the listener hear the song in a way that both preserves and renews it." I love comparing cover versions, so this really resonated with me. The author continues (p. 54): "It has to speak to the reader in a way that justifies the original's claim of being worthy of translation to begin with. It has to be convincing." Amen.
June 2, 2024
總體上來說是一本比較短的書。但罕見的是，本書作者（當然也是一名優秀譯者）是從自身角度出發討論了翻譯這一工作，並且基本對每一個爭議都提出了自己的觀點。這些鮮明的立場和論點非常有趣，同時充滿實踐意義。令人感歎或許只有在翻譯這件事上頗有建樹的學者，才具備如此不拖泥帶水的決斷能力。
December 23, 2020
Elegant, learned, common-sense introduction to what's involved in literary translation. I like how Polizzotti gives credence to my lay opinions: that a good English translation is first and foremost one that reads well in English (though he doesn't put it quite so simply). And that a good translator has to be a good writer in his/her own right. And that a translation is related to its source but should also succeed independently of it. (Did I just say the same thing three ways?) He posits a definition of translation as an interpretation or representation, similar to a performance of a piece of music or theater.
He also cautions that a translator must not be too awed by the original. He quotes translator Burton Raffel: "Just as writing is an act of hubris, so too is good translation. The translator cannot afford to be any more modest than the original author was" and follows with: "The wages of too much respect are mediocrity." (I think this rings true, to some extent anyway, with editing, as well.)
I also like his caution against placing too much emphasis on "correcting" past translations (though I fear he is perhaps not a fan of the Pevear and Volokhonsky translations, which I think purport to have this as their aim). He writes: "There is something to be said for certain older translations, however flawed, that have grafted themselves onto our experience of a given work through circumstance or familiarity, that have made their way into our literary culture, and that refuse to be shouldered aside even by younger, better-endowed contenders." In general, Polizzotti prefers translations made with more art than science, that aim to capture the whole spirit and voice of a work rather than focus only a close fidelity to the original at the sentence level.
Statements like this made me smile inwardly: "Translation might be impossible in principle, but in practice it seems to manage just fine."
Also enjoyed Polizzotti's riff at the end on borders--how translation crosses them (which feels a victory), yet also depends on their remaining, depends on cultures retaining a distinctness from one another. The more homogenous the world becomes, the less need there will be for the impossible--yet worthy and illuminating--task of translation.
He also cautions that a translator must not be too awed by the original. He quotes translator Burton Raffel: "Just as writing is an act of hubris, so too is good translation. The translator cannot afford to be any more modest than the original author was" and follows with: "The wages of too much respect are mediocrity." (I think this rings true, to some extent anyway, with editing, as well.)
I also like his caution against placing too much emphasis on "correcting" past translations (though I fear he is perhaps not a fan of the Pevear and Volokhonsky translations, which I think purport to have this as their aim). He writes: "There is something to be said for certain older translations, however flawed, that have grafted themselves onto our experience of a given work through circumstance or familiarity, that have made their way into our literary culture, and that refuse to be shouldered aside even by younger, better-endowed contenders." In general, Polizzotti prefers translations made with more art than science, that aim to capture the whole spirit and voice of a work rather than focus only a close fidelity to the original at the sentence level.
Statements like this made me smile inwardly: "Translation might be impossible in principle, but in practice it seems to manage just fine."
Also enjoyed Polizzotti's riff at the end on borders--how translation crosses them (which feels a victory), yet also depends on their remaining, depends on cultures retaining a distinctness from one another. The more homogenous the world becomes, the less need there will be for the impossible--yet worthy and illuminating--task of translation.
November 24, 2018
08 August 2018
19:49
This is a collection of thoughts and memoirs by a well-known French -> US English translator who has worked with some of the leading lights of French literature. He sets out some of the controversies in the field, along with some examples, and backs a commonsense approach to navigating translation choices that eschews some of the heavy-handed doctrine out there. Amen to that. He offers up a well-conceived discussion of why Ezra Pound's translation of Chinese poetry - using intermediaries and trusting his poetic insight - was more faithful than those done by certain specialists. He looks at other translations of poetry, a field ripe for controversies as to the choices that were made.
Polizzotti points out that translators, who were once as invisible as could be, are now being allowed (well, at least some of them are) to write books about their life and work and ideas on translation. Indeed, translation studies is now a field in its own right. Which means there is ample debate on various types of doctrine and sides are often take. Like Polizzotti I am allergic to heavy-handed doctrine and poorly-tested theories which are visited upon an activity which is in fact one of the oldest professions in existence (indeed, possibly even the oldest, if we consider that whatever negotiation preceded a prehistoric trick probably needed some form of mutual understanding). More than that, millions of people translate from one language into another every minute of every day. Those of us who do it professionally are but the tip of the icebabel. Given this state of affairs, it is rather galling to read theories which insist upon "maintaining" the elements of the source language in a translation. And where this could be acceptable (or even necessary) when referring to certain terms and concepts from that language, it is absolutely not acceptable when it involves slavishly following the form of the syntax. Many times I have seen shoddy translations from "big name" writers who were clearly unaware of the language from which they were translating. To defend themselves, they invoke the argument of "flavour". In truth they are simply shunning the task before them, which is to render the original work and its resonances in a suitable form of the target language.
Where there is a special term without a direct equivalent (Polizzotti tells the tale of William Weaver laughably opting for "noodles" as a translation for "tagliatelle" in a Calvino translation), then it should be used. "Noodles" was not right, because it's far too generic. Time has made the choice seem even worse, now that tagliatelle dishes wet and dry festoon the shelves of supermarkets. Where there is a term or clause that is difficult to translate, the translator has to pull out all the stops and use her wits. Where there is an element that is central to the story, the equivalent term used has to admit the qualities that the original had; where it is merely incidental, the popular term should be used so that the reader is not forced to give too much attention to an unimportant feature. Umberto Eco wrote a lengthy diatribe about the use of "hansom cab" as against "coupé", pointing out that with the hansom cab the coachman is behind and in the coupé in front. But very few readers at this juncture know (or care) whether the rider of a hansom cab is in the front or back, seeing it simply as a horse-drawn carriage, and this distinction indeed only takes on importance for the scene if the driver in some way has to interact with the characters. There are other more important choices to focus on. The difference between pedantry and diligence lies in the diagnosis of relative importance to the work itself and the reader's understanding of it. Eco, for all his formal brilliance and learning, often fell on the wrong side of that divide because his diagnosis was subordinated to his love of superfluous detail.
19:49
This is a collection of thoughts and memoirs by a well-known French -> US English translator who has worked with some of the leading lights of French literature. He sets out some of the controversies in the field, along with some examples, and backs a commonsense approach to navigating translation choices that eschews some of the heavy-handed doctrine out there. Amen to that. He offers up a well-conceived discussion of why Ezra Pound's translation of Chinese poetry - using intermediaries and trusting his poetic insight - was more faithful than those done by certain specialists. He looks at other translations of poetry, a field ripe for controversies as to the choices that were made.
Polizzotti points out that translators, who were once as invisible as could be, are now being allowed (well, at least some of them are) to write books about their life and work and ideas on translation. Indeed, translation studies is now a field in its own right. Which means there is ample debate on various types of doctrine and sides are often take. Like Polizzotti I am allergic to heavy-handed doctrine and poorly-tested theories which are visited upon an activity which is in fact one of the oldest professions in existence (indeed, possibly even the oldest, if we consider that whatever negotiation preceded a prehistoric trick probably needed some form of mutual understanding). More than that, millions of people translate from one language into another every minute of every day. Those of us who do it professionally are but the tip of the icebabel. Given this state of affairs, it is rather galling to read theories which insist upon "maintaining" the elements of the source language in a translation. And where this could be acceptable (or even necessary) when referring to certain terms and concepts from that language, it is absolutely not acceptable when it involves slavishly following the form of the syntax. Many times I have seen shoddy translations from "big name" writers who were clearly unaware of the language from which they were translating. To defend themselves, they invoke the argument of "flavour". In truth they are simply shunning the task before them, which is to render the original work and its resonances in a suitable form of the target language.
Where there is a special term without a direct equivalent (Polizzotti tells the tale of William Weaver laughably opting for "noodles" as a translation for "tagliatelle" in a Calvino translation), then it should be used. "Noodles" was not right, because it's far too generic. Time has made the choice seem even worse, now that tagliatelle dishes wet and dry festoon the shelves of supermarkets. Where there is a term or clause that is difficult to translate, the translator has to pull out all the stops and use her wits. Where there is an element that is central to the story, the equivalent term used has to admit the qualities that the original had; where it is merely incidental, the popular term should be used so that the reader is not forced to give too much attention to an unimportant feature. Umberto Eco wrote a lengthy diatribe about the use of "hansom cab" as against "coupé", pointing out that with the hansom cab the coachman is behind and in the coupé in front. But very few readers at this juncture know (or care) whether the rider of a hansom cab is in the front or back, seeing it simply as a horse-drawn carriage, and this distinction indeed only takes on importance for the scene if the driver in some way has to interact with the characters. There are other more important choices to focus on. The difference between pedantry and diligence lies in the diagnosis of relative importance to the work itself and the reader's understanding of it. Eco, for all his formal brilliance and learning, often fell on the wrong side of that divide because his diagnosis was subordinated to his love of superfluous detail.
May 23, 2018
Insightful, informative, entertaining
It is interesting to come to this book immediately after completing an MA in translation, to see the theory and ivory-tower mentality so carefully husbanded in academia so gleefully tossed out on it's ear. Humphrey Davies, a favorite Arabic>English translator, once said that theory "is the first thing that any translator throws out the window when they actually get down to work." This book is a celebration of the fact the theories can be useful, but translators tend to just get on with the practice of their art and craft.
It is interesting to come to this book immediately after completing an MA in translation, to see the theory and ivory-tower mentality so carefully husbanded in academia so gleefully tossed out on it's ear. Humphrey Davies, a favorite Arabic>English translator, once said that theory "is the first thing that any translator throws out the window when they actually get down to work." This book is a celebration of the fact the theories can be useful, but translators tend to just get on with the practice of their art and craft.
September 12, 2018
I never realized how impactful the work of a book translator is until I discovered two different copies of The Odyssey and its emphasis on foreignness is prominent in one translator and less so the other. While most people wouldn't process a translated book, Polizzotti's book is indeed a manifesto of a translator's dilemma between staying faithful to the literalness of a work of literature and conveying the truest sense of the literature by advancing more prosaic elements in its work. The book left me wanting more about other versions of translation studies, and Polizzoti's brief history of famous translator, including Roman and Latin authors, gives the reader more space to explore other versions of well-known literature from different translations. Overall, the book does ask for a great deal of sympathy for the dual roles both the authors and his compatriots undertake for greater readership.
May 20, 2019
more interesting than it might seem. I almost gave up early, as it seemed that he was only going to repeat himself over and over to the effect that some think you should translate literally the exact meaning of the words as best you can, while some say you can/should take liberties with exact wording in order to get the spirit/implications/style right in the new [aka "target"] language. Makes sense but not an amazing point.
Picked up from there, however, as he delved into specific challenges in working with poetry, word play such as puns, historical mistranslations (did Adam and Eve consume an "apple" specifically or just some fruit? etc.], different ways people work on translation [as you go vs. read the work first and then go back], what it is like when the author themselves does the translation, and so on.
Picked up from there, however, as he delved into specific challenges in working with poetry, word play such as puns, historical mistranslations (did Adam and Eve consume an "apple" specifically or just some fruit? etc.], different ways people work on translation [as you go vs. read the work first and then go back], what it is like when the author themselves does the translation, and so on.
September 10, 2021
It's an old, old question: is it better to translate foreign works with absolute fidelity to the original's words, even if that makes for an unreadable or uninteresting mess in English? Or is it preferable to rewrite as you translate, so that readers in the second language, get the feel of the original? If so, how much rewriting is legit?
A translator himself, Polizzotti looks at the history of the debate and the challenges of producing engaging translations — what if there are cultural roadblocks that make an accurate translation offensive? What about ideas in one culture that don't carry over to another? Is there a risk of cultural appropriation, for example taking a Japanese or Latin American story and making it an American commodity? How do you translate poetry, where the sounds are as important as the sense?
Very interesting.
A translator himself, Polizzotti looks at the history of the debate and the challenges of producing engaging translations — what if there are cultural roadblocks that make an accurate translation offensive? What about ideas in one culture that don't carry over to another? Is there a risk of cultural appropriation, for example taking a Japanese or Latin American story and making it an American commodity? How do you translate poetry, where the sounds are as important as the sense?
Very interesting.
November 12, 2018
Mark Polizzotti, himself an esteemed literary translator, whose labours have brought to light the works of such well-regarded French writers as Marguerite Duras or Patrick Mondiano, delivers an engaging and spirited review of the creative role of the literary translator. ‘Sympathy for the traitor: a translation manifesto’ is a timely, if somewhat opinionated essay that comes at the right time in a world increasingly concerned with closing down borders, be they geographic or imagined. George Steiner’s dictum that without translators ‘we would live in arrogant parishes bordered by silence’ could not strike a more chilling note.
March 22, 2025
A really interesting and enjoyable read. I had read The Order of the Day last year and loved it, and I wanted to see what else Polizzotti had translated because of how lived in it felt. This book was a nice quick read written in a casual conversational tone. I was glad to see the number of Eco and Borges quotes, two authors whose works I read translations of last year with my bookclub.
February 13, 2021
A book about translation by a master translator. I've done my share of translation and the issues Polizzotti raises are too familiar to hold my interest. A good book if you' ve never really thought about what translation involves.
August 27, 2018
insightful (within reason)
November 28, 2018
A bloody amazing insight into what it means (and takes) to be a translator, with a chilling realisation what can happen if you mess it up thrown in as a bonus.
February 23, 2019
3.5 rounded up
April 12, 2019
Translation theory confuses me for the most part, but this book was relatively easy to comprehend
Want to read
April 6, 2023to-read
December 16, 2023
Solo merecen la pena los dos últimos capítulos
April 4, 2024
Pretty good. Lots of great anecdotes and discussions, but the overarching theme—the debate between fidelity and felicity in translation—gets worn thin quickly.
July 22, 2024
第四顆星給封面設計，藍筆畫記的痕跡真實到心臟差點停跳。
June 3, 2019
As Polizzotti says himself, this book doesn’t offer any wild new theories on translation but it does gather up the existing ones and present them in a really refreshing, entertaining way. For anyone interested in translation, it’s well worth a read.
January 15, 2024
This slim volume (150 pages of text) is a collection of 9 intriguing essays all relating to translation, written by a well-known, well-respected French to English translator.
The articles are well-written, rich in detail, references, quotes, and examples. I'm not sure if the author broke any new ground in the centuries-long debate regarding the purpose and nature of translation, but he does effectively bring a newcomer up to speed on the controversy (literal vs liberal translations) as well as entertaining the already well-informed reader.
I especially enjoyed the penultimate chapter "On the Fringe," with its many examples of tricky and entertaining bits of French to answer the question "Can everything be translated?"
Even the chapter on poetry ("Verse and Controverse") ended up being entertaining and enlightening to me despite the fact that I don't really care for or read verse.
Overall, the writing is rich, dense, and will likely even send the most dedicated logophile to the dictionary (or Google) on occasion.
For a book on translation, I'd give this 4.5 stars. For a book aimed at the general public, I'd give it 4 stars.
The articles are well-written, rich in detail, references, quotes, and examples. I'm not sure if the author broke any new ground in the centuries-long debate regarding the purpose and nature of translation, but he does effectively bring a newcomer up to speed on the controversy (literal vs liberal translations) as well as entertaining the already well-informed reader.
I especially enjoyed the penultimate chapter "On the Fringe," with its many examples of tricky and entertaining bits of French to answer the question "Can everything be translated?"
Even the chapter on poetry ("Verse and Controverse") ended up being entertaining and enlightening to me despite the fact that I don't really care for or read verse.
Overall, the writing is rich, dense, and will likely even send the most dedicated logophile to the dictionary (or Google) on occasion.
For a book on translation, I'd give this 4.5 stars. For a book aimed at the general public, I'd give it 4 stars.
October 25, 2024
the author's (one of flaubert's english translators, he did bouvard et pécuchet among others) insistence on living the appropriate "linguistic ambience" if you want to become a good, non-traitor-y translator, i.e., if you deign to call yourself a translator you must live in a country where the target language you're working in is the main language of the majority, is so dated, especially when by "linguistic" he actually means english. boomer never sets foot on planet tiktok. no sympathy for this gatekeeper.
February 15, 2019
interesting thoughts on translation.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews