The recent uproar over who should translate Amanda Gorman’s poetry throws a spotlight on a centuries-old debate in translation studies: what does it mean to be “faithful”? When Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, a white nonbinary Dutch writer, stepped down from translating Gorman’s work, it wasn’t just a decision—it was a flashpoint. Suddenly, the literary translation community was confronting questions about race, voice, and authenticity.
Reading both The Guardian's coverage and Sindya Bhanoo’s deep dive into the reactions within the translation community, I was struck by the way this discussion paralleled the ideas in Pilar Godayol’s theoretical article on gender and metaphor in translation. Godayol outlines how, for centuries, translation has been framed using metaphors of gender and power: the “faithful” female translator versus the authoritative male author. Even the idea of fidelity itself is entangled with expectations of femininity and submission. What does it mean to be a “suitable” translator? Is it fidelity to the text, or fidelity to the voice and lived experience behind it?
Achy Obejas, in Bhanoo’s article, makes a compelling case that identity does matter—especially when translating culturally specific work. She points to examples where racial nuance is lost in translation, changing the meaning entirely. And yet, others like Ilan Stavans argue that the very act of translation is about bridging difference, not reinforcing boundaries, which I'm not totally convinced by. What I find most helpful here is Godayol’s concept of the “third space”—drawing from Derrida and Anzaldúa—where translation is neither purely reproduction nor purely creation. It’s a borderland, a liminal space of negotiation. Translators live in between.
This past week, Bruna Dantas Lobato talked about her translations and the idea of breaking rules in translation, and I can't help but wonder if this is one of those rules that can be broken or not. One of the things I picked up a lot in her talk was that her rule-bending was done carefully, deliberately, and with great attention to the what and the why. Maybe that's a key point here that could shed light on the situations discussed in the readings. Are decisions about who is translating what work made with care and attention to reasoning, or are they made by individuals with no specific goal or idea at heart, and are these goals in the best interest of the text and its message.
Maybe the lesson is this: rather than rigidly gatekeeping who can translate based on identity alone, we have to recognize the complexity of translation as both an ethical and imaginative practice. While we must address the real inequalities that make it harder for translators and authors from marginalized backgrounds to even enter the field, we can also open up to a translation ecosystem that does not automatically reject a certain translator because they "aren't equipped" for a certain work.
~ Kamryn Schult
No comments:
Post a Comment