Blog Archives

Part 1 of 3:

3/30/2015

The Inexplicable Final Act of X (Part 1 of 3)

The majority of translation assignments are pretty routine and mundane. You tackle them, deliver them, invoice the client, sip some wine or sake, then like a stoic samurai stand in ready position to tackle the next assignment. Some assignments however will haunt you for the rest of your life with endless questions. For example, translating the diary of a man who murdered his entire family. Even after 20 years.
Before I proceed however, allow me to step back several months to December 2014. While doing online research for a particular assignment, I accidentally discovered an irrelevant yet rather attention-grabbing website. murderpedia.org defines itself as "a free online encyclopedic dictionary of murderers and the largest database about serial killers and mass murderers around the world." Who would have created such a website in the first place? It catalogs 5,799 murder cases committed by men and 1,023 ones committed by women. (Men, behave!) Initially I thought, wow, this website must be a valuable resource for fiction writers or scriptwriters for "Criminal Minds" on CBS that has so many fans, including my wife and a niece. Out of curiosity, I entered the name of one of two mass murderers I got to "know" from my work as a translator and interpreter — let's call him "X" for now. Lo and behold, X's name and the case is completely listed with all the details.
Previously I had never thought that I would write about the case of X. As a translator, by default, I am bound by a blanket and strict confidentiality clause that I voluntarily imposed upon myself, even if a client does not ask me to sign any Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA). Client confidentiality is a given, period. Now, upon discovering that murderpedia.org has featured the case of X with all details as reported in The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times in 1995 (as quoted on the site), the case had entered the public domain — by means totally beyond my control. Anyone with a computer and internet connection will be able to read the case in detail, complete with X's actual name, his victims' names, and where they lived, etcetera. Even if an NDA for this case does exist (it does not), the public domain exposure definitely cancels, nulls and voids any confidentiality clause. For how can something be kept confidential, if it has been published in the public domain and by two national newspapers?
In any case, X himself had died in 1995. Most importantly, the following case of X does not contain any trade secret, insider information, or any classified information that in any way may be a direct, or indirect, threat to public safety and/or national security. Being a stickler for principles, however, I am still going to obscure certain details and not going to reveal X's identity. Why? He is deceased, yes, but I'll have to live with my conscience for the rest of my life. First, who knows, X may still have some relatives who may get upset if his identity is revealed. I have to be sensitive to their feelings. Second, one of the most sacred principles in our American criminal justice system is that a person is legally presumed innocent until proven guilty. Due to his eventual death, X had never been tried before a court of law. Therefore I would prefer to err on the side of caution by not revealing his identity. I will also *not* reveal anything that has not been published in the reports of The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times quoted on the murderpedia.org website. Without much ado, let's get back to the case of X. It's important to note this post is not about the person, but about what can be learned from the case.
About twenty years ago, in the summer of 1995, before the era of emails, I received a call from a translation agency desperately inquiring whether I would be available to translate the diary of an Indonesian man suspected of murdering his entire family. "What?," I asked in disbelief. The Project Manager kept talking for several minutes but nothing of what she said afterwards seemed to register in my brain, for I was in a state of shock. I don't even remember whether I said yes or no. In any case, the next day a FedEx package arrived with photocopies of X's diary pages.

[To be continued.]
Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

March 23rd, 2015

3/23/2015

From Blasphemies to Blessings in Disguise (Part 2 of 2)

Reader Beware: If your faith is rock-solid, whatever that is, and you have the courage, wisdom and intellect to question dogma and orthodoxy, then please read on. But if your faith is rather fragile and can be eroded merely by reading a mortal's blog post, with all due respect please stop. You are proceeding at your own risk.

[In Part 1, I have outlined how blasphemies have turned into blessings in disguise. In Part 2, we are going to explore how blind enforcement of anti-blasphemy laws is nothing more than a sacrilegious act to commodify God, which in turn, is a blasphemy in itself.]

Blasphemy seems to be the lowest common denominator among great historical figures, thinkers and artists. Throughout history, pioneers who dared to commit blasphemies had been confronted by hostile groupthink and holier-than-thou mob mentality of the Powers that Be. Prophets, revolutionaries, innovators and avant-garde artists had been criminalized, demonized, excommunicated, persecuted, crucified with impunity. Modus operandi of the status quo: claim to act on behalf of "God," then brutally persecute everyone who goes against the grain for committing blasphemy. We are always right, they are always wrong. Thomas B. Macaulay illustrated this thought process in Critical and Historical Essays (1870): “I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are stronger, you ought to tolerate me; for it is your duty to tolerate truth. But when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you; for it is my duty to persecute error.”
These vicious cycles of persecution are indeed the cruelest irony in human civilization. The hunted became an even crueler hunter, the persecuted an even more brutal persecutor, the oppressed an even more violent oppressor. Early Christians were tortured, stoned, fed to hungry lions, and crucified by the Romans. Yet during the Crusades and Inquisition, their descendants persecuted Muslims, religious sectarianism and Protestantism with no less cruelty. Early Protestants were victimized by Roman Catholic church's persecution. One would think their descendants who migrated to North America to escape from religious persecution in Europe knew a thing or two about being tolerant. Well, they committed genocide on Native Americans, benefited from slavery, then later persecuted the Mormons.
Early Muslims were persecuted by the Meccan tribes who worshiped pagan idols, then later again by the Christians during the Crusades. Yet their descendants have a history to persecute Christian, Sufi, and Ahmadi minorities with no less brutality. Christian churches in Pakistan have been attacked and bombed. Sufi shrines and mosques have been destroyed; Sufi adherents have been killed. In Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, the Ahmadis have been defined as heretics and non-Muslim and subjected to persecution and systematic oppression. The Sunnis and Shiites have continuously persecuted each other within the last 1,300 years. The Jews are no exception. After being persecuted by the Romans and victimized during the Holocaust, their descendants have not shown any hesitation to persecute and evict the Palestinians.
The underlying root cause of these vicious cycles: primordial and evolutionary biological impulses for prejudice, aversion and revenge that are divinely packaged in anti-blasphemy theological dogmas. As expressed by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer (1951): "I doubt if the oppressed ever fight for freedom. They fight for pride and for power — power to oppress others. The oppressed want above all to imitate their oppressors; they want to retaliate" (emphasis added). Queen Mary I (1516-1558), a.k.a. “Bloody Mary”, burned 300 Protestants. Her successor (and half sister!) Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) then executed 300 Catholics. In the Henry VII chapel of Westminster Abbey in London, Elizabeth's coffin was later placed on top of Mary's one. Indeed a perfect "closure" for both — eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot — literally and figuratively. May they rest in peace together.
If God (or Jahwe or Elohim or Allah or Shangdi) is so Almighty and All Powerful, does He (or She!) really need so many paranoid proxies and anal retentive busybodies to fret on His/Her behalf? Implying that All Powerful is so fragile; isn't that an insult — if not a contradiction — in itself? Indeed to invoke a sacred name so often merely to keep an even score is to cheapen it. It is a sacrilegious act to commodify God, which in turn is "irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable."
We have all been the beneficiaries of spiritual breakthroughs and transformational changes that Buddha, Jesus, Washington, Gandhi, Mandela, Mozart and Monet introduced. The time has come to liberate ourselves from orthodox handcuffs and dogmatic shackles, and take an objective and impartial look at the true meanings of blasphemy, as well as the virtues of having a minority view. "What is a minority?," John B. Gough (1817-1886) once asked rhetorically. "The chosen heroes of this earth have been in a minority. There is not a social, political, or religious privilege that you enjoy today that was not bought for you by the blood and tears and patient suffering of the minority. It is the minority that have stood in the van of every moral conflict, and achieved all that is noble in the history of the world."
Most great ideas start out as a blasphemy — committed by a minority of one, against the oppressive tyranny of a majority, under the constant threat of persecution — yet eventually evolved into blessings in disguise. Meanwhile, what were once cruelly oppressed and persecuted minorities have, unfortunately, evolved into cruelly oppressing and persecuting majorities under the pretext to enforce anti-blasphemy laws. For every blessing in disguise, there is perhaps a wolf in sheep's clothing. God's name has always been exploited as the ultimate mantra — not for God's sake — but merely (1) to justify revenge, (2) to consolidate profane power, (3) to boost megalomaniac egos. Can blasphemies really disgrace the All Powerful, or do they merely shatter the fragile egos of insecure believers? "Shrine after shrine has crumbled before our eyes;" wrote Kakuzo Okakura (1862-1913) in The Book of Tea (1906), "but one altar forever is preserved, that whereon we burn incense to the supreme idol — ourselves."

Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

March 16th, 2015

3/16/2015

From Blasphemies to Blessings in Disguise (Part 1 of 2)

Reader Beware: If your faith is rock-solid, whatever that is, and you have the courage, wisdom and intellect to question dogma and orthodoxy, then please read on. But if your faith is rather fragile and it may be eroded merely by reading a mortal's blog post, with all due respect please stop. You are proceeding at your own risk.

Some translators regard research as an extra burden, a distraction, a necessary evil that has to be done. Others shun it altogether, as I have described in an earlier post. For me however, research is a welcome diversion that breaks the monotony of translating. Research can even open windows of opportunity for unexpected discoveries and revelations. In fact, that is a bonus of being a translator. The other day I had to translate the word "blasphemy" — a word which has been overused and abused lately — for a case study. Since I suspect that I have the propensity to confuse blasphemy with apostasy or heresy, I had to verify its semantic meaning to ensure an accurate translation. That said, there seems to be a grey area where the spectra of meanings of blasphemy, apostasy and heresy (even sacrilege) do overlap. In any case, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, blasphemy is "(1) the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, or (2) the act of claiming the attributes of deity, or (3) irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable."
It was during the research process, that I stumbled upon a quote by Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). “Every great idea,” Russell once said, “starts out as a blasphemy.” Initially, his words sound, well, blasphemous. However, upon further contemplation, if we impartially track human civilization throughout the ages, his words ring true. Historically, Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) started as a minority of one against the tyranny of the Hindu caste system. Likewise, Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten — who is often credited as the inventor of monotheism — was against the tyranny of polytheism. Jesus of Nazareth was against the tyranny of the Sanhedrin (that's why his crucifixion). Muhammad was against the tyranny of Meccan tribes who worshiped pagan idols (that's why his forced hijra or migration from Mecca to Medina in 622). Martin Luther was against the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church (that's why his excommunication). Let a holier-than-thou believer in any religion not based on a blasphemy, cast the first stone.
Beyond religion, hyperbolically, blasphemies had been committed as well. Mozart was against the tyranny of the Italian composers in the courts of the Austrian princes. George Washington and Mahatma Gandhi were against the tyranny of British imperialism. Claude Monet was against the tyranny of the French conventional art community during Impressionism early days in the 1870s. Martin Luther King Jr. was against the tyranny of Jim Crow segregation laws. Nelson Mandela was against the tyranny of South African apartheid.
Then there was Gustave Eiffel. It is now impossible to imagine the City of Light without the Eiffel Tower, yet it was almost demolished in 1909. (The only thing that saved it was the realization of its potential usability as a radio tower to improve transatlantic communications.) During its construction, famous French writer Guy de Maupassant along with 46 Parisian literature giants expressed their anger in a letter of protest to the Minister of Public works in Paris at that time. They called the Tower a "dishonor", while Parisians — used to Haussmannian architectural style — called it an “elephant”, a “giraffe”, a “hulking metal beast crouched on all fours”. Guy de Maupassant hated it so much that he often ate lunch in the tower’s second floor restaurant, which was the only point in the city where he could not see “this tall skinny pyramid of iron ladders, this giant and disgraceful skeleton.” Nowadays, not only is the Eiffel an indispensable icon of Paris, but a universal symbol for travel. Case in point: TravelPro suitcases have an Eiffel logo.
Thus Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Washington, Gandhi, Mandela, even Mozart, Eiffel and Monet were all minorities, who at one point in their respective lives dared to commit a blasphemy, which is "irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable." Had they conformed to, and obeyed, the conventional wisdom of their times, then their names would be unrecognizable ones. Who is Buddha? Who is Monet? Conformity and obedience are not the hallmarks of great men. Instead, courage to go against the grain, ingenuity and leadership are. What were once blasphemies turn out to be blessings in disguise.

[To be continued.]
Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

How to Render a 16th Century Roman Catholic Concept into Modern Indonesian

3/9/2015

Taming the 'Devil's Advocate' (Part 2 of 2)

[In Part 1, I have outlined the historical background of the 'Devil's Advocate' term to understand and analyze its original meaning in the source language. In Part 2, I will try to re-synthesize and articulate the phrase in the target language.]

In re-synthesizing the phrase in Indonesian, it's critical to consider two facts:

About 88% of Indonesia's population is Muslim. Unfamiliarity with a 16th Century Roman Catholic term and a mindless translation are ingredients for a religious blunder; a literal translation may even sound offensive and insulting to some.
The word 'Devil' in 'Devil's Advocate' does not necessarily denote the devil or the bad guy, for within a group of trial lawyers, he or she may even represent the good guy (for example, a District Attorney or Prosecutor). That's why even 'Pembela Setan' (Devils' Defender), though it sounds better than 'Advocat Setan', does not fit the bill. After all, trial lawyers are supposed to advocate for the alleged bad guys. In short, Devil's Advocate denotes 'the opposite side.'

Upon understanding, analyzing and re-synthesizing the phrase, the final step in an interpreter's job is articulating it in a culturally sensitive manner. Again, in finding a suitable Indonesian term, there are two cultural issues that need to be considered.

Since most Indonesians are religious, it would be hard to find a volunteer who is willing to be associated with the devil, even hyperbolically. By default, the word 'setan' (devil) always has a negative connotation. Therefore it should be excluded (if not banished to hell). That's probably the main reason why my friend was not happy with its literal translation.
In a paternalistic and hierarchical society like Indonesia where the boss is always right, subordinates would be reluctant to play the role of a Devil's Advocate. Therefore a soft approach (finding a contextual translation) would be more effective than a hard one (using a literal translation). Generally, Indonesians prefer unanimous musyawarah (consensus) over contentious debates; hence a literal translation of 'Devil's Advocate' can be counter-productive.

Then, how to tame the Devil's Advocate? In the final analysis, the role of a Devil's Advocate is to provide a counter-argument. On the other hand, the role of an interpreter is to (1) understand, (2) analyze, (3) re-synthesize and (4) articulate a phrase in a culturally sensitive manner. Based on the aforementioned functional considerations, I would render the phrase as 'Pemberi kontra-argumen' ('Counter-argument provider'), 'Pengasah Argumen' ('Argument Sharpener'), or 'Pengimbang Argumen' (Argument Balancer). These three phrases capture the meaning quite well, while still taking sensitive socio-cultural considerations into account.
The jury is still out on how to render 'Devil's Advocate' properly in Indonesian. Therefore if you speak Indonesian, please state your preference in the following poll. This poll will be open through March 16, 2015 at 08:00 AM PDT. You need not be a translator or interpreter to participate. Thank you!

Johannes Tan, English <> Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

How to Render a 16th Century Roman Catholic Concept into Modern Indonesian

3/1/2015

0 Comments

Taming the 'Devil's Advocate' (Part 1 of 2)

Once, over dinner in my favorite Indian restaurant in Cambridge, a good friend shared his experience. An interpreter — whom his organization hired in Jakarta — rendered Devil's Advocate as 'Advokat Setan' (a literal translation), and he is not too happy about it. "What is the correct Indonesian word for 'Devil's Advocate'?", he asked. I do not recall what my answer was, because at that time we immediately had a good laugh together. Why? In Indonesian 'Advokat Setan' also means 'Devil's Avocado'. Besides, I was enjoying my hot and spicy lamb kheema dosa (Indian crepe stuffed with minced lamb) too much. My tongue was burning like hell, dosa coincidentally means sin in Indonesian, and the term contains the word 'devil'. Hence my devil-may-care attitude on how to render 'Devil's Advocate' properly in Indonesian. See no (d)evil, hear no (d)evil, interpret no (d)evil…
Or so, I thought. The term came up again last month, though this time it was in a translation assignment. First, let's understand and analyze its meaning. 'Devil's Advocate' is actually a 16th century Roman Catholic term. But even when I was still a Catholic (before converting to Agnosticism about ten years ago), I was not too familiar with it. Obviously I was not a good Catholic. Only about five years ago, upon reading an article in The New Yorker, I came to fully understand its meaning.
Historically, the phrase derives from the canonization process utilized by the Roman Catholic Church. The Devil's Advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Vatican authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate. His job is to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for weaknesses, holes in the evidence, and so on. Naturally, the Devil's Advocate opposed the God's Advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. The office was established in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V, and partially disbanded in 1983 by Pope John Paul II.
In secular and common parlance, a Devil's Advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes an opposite position (that he/she does not necessarily agree with) just for the sake of debate or to validate a particular argument. A lawyer in a law firm for example, may be appointed to play the Devil's Advocate in order to sharpen an argument.
In any case, the literal translation of 'Devil's Advocate' in Indonesian, Advokat Setan, sounds awkward and its meaning will not be immediately understood. Its other meaning ('devil's avocado') could even be distracting and corrupt the target audience's understanding. Thus, only a contextual translation will fit the bill.

[To be continued.]
Johannes Tan, English <> Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

0 Comments

Part 1 of 3:

The Inexplicable Final Act of X (Part 1 of 3)

March 23rd, 2015

From Blasphemies to Blessings in Disguise (Part 2 of 2)

March 16th, 2015

From Blasphemies to Blessings in Disguise (Part 1 of 2)

How to Render a 16th Century Roman Catholic Concept into Modern Indonesian

Taming the 'Devil's Advocate' (Part 2 of 2)

POLL:

How to Render a 16th Century Roman Catholic Concept into Modern Indonesian

Taming the 'Devil's Advocate' (Part 1 of 2)

Continuously exploring literal, semantic, idiomatic, contextual, metaphorical, symptomatic, conceptual and metaphysical meanings of everything worth thinking about.

Archives

Categories