Thoughts on Class Materials 03/04 - Maria Antonia Blandon

 The case of Peter A. Pertzoff was an interesting read, not only because of his troubled career interrupted by illness and enriched by so many different positions, but because we had available the process he worked with Nabokov, a literal translation submitted to a proficient author who revises, modifies and suggests. At first the chapter made it seem like Pertzoff actually occupied a rather subordinate position in regard to Nabokov, almost like a scribe who comes up with a rough draft that the author polishes into greatness, but looking into the letters you can notice that his work is respected and celebrated, while still being revised (i.e. the letter from November 24^th, 1938 or March 1941). This case worked perfectly to illustrate the type of relationship between author and translator that Vanderschelden examines in her article, in a more in-depth instance since her examples are mostly kept brief but accurate due to the number of author-translator duos she brings into her argument. One thing that caught my attention was the fact that she introduces the interpretative constraint translators feel when working with the author, limiting the multiplicity of signifiers in the text, and that made me think about self-translators: as authors, they must know what they meant in the original, and as translators they must have a more reduced margin of error because of that, so are they attempting against what we consider the nature of translation, interpretive freedom? 

3/4 Readings – Cheryl

Nabokov: Letters to the American Translator

It seems like Nabokov was so involved and weighed in so heavily during the translation process that even to call it a co-translation feels a little iffy—I wonder if today, a writer like Nabokov might have put his books into Chat GPT and worked off of that since he's changing most of the initial draft anyway. It does bring up interesting questions about collaborative translations that I've never really delved into that deeply: should the translators be credited based on how involved they were in the process, or how much of their work makes the final cut (which would be terribly messy and probably impossible to measure)? In the first translation class I ever took, the structure of each session was built around working in small groups to combine individual translations into a product that everyone was happy with. I don't know if this necessarily created better work every time, but having other opinions and perspectives certainly could help a translation to address more perspectives and appeal more broadly as a result.

Authority in Literary Translation: Collaborating with the Author

I can't remember where I heard this last semester, but I love this translator's response when asked whether they preferred having a living author to consult or a dead author whose opinions they could disregard, "The deader the better!" I agreed especially with the section on "Consequences of author intervention" where it acknowledged the diminishing of the translator's work and their subordination in relation to the author who is seen as having the final authority as the creator of the work. Having access to the author, at the same time, could allow the translator to clarify certain intents that they might only be able to guess at otherwise. Maybe it's a kind of vanity, but I'd rather not have the author interfere too much in my translations—having to seek approval on every last detail sounds tedious and frustrating. 

Hurley vs Irby Translations

Maybe this an effect of the times they were published in—I've just looked it up and found out that they were produced in the same year so nevermind), but Hurley's sounds a tad more high-brow and somewhat pretentious while Irby imbues the narration as what comes across to my 21st century ears as more swagger and cool indifference. 

Hurley: "Most decidedly, a brief rectification is imperative."

Irby: "Decidedly, a brief rectification is unavoidable."

Hurley: "I am aware that it is easy enough to call my own scant authority into question."

Irby: "I am aware that it is quite easy to challenge my slight authority."

Hurley's narrator sounds more uptight and prim, while Irby's sounds more hardened and modern (maybe a Philip Marlowe type). Which of these is more accurate to the original?

3/4 Readings Yide

This week’s readings about the relationship between author and translator reminds me of my experience in theater. I see many parallels between this relationship and the dynamics between directors and actors, or between playwrights and directors. In all of these cases, the challenge is to balance creative agency with control.

For instance, in directing and acting, one of the worst things a director can do is to demonstrate the scene by acting it out themselves. Once that happens, the actor’s task is reduced to imitation. Instead of discovering the role internally, they are simply copying the director’s performance like a robot. Good directors avoid this, even if they are tempted to show what they mean. The goal is to preserve the actor’s sense of ownership over the performance.

I think something similar applies to playwriting. When I write a play, I try to keep stage directions and descriptions to a minimum. I want directors and actors to feel that they are discovering the work themselves rather than executing instructions. In general, people do better work when they feel that the responsibility truly belongs to them. Too much control from the author can actually weaken the creative process.

Because of this, I appreciate the idea that each translation should be treated as its own text. A translator can certainly ask the author questions and seek clarification, but that relationship should not become overly dependent. If the translator simply obeys everything the author says, then the translation loses its creative life. There are even cases where the author, many years later, may no longer be the best interpreter of their own work. Writers change, and sometimes the earlier version of their writing was stronger than what they might now revise.

I was particularly fascinated by Nabokov’s working process. Because he was fluent in both Russian and English, he could write in Russian, have someone translate the text into English, and then revise the English version himself. In a way, this gave him a kind of built-in workshop for his writing. The translation process became a form of revision and rethinking. As a bilingual writer, the idea is very tempting to me to use translation as a tool for refining one’s own work.

At the same time, much of this discussion about collaboration assumes that the author can actually read the translation. If the author does not know the target language, the power relationship shifts significantly. In my own experience translating American plays into Chinese, most of the playwrights I worked with do not speak Chinese at all. As a result, they largely trust me to do whatever I think works best. 

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”.

Reading Response 3-3 Lauren M

 I enjoyed the thematic cohesiveness of this week’s readings and the thorough exploration of the dynamics that exist between the translator and the author. Nabokov’s letters and postcards to Pertzoff were quite touching. I also loved the play in this piece with the word “dragonize.” This term is first brought up by Nabokov on p.130 in his correspondence, as a promise for how he will handle Pertzoff’s translation, then later its origins are explored by the authors (131). Vanderschelden’s article seems to further explore the dynamics (dragon-like or not) between author and translator. I was interested in Borges’s thoughts on translation in this article, and the author’s interpretation that “authors are endowed with the authority to shift the concepts of faithfulness and equivalence from the text to its spirit, and in so doing, they help ease the pressure on the translator, who knows that choices and decisions are supported—sometimes encouraged—by the author” (p. 27). In reading the two translations of Borges, I didn’t feel I had a remarkably different reading experience (maybe because each time I had to really grapple with the strangeness of the piece), although I feel strongly Hurley’s choice of “cheery bonfire” was much better than Irby’s “merry bonfire" (and perhaps one of the best uses of a footnote I have ever seen).

Blog Post 3/4 Ellie Wells

 I thought that Venderschelden's article on the authority of translation was really interesting. The author of the article made some good points on both sides of the argument, about translators losing their autonomy to direct authorial control, but the usefulness of author collaboration. I agree more with the side of the usefulness of author collaboration, because as I have said in past posts, I do not believe in a translator's full autonomy over a text that is not their own. I believe that while a translator should take into account their own cultural context when translating, ultimately, if they wanted to translate a work different from the one they chose, then they should have chosen a different work. Of course, this is not my perspective on translating poetry -- because I think poetry is a very subjective art and seeing different translator interpretations of poetry is very interesting, as poets often write poetry for the sake of individual interpretation -- in this post I am only talking about prose. Authors who write prose often write with a very specific goal in mind, and for a translator to sway from that goal through their own interpretation of the text is to forsake the original work and essentially create a whole new piece of literature, unfaithful to the source text. In my opinion, I see no point in translating if someone's goal isn't to reproduce a work in the target language while staying true to the original and working to bring the same effect to the audience that the original text had. I believe direct author-translator dialogue is very important to translation, especially to ask about meaning and nuance to specific parts of the work. I do not think that translators relying on authors' perspectives is a bad thing, though I do agree that perhaps the translators should wait until their draft is done to start collaborating with the author, so they are not overly stressed about the author judging their work while in the process of translating. 

03/03 Reading Response - Sanjana Thakur

 Vandershelden, "Authority in Literary Translation"

• I found the beginning of the article very repetitive––over-expounding. 
• I appreciated the examples of how different specific authors work with their translators, but the writing in the article itself I thought was kind of stodgy. The language felt very academic in trying to write out fairly simple ideas and arguments. 
• Singer's quote about translators is hilarious! "All translators must be closely watched." 
• I really appreciated Milan Kundera's quote: "That is the error: every author of some value transgresses against "good style" and in that transgression lies the original (and hence the raison d'etre) of his art." When I've had stories published, I've definitely had editors try to take out my transgressions in a way that I feel takes away from my voice/style and so I do tend to push back. 
• I liked Borges' approach to his translations. Prioritising the quality of the translation in that language rather than faithfulness to the original. Perhaps that was Han Kang's priority too, with Deborah Smith!

Nabokov, "Letter to the American Translator"

• Loving all the Wellesley mentions! My alma mater. 
• Is it typical to always address letters with full names, even after correspondence has been established?
• That was a really fun read! Their relationship seems to be have been very cordial and fruitful.

Borges, "Pierre Menard"

• Irby's translation felt more playful and faster-paced. It's just slightly simpler more colloquial to our present times than Hurley's, and I think that worked well to balance the sort of grandiose, distanced tone and content of the literary review form. For example: "Most decidedly, a brief rectification is imperative" in Hurley vs. "Decidedly, a brief rectification is unavoidable" in Irby. 
• That being said, there are moments where I prefer Hurley's small choices: "The contrast in styles is equally striking", for example, over "The contrast in styles is also vivid." 'Also vivid' feels like a very weak phrase. 
• In a lot of ways, both translations are very like each other. Some of the more particular phrases are the same in both, like "History, the mother of truth" and "bizarrely pragmatic".