I have previously considered translation theory as considering loyalty to the authors of the original works, but these readings made me think about loyalty to the authority of the translator. While I believe that access to the author of the original work opens up a world of understanding of the original language that could not begin to be grasped otherwise, a lack of access to the author frees the translator's abilities and thoughts in the target language and culture.
It is a nuanced consideration. Seeing the correspondence between Nabokov and Pertzoff made me feel a little cramped for Pertzoff. It remained Nabokov's work, but then what was Pertzoff's role in it all? I understand Bensoussan's quote in the Vanderschelden reading: "Translators work better when the author is not present" (25) as much as I understand Levine's "I wouldn't be accused of profaning a sacred script, because the author himself would be the first traditore" (26). If a translation is always a new work by the translator, then there has to be a limit to the role of the original author, unless the original author wants to be their own translator.
It's clear that translating is an emotional process that requires a lot of confidence in oneself to make the right choices, and having the author as a resource is a tool but not the solution for an effective translation.
-Lila
No comments:
Post a Comment