While both plays do at times deal with words and the function of words, and I'm supposedly supposed to be talking about motifs within these works, what I want to say about translation and these plays has more to do with the way they are read and the way they are performed.
Performing in Twelfth Night as our fall production in the Theatre Program this year, I experienced Shakespeare in a completely different way then I would experience it in a classroom. We did spend a lot of time discussing the meaning of the words, complex metaphors, getting a basis in the language of the setting. There was discussion about iambic pentameter for those who spoke in it (I didn't) and intention, how lines moved characters through each scene. I memorized lines, then sort of just waited for the meaning of it all to start to sink into my sub-conscious.
(Thinking about it now, the whole process reminds me of the way my trip to Spain went. At first it was hard to stick your brain into Spanish, but the more you let it sink into you, the harder it actually became to extract yourself. Strange Spanish phrases get stuck in your head, 'yes' became 'si' and 'thanks' became 'gracias', and even in English there would be a reflex to invert sentence - 'my sister's shoe' became 'the shoe of my sister' in my head.)
However, this diffusion would only get any of us so far. Example, in the Fool's first scene, it (our Fool was an 'it') is being scolded by Maria, and referring to Olivia, says, "Let her hang me. He that is well-hanged needs to fear no colors." I remembering discussing early on with my director the possibility of the sexual double entendre of 'well-hanged' and if I should suggest this pun intentionally or not, as trying to play up that joke would change the delivery of the line altogether. On the other hand, I was thinking, I could just refer to the fact that if you're dead, there's not a whole to be afraid of. Sophi said to me what she said to other actors in that production, something I found very important: Say it how it will make sense to you. With performances in particular, and with such rapid bombardment with Shakespearean language, the audience can't catch every tiny reference - usually, they'd be happy enough with the *general idea*. That sounds familiar, now.
My suggestion here is that translation is by nature a selfish sort of act or, entity. I translated the Shakespearean language in Twelfth Night so I could best understand it as a character. My interpretation may not have been the way Shakespeare had intended it, but it was good enough for me. A conclusion like this helps me deal with the strict translation versus loose translation dilemma I've been mulling over. Strict translation is all about feeling like you've remained true to the author, but now I wonder the absolute value of a strict translation if translation itself is just making it so it makes sense to you.
(Also, because it's too good to pass up:
Viola: They that dally nicely with words may quickly make them wanton.
Feste: I would therefore my sister had had no name, sir.
Viola: Why, man?
Feste: Why sir, her name is a word, and to dally with that word might make my sister wanton. But indeed, words are very rascals since bonds disgraced them.
Viola: Thy reason, man?
Feste: Troth sir, I can yield you none without words, and words are grown so false I am loath to prove reason with them.)
My intention with mentioning King Lear was to say essentially all the same thing that I've covered with Twelfth Night. The main difference was with reading King Lear in a classroom setting again. However, I found that even with all my AP book-learnins, sometimes a loose translation is all that will suffice.
Still coming...
Music,
As I Lay Dying & Slaughterhouse 5,
Poetry,
Wookies.
