03/04 Reading Responses - Lachlan Bowden

 Authority in Literary Translation: Collaborating with the Author

The idea of a writer (or author) taking an active role in the translation process is something I haven’t necessarily found myself considering over the duration of this semester. However, in theory, it makes a lot of sense (if the writer is competent in the required language). The writer is able to oversee the process and keep an eye out for potential mistakes, lapses in judgement, and misinterpretations. Again, in theory, it has the potential to take a great deal of pressure off the translator. But, as Vanderschelden points out, this is not always the case. An author being an active presence in the translation has the potential to undermine a translator's expertise and judgement. While maybe not intentional, it sets a tone of distrust, a power dynamic that may not be conducive to the best possible work being produced. I particularly liked the reference to Barthe, noting that the insertion of a capital ‘A’ Author into a text imposes a limit to it. The same is for a translation. The presence of an author must also create room for the presence of an ego. Another note, I also found the examples of writers who provided a set of guiding principles or desires for their text interesting. Particularly the Borges example, stating that he wanted a translation to English that used monosyllabic words as he liked the rhythm they produced. Whether this is stifling, or if the limitation acts as a more of a structure in which the translation can flourish? I am not certain.

V. Nabokov, M. Shrayer, "Letters to the American Translator"

This was such a pleasure to read. I love seeing found/discovered correspondence. Having read this piece first, then Vanderschelden’s second, I wonder how my response may have differed if it was in the alternative order. The presence of Nabokov as an active presence in the translation of his own work seemed to be a success, but I guess we know little of how Pertzoff genuinely felt about the Authorial instruction of Nabokov. However we do get a better understanding of Nabokov's outlook on their relationship. Regardless of the corrections, it seems that Nabokov thought Pertzoff was competent and a good translator. But I can’t help to think what would have come of some of these translations if he kept his ego out of it, if he weren’t so possessive or protective?

Borges, "Pierre Menard," tr. Andrew Hurley

I found these two translations of Borges’s piece a little difficult to comprehend / follow. However, there were still some interesting choices and differences between the two. An example is Irby’s decision of “clumsy fashion” against Hurley’s “crudely juxtaposes”.