24/03 Reading Response - Sanjana Thakur

 Amanda Gorman translation debate

• All the three articles about the Gorman translation were interesting lenses through which to view this specific issue that I see as a microcosm of a larger issue within the writing/publishing world. I feel the same way about this specific controversy as I did when American Dirt came out, for example, and the question was raised of––is it appropriate for a white American woman to write a migrant Mexican story? This comes up over and over, in contexts as big and public as book releases and as small and private as creative writing workshops. On the first day of my first ever fiction workshop at Wellesley College, my (white) instructor had us read "Who Gets to Write What?" by Kaitlyn Greenidge, an NYT op-ed where Greenidge poses the question of race in writing. The conclusion she comes to is anyone can write anything, but not without accountability if harm is caused. Write what you want, but be prepared to face consequences if you mess up. 
• I generally agree with that stance––I think, like Nuria Barrios says in the NYT article, it would be somewhat ludicrous for only white people to translate white people, only brown people to translate brown people, etc. But I think the larger issue here is a question of access. Even as publishing has made attempts to uplift underrepresented voices, the great majority of writers being published is still white. When POC writers have such a difficult time getting traditionally published, it feels unfair for white writers to write POC experiences. 
• In that same sense, I agree with Janice Deul in the NYT article and Elisabeth Jaquette in the Bhanoo article. There are structural issues that make it harder for non-white people to get opportunities in the publishing/translating industry. As long as that is the case, it feels important to make the extra effort to seek out translators of colour.
• To sum up my feelings on this, I think white writers/translators can write/translate non-white experiences, given enough thoughtfulness, empathy, and research. Should they, in an unequal industry where POC are structurally disadvantaged? That's a different question. 
• I think it's very cool that Aji (in the Bhanoo article) sees as relevant and valid experience the translation immigrant children have to do to support their parents in their day-to-day lives.
• Collaboration, like of the German team, seems like such an excellent way to approach something as complicated, nuanced, and layered as translation. 

Patel and Youssef, "All the Violence It May Carry on its Back"

• The way Patel and Youssef describe mainstream/traditional translation––"They come to learn and read “other” languages out of curiosity about the “outside” world. Translation is a bridge between two distinct cultures. Literatures are gateways into foreign lands. Translators cross the bridge, step through the gateway, and find the treasures hidden on the other side. They bring back what they can carry. Some things might get lost on the way."––reminds me of colonial anthropology. This idea that an anthropologist was a white person going into some exotic non-white locale to bring their assumptions about that place and people back to their white homes. Anthropology has reckoned and continues to reckon with its origins as a colonial discipline and I think has shifted beyond that tradition. I hope translation has too.  
• An Olga Tokarczuk mention! I loooooved Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead. I have copies of The Books of Jakob and The Empusium waiting to be read. 
• "Whenever someone asks what my first language is, they get a speech about colonialism and its aftereffects. I'm sorry, did you think that was a simple question?" So true. 
• "Translators who work with “heritage” languages are rarely part of mainstream literary translation conversations. And those who are invited in can be seen to be doing the service of bringing in “outsider” voices. If a white translator works from a minoritized language, their work is seen to be especially generous, selfless, or adventurous. The same praise does not apply if the translator is a heritage user of the language they translate from. Then they are seen as not having had much of a choice. They are seen as examples of raw talent over delicate craft." - This section again reminded me of anthropology, where an anthropologist of colour working within their own community is looked down upon and viewed as less valuable, while a white anthropologist working within that same community is viewed as more legitimate. 
• "“Promoting diversity”, “celebrating multilingualism”, “nurturing minority talent”, and “championing international voices” are all things that can be done without acknowledging or challenging underlying structures, without facing how the practice of translation itself centres whiteness and Westerness, and how it defaults to reflecting and replicating colonial patterns. The subsequent erasure of the Other follows patterns of colonial violence. English is a colonial language. The work of anglophone translators–venturing out, bringing back, understanding the other by making them in their image–follows the routes of colonial acquisition. English is also a global language. The literatures written in English often grapple with its imperial legacies. Why can’t literary translation do the same? How can translators work with this larger-than-life language without acknowledging all the violence it may carry?" I think this is a good lens through which to view the Amanda Gorman stuff - easy enough to fire a white translator in this specific case and get better optics. Much harder to enact structural changes that decentre whiteness. 

I really enjoyed the readings for this week––they raise complicated questions and make me think more carefully about my own choices and my own positionality when I am translating. I wish we'd done this section of reading much earlier in the semester, so the questions raised here could have been something to ruminate over each week and keep coming back to.