This reminds me of the controversy over the translation of Thomas Mann into English. Mann won the Nobel Prize in 1929, largely on the strength of his novel Buddenbrooks, which was translated by Helen Lowe-Porter. Some years ago (80s, 90s) Lowe-Porter's translations of Thomas Mann, which covered most of Mann's oeuvre and were the standard translations from the 1920s till 1970, were subjected to harsh and intensive criticism. Not only was she accused of many mistranslations due to her poor knowledge of German, she was also accused of altering Mann's complex sentence structures (which were marked by large numbers of parenthetical insertions that retarded the conclusion of the sentence) in favour of the less complex constructions supposedly preferred in English. It was a bitter, highly-charged campaign against her translations.
In the 2010s, the academic David Horton showed that translations by some of Lowe-Porter's critics also failed to capture important aspects of Mann's syntax, and that Lowe-Porter's translations should be judged on their own merits as translations for the English-speaking market. Despite their shortcomings, they established his place as a major, possibly THE major German author of the 20th century.
I have mulled over Horton's defence of Lowe-Porter, couched in the latest trends in Translation Theory, and have not found them totally convincing. In fact, later translations (and there have been a few) are all pretty much of a muchness in the way that, unlike Lowe-Porter, they stick faithfully to Mann's original. One wonders why so many translations are really necessary when, compared with the very different renderings of Lowe-Porter, they are basically just variations on a theme of direct translation. Does it really make any difference to the reader's impression if, as Horton points out, Luke's translation of the first paragraph of "Der Tod in Venedig" fails to make the protagonist of the story the subject in all three sentences? Lowe-Porter's translations, on the other hand, make considerable changes in the original syntax in a way that could definitely alter the reader's impression of Mann.
At any rate, I think there is a great risk of the translator's style being mistaken for the author's style. I am a little sceptical about the proposition that the awarding committee also had access to the Korean originals in Han Kang's case. I am sure that they received input concerning the originals (possibly very positive input from Korean-language consultants), but I'm not so sure that they could really have had any appreciation of the original Korean, aside from what they read from people who had a vested interest in pushing a Korean author to Nobel Prize-winner status.
I had never heard that about Mann's translators. I am planning to read this https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/725957/the-empusium-by-olga-tokarczuk-translated-by-antonia-lloyd-jones/ and as it is based on Magic Mountain, I was tentatively thinking of finally tackling one Thomas Mann book-- have never read him! I cannot think of many examples like this, or Han's example, in terms of modern Japanese translation... there is a lot about Murakami Haruki I guess....
Regarding access to Korean, I think I said that the Nobel committee probably didn't only base their decision on the English but had access to french and Swedish, Spanish, etc--and presumably THOSE were not based on the English... but who knows?
I wonder whether winning the Nobel prize will give rise to new translations that “better render” Han’s original into English, in a way that something like eight or more new translations of Death in Venice that have appeared in English since 1988.
One of the most engaging parts about reading the Genji is talking about it with other people is talking about all the translations! And the different approaches to translating it. I really love it when there’s translation choices!
In fact, there are seven Japanese translations and 11 Chinese translations. There are eleven English translations, including one before Lowe-Porter, and nine since Lowe-Porter. The controversy over Lowe-Porter's translation appears to have been a major stimulus for the appearance of those nine.
So I think it's possible there could be retranslations of "The Vegetarian" over time.
Thank you for this most interesting and insightful article!
I am by training an (academic) linguist; I am also something of a polyglot and a translator of Japanese literature, classical and modern. Before coming to Japan long ago, I spent two years in Korea, where I was a rather diligent student of the language. My speaking and aural comprehension may be on the rusty side, but I have a rather good vocabulary, a firm grasp of Korean grammar, and a strong interest in Korean history and culture. That having been said, I should like to comment on the relative difficulty of the Korean language for English speakers.
It's all a bit “apples and oranges”...Korean is, of course, not an Indo-European language, so one is more or less starting from scratch in regard to the lexicon. Furthermore, the phonology and morphophonemics of Korean are tricky, which alone makes it arguably harder to learn than, say, Japanese, which is otherwise structurally quite similar. Another obstacle is speech level distinctions: Korean, like Japanese, has humble, polite, and honorific forms.
On the other hand, Korean is an agglutinating rather than an inflecting language. That means that one doesn't have to worry about the declension of nouns and pronouns or the complex conjugation of verbs. Korean is, like Japanese, a “pro-drop” language, so that one can simply omit words and phrases that are understood. In Italian or French, if one wants to reply to “Will you drink the water?” with “I shall drink it,” one has to know the future tense of the verb for drink and the appropriate pronominal form for water: feminine, singular. In Korean, that is not a problem: one simple says, if one is being polite: “Mashi-gess-sumnida.”
The Korean writing system is also relatively easy: one can learn the basics of hangul in an hour or two. Of course, texts written with a mixture of Chinese characters pose a challenge, but they are used only for Sino-Korean words and typically have only one reading. (Japanese is much more difficult in that regard.)
I have known Americans without much knowledge of or interest in other languages who have become quite fluent in Korean. Some may simply have had a “knack” for it, but then they also seem to have felt quite at home in Korean culture-and that is certainly a key factor. To get a firm grip on Korean, one really has to know Korea...
To be a good translator, one must have intimate knowledge of the source language and culture in which it is spoken; one must also be a knowledgeable and skillful writer of the target language. Being an able English-language wordsmith and having access Duolingo and Deep L will not be enough. At the same time, there are professors of Language X who think that their profession makes them, ipso facto, qualified to translate, even if their forte clearly lies in churning out turgid academic prose.
Having at least some familiarity with translation theory (theories) also helps, though the best understanding of such comes from and is reinforced by experience.
Literary translation is an art. Alas, such, it seems, is not widely understood.
Charles De Wolf
P.S. The source of “verbum e verbo...” is St. Jerome, the renowned translator of the Bible.
This was such a wonderful comment--thank you so much for it!!!!
Like Japanese, Korean is considered a Category IV “Super-hard language” according to the US state department… And like you said, it is not something easy to pick up casually or pin a short period of time. Of course, you don’t need to memorize Chinese characters, like in Japanese, and from what I understand the honorific/humble modes are easier in the sense that they are not high context like in Japanese —your mother is always honorable even when talking to others, etc. But like you said, verbs are not so complicated and I would add neither is pronunciation. But still, can you imagine a translator working on a Nobel Prize winner with just three years of experience.
A friend sent this short story based on the Han Kang/Deborah Smith translation controversy that I quite enjoyed reading!
I agree literary translation is a true art and this case of Han/ Smith is such an interesting issue… one that I don’t actually have strong pinions about. On Facebook a friend and fellow translator said, “well, some people just have the ear for it…” And certainly there are language geniuses out there… for me, that is so fascinating is that Smith’s genius is probably her English skills. Waley never traveled to Japan but presumably he studied Japanese for many, many years before embarking on his translations. That said, his English was simply beautiful--which helped. I have heard translators, even in commercial translation talk about how English facility is as important as Japanese comprehension for the work. Personally, I have been wanting to work on a new literary project (I have mainly just focused on the Chieko Poems) and have been dreaming of a new project, but the truth is, I would hesitate doing so without some kind of partner who is a native speaker (I am no longer married to my very reliable and literary Japanese husband)—so maybe an editor. I think Smith and Han had that kind of relationship. Han apparently checked everything. I think it should be a novel—but I guess Don Lee wrote his short story (above!)
The wikipedia page has some details about the possible Cicero connection to the Latin
Great post, Leanne. I read The Vegetarian when it came out and also followed the translation controversy a bit. I’m revisiting it now that Kang won the Nobel and am finding myself a bit disappointed, it’s not as good as I remember. I don’t know if this has to do with the translation or not as I can’t read Korean, but I’ve decided to give the French version a try to compare the two. The French translation is a collaboration between a French translator and a Korean translator. I also read that some translations, like the Italian one, derives from the English translation.
Thank you so much for this comment!! That’s kind of what happened in Japanese a lot for me that sometimes the English translation became a kind of base for translations into other languages, which kind of doesn’t seem like the best idea for literature! I always think the best translations are collaborations. Or at least there should be a very, very good native language, editor. I’m just not a fan of her writing because I don’t like overly emotionally intense content… The Greek lessons was not violent or anything like that. It was just incredibly relentlessly depressive and so that’s just not my cup of tea… But I still think it was a really interesting choice for the prize! I would love to hear what you think about the French translation as you get into it!
Reading translations from more than one language is fascinating. I hope you share what you learn. I am reading Celan in Japanese and French translations and on a recent trip I picked up the Italian translation. It helps me read Celan in multiple ways, which I think he requires.
Not yet, still on an Itallian kick. Currently reading Accabadora by Michetla Murgia in Silvester Mazzarella's translation. Also reading Dart by Alice Oswald.
Koreans are fussy people. The translation got slammed in the domestic press, too. If the translator hadn't put her spin and polish on it, the book wouldn't have been popular in the West because it would have been too much simple, sullen modern Korean unhappiness.
The author can definitely read English, all Korean high-schoolers can read the English translation easily, so she obviously approved.
Publishers just want a book. They've seen these types of "translations" getting prizes, so they push the "translator" to swing for the fences.
Thank you so much for this fantastic comment! That the author approves is all that should matter, since it is her creation... and the translator does sound like a fascinating person-- I was going to say that someone should write a short story about Smith but apparently someone already did!
Re learning a language in three years, I was shocked that Olga Tokarczuk's Books of Jacob was done by someone who was quite new to Polish. Presumably, it was run through machine translation first as it is immense. I couldn't tackle it in the original but I have read some of her short works in Polish and there is a distinct difference in tone. Likewise, Edith Grossman's (RIP) versions of Quijote completely irritated me. Literary translation is a very niche world - being young, female and having an MA in Lit Trans seem to be the criteria. Long association with a country or language are not given credit. Jenny Erpenbeck's translators from the German are the most successful I have come across. The voice in the original is caught by the translation. For me, that is the test of a good translation. The rest is interpretation.
I haven’t read her translations yet but since the international Booker last year have wanted to! German is go close to English do the hurdles would be easier but then like you said, voice and tone are everything! I write a post called take if three translators and discuss Murakami and his translations into English of American literature and intentionally focuses in sound. Something has to give… in Japanese I can only think of one or two who meet the criteria you mention—- mainly coming to it are academics, but there are also many who just same to it from other kinds of translation like business etc
Can you put up a link to the post you mention? Also a plug for Words Without Borders WWB Campus Project, anyone who can should get behind the work they are doing there. https://wordswithoutborders.org/learn/about-wwb-campus/
Anton Hur seems to be the go-to translator for Korean-English at the moment so some Han Kang "fluttered across" by him would be most welcome. I am also looking forward to reading his own work.
Even though I used to have a "generic" appreciation for the challenge of literary translation, ever since learning from you about the day to day work of it my appreciation is deeper! Loving your ikebana! Do you get the plant material yourself in your walks? the store?
This reminds me of the controversy over the translation of Thomas Mann into English. Mann won the Nobel Prize in 1929, largely on the strength of his novel Buddenbrooks, which was translated by Helen Lowe-Porter. Some years ago (80s, 90s) Lowe-Porter's translations of Thomas Mann, which covered most of Mann's oeuvre and were the standard translations from the 1920s till 1970, were subjected to harsh and intensive criticism. Not only was she accused of many mistranslations due to her poor knowledge of German, she was also accused of altering Mann's complex sentence structures (which were marked by large numbers of parenthetical insertions that retarded the conclusion of the sentence) in favour of the less complex constructions supposedly preferred in English. It was a bitter, highly-charged campaign against her translations.
In the 2010s, the academic David Horton showed that translations by some of Lowe-Porter's critics also failed to capture important aspects of Mann's syntax, and that Lowe-Porter's translations should be judged on their own merits as translations for the English-speaking market. Despite their shortcomings, they established his place as a major, possibly THE major German author of the 20th century.
I have mulled over Horton's defence of Lowe-Porter, couched in the latest trends in Translation Theory, and have not found them totally convincing. In fact, later translations (and there have been a few) are all pretty much of a muchness in the way that, unlike Lowe-Porter, they stick faithfully to Mann's original. One wonders why so many translations are really necessary when, compared with the very different renderings of Lowe-Porter, they are basically just variations on a theme of direct translation. Does it really make any difference to the reader's impression if, as Horton points out, Luke's translation of the first paragraph of "Der Tod in Venedig" fails to make the protagonist of the story the subject in all three sentences? Lowe-Porter's translations, on the other hand, make considerable changes in the original syntax in a way that could definitely alter the reader's impression of Mann.
At any rate, I think there is a great risk of the translator's style being mistaken for the author's style. I am a little sceptical about the proposition that the awarding committee also had access to the Korean originals in Han Kang's case. I am sure that they received input concerning the originals (possibly very positive input from Korean-language consultants), but I'm not so sure that they could really have had any appreciation of the original Korean, aside from what they read from people who had a vested interest in pushing a Korean author to Nobel Prize-winner status.
I had never heard that about Mann's translators. I am planning to read this https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/725957/the-empusium-by-olga-tokarczuk-translated-by-antonia-lloyd-jones/ and as it is based on Magic Mountain, I was tentatively thinking of finally tackling one Thomas Mann book-- have never read him! I cannot think of many examples like this, or Han's example, in terms of modern Japanese translation... there is a lot about Murakami Haruki I guess....
Regarding access to Korean, I think I said that the Nobel committee probably didn't only base their decision on the English but had access to french and Swedish, Spanish, etc--and presumably THOSE were not based on the English... but who knows?
I wonder whether winning the Nobel prize will give rise to new translations that “better render” Han’s original into English, in a way that something like eight or more new translations of Death in Venice that have appeared in English since 1988.
One of the most engaging parts about reading the Genji is talking about it with other people is talking about all the translations! And the different approaches to translating it. I really love it when there’s translation choices!
In fact, there are seven Japanese translations and 11 Chinese translations. There are eleven English translations, including one before Lowe-Porter, and nine since Lowe-Porter. The controversy over Lowe-Porter's translation appears to have been a major stimulus for the appearance of those nine.
So I think it's possible there could be retranslations of "The Vegetarian" over time.
Thank you for this most interesting and insightful article!
I am by training an (academic) linguist; I am also something of a polyglot and a translator of Japanese literature, classical and modern. Before coming to Japan long ago, I spent two years in Korea, where I was a rather diligent student of the language. My speaking and aural comprehension may be on the rusty side, but I have a rather good vocabulary, a firm grasp of Korean grammar, and a strong interest in Korean history and culture. That having been said, I should like to comment on the relative difficulty of the Korean language for English speakers.
It's all a bit “apples and oranges”...Korean is, of course, not an Indo-European language, so one is more or less starting from scratch in regard to the lexicon. Furthermore, the phonology and morphophonemics of Korean are tricky, which alone makes it arguably harder to learn than, say, Japanese, which is otherwise structurally quite similar. Another obstacle is speech level distinctions: Korean, like Japanese, has humble, polite, and honorific forms.
On the other hand, Korean is an agglutinating rather than an inflecting language. That means that one doesn't have to worry about the declension of nouns and pronouns or the complex conjugation of verbs. Korean is, like Japanese, a “pro-drop” language, so that one can simply omit words and phrases that are understood. In Italian or French, if one wants to reply to “Will you drink the water?” with “I shall drink it,” one has to know the future tense of the verb for drink and the appropriate pronominal form for water: feminine, singular. In Korean, that is not a problem: one simple says, if one is being polite: “Mashi-gess-sumnida.”
The Korean writing system is also relatively easy: one can learn the basics of hangul in an hour or two. Of course, texts written with a mixture of Chinese characters pose a challenge, but they are used only for Sino-Korean words and typically have only one reading. (Japanese is much more difficult in that regard.)
I have known Americans without much knowledge of or interest in other languages who have become quite fluent in Korean. Some may simply have had a “knack” for it, but then they also seem to have felt quite at home in Korean culture-and that is certainly a key factor. To get a firm grip on Korean, one really has to know Korea...
To be a good translator, one must have intimate knowledge of the source language and culture in which it is spoken; one must also be a knowledgeable and skillful writer of the target language. Being an able English-language wordsmith and having access Duolingo and Deep L will not be enough. At the same time, there are professors of Language X who think that their profession makes them, ipso facto, qualified to translate, even if their forte clearly lies in churning out turgid academic prose.
Having at least some familiarity with translation theory (theories) also helps, though the best understanding of such comes from and is reinforced by experience.
Literary translation is an art. Alas, such, it seems, is not widely understood.
Charles De Wolf
P.S. The source of “verbum e verbo...” is St. Jerome, the renowned translator of the Bible.
Hello Charles,
This was such a wonderful comment--thank you so much for it!!!!
Like Japanese, Korean is considered a Category IV “Super-hard language” according to the US state department… And like you said, it is not something easy to pick up casually or pin a short period of time. Of course, you don’t need to memorize Chinese characters, like in Japanese, and from what I understand the honorific/humble modes are easier in the sense that they are not high context like in Japanese —your mother is always honorable even when talking to others, etc. But like you said, verbs are not so complicated and I would add neither is pronunciation. But still, can you imagine a translator working on a Nobel Prize winner with just three years of experience.
A friend sent this short story based on the Han Kang/Deborah Smith translation controversy that I quite enjoyed reading!
https://bestofkorea.com/the-partition-don-lee/
I agree literary translation is a true art and this case of Han/ Smith is such an interesting issue… one that I don’t actually have strong pinions about. On Facebook a friend and fellow translator said, “well, some people just have the ear for it…” And certainly there are language geniuses out there… for me, that is so fascinating is that Smith’s genius is probably her English skills. Waley never traveled to Japan but presumably he studied Japanese for many, many years before embarking on his translations. That said, his English was simply beautiful--which helped. I have heard translators, even in commercial translation talk about how English facility is as important as Japanese comprehension for the work. Personally, I have been wanting to work on a new literary project (I have mainly just focused on the Chieko Poems) and have been dreaming of a new project, but the truth is, I would hesitate doing so without some kind of partner who is a native speaker (I am no longer married to my very reliable and literary Japanese husband)—so maybe an editor. I think Smith and Han had that kind of relationship. Han apparently checked everything. I think it should be a novel—but I guess Don Lee wrote his short story (above!)
The wikipedia page has some details about the possible Cicero connection to the Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense-for-sense_translation
Hope you are having a great week.
Great post, Leanne. I read The Vegetarian when it came out and also followed the translation controversy a bit. I’m revisiting it now that Kang won the Nobel and am finding myself a bit disappointed, it’s not as good as I remember. I don’t know if this has to do with the translation or not as I can’t read Korean, but I’ve decided to give the French version a try to compare the two. The French translation is a collaboration between a French translator and a Korean translator. I also read that some translations, like the Italian one, derives from the English translation.
Thank you so much for this comment!! That’s kind of what happened in Japanese a lot for me that sometimes the English translation became a kind of base for translations into other languages, which kind of doesn’t seem like the best idea for literature! I always think the best translations are collaborations. Or at least there should be a very, very good native language, editor. I’m just not a fan of her writing because I don’t like overly emotionally intense content… The Greek lessons was not violent or anything like that. It was just incredibly relentlessly depressive and so that’s just not my cup of tea… But I still think it was a really interesting choice for the prize! I would love to hear what you think about the French translation as you get into it!
I will let you know! If the comparison proves interesting maybe I’ll write something about it.
Fantastic— left comment on your substack!!
That would be fantastic! Please keep me in the loop!
Reading translations from more than one language is fascinating. I hope you share what you learn. I am reading Celan in Japanese and French translations and on a recent trip I picked up the Italian translation. It helps me read Celan in multiple ways, which I think he requires.
Hi Steven, Have you read Yoko Tawada's new one?
Not yet, still on an Itallian kick. Currently reading Accabadora by Michetla Murgia in Silvester Mazzarella's translation. Also reading Dart by Alice Oswald.
Jumping back in here to share my article on the French and English translations of The Vegetarian: https://open.substack.com/pub/derekneal/p/revisiting-han-kangs-the-vegetarian?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Koreans are fussy people. The translation got slammed in the domestic press, too. If the translator hadn't put her spin and polish on it, the book wouldn't have been popular in the West because it would have been too much simple, sullen modern Korean unhappiness.
The author can definitely read English, all Korean high-schoolers can read the English translation easily, so she obviously approved.
Publishers just want a book. They've seen these types of "translations" getting prizes, so they push the "translator" to swing for the fences.
Nice article!
Thank you so much for this fantastic comment! That the author approves is all that should matter, since it is her creation... and the translator does sound like a fascinating person-- I was going to say that someone should write a short story about Smith but apparently someone already did!
Ah, I was just thinking that I wish you had a book/kindle/audiobook of translated poetry that I could gift this xmas.
Re learning a language in three years, I was shocked that Olga Tokarczuk's Books of Jacob was done by someone who was quite new to Polish. Presumably, it was run through machine translation first as it is immense. I couldn't tackle it in the original but I have read some of her short works in Polish and there is a distinct difference in tone. Likewise, Edith Grossman's (RIP) versions of Quijote completely irritated me. Literary translation is a very niche world - being young, female and having an MA in Lit Trans seem to be the criteria. Long association with a country or language are not given credit. Jenny Erpenbeck's translators from the German are the most successful I have come across. The voice in the original is caught by the translation. For me, that is the test of a good translation. The rest is interpretation.
I haven’t read her translations yet but since the international Booker last year have wanted to! German is go close to English do the hurdles would be easier but then like you said, voice and tone are everything! I write a post called take if three translators and discuss Murakami and his translations into English of American literature and intentionally focuses in sound. Something has to give… in Japanese I can only think of one or two who meet the criteria you mention—- mainly coming to it are academics, but there are also many who just same to it from other kinds of translation like business etc
Can you put up a link to the post you mention? Also a plug for Words Without Borders WWB Campus Project, anyone who can should get behind the work they are doing there. https://wordswithoutborders.org/learn/about-wwb-campus/
Anton Hur seems to be the go-to translator for Korean-English at the moment so some Han Kang "fluttered across" by him would be most welcome. I am also looking forward to reading his own work.
Great stuff! I started writing a reply, but it got so long that I turned it into a note:
https://substack.com/@authorjoelmhoffman/note/c-73547029
(BTW, I think your Latin quote is from Jerome, but Cicero said essentially the same thing first.)
Even though I used to have a "generic" appreciation for the challenge of literary translation, ever since learning from you about the day to day work of it my appreciation is deeper! Loving your ikebana! Do you get the plant material yourself in your walks? the store?
Thank you!!!! My sensei brings all the materials! But you do know how much I love foraging for flowers in the neighborhood :)
More Korean lit coming out from Stefan Tobler's stable And Other Stories next spring,
Don Mee Choi's Hardly War trilogy. She also has interesting things to say about translation
https://www.andotherstories.org/hardly-war/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=As%20promised%2C%20here%20is%20the%20first%20of%20two%20extracts%20from%20titles%20going%20to%20And%20Other%20Stories%20subscribers%20in%202025%3A%20the%20opening%20pages%20of%20Don%20Mee%20Choi%E2%80%99s%20&utm_campaign=March%202024%20Newsletter
Thank you so much!!