This evening, I attended an event at North Quad that was a showcase of a translation of a Rajasthani Folk Tale in Urdu, called “Dastan-e-Chouboli,” that was performed by Mahmood Farooqi and translated by Professor Christi Merrill.

As I entered the North Quad room and took a seat in front of the two different types of “translators,” I initially noticed the differences between the methods these two different individuals were using to portray the same idea or “story plot.” As Professor Merrill began to explain the plot of the overall story, which is based on a woman who is seeking a future husband, and the only spouse she is allowed to settle down with is the man who can make her speak four times, she took on a very relaxed and approachable approach to explaining the story. She continued by explaining that through her translation of the Rajasthani original story, she viewed her position more as a “storyteller” in juxtaposition with being a less personable “translator.” This differentiation she made during the first part of the introduction seemed to be the overall theme for the night in terms of comparing Merrill’s presentation with Farooqi’s presentation of the story of Chouboli.

Farooqi’s introduction also followed the same path in terms of explaining the importance of a more “story like” interpretation of the Rajasthani tale by his contributing that he tries during his presentations to promote colloquial speech and to focus on idioms and contemporary language. Farooqi and Merrill seemed to both agree in terms of promoting a more modern, approachable and colloquial version of the old-fashioned story, yet the difference between these two translations was in Merrill’s direct, focused and simple presentation of the story’s plot juxtaposed with Farooqi’s fervor, voice intonations and hand gestures. Farooqi’s storytelling that characterized and brought the story to life in terms of the underlying emotions and humor present in the Rajasthani original version showed a distinct difference between the two representations, and ultimately left me yearning to understand the language he was speaking. As others around me chuckled at his storytelling and were continuously engaged in absorbing his “translation” I slightly felt left out because I did not understand the language he was speaking and therefore, was only getting the “cut and dry” simple version of the translation, when I could’ve been listening to a unique storyteller’s interpretation. I found this juxtaposition a bit frustrating then because of my lack of knowledge of the one language and my ability to only truly absorb one of the translations, not both of them; therefore leaving me fully unable to fairly compare the two different interpretations.

Although I found some frustration in my inability to comprehend Farooqi, the two different presentations urged me to focus on the importance of voice intonation, gestures and rhythm. Even though I had no knowledge of the language Farooqi was speaking, I was able to tell the certain details of the construction of the text; the rhythm of the dialogue, the different characters’ emotions as signaled by his different voices and the actions as demonstrated by his hand movements. This representation in combination with Merrill’s detailed description of the plot allowed me to piece together the translation on my own. Is it more important to have both of these factors when considering a translation….or is the emotional storyline side of a story more indicative than a basic plot line?