The people have spoken. The poll is closed. The decision has been made. But there are certain things that might surprise some of you, so you might want to check out the lengthy post on the Library stack.
The translations were as follows:
Translation 1 = Arthur Waley 1933
Translation 2 = Castalia House 2025
Translation 3 = Edwin Seidensticker 1973
Translation 4 = Royall Tyler 2009
Translation 5 = Dennis Washburn 1999
Since it would not be professional for me to address some of the comments there, I hope you will indulge me in doing so here. But as I do, I hope you will understand that I very much appreciate both the opinions and the passion of those who disagree with me on these matters, as even in opposition, the mere fact that you care about these things means that we have far more in common than we do with the vast majority of the planet that couldn’t care less either way.
So by all means, take my contemptuous dismissals as a sign of praise and your own merit.
I really dislike 2. It feels too modern and maybe not the author’s true voice for the time period. It feels more like her voice in translation 1.
It is more than modern, it is up-to-date in a myriad of ways. But here’s the thing. None of the translations are representational of the author’s true voice. That voice from the first translation you feel is actually the century-old voice of an Anglo-Jewish man who never spoke Japanese, never visited Japan, and expresses an “Edwardian register” more than 1,300 years removed from the author.
I strongly suspect that of all these translations, #1 is the most faithful to the original. Vox’s background puts him in in a far better position to judge – and if that is so, I would disregard “vox populi, vox dei” and turn to Translation #1 for Castalia.
Actually, #1 is by far the least faithful to the original. The liberties that I have taken in the interest of literary quality and psychological fidelity for #2 are far more justifiable than the ex nihilo inventions of Arthur Waley. He even omitted an entire chapter because he didn’t feel it was sufficiently important to the narrative.
I agree that 2 seems very “modern” and missing something of a soul behind it. By “modern” I mean watered down.
This is a reasonable response because while the modernity is there in the brief 19 lines compared, none of the psychological elements so important to the novel are. I doubt the commenter would feel that way after reading a comparison of an entire chapter.
Conventional Gamma posturing and doubling-down.
I’m curious to hear which translation you think best preserves the flavor of the original.
The best literal translation is #4, the Royall Tyler translation. There is no question about that. But being a multilingual individual, I very much disagree with the idea that the literal translation is always the optimal translation. I am optimistic that our translation will best preserve the original flavor in literary, emotional, and psychological terms, but that is a verdict that others will have to render down the road.
For authentic narration and a closer match in tone to the time period, I would really like to have translation 1. For ease of reading, 2 is an obvious choice but I think the loss of the courtly, observational voice takes too much away from what I imagine the author’s style was. I think this particular tome requires a more traditional translation, given what it is. To go with the easier to read option 2, is a disservice.
Again, there is nothing authentic about the Waley translation. It is a masterpiece, but the courtly observational tone is his, not the author’s. One of the reasons we are doing the new translation is precisely because the emotional distance, almost diffidence, that Waley portrays is absolutely apposite to the emotional sensitivity of the protagonist, whose sleeves are always wet with the dew of his tears.
1 sounds like it was written by a woman and has a nice poetic rhythm to it. 5 is similar in that it has a poetic rhythm and sounds like it was written by a woman. This sounds like an odd argument, but the Tales of the Genji was written by a woman, and there are certain stylistic qualities that we all share.
Both translations 1 and 5 were written by men. 2, on the other hand, is heavily influenced by the modern Japanese translation written by a woman.
In any event, I very much appreciate everyone who took part in the poll and expressed their opinion. To be honest, I’m just very pleased that our translation was able to hold its own with the excellent translations of Messrs. Seidensticker, Royall, and Washburn, I did not expect that it would actually be preferred to the traditional masterpiece of Arthur Waley, which was our original selection and only other viable option.