Would you agree that the writer and translator are co-authors of a work produced?

Is
there a hierarchy in the relationship between the two? Discuss this concept in a 2000
worded essay, using at least four of your World Lit texts.

To begin this essay, I would like to say that I agree that the writer and translator are co-
authors of a work produced. However, there is a hierarchy in the relationship between the
two. Let’s start with defining the roles of both the author and the translator. It is the author’s
job to think creatively and produce well-crafted writing that engages the reader, interests
them and evokes their imagination.

On the other hand, American translator, Douglas Robinson, poses a very interesting metaphor
that helps us understand the role of a translator. The metaphor he offers is of “the translator
standing in the same relation to the original text as the musical performer does to the score”.
From this it is understood that it is the translator’s job to stay as true as possible to the source
text, while at the same time, keeping in mind that translating is not just imitation, nor is it
supposed to be echoic. It is an art by itself that requires the translator to think and write
creatively.

In a panel discussion called ‘Translation : The relationship between writer and translator’1 ,
Barbara Godard, late Canadian critic, translator, editor and academic says, “ Generally,
translation is conceived as involving the rendering of a source language (SL) text into the
target language (TL) so as to ensure that (1) the surface meaning of the two will be
approximately similar, and (2) the structures of the SL will be preserved as closely as
possible, but not so closely that the TL structures will be seriously distorted. In this view,
translation is perceived as a secondary, imitative activity, as a mechanical rather than a
creative process”.

In the same panel discussion, Gwladys Downes, late renowned professor and translator of the
French language reiterates the importance of remembering that translators are writers
themselves. She says, “One of the sad things about the process of educating translators is that
we are losing sight of the fact that the translator is also a writer. Certain undergraduate
programmes are trying to produce ‘language filtration agents’ and insist on very practical
matters that are necessary in industry ; but even in industry you have to know how to write”.

When charged with sending your message across out to the reader - both the author and the
translator must come together in order to ensure effective transmission of that message. What
we are trying to achieve here is minimal noise and ambiguity, where the margin for
misunderstanding the message is very small and almost negligible.

To overcome this hurdle of misinterpretation and achieve full understanding of the narrative -
the author and translator must not only work together, but further take on the roles of co-
authors. Owning the work they produce. However, it is also important to understand that the
source text should never be altered, edited or changed in any form by the translator.

It's the responsibility of the translator to incorporate and communicate the same emotions the
source language brings about when they are translating the text into the desired target
language. It is here where the translator acts as an interpreter. By using different translation
techniques, they have to find the perfect balance between staying true to the source text and

1
Translation : The relationship between writer and translator (Kathy Mezei)
allowing some space for creative freedom and expression, with the ultimate goal of making
the target text enjoyable and legitimate and true to its meaning.

“One should not betray the original, no matter what the temptation to glide over the
problems. Above all, one should not add one’s own ideas to the subject, however interested
one is in the theme. Summing up, one should be absolutely faithful to the writer, whether it is
a man or a woman” (Downes 83)

Translation is no easy task. Cultural context plays a huge role in texts and while attempting to
translate the source language into the target language, the translator must note the historical,
socio-economic and political context of the source language in mind. However, a lot is also
lost when a source text is being translated – especially to a language like English.

For example, while Indira Menon and Radhika P Menon were successful in translating
Devika Nilayamgode’s ‘Antharjanam : Memoirs of a Namboodiri Woman’ in a way that
retained a lot of emotion and strength, the translators faced their own share of struggles. The
tone of detachment which is an important characteristic in the source text seems to undergo
mild alterations in the translated text. This was apparently done to ensure that readers who
were encountering the text in English were able to grasp the full-blown sociological
implications of those times.

As was mentioned earlier, the translators also had to tackle the cultural differences between
the host and the target audience. The English version of the text denies a peek into subtle
historical or cultural nuances and hence caters to an ‘emphatic version’ of the source text that
takes away a chunk of the context that surrounded Namboodiri women.

Keith Gessen, Russian born American Novelist who translated Svetlana Alexievich’s ‘Voices
from Chernobyl’ (2005), mentions in an interview that, “There is no intrinsic value to a
translated text. To the contrary: a text from a rich, flexible Russian (to take my translated
language) into a standard, publishable English loses probably 30 percent of its worth. The
only reason to inflict this on a reader is that the original contains something that simply does
not exist in English. As translators we should begin to learn to talk about what that something
may be”.

Gessen’s translation of the book won him the National Book Critics Circle Award for
Nonfiction in 2005, and the translated text was very well-acclaimed around the world, but
translating direct interviews and text written and collected in the form of an oral history poses
another challenging layer for the translator to peel off mindfully.

In class, we also encountered feminist translations and translators of such work. Feminist
translators invariably have different political stances, strategies and personalities, but they all
share a common goal and that is to rid target text of ‘patriarchal language’ and to find a way
to allow the female voice to develop and be heard. One particular strategy that feminist
translators use is called subversion, where translators try and soften or kill the misogyny of
the writer and make the female characteristics of the text louder. Using this method, the
feminist translator, like most post-colonialists’, attempts to give the minority the voice.
Similarly, techniques such as footnoting, prefacing is also used to provide context and allow
the translator to express themselves and their own thoughts.

Translation is a huge responsibility and the author of the original text usually bestows a lot of
trust on the translator to best interpret what the source text is trying to convey to its readers.
Usually, translators and authors tend to be good friends - and through my reading I have
noticed that most translators like to put themselves in the author’s shoes. They prefer to
imagine themselves using the voice of the author, and this helps them in staying true to the
source text. A well translated text is one that is able to keep different cultural contexts in
mind, and one that closes the gap between two absolutely different languages. While the
translator is given a lot of freedom to explore the language and to manoeuvre their way
around problems such as polysemy, they still have to keep in mind that they are only but
interpreting the source text. The author has the power to write the source text as they may
wish to, but the translator must adhere to certain restrictions even if they do not personally
agree with the author’s stance.

However, there are occasions where the translator takes the liberty to make decisions
revolving adding or removing things from the text. It is okay that they do so, as long as they
are working within the framework provided by the author. In ‘The Hunger Angel’ by Herta
Muller, translated from the original German by Philip Boehm, Muller took the liberty to
change something as crucial as the title.

‘Atemschaukel’ which loosely translates to breath swinging was instead written to say ‘The
Hunger Angel’. The translator is allowed to tweak the target language in a way that ensures a
good flow of thought but only if this fits within the framework the source text has created. In
this case, it is alright that Muller choses to title the text ‘The Hunger Angel’ and not ‘Breath
Swinging’, because of the recurring theme of hunger and the hunger angel in the original
German version. ‘Breath Swinging’ would not make sense to the reader, and this is an
example of how words cannot literally be translated from one language to another.

For the longest time, translators did not receive the attention they deserved. In the past, the
translator was a ‘mere shadow of the original author’ and their names began to appear in
translated works only after many centuries. Venuti2 (1995:1) says ‘translation was considered
to be a second-order representation and the translator was always treated as a betrayer of the
original author and his thoughts. Not surprisingly, all this contributed to the diminishing role
of the translator and in turn, implied his or her invisibility in society”.

In my opinion, I believe that the translator is as important as the author. While the source text
holds a lot of the power, the translator is as responsible in making the target text enjoyable to
the reader, as the author is in ensuring that the source text is enjoyable to his/her reader. Both
play roles that are not to be taken lightly – especially that of the translator, as there is a lot of
work that goes into translating a text. There is a hierarchy only in the sense that the source
text is what is to be kept in mind at all times while the translation is under process, but
besides that, the writer and translator are co-authors of texts produced, in their own way.

2
The Translator as Author (Perspectives on Literary Translation) Claudia Buffagni, Beatrice Garzelli, Serenella Zanotti (eds)