Strong posts, Doug. Thanks. More to come on 'multiculturalism' I'm sure.
Anyone else read Jeff Derkson's excellent piece in the 'Sitelines' issue of
West Coast Line?
Those auteurs of that post-moderne theory which Peter so decries are
frequently giving assent to the translation of their work. I've read theory
in translation, which would give the lie to Peter's assertions, on such
authors behalfs, of there being a primary or originary language from which
difference is undesirable (I thought this was an unusually crude swipe
Peter, way from your more usually delicate paths). In fact, if we take
Spivak's translation of 'Of Grammatology' as an example, such acts of
translation often signal the emergence of strongly differential critical
presences. A plethora of 'of' and 'from'.
A page of mine (from 'a present') was translated in French once by Pierre
Joris, for magazine publication. I was pleasantly surprised to have
tangible proof that this writing was translatable (it was 15 years ago).
The issue as to whether any subsequent writing can be translated has not
impinged therefore. I do have my own sense of some pieces being more
translatable than others. I also have a sense of some pieces not
necessarily needing translation in order to 'work'.
BUT I'm curious about writing currently being made that uses more than one
language and the implications that has for translation. I'm curious about
the implications of writings in Jamaican 'creole' and Hawaiain 'pidgin' for
translation, similarly for bill bissett and Khaled Hakim. Are 'standards'
restandardised? I'm curious about writing produced through processes of
homolinguistic translation (for example Bill Howe's 'translations' of Emily
Dickinson). The issue seems now to be more tenderised (like Doug's
advocacies re Dickinson, through Howe's insistence on attendance to
specificities, in translation) than simply let's translate so and so into
such and such (although that can be an exciting starting point for one's
own writing no doubt).
Yes, a translator needs to feel some spark for the writing s/he engages
with (unless they could do with the dosh - anyone read Anselm Hollo's
translation of 'The Further Experiences of Emmanuelle'?), if they're going
to invest their own time in the effort.
Let's be mindful of how much a translation reveals about the writer's
political and social context, how translations of one writer change through
time - what received values are subtly encoded, what specificities
re-appropriated or colonised?
I wonder what Pierre might say on this subject?
just some thoughts
love and love
cris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|