Mary Elliot, 3/25 Readings

 On the newspaper coverage:

• The issue with Rijneveld seems to be twofold. First that Gorman herslef selected Rijeveld (Guardian article), as "a fellow young writer who had also come to fame early." The second part of the issue is that apparently (NY Times article) there were several qualified Black spoken word poets who were overlooked for the opportunity. What is unclear to me is whether Gorman was given a list from the publisher that excluded those poets and she chose Rijneveld from that list, or whether she herself suggested Rijneveld out of previous acquaintance with their work/Booker prize. If the issue is that she was given a list or something that excluded Black spoken word poets, that's clearly a significant injustice. But if she chose the writer herself based on the excellence of their work, we've drastically assigned an "otherness" to Gorman's identity that is unnecessary. 
• The NY Times article also mentioned that German translators took a group approach, which seems to safeguard some of the mistakes (eg, the Morrison example) that could happen in translating Black American literature in contexts without slavery.
• Finally, I really appreciate the format of the Patel and Youssef piece. I appreciated so many of the perspectives of translators they quoted. I do think the heart of the issue comes through with one, in particular, "I am a writer as well as a translator, which I like to think means I approach language with a lot of intention. I would even go so far as to say that I approach it with more intention than white writers and translators, if only because my claims of mastery over it are always tenuous, always being called into question." I think what all of us hope for in a translator is someone who understands the untranslatability of the piece on some level, but who also believes in the power of this piece as a worthy piece of literature, which means its plurality of meanings can resonate in other languages. I think the most essential thing is that the translator comes to the project with the intention of care and an awareness of limits. 
• Lastly, I think the question of access and the notes about the Iowa program's inability to recruit minority students is extremely important. This question -- I think -- applies to class differences as well. 

Leah Smolin 3.25 Readings

Who gets to translate Amanda Gorman?

I agree with Achy Obejas that there are "no easy answers" to the question of identity and translation, and that identity impacts the work. If this controversy means black translators get more jobs and opportunities, that’s a good thing, but it doesn’t solve inequality, and any sphere where only a few people get to do the job is fundamentally unfair. It means five people in the world got a cool opportunity. That matters, but it isn’t changing society. Like Patel and Youssef say in their article: “Promoting diversity”, “celebrating multilingualism”, “nurturing minority talent”, and “championing international voices” are all things that can be done without acknowledging or challenging underlying structures.

All the Violence It May Carry on its Back – 

Gitanjali Patel and Nariman Youssef

“The experience of grappling with, translating from, your heritage language can be intense and emotional, you have a different relationship to the language…” 

One of the anecdotes from translators of color that stood out to me was about grappling with your heritage language and how it can be “intense and emotional, you have a different relationship to the language…” I’ve talked to friends about this who grew up translating for their parents. Translation can be so emotionally loaded when it’s connected to your relationship to your family (including the unhappiness therein) and it’s also a moment where you might be made fun of or dismissed or simply not understood, which especially makes you feel vulnerable when you’re young. Then as an adult, I imagine of course it brings back a lot of memories and emotions. 

“But you still feel insecure that you learnt the language in the home, you didn't learn it in a thorough and formal way…” 

“Formal” education is so overvalued, where everything has to be through an institution and have some official stamp on it! Yet we all know intuitively the best way to learn anything is to do it. Professionalization is the death of art.

Translation and Identity - Olsson

 I was very interested in the readings, especially the “Conversation About Diversity and Literary Translation”. On a personal note, one line from that piece suggested that translators were generally assumed to be white English speakers; this surprised me, as before taking this class I generally assumed that translators were more likely to be native speakers of a language (ie spanish) that they were translating into English. My perception of translation was a very global, diverse discipline, so I’m curious about the profession’s own thoughts, which are apparently differing. Beyond that, though, I enjoyed the discussion of heritage language and translation—it reminded me of the speaker who visited the lecture series and spoke about translating a diary from the Cortez expedition. She spoke about her personal connection to the history of the piece, and how much more invested it made her. That level of passion is what I hope can be found behind every translation project.

As for the question of identity, I find it a bit difficult to answer as I’m not a POC. However, I am queer, and much of my own writing is related to that aspect of my identity. I think I would be ok with a non-queer person translating my work, specifically because of a portion of the Bhanoo article that struck with me: Junot Diaz wanted a Caribbean translator for his novel, and he got one, but Obejas is specifically listed as having dived into Dominican culture by listening to their radio stations, speaking with Dominican people, and consulting with the author over specifics of the book. I think any dedicated, thoughtful translator is capable of (and should be!) doing those things. However, I also think that an author should be allowed to make whatever requests they want about the translators they work with; if you feel like you need a Caribbean, then find one. By the same token, though, the Guardian article says that Amanda Gorman chose the white Dutch translator herself, and that should have also been respected. In my opinion, the most important factor of translation is the comparability between the author and the translator by whichever metrics the author chooses. While Amanda Gorman is “unapologetically black,” if she felt her work could be fully understood and appreciated by Rijneveld, then there should have been no issue with them working together. It’s a shame to see that two authors who seemed to be fans of each other’s work were kept apart because of one’s identity (to be clear, I refer to Gorman here, as it seems like there was extra pressure and scrutiny placed upon her due to her being black).

3/25 Readings - Lane

 These readings also called to mind a symposium presentation I saw last year, wherein there was a discussion of the Korean translation of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. The novel utilizes African American Vernacular English quoted from interviews and other primary sources, and in Korean, the AAVE was rendered in the Jeolla dialect of Korean, a dialect associated with dissent, protest, and uprisings; and often stereotyped as "backwards," "rough" or "scary." This translation was criticized for insensitivity, in that the cultural contexts surrounding AAVE and the Jeolla dialect are not equivalent, and the racial dynamics and importance of the Lacks' family's AAVE are removed from the translation, much like how they were omitted from a Spanish translation of Toni Morrison’s “Beloved." The discussion about colonialism is important to consider in this case, as well---AAVE exists due to violent linguistic imposition. The testimony in Patel and Youssef's piece from the speaker who considers AAVE their language elucidates this:

 "underneath the violently enforced 'standard' English I think of as a veneer, our true language was African American Vernacular English, a variation on the English that was brutalized into my bloodline in the place of anything I would have been able to call a mother tongue. AAVE repurposes imperial English and ruptures its constraints. It’s dynamic. It’s warm. It’s evocative. It is the closest thing I have to something I can call my language."

AAVE holds a unique cultural and linguistic position; it inherently pushes back against colonial boundaries and violent linguistic imperialism, and to translate AAVE as another dialect that does not have the same colonial implications is dangerous. Still, to ignore it in translation is just as dangerous; a translator who understands the violence on a personal level can portray that violence, that colonial experience.

3.25 readings Kelly Haddad

These articles contribute to an incredibly important and nuanced discussion about the responsibility of translators. What stood out to me the most from the Guardian article was the mention that Amanda Gorman herself actually chose the translator. If this is true, the identity of the translator is less of an issue. The NYT article, however, was unable to state for certain that Gorman was involved in this decision or not. It does seem like a rather questionable choice even just given Rijneveld's lack of translation experience. Gorman's work is also directly tied to her identity; she isn't writing generalized works of fiction, but rather commentaries on experiences that are likely shared among others with similar backgrounds. Thus, it is even more important to make sure the tone and message are accurately portrayed. As a side note, I enjoyed the John McWhorter reference in the NYT article; one of my previous classes spend a considerable amount of time discussing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and we read from his book "The Language Hoax". Aside from the classic issues with properly translating tone and ideas, there is the other issue of opportunity in the field, which is driving a lot of the emotions behind this debate. I enjoyed the format of the asymptote article, and reading the perspectives of translators from all sorts of linguistic backgrounds. The Washington Post article brought up the availability of certain specific combinations of identity and language in translators, and how there may not be enough people in the field to cover all the diverse experiences of authors. Regardless of the translator, it is always of utmost importance to be incredibly thorough with research while translating, and ensure that the focus is on contextualizing the source text in the author's personal experiences and identity. 

3/25 Claire Kapitan

 In Bhanoo’s article about who should translate Amanda Gorman’s work, I liked how she explored the importance of understanding not just a language, but what it's like to live in that language—in an experience adjacent to the one described or explored in the original text: 

“A good translation conveys the “untranslatables,” or what is being conveyed without actually

being explicitly written” (paraphrasing Junot Días). I thought this was interesting because it made me think about all of the holes between words that are filled by understanding and trust in what is there. If I’m reading a scene about a beach and the waves are written about, the sand is written about, I might also picture the sky, what it might sound like, etc., but if something is a bit odd and the image starts to become one I don’t trust in, this entire world and experience crumbles. 

I think that is why identities, sensibilities, and experiences matter so much in translation. In the NYT’s article, the group of translators working on Gorman’s work were stuck on the word “skinny.” The way I understand the word, it doesn’t sound particularly extreme in the context of Gorman’s poem, and I found it interesting that some translators were struggling to find a word that wouldn’t be distracting, or that wouldn’t conjure up an image of “of an overly thin woman.”

This goes to show how much sensitivity is needed when working with a language, beyond just fluency. If translation is a bridge between two distinct cultures, a translator only brings back what they can carry. How equipped they are for the load determines how much is lost along the way. 

I also liked how this article explored the scarcity of Black translators, a problem underlying the controversy with Gorman. 

Power dynamics were further explored in “All the Violence…” by Gitanjali Patel and Nariman Youssef: “Only when we shine the light on the power dynamics inherent in the way we are told to do translation, on what we get criticized or lauded for, will the private, complex, layered subjectivities of diverse translators find the space to flourish.” I thought this piece was so creatively written, giving us glimpses of individual struggle and experience within translation. I also liked how it explored problems around the idea “only translate in your native tongue:” “This relationship privileges language-learning on a foundation of monolingualism, discounting the phenomena of migration and the experiences of migrants; it renders the majority world—where colonial languages prevail—invisible.”  

About the Amanda Gorman debacle — Maria Antonia Blandon

 I had heard about this case many years ago; someone brought it up to the research group in translation I attended during my undergraduate studies, as a discussion prompt with a controversial, or ‘spicy’ intention behind it. In this group, we were all translators with diverse backgrounds; some had been published already and worked as full-time translators, some had just started their education as translators, and others just wanted to share their passion for translation. But the main characteristic that united us was our skin color: we were all white. I remember that none of us really understood what the problem was, whether it made a difference that the translator was white, black, non-binary, Hispanic, native, and so on, because we considered that what made a translator stand out was merit (publications, awards, overall presence in the field). Under that logic, we all agreed that choosing Rijneveld was in order due to their work which had been awarded the International Booker Prize; if anything, that could be a reassurance of their poetic capability, making them suitable to take on the challenge of translating Gorman’s poetry. 

Now I can take a step back, since time has passed and I’ve been exposed to other contexts aside from white Latin American scholarship, and recognize that the discussion was grounded on the very problem in the center of all translation discourse: who is the translator? It wasn’t as much about who can translate, because that would be a fruitless discussion since we can agree on the ethical limitations behind it, but about the person who can support the choices made in the translation. A fitting example was the Spanish translation of Toni Morrison’s Beloved, as quoted in the Bhanoo article, since what was being questioned was not the requirements to translate that novel, but the choices made in the translation: can ‘sirviente’ work for ‘slave’ given the different denotative notions and connotative uses? How can the dialogue by African-American characters that Morrison carefully writes in so a reader can recognize them be reconstructed into Spanish? The problem lies in the understanding of the work by a translator, who has the task of isolating the most crucial poetic instances that identify the work, and making sure they can also be recognized in the resulting translation. It’s also a question of knowing yourself, your abilities, your strategies, your work ethic as a translator, if reconstructing these instances prove to be such a difficult task that goes beyond your practice, then you might have to consider giving up so you can give others a chance to succeed in what you could possibly have failed. I think that’s the reason why Rijneveld stepped down and also chose to not say anything about it, apart from the public pressure that painted them as inefficient. They understood that Gorman’s project was proving to be more complex than what they thought, so best to give others a chance at what they understand this work is.