after assigning ten books and numerous essays last week, my professor gave us a brief instruction for reading the aforementioned books: (and i paraphrase) "when you come across something in your reading that makes you think: stop. if it is on page 23, don't read the rest of the book. stop and think about what you've read. if you have one good idea all semester, you have succeeded."
so, my goal this week was to have one cogent thought. thankfully, i had a couple. however, i'm not sure if any of them constitute "one good idea." they are more like a few good amoeba-ideas.
today, i decided to run my errands on foot since the heat broke, the skies opened up, and it felt like greenville (sans the abundant farie rings i hear tell of). it was one of those soggy days that keeps you attempting to breathe under water. good for the skin. good for the grey cells--keeps them lubricated.
one of the essays i read this week left me thinking: "translation: literature and letters" by octavio paz. ironically, it is a translation from spanish, so it makes the reading even more faceted. the essay speaks not of the impossibility of translation (even though he acknowledges most scholars believe this impossibility exists), but of the unique outcomes of translation, and the act of creation which occurs when a text is translated. his use of the term "translation" begins to broaden as the essay develops to the point where he proposes that "no text can be completely original because language itself, in its very essence, is already a translation: first from the nonverbal world and then because each sign and each phrase is a translation of another sign, another phrase. however, the inverse of this reasoning is also entirely valid: all texts are originals because each translation has its own distinctive character. up to a point, each translation is a creation and thus constitutes a unique text."
ok. that's the background. my point is to establish that his use of translation is not only referring to a dictionary in hand, linear, reproduction of a text from spanish to english; but an understanding of a text even in one's mother tongue. the explanation of what we mean by a phrase requires the use of another phrase (another paraphrase of his idea--if you're following this: a phrase to describe a phrase that was originally a phrase! a translation if you will--have i lost you?)
well, now that we're all relatively on the same page with this paz fellow, here's the interesting part: (he quotes an englishman quoting a frenchman--we're marinating in irony now): translators "should make themselves invisible behind the texts and, if fully understood, the texts will speak for themselves." and here's where i make MY point: performers of all types are translators of text. when an actor or musician steps on stage, he or she is translating a text for an audience. going back to mr. paz's (consulting my strunk and white) text: "each translation is a creation and thus constitutes a unique text." the goal of a great performer is to make him or herself invisible, and allow the text to speak for itself. all the while, embracing the act of translation as an act of creation with the outcome of a uniquely personal text.
this is not deconstruction in its pejorative sense! i can't help but think of dorothy sayers and her thesis that all humans are creators because we are the product of The Creator. this thesis is the soul of WHY we "translate" as humans. it is the beautiful symmetry of secular and sacred at the heart of all truth.
now i shall ponder the epic mysteries of dorothy's journey through oz. i'm sure to find something there.
No comments:
Post a Comment