To follow up on the “whether to add things in translation or hew to the original” post over here, here are a few quick things from links I’ve been meaning to address here.
First, Matt Treyvaud’s translation of Mori Ōgai’s 翻訳について (Hon’yaku ni tsuite; “On translation”):
The sweets that Nora eats I translated makuron マクロン. Write rather amedama 飴玉, I was told. Advice like this simply boggles the mind. Tins of almond macaroons have been shipped here in great number so that you may buy them at Aokido whenever you please. Reflect, if you will, on the difference in situation between a woman of the West eating a macaroon and a child of Japan eating an amedama. I recall one scene in a novel by someone-or-other wherein two female university students in Paris’s Latin Quarter munch on macaroons as they trade stories of heartbreak. To switch those macaroons for amedama, of all things—well, it would certainly be comical. The gist of such teachings is that items should appear in translation as appropriately chosen items unique to Japan, but as for myself, I strive to avoid things unique to Japan, the better to produce an extraordinary effect. Furthermore, we only consider here cases where there is an appropriate corresponding item. When uniquely Japanese and inappropriate items appear, the results are quite unbearable.
(Adamu of Mutantfrog Travelogue posted this entry in response to that Neojaponisme piece. Also interesting, especially the comment discussion there.)
Second is “Translator of the universal and the local,” a Japan Times interview with Meguro Jō, who has translated plays by Martin McDonagh (see also her blog):
How do you decide how “foreign” to make your translations?
Obviously there are cultural gaps, but I prefer to retain some unfamiliar things rather than ignore them or change them into something familiar for Japanese. I don’t think it’s right to rework foreign plays as if they were as natural and smooth as plays written in Japanese. We should keep some “foreignness.” Getting the balance right is quite sensitive and difficult. English four-letter words, such as f**k—which McDonagh includes a lot—must be translated case by case. Sometimes, I translate them to keep the rhythm, but sometimes I think it is better to cut them.
And third, there are of course cases where you can’t stick closely to the form of the original at all, so you have to get more creative if you want to get the same point across in your target language. I wrote about these so-called untranslatable terms a while ago.

by Our Man in Abiko
01 Apr 2010 at 18:11
Our Man is no translator, but isn’t the golden rule you translate the meaning, not the word? But no doubt that’s hopelessly simplistic and of no use to anyone, least of all Google.
by Durf
01 Apr 2010 at 18:30
The golden rule of translating for money is that you translate the way the client tells you to. Sometimes that places more emphasis on the words (or word order) in the original than you’d like it to as a wordsmith in the target language. It’s especially tricky in the case of loan-words: for instance there might be a コーナー set up in the book fair for authors to exchange business cards with agents, and you might prefer to call it a “networking area,” but the money people can latch onto that false friend and insist that it make an appearance in your translation. And then you get a corner. Right in the middle of the floor, no less.
by Our Man in Abiko
03 Apr 2010 at 17:43
Ahh. I see what you mean. Yes, the client is always wrong and all that. The no. 2 at the Daily Gomiuri was forever insisting on word for word translations, whatever they are. As far as Our Man could tell, it all just amounted to who could pee the highest. Our Man learnt to mind his own shoes on such occasions.
by Durf
05 Apr 2010 at 19:28
Yes, from what I remember of the DY (I used to subscribe to that thing, in pre-web days when I lived in the sticks and hungered for reading material) that sounds about right. It was certainly the philosophy brought to bear in those translation contests I entered from time to time.