Preposterous? (Cooperson)

In Michael Cooperson’s introduction to Impostures, he makes several strong points about untranslatability; about non-standard English; and about the futility of translation rules and binaries. First, he very eloquently demonstrates how untranslatability is a modern and European idea—“the product of early-modern European notions about the spirit of peoples being embodied in their languages” (xxxvi)—an idea that arguably has no place dictating whether or not an Arabic manuscript from 1111 gets translated. He also justifies his inclusion of non-standard English dialects eloquently, acknowledging openly his thought processes about how to respectfully include them as part of his translation and why. He ultimately explains: “But I also take seriously the arguments of linguists and writers, many of them members of the same communities, who point out that ethno-specific forms of speech are fully developed forms of language and therefore no less deserving of serious study than, say, classical Arabic or Standard English” (xlix). Given Arabic’s general (mal)treatment of non-standard language and dialects, I think Cooperson’s position is particularly noteworthy: all forms of language, standard or otherwise, are valid, important, and useful. Finally, I also liked how Cooperson admitted to changing his mind about Kroll’s essay at the end of his translator’s note. Cooperson writes: “Before I met al-Hariri, I would have agreed with everything Kroll is saying here. Having now learned something about the Impostures and its reception in various languages, I cannot imagine carrying it over honestly without self-display” (1). As many of us grapple with questions about how much our own voices should appear in our respective translation projects, I found this part particularly relevant. This is not a one-time decision but rather a choice that translators make repeatedly, depending on the text, the passage, and the author.

I found Cooperson’s introduction far stronger than the selected impostures themselves. Cooperson writes openly that not everyone will enjoy every imposture, and perhaps I did not enjoy these three because I am not very familiar with twentieth-century Irish/Hiberno-English nor Jonathan Swift nor James Joyce. Moreover, the glossaries and notes at the end of each imposture demanded that the reader essentially go back and re-translate the entire section themselves if they really wanted to understand what Cooperson was doing. For a text that was supposed to be about word play, that simply did not feel much like “play.” That being said, I found, for example, imposture 27, "The Wild East,” which is written in the language of the American West, more accessible and engaging. I wonder if impostures 22 and 32—“Leveraging the Flow” and “Jury-Rigged”—which are written in “management speak” and “legalese” respectively might also be easier for a general American readership to access. Although Cooperson discusses the issues that arise when referencing the styles of more recent writers, I wonder if that would have made the impostures more accessible to a modern readership. 

-sharon