Vanderschelden’s “Authority in Literary Translation”
explores the varying levels of authorial involvement, ranging from minimal
interest to complete engagement. Some authors, like Marguerite Duras, adopt a
non-possessive perspective, viewing the translated text as belonging to the new
language context and becoming “another book.” In contrast, authors such as
Andre Brink choose not to interfere, believing that the target text is the
property of the translator.
The correspondence between Vladimir Nabokov and Peter
A. Pertzoff, detailed in “Nabokov: Letters to the American Translator,” serves
as a compelling example of intense authorial involvement. Nabokov’s approach,
which he famously referred to as “dragonizing,” involved extensively revising
Pertzoff’s literal translations, sometimes rewriting up to 80 percent of the
text. This illustrates a significant level of control and a clear vision of how
he wanted his work to be represented in English. Nabokov’s detailed directives,
including a request for a “precise and competent translation,” underscore his
commitment to maintaining both accuracy and stylistic elegance in the English
versions of his stories.
Vanderschelden’s article further examines the concept
of “authority” in translation, highlighting its dual connotation related to
authorship and a more dictatorial power. Milan Kundera’s response to an “unfaithful”
English translation of The Joke, which led him to veto its sale and
personally revise subsequent translations, exemplifies a firm assertion of
authorial authority. He even regarded revised French translations as holding “the
same level of authority as the original.” However, the relationship between
authors and translators is not always characterized by strict control. Many
instances reveal collaboration and mutual respect. Authors may provide
clarifications, discuss translation strategies, and share insights into their
intentions. The article cites several examples of such partnerships, including
Thomas Mann and Helen Lowe-Porter, Umberto Eco and William Weaver, and Jorge
Luis Borges and Norman Thomas di Giovanni. These collaborations often evolve
into personal friendships, fostering a cooperative environment.
The benefits of author-translator collaboration can be
quite substantial. Such partnerships can lead to greater accuracy, a better
understanding of the author’s intentions and style, and a reduction in errors.
Authors can offer invaluable references and clarify ambiguities, saving the
translator considerable research time. William Weaver’s experience translating
Umberto Eco illustrates this advantage—Eco provided sources and even encouraged
deviations from the literal text to enhance the English flow.
Despite the benefits, authorial intervention raises questions
regarding the translator’s status and autonomy. Translators may feel embarrassed
or relegated to a secondary role in the presence of the author. The perception
that the author knows best can create a dynamic where the translator’s
independent interpretations and creative contributions may be undervalued.
Interestingly, some authors, like Borges, view translation
as a “more advanced stage of writing.” His collaborative work with di Giovanni
involved significant rewriting and adaptation, occasionally resulting in
changes to the original Spanish text. This perspective challenges the
conventional view of translation as a derivative work and highlights the
potential for the author and translator to co-create a new, equally
authoritative text.
To sum up, the author-translator relationship is a
dynamic and complex interplay of power, collaboration, and creative interpretation.
While some authors exert strong control to ensure fidelity to their original
vision, others embrace a collaborative approach, recognizing the translator’s
crucial role in bridging linguistic and cultural divides.
~Ibrahim
No comments:
Post a Comment