Chekhov’s Mistess

May 09, 2008

Hamming in Translation

 

I don’t know John O’Brien, but I love him. Why? Because he created Dalkey Archive Press and if there are any finer publishers it’s a very short list. But the man clearly has his head up his literary arse.

Writing on the Dalkey Archive Website he appears like St. Augustine in the book from where he took his company’s name blustering about how the “philistines” have taken a statistic on the lack of literary translations published in the U.S. – THREE PERCENT – and made a cause célébre on empty premise and to no effect.

O’Brien’s complaint as best I can tell is that he and his staff came up with some statistics and others are claiming the credit. He’s also angry over the groundswell of “hype” over translated works that risks obscuring quality art from trash.

I’m reminded of the native Brooklynites here where I live who decry the gentrification of their beloved brownstone neighborhoods (the ones who don’t own property are the more angry). The problem is they don’t seem to realize that there’s more to be gained by loving thy well dressed neighbor than resenting them just because they weren’t living there when your stoop was the narthex of a crack house.

If you don’t know, O’Brien’s been publishing literary translations for a long time (he was country before country was cool), so his feelings are probably justified. But he kills his argument, no matter how facetious, here:

“Translations have suddenly moved from their marginalized place in the American marketplace to now being treated by the philistines as something to be equated with ‘good literature.’ The logic is this, twisted and silly as it may be: the United States has become more and more isolated from other countries’ cultures; this isolation has contributed to the United States’ insistence that other countries’ social and political systems should be made to be like that of the United States; understanding other cultures will cause the United States to respect differences and, on the best of days, prevent the United States from mindlessly invading other countries; literary translations are the key to reversing America’s isolationism, thereby causing universal peace, understanding, and love. “

Just who are the philistines who believe this nonsense? I want to know so that I can explain to them that the key to universal peace is to get a McDonalds in every country in the world because we all know that no two countries with McDonalds in them go to war with one another. Forget about three percent, we’re talking Quarter Pounders!

So who is calling Mr. OBrien and company’s statistics their own? Esther Allen’s 2007 report “To be Translated or Not to Be Translated” published by PEN/IRL on the state of literary translation quotes directly from Context, Mr. O’Brien’s publication, and in fact discuss the methodology O’Brien claims as his own of using Publisher’s Weekly as a rough guide to translation. What Allen’s book says that O’Brien leaves out is that the German Book Office in New York (who may or may not have gotten the idea from the NEA who got it from O’Brien) did the Publisher’s Weekly study and confirmed its value (not speciousness as O’Brien would have us believe) by the editor of that publication’s claim that it reviews about 60% of all translated books submitted. That study shows that, lo-and-behold, about three percent of the titles reviewed in 2005 were translations.

What’s more is that 3% was a whopping gain over the previous year and the total was only 197 books! Even if the oft-quoted three percent was 100% wrong it’s still a number that says an awful lot about our culture and to my mind trying to improve it can only come to good, even if falling short of halting the military industrial complex in its tracks.

The big problem is that the philistines believe “Translations, de facto, are good because they ARE translations. And among translations, some are even better than others because of their country of origin.” True perhaps, but here in Amurika, one man’s trash is another man’s art. It’s not just from the foreigners where there’s a lack of differentiation, so I’d venture to guess the real culprit is our culture’s belief that a book’s publicity budget is in direct proportion to its quality.

The hype over literary translations could be traced in part back to a man who seems to have made it his mission to champion international literature, Chad Post, who just launched a publishing house called Open Letter and a Website named Three Percent. Looking at their ‘about’ statement there’s no mention of causing “universal peace,” just a good old desire of “maintaining a vibrant book culture… because “In this age of globalization, one of the best ways to preserve the uniqueness of cultures is through the translation and appreciation of international literary works.” Bravo to that and it doesn’t seem to be much different than Mr. O’Brien’s own stated aims: “I think that it’s of absolute importance that the literature and intellectual thought of the rest of the world be readily available in this country and that these be valued and respected. Otherwise, we become this strange, isolated country that survives only because it possesses the military and economic dominance that it does.” Indeed.

Having recently become a fan of Javier MarÍas and the ever so very hyped Roberto Bolaño (solely, I assure you my Manchego, because I’m enamored with Spain and Chile, not because the books are good), I’d say I’m a direct participant in the corruption of art and because I’m writing this post I guess I’m also part of the “nastiness” “directed at anyone who isn’t on board for the hype.” If this is the philistinism of which Mr. O’Brien speaks, then count me in because I’ll take our brand of philistinism any day over the atavism that will arise from barring the Barbarians at the Gate.

• posted by Bud Parr
• share this »

• related:
• Has the US Lost Touch with World Literature?

---

Comments

Discuss this post.

No Comments yet.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

---