Reading Response- 3/4- Claire Kapitan

     In Shrayer and Nabokov’s article, I liked how we could see the correspondence and relationship between author and translator. Nabokov and Pertzoff’s translation method was almost systematic: Pertzoff would produce a literal or precise draft, then Nabokov would heavily revise or “dragonize” it (symbolic of severe guardianship). The final version was shaped by Nabokov’s stylistic control, since he rewrote a large portion of the text and would “magically and laboriously transform Pertzoff's roughly cut diamonds into magnificent final versions.” I wonder about Pertzoff’s labor and voice—his independence that is sacrificed here. While I see many benefits for author/translator collaboration, I feel Nabokov would have been happy using AI if he just wanted someone, or something, to do the sloppy, heartless minimum.

In Vanderschelden’s essay, “Authority in Literary Translation: Collaborating with the Author,” I was struck by how thoroughly Vanderschelden explored power dynamics between author and translator, and the various degrees of author involvement. Some authors, like Marguerite Duras, have no involvement in the translations of their work and view them as new, independent works that belong to the target language. On the other end of the spectrum are authors like Milan Kundera who want strict control over translations of their work, revising or rejecting aspects they don’t like or deem unfaithful. They might assert authority over meaning or style. In the middle of the spectrum are authors who want occasional clarification or correspondence, or others who want to have close collaboration or proofreading. There are positives and negatives to each approach. Translation collaboration could encourage translators to hide behind authorial approval, or they could constitute a safety exit where some translators surrender part of their independence. I also liked how Vanderschelden explored the legitimization of translations in her conclusion: 

“What legitimizes a translation still tends to be determined by external factors such as the target language reception by readers or critics, or even commercial success and viability. Authors, who are rewriters in their own way, have no problems in legitimizing their work, but translators feel the constant necessity to defend and justify themselves, because they hold a different status, and because they are not judged according to the same criteria. They have a difficult role in attempting to be faithful to the source text and to the target language, as well as in gaining approval of author, critics and target-language readers.”

    In the two English translations of "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote," that we looked at, I was struck by how both authors chose to translate a paragraph exploring historical truth near the end of the work. Hurley chose to emphasize that "historical truth for Menard is not 'what happened,' but what we believed happened" and that "history is the fount of reality," whereas Irby emphasized that "historical truth is not what happened; it is what we judge to have happened," and "history is the mother of truth." These small divergences show the labor of translation and the sensitivity, or subjectivity, of the process.