reflection 2/7/22

I loved how Esther Allen talked about the instability of texts. She appeared completely unfazed by the fact that Di Benedetto changed and re-published his novels numerous times. No text is stable, finite, she reminded the audience. She also spoke about how Di Benedetto’s texts acquired new meanings and significations when war and political instability came to Argentina. Again, she underlined how no text is ever truly stable or fixed. Even if the author is not editing and re-writing as Di Benedetto did, the world in which the text exists is constantly in flux, and readings of the text are subject to change along with it—whether the author and translator approve or not. Allen seemed not merely accepting of this reality but excited by the many possibilities it offers.

The notion of including “the foreign” in translation was central to both Jeremy Tiang’s piece in Asymptote as well as Bellos’ article. While I agree with much of what Bellos’ said about the costs and benefits—or perhaps risks and rewards—of including the “foreign” in translation, I felt he missed some crucial points. He writes: “Foreign-soundingness is therefore only a real option for a translator when working from a language with which the receiving language and its culture have an established relationship” (35). He then goes on to discuss how French, Spanish, and German are far easier to incorporate into translations than Yoruba, Marathi, or Chuvash, but he leaves out any discussion of the violent and oppressive colonial politics that made this the case. Yes, French became “an important mark of cultural distinction” (35), and “mastery of French was the hallmark of the educated classes” (35), but how specifically did that come to be, and at what cost (to the people, places, and cultures that France colonized)? The same should absolutely be asked of English and other European languages too.

On a similar note, Jeremy Tiang writes about “engagement with literatures across the world on equal terms” and I want him to elaborate more on what that really looks like in practice. When some languages hold so much power and others so little—as Bellos’ article points out without ever coming out and saying so directly—how can we really engage on equal terms?

-sharon