Option 2: In a few sentences, comment on / raise a question about Thursday’s translation panel. This can be based on your !/? posts, or it can be something new. And it could be useful—though not required—to connect the translation panel to Plato or Borges (note for starters that both of these readings are translations).
Option 3: Go rogue. Post on anything at all related to translation, Tuesday’s readings, connections between Units 1 and 2, or something else entirely, so long as it leads to good discussion on Tuesday. Take risks; be creative.
In Thursday’s lecture, Professor Ewington stated that in the process of translation, there are often politics involved, which I had never thought about before. Professor Jankovic and Professor Denham showed us that there are thousands of ways to interpret a single word, and that word choice evokes certain connotations. For example, “oscuro” in Spanish could be translated to “dark” or “obscured” or “hidden” in English, and each word affects the reader in a different way. Therefore, does this mean that a translator’s work is technically original? Even if they are “faithful” to the text, translators still have the freedom to choose any word out of an extensive vocabulary to reveal the original word. “Fidelity” to a text is meaningless, because we can never fully duplicate the thoughts and style of an author.
This concept I feel also links to an idea of paradigms and revolutions within paradigms. If one finds a new concept within a stated paradigm, does this mean that it is a revolution? Despite the already established foundation of the paradigm, the new concept changes it completely. No longer is it just the paradigm, but it is now the paradigm plus the new concept. Similar to a translated text, is the old paradigm not something completely different, just with the old foundational ideas ingrained into it? I feel that revolution and the old way of life from which revolution blooms are deemed completely separate. But revolution is never completely detached from the old way of life, is never completely radical. I feel it is important to talk about the overlap that occurs when “revolutionary” ideas are introduced.
There are also many underlying forces at play that come with translation. On one hand, the text is now more accessible to many more people, instead of limited to just the people who speak the language of the original text. On the other hand, there is the pain of interpretation; now that there is a wider audience, the meaning of the text and its contribution could change in light of these new perspectives. As a result, there is a struggle between those who experience the text in its original form and those who have received the information second hand. In this way, revolution is formed; the joy of discovering new ideas does not exist without the injury and suffering of the old ideas.