AtD translation: the title

[Mike Jing]

As a matter of fact, that's the title adopted by the Japanese translation,
which, incidentally, is identical in Chinese: "逆光". However, I'm not quite
enamoured with it because of all the other connotations lost in such a
choice, but that may just be my own bias. It was reported that Pynchon had
personally met with the Japanese translator, so asking the author himself
may not even help that much, but I still would like to try if I get a
chance.


On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:40 PM <protomen at protonmail.com> wrote:

> The title also works as a literal translation of "à contre-jour", going
> against the light in the sense of towards it, especially when blinding
> effects are implicit - like flaring in photography. This may be what the
> translations you find were focusing on with the daybright emphasis,
> contrary to the passage you quote.
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, January 4, 2019 6:22 AM, Mike Jing <
> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm still busy with other things, but I thought it would be a good idea
> to
> > think about how to translate the title, which I find rather difficult.
> The
> > prevailing Chinese translation I can find is "抵抗白昼", or roughly
> "Resisting
> > Daylight", and I'm not sure it's correct. Here's a passage from an
> article
> > in Chinese written about the book shortly after it was published, which I
> > have translated into English below:
> >
> > 'For Pynchon, the world of daylight is reality, tyranny, a waking
> > nightmare, it's what the characters in the book are striving to run away
> > from. At the beginning of the book, Pynchon quotes black American jazz
> > musician Thelonious Monk: "it's always dark, in other words, we don't
> need
> > light." Light signifies daylight, and the book title suggests that the
> > characters are resisting daylight, seeking the refuge of the night,
> looking
> > for transcendence in the fourth dimension, hoping to escape the shackles
> of
> > reality and live according to their own free will.'
> >
> > The problem here is that the quote from Monk was completely butchered. In
> > the original quote, the word "or" means "otherwise", not "in other
> words".
> > I consider this a major mistake, and it weakens the author's argument
> > considerably. Of course, the rest of what she said here may still be
> true,
> > but the quote certainly does not help make the case.
> >
> > Any thoughts and ideas will be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>
>
>