Literal vs. Liberal: The Great Translation Debate

 The Heated Debate Over the Translation of Han Kang’s The Vegetarian

During my first year in the Interpretation and Translation graduate program, we had an extensive discussion about the English translation of Han Kang’s novel The Vegetarian.

The debate centered around whether the translator had taken too many liberties, to the point of distorting the original meaning, or whether such levels of adaptation should be permissible. Opinions were divided among students, reflecting the broader dilemma in the field of translation—should one translate literally, or is interpretation necessary?

This issue is difficult to resolve definitively. In the end, the decision to lean toward literal or free translation lies with the translator. However, in South Korea, it often feels like societal expectations make that decision instead. Having worked as a freelance translator, I’ve experienced firsthand how the industry treats translators as disposable, emphasizing strict adherence to the original text rather than allowing space for nuanced interpretation. The demand is often for direct, word-for-word translation, with the implication that failing to do so will simply result in the job being handed to someone else. In this environment, the complexity and difficulty of translation are frequently overlooked.

True translation requires mastery of not just grammar, but also natural sentence structures and expressions in both languages. Beyond this, each translator brings their own style, choosing different levels of fidelity, interpretation, and technical precision. Yet, in South Korea, there remains a strong preference for literal translation, as if the text must remain as untouched as possible. This rigid cultural attitude extends into the translation industry, making adaptation a controversial practice.

A prime example of this debate is the English translation of The Vegetarian.

While some, like a professor from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, defended the translation for successfully reinterpreting the novel in a way that made sense to English-speaking readers, others were highly critical. A professor from Hallym University’s English Literature Department argued that the translation distorted character relationships and omitted key details, which weakened the overall understanding of the novel.

The criticisms highlight how South Korea still struggles to accept adaptive translations. More than that, this controversy seems to disregard the inherent creativity involved in translation.

Amidst the heated discussions, I found the translator’s own response particularly compelling. She stated,
"No two languages have identical grammar. Words differ, punctuation carries different weight, and a purely literal translation is simply impossible. There is no such thing as a translation that is not creative."

Her statement directly challenges the rigid approach of the Korean translation industry, offering a refreshing perspective on the creative nature of translation itself.