譚譯|什麼是好的翻譯?
▲ St Jerome， patron saint of translators
不同於非文學翻譯，文學翻譯向來就遭到更多的詬病。文學上也有專門針對文學翻譯的批評理論。“吃力不討好、報酬低”的現狀也使得許多譯者對這個行業望而卻步。之前中國有出版商曾透露過，付給譯者的稿酬千字不超過 70 元。如果某一專案的翻譯費超過 800 元，還要扣去 20% 的稅款。即使是在美國，情況也大同小異：去年年底 Author Guild 釋出的一項報告顯示，調查中僅有 7% 的人能夠靠文學翻譯所得的報酬養活自己。專職的文學翻譯家數量少也就不足為奇了。
文學翻譯的圈子小，討論的東西大多也都是翻譯和批評，“怎樣精進翻譯水平”、“好翻譯的標準”等這類話題。來自倫敦的德語翻譯家 Katy Derbyshire 最近在 Seagull News 上發表的一篇文章徵集了 10 位不同語種的文學翻譯家關於“什麼是好的翻譯”的看法。
What Makes a Translation Great?
Ten literary translators
from across the world weigh in
By Katy Derbyshire
To the outside world， literary translators are famously invisible。 Being a tight-knit community of solitary home workers， though， we talk a lot amongst ourselves。 Recently， one big thing we’ve been talking about is reviews of our work。 As critics come to notice our existence， we garner both praise and – in what feels like greater depth – criticism。 So I thought it might be useful to
ask other literary translators what they aim for, what positive criteria we have for judging the outcome of our work
。I was not disappointed。
It’s easy to say what a bad translation is。 The ones that are accidentally jagged like the person wielding the scissors was drunk。 The ones where someone has misunderstood the original， or perhaps misinterpreted it。 The ones where all individuality has been smoothed out。 But
how do we identify a successful translation
？When have we done our job well？ What is it we want to achieve， beyond mere fluidity？
What Is a Good T
ranslation?
1
David Colmer
（translates from Dutch to English）
Fluidity is not to be sneezed at
，and is often difficult to accomplish， but a good translation goes further and achieves the self-evidence and urgency of the original。 It sings， whispers and swears like the original and leaves the reader thrilled， disturbed and amused in the same ways too。 A sensitive monolingual reviewer describes the style of a good translation in terms that unknowingly echo the reviews of the original novel or poetry。 A good translation does not have to be impeccably starched and ironed， but dares to be ragged and frantic when appropriate。
When presented with a few lines of original and translation, a bilingual reader might not be sure which is which.
The voice of a good translation is as distinctive in English as the author’s voice in the original language， also when compared to other authors translated by the same translator。 A good translation accepts the gifts English offers and is not an endless procession of compromise and loss。
Agood translation is something to aspire to and, in this perfectionist’s profession, a good translation is never good enough.
首先，流暢度是不容忽視的。
譯文達到流暢的水平很難。但好的翻譯會更進一步，實現原作不證自明的清晰與下筆時的緊迫感。好的翻譯會還原原作的語感，讀者能感到它在歌唱、呢喃或咒罵，併為之興奮、不安或開懷。一位敏銳的單語評論家形容對好的翻譯作品的評論是能夠與原作的評論相互呼應的。好的翻譯不是無可挑剔地拘泥刻板、齊齊整整，而是適當時候敢於表現得粗糙和狂放。
當譯文與原文同時出現在雙語讀者前時，好的翻譯應當讓讀者分辨不出哪個是原文，哪個是譯文。
譯者具有辨識力的聲音應該留存於優秀的譯文文字中，正如原文中作者的聲音一樣。且在這個譯者翻譯其他作品時，也能看得出其風格。好的翻譯會接受譯文語言的饋贈，且翻譯的過程不是無盡的妥協與損失。
我們都應追求好的翻譯，在這個完美主義者的行當中，好的翻譯永遠都不夠好。
2
Alex Zucker
（translates from Czech to English）
To write a good translation, at a certain point I have to forget the text I’m translating exists.
Only then can I read my translation without “seeing through it” the foreign-language text “underneath” – that is， the way virtually everyone else who reads my translation is going to read （and assess） it。 Beyond that， I don’t agree that fluidity is necessarily always a goal。
Agood translation respects and, therefore, reflects the author’s style and vocabulary
：Where the author’s writing is choppy， mine should also be。 Where it’s harsh or stilted or opaque， or lyrical and flowing， or unambiguous， my writing should be too。 When the author conforms to convention， so should I； when they bend or break it， I need to do the same。 This assumes the author intended these effects。 On the other hand， it can happen that an author’s writing comes across as awkward when in fact it was a result of poor （or non-existent） editing， rather than a deliberate style。 This is where it can get tricky。 We all know by now， I hope， that this doesn’t mean every single word or phrase in my translation must precisely correspond in style and effect to a counterpart in the author’s text。 But it does mean that I don’t have the liberty to write a “strange” work when the author’s was “normal”， or “normalise” the writing when the author meant to be unorthodox。 If I do， the result may still be “good”， but rather than a translation， it might be more accurate to call it an adaptation。
做出好的翻譯，某種程度上我要忘記原文的存在
。只有當我自己在閱讀譯文時都可以忘記那譯文底下的另一種語言，讀者才能做到這樣。以及，我並不承認流利是翻譯的目的。
好的翻譯尊重並如實反映原文作者的風格與用詞。
當一位作者的寫作是支離破碎的，我的譯文也應當是這樣。原文作者的寫作風格可能是刺耳、生硬、晦澀的，亦或抒情流暢、毫不含糊的，那麼我的譯文也應該做到這些。原文的作者可能遵循傳統，我便也遵循傳統；當他們彎曲或者打破程式，我也隨之打破。當然前提是，作者預料到了這些後果。另一方面，如下的情況也可能發生：一位作者的寫作由於拙劣的編輯過程顯得很尷尬，而非作者本人有意為之的風格。這就是問題的棘手之處了。正如我們目前所知的，我說的並不意味著我的譯文中每一個詞句在風格和效果上都要與原文的文字對應。我的意思是，當原作者的寫作很普通，或者原作者就打算循規蹈矩地寫出非正統的東西時，譯者是無權譯出一本“奇怪”的作品的。如果我作為譯者真的這麼做了，可能結果仍然是很好的，但我就不會說我在做翻譯了，可能說是‘改編’更準確。
3
Ros Schwartz
（translates from French to English）
Agood translation captures the spirit of a text without slavishly following it to the letter.
It captures the energy and texture and voice of the source text and replicates them in the translation， drawing on all the resources of the target language。 A good translation conveys what is written between the lines。 A good translation exudes empathy。 A good translation elicits the same emotional response in the reader as the source text does in its readers。 A good translation doesn’t colonise the work but preserves the joys and beauties of its “otherness” without resorting to weird foreignisation。 A good translation perfectly resolves the tension between meaning and music， and that of being source-text oriented and target-reader oriented。
Agood translation is bold and creative, a good translation sings.
好的翻譯無需死板地逐字翻譯，就能捕捉到原文的神韻。
它能捕捉到原文文字中的能量、紋理和聲音，並動用譯文語言中的一切資源，將這些逐一在譯文中呈現。好的翻譯能夠傳遞出字裡行間的意蘊，並流露出譯者的共情；這樣的翻譯能夠像原文引出讀者恰當的情感反應那樣引出譯文讀者的情感反應。好的翻譯不會對作品進行殖民，不用訴諸奇怪的異國化也能儲存其‘他者性’之美；好的翻譯完美地疏解了意義與樂音間的張力，即‘文字中心論’還是‘讀者中心論’。
好的翻譯是大膽而創新的，猶在歌唱。
4
Antonia Lloyd-Jones
（translates from Polish to English）
Agood translation is imperceptible. It reads as if the book were written in the language into which it has been translated.
Within the text， the translator is invisible。 A good translation removes the barrier imposed by an unfamiliar language and allows the writer to communicate directly with the foreign reader。
好的翻譯是不留痕跡的，讀來好像這本書本來就是譯文語言所寫就的。
在文字中，譯者是無形的。好的翻譯會去除陌生語言的障礙，使得作者能與外國讀者直接進行交流。
Agood translation doesn’t simply reproduce the correct meaning of the original text. It also captures the voice and music of the original as the writer intended it to be heard, and reproduces it in a way that is audible to the new, foreign reader.
It is sensitive to the meaning， effects and intentions of the original， but also to the best ways to render them in the target language。
好的翻譯不僅僅是重現原文正確的語義，它還能捕捉到原文作者想要傳達的聲音與樂音，並以外國讀者能夠聽懂的方式再現。
它能夠敏銳地察覺到語義、語言效果及原作者的意圖，更懂得如何將這些以最佳的方式在被翻譯的語言中呈現。
In some instances， achieving that aim can mean moving away from the literal meaning of the original。 This is probably truer for translation from some languages than others； perhaps for translators into English， languages outside the Indo-European group will need a different approach from languages that belong to it。 Different genres or translating for children can also have different requirements。 So
while a good translation is true to the original meaning the author wants to convey, it isn’t straitjacketed by the literal meaning of the original text.
在某些情況下，實現這個目的可能意味著要將原文的字面意思抹去。在某些語言的翻譯中更為如此。因為或許對於那些將其他語言譯成英文的譯者來說，印歐語系之外的語言翻譯的方法與印歐語系之內的並不相同。面對不同的種類或者不同讀者，例如給兒童讀者翻譯，則也有不同的要求。所以
儘管說一個好的翻譯是忠於原文的，但它不為原文的字面意思所束縛。
Agood translation also recognises the original writer’s style and voice, but to convey them to the foreign reader in keeping with the writer’s intentions
,the translator might need to retune them slightly, using different techniques.
This is particularly true of poetry， or of prose that is lyrical and dependent on rhythm or sound。
好的翻譯能夠識別出原文作者的風格特點，在遵守作者意圖的同時將其傳達給外國讀者
。當然，譯者在其中可能需要運用不同的翻譯技巧輕微除錯一下。
這一點對於抒情性的、依賴韻律與聲音的詩歌和散文尤為重要。
5
Sandra Hetzl
（translates from Arabic to German）
To me a good translation is one where you almost can’t believe what you’re reading was translated
，from something into something， from somewhere to somewhere – is language a place， or is it rather a thing？ One where you almost can’t believe it was brought from somewhere to somewhere。 That it was unboxed， then hastily transported， a shapeless， unprotected something， and carefully put into new boxes。 Which makes it sound like I sustain the theory that
agood translation is some sort of a hoax
。
對我來說，人們讀到好的翻譯時，是察覺不出它是譯文的
，察覺不出這種從一個事物到另一事物的轉換、從一個地方移動到另一個地方——語言到底是一個區域，還是某種事物呢？總之你不會相信它是從某地移動到某地的，它從箱子中取出，急匆匆地運往另一個地方，這個無形的、也不受保護的東西就這麼被小心翼翼地放到了另一個盒子裡。這聽起來似乎是我堅信的那一套理論：
好的翻譯就是一場騙局。
6
Saskia Vogel
（translated from Swedish to English）
Isuppose a good translation is a good piece of writing and should have all the markers of those.
Personally， I appreciate musicality in a text and an ability to carry through the feeling of each line： those subtle shifts， for example， when at the end of a paragraph a well-placed word or phrase elicits a laugh， a note of tragedy or irony。 If texts aren’t musical in some way （cacophonous and melodic alike）， I find that I am more critical of the translation。 I wonder to what extent a good translation isn’t also about a being good fit with the translator。 I think about texts where I’ve had to labour perhaps too much to make the voice feel authentic to the author’s， and I can think that perhaps I wasn’t a good fit for that text。 I think （hope） this has something to do with experience。 The texts I’m thinking of were early on in my career， which might bring me to my answer for what a good translation is：
When the translator feels comfortable enough with the text to treat it as their own – all the while keeping the author’s music, tone, emotion, voice, etc., in sight – and is able to create (or transcreate?) a piece of writing that feels like the original and carries the original through to the reader, however much the translator has stayed faithful to or departed from the original text.
When translations don’t feel like they have been written – where the reader becomes too aware of the mechanics of the writing – and simply ‘are’ that’s when they’re good。 I fear this all sounds terribly vague， and so I think of dancing and return to what you brought up first： when you see someone competently doing the steps but not bridging technique and feeling， versus the dancer just being in the flow。 Flow is captivating and generous in that it allows for all sorts of imperfections as we are being swept along in the moment and movement。
我想好的翻譯同時也是好的寫作，並且擁有這兩者的標誌。
個人而言，我欣賞文字的樂音感及在每一行文字中攜帶這種樂音的能力。有時這表現為微妙的轉折：比如，自然段結尾處恰到好處某個詞或片語會引人發笑、令人悲哀或感到荒誕。如果文字本身沒有樂音感，我發現自己對翻譯會更加苛刻。有時我會思考，好的翻譯應該不僅僅是與譯者合拍。我想起那些我需要費很大力氣才能與作者的聲音對應起來的文字，也許我與它們不太合拍。我認為（希望）這是與個人經歷有關。我想到的這些文字在我職業生涯的早期出現，現在我可以回答到底什麼才是好的翻譯了：
當譯者能夠較為舒適地處理文字，就像面對自己的文字那麼舒適--同時保留原作者的樂音、語氣、情感、聲音等等，以及能夠創作出一段與原文相似的、保留原文意蘊的文字(姑且不論譯者是否已經遠離了原文)。
當譯文不像是被寫出來的，讀者看得出來翻譯的痕跡時……我想我還是說得太模糊了。還是拿舞蹈來打比喻吧，回到你之前的問題。兩者的區別就像是你看到一個只是做動作而完全沒有將技巧和感受聯結起來的舞者與另一個一直處在流動狀態的舞者的區別。這種流動狀態是令人著迷的，並且很慷慨，因為它容許各種各樣的不完美髮生，我們只是被時間和動作裹挾其中。
7
Julia Sherwood
（translates from Slovak to English）
For me a good translation is one that is on the same wavelength as the original text – a piece of music that has been arranged for different instruments but evokes an emotional response as close to the effect of the original as possible given a different cultural background and references.
Or a goulash or a soufflé prepared from locally available ingredients that comes out with a texture as stodgy or fluffy and that burns your palate or tickles your taste buds in the same way as the original。
在我看來，好的譯文是與原文在同一個波長上的，是被不同的樂器演奏的同一段音樂，即使是在與原文不同的文化背景下，也仍能引發相似的情感共鳴。
或者說，像是使用當地的配料烹飪而成的燉牛肉或酥皮，其質地或粗糙或鬆軟，都使你的味蕾像感受原來的配方時那樣騷動。
8
Sam Bett
（translates from Japanese to English）
Agood translation wants to be read.
Its clever solutions will keep to the surface， no more conspicuous than the slippery things they venture to approximate。 The strengths and curiosities of the source will dare to be present alongside its duller points and weaknesses， but all will have been reimagined， naturally and effectively， at a remove from the rules of the original style。
好的譯文渴望被閱讀。
它聰明的地方顯而易見，和譯者們冒險含糊了事的那些部分一樣明顯。原文的精彩之處也可能和它無聊乏味的地方並列，但這些都需要（譯者）從原文的風格中解放出來，重新想象。
9
Sophie Lewis
（translates from French and Portuguese to English）
Ithink it’s about a near-magical balance
being struck between channelling the translator’s perceived idea of the text’s original sound and intention and its re-enactment through the translator’s own voice,
the way they personally would express these styles and ideas。 It’s about the careful and always considerate mingling of these two impulses or perceptions – which means you can’t always tell that you’re reading a good translation！ The nature of the animal is that you can’t be sure to identify it as such， though you may have a good feeling about it。
我認為(好的翻譯)是一種近乎魔術般的平衡
，譯者理解下的原文的聲音和意圖與譯者以自己的聲音對這些進行的再現之間的平衡，
他們會從個人角度來表達原文的風格和語義。所以好的翻譯其實在於小心行事，並能夠體會到這兩種不同脈搏和感受之間的混雜——即你有時候不能分辨你在讀的是不是譯文。動物的天性就是，你可能無法對某個事物下一個百分百的定義，但你有很強的直覺。
10
David Boyd
（translates from Japanese to English）
Agood translation hums。 It lives in the ear。 It shatters our expectations， redefining what translation can do in the first place。
好的譯文會在你耳中嗡嗡作響。它動搖我們的期待，並重新定義翻譯所能完成的任務。
When you read a good translation， the usual labels （literal vs liberal， etc。） quickly lose their value。
Great translations make it painfully clear that we lack the critical language necessary to talk about translation as an art, on its own terms.
當你讀到一個好的翻譯，平常的那些標籤或分類，比如意譯或者直譯之類的，都黯然失色。
好的翻譯會讓我們痛苦而直觀地感受到，我們缺少描述翻譯這門藝術的語言。
This lack of critical clarity is exactly what makes your question such a hard one。 To borrow from Potter Stewart， we know a good translation when we see it， right？ Complicating matters further，
each good translation is good in its own way
。I hope that doesn’t read like a cop-out。 I think it’s true。
The good ones make us see translation in a new way.
這種語言的匱乏讓你的問題變得很難回答。借用波特·斯圖爾特的話，當看到好的翻譯時，我們就會知道。對嗎？如果進一步把問題複雜化，
每個好的翻譯都有它們的妙處
。我希望這讀起來不像是個蹩腳的理由。因為我真的這麼想，
好的翻譯能夠讓我們以嶄新的方式來看待翻譯這回事。
Why Does It Matter?
Recently， Chad Post wrote an entertaining piece about reviewing translations， arguing with himself in the roles of translation advocate and reviewer。 What made me sit up and think was this passage， in the voice of Post’s inner underpaid critic：
Deep dives into translation theory and how to reproduce a language’s syntax in English are 100% guarantees of boring the piss out of a general reader。 ［。。。］ There are， what？， 20，000 readers of literary fiction out there？ And， let’s be honest， the translations we’re talking about are works of literature， not spy novels or romances or whatever。 Of those 20，000 readers， probably 500 or so read actual book reviews。 If you want these reviews to be promotional tools for international literature， we need to up that number。 And to up that number，
we have to focus on what readers want: plot deions, information about what makes a book unique, why it’s worth reading and what about it might not work for everyone.
And you know what？ He’s got a point。 Just like translators， critics work under constraints。
Igenuinely believe it is possible to identify hallmarks of successful translations – like transferring humour and wordplay, recreating cadence and rhythm, preserving a strong sense of place, and all the things my colleagues have pointed out above.
But maybe doing that requires an extra mental shift， an extra layer of thought to work out what exactly the translator has done here， and which aspects are entirely the author’s doing。 And maybe if you’re being paid a pittance and all you want to do is encourage readers to buy a book， or tell them why you think they shouldn’t bother， that shift isn’t worth the effort。 I can see that。
For us as translators， though， I think it’s extremely important。
We need role models, we need something to strive for – and we need to find ways to define good work that go beyond the negative.
As David Boyd puts it， good translations make us see translation in a new way； they can shake us out of complacency， encourage us to try new things。 One of the things I love about literary translation is， as David Colmer points out， that it’s a job for perfectionists， forever reaching for the impossible， or the “hoax” as Sandra Hetzl calls it。
It’s a profession for optimists.
Much of our work takes place on an intuitive level， reading very deeply and then writing our own version of a text， sometimes less conscious of the choices we make than close readers might be， at least in our first draft。 Hence， I suspect， some of the language we use to explain what we’re trying for： dancing， cooking， music， something near-magical and near-invisible。 These are all useful metaphors。 But
if we’re to continue our striving and pass it on to new generations, I think it’s also helpful to find examples of good translations and investigate what it is they do well.
Let me tell you about a couple of my role models。
Christina MacSweeney’s English version of The Story of My Teeth by Valeria Luiselli
absolutely sparkles with wit。 She gives us a strong， consistent and funny voice and finds truly innovative ways to help her readers understand the novel’s context， adding a whole extra chapter of her own。
Breon Mitchell’s translation of The Tin Drum by Günter Grass
does， what David Colmer mentions， embrace the gifts of the English language’s huge vocabulary， while deftly wrangling Grass’ winding sentences。 I recently admired
Susan Bernofsky’s English translation of Memoirs of a Polar Bear by Yoko Tawada
，which really captures the strangeness of a Soviet polar bear writing her life story， using a mix of slightly stilted and colloquial language and again choosing her words with great joy。 For me， this is also an example of a translator well suited to her writer， who has been working with her for years and feels comfortable – as Saskia Vogel writes， treating Tawada’s writing as her own。
And to give an example of a writer not yet translated into English， I’m bowled over by Silke Kleemann’s German translation of El que mueve las piezas （una novela bélica） by Ariel Magnus， a tale of a Jewish German in 1939 Buenos Aires that plays with language and literature， fact and fiction。 Kleemann really enters into the spirit of the thing， goes along with so many jokes and adds a whole new layer of understanding to our reading， tackling the tricky feat of essentially back-translating a semi-German book written in Spanish。 Without， however， resorting to “colonising”， as Ros Schwartz puts it – it is still a very Argentinian novel。 An English translation might be even more difficult， come to think of it， with a third linguistic factor to it。
You’ll notice I’m foregrounding humour， which confirms to me that taste in translations varies。 I like funny books and I know it’s hard to rescue humour across languages， requires a lot of struggling out of the straitjacket of literal meaning that Antonia Lloyd-Jones mentions。 As Boyd points out， good translations are all good in different ways。 Incidentally， I speak only two languages， German and English， but
as I work on recognising good translation I find I can identify examples where I don’t understand the original,
like the two Spanish-language books above。
Perhaps it is indeed utopian to expect critics to hone that sensitivity， if even we translators are still working on it。 But I’m glad we are working on it， I’m glad we’re reading each other’s work and appreciating it and moving towards critiquing it fairly， within a community I have always experienced as mutually supportive。
Perhaps, with time, we’ll develop the clarity we need to talk about our work as an art, and by doing so make it better.
（英文圖文：scroll。in；中文：王穗，Qdaily）
