In the Reading Workshop about A Horse Walks into a
Bar, we naturally discussed the challenge of judging novels in translation
without having access to the original text: the judges – Helen Mort, Daniel
Hahn, Chika Unigwe and Elif Shafak, chaired by Nick Barley – combined a number
of languages between them, though this would not have made the task of
comparing every possible language combination any less Sysyphusian. When asked
about their approach in judging the translations, Hahn therefore explained: “we
didn’t talk about the translation very much.” To a group of emerging literary
translators in the workshop, this initially came as a shocking response: How
could you award a prize for an author and translator without acknowledging the
translation? His subsequent elaboration, however, made me see the business of
translation and literary awards for international literature in a different
light: “Largely,” Hahn explained, “David Grossman is probably responsible for
plot and character and Jessica Cohen for tone and voice.” The prize was hence
awarded for the best collaboration, whereby each collaborator contributed their
part and performed it to the highest standard.
The Edwin Morgan Trust event showcased this better
than any other translation event this year: three Portuguese poets – Andreia C.
Faria, Ricardo Marques and Miguel Martins – and three Scottish poets (without
or with very limited knowledge of Portuguese) – Richard Price, Jane McKie and
Miriam Nash – were invited to translate each other’s work. At a previous
showcase at the University of Glasgow in May, I had already asked the question:
To what extent can the process be called “translation”, if one of the main
skills (knowing the language) is missing? Facilitator Tom Pow engaged with this
question and thanked the bridge translators Sophie Paterson, Carla Davidson and
Caterina Nascimento at the event for their “professionalism, ingenuity and
insight.” Richard Price expanded on the idea of “collaboration”, the name he
gave to their form of working, and said that translation was “a collective
process – much more than we realise. Normally the poet-translator oppresses the
bridge translator, which is a great loss.” While this has to do with our
“Romantic idea of the poet as individual”, publishing is really “collective.”
That is why he made the case, which was thankfully accepted, for the “with”
rather than the “and”: In the resulting pamphlet The Other Side of Silence, the
acknowledgments are giving as “translated by [the poet-translator] with [the
bridge translator]”. A novel way to express an ever more common process by
paying due respect to everyone involved, even in their absence.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário