world of the translator

We’re In This Together, Individually: Report from a Roundtable Discussion on “The World of the Translator”
by Nicolle Elizabeth
20 January 2009

Poet Jorie Graham once said, “It is the poet’s dream to communicate. To say what we’re really saying.” And if you think about how hard it is to truly come clean in your own sentence, your own work’s paragraph, and then turn that into distilling another poet’s communication, from another time, and another language—one which you might not even speak, you sort of have the craft of the translator. It is a psychological, historical, metaphysical, grammatical, sensual labyrinth of a relationship with another author that few have the passion to sustain, and the round table discussion at the Philoctetes Center in New York’s swank Upper East Side was full of these people.

Peter Cole, MacArthur Fellow and literary-poet-around-town, Edie Grossman, responsible for Don Quixote’s translation as we know it, Peter Constantine, publishing darling and go-to, quick-turnaround translator and Columbia-ite, Qui Xiaolong who was the first poet to successfully and commercially translate Yeats, Eliot and Freud into Chinese, and Johnathan Galassi, publishing legend, poet, and partially responsible for the recent Bolaño-mania, were all moderated by translation legend, Suzanne Jill Levine, who started translating Borges and Cortázar in the late sixties when South America and Mexico were booming into the public view. Levine opened up the roundtable asking, “Why were we drawn to translating?”

The conversation would stay here for two hours. Every author agreed, it was an individualized task. “The translator is working for someone else, this writer they’ve identified with.” Said Galassi. Edie Grossman, sipping her water and making no bones about past business disagreements with Galassi, seated to her left, said, “I’ve always felt a deep connection to the author.” “The love-making of being a translator,” said Cole. And Levine, noted foremother of the translation canon turned the conversation toward Xiaolong, fellow political wall-breaker. “There was a saying,” Xiaolong said: “China wants to realize modernization—But modernist literature was pretty much banned. Unless it had been spoken by Marx or Lenin, it wasn’t to be translated. So, I picked up Freud.”

This had me wondering if the pull to become a translator comes from the same urgency to create original work. That is to say, are these people helping the author (sometimes from the grave) say something, or are they creating, themselves? Galassi said, “A work in translation is a way of doing poetry.” Are translators broadening political territories and blurring cultural differences, or are they just taking a walk though mimetic mind-strengthening work? Essentially, what I was hoping to hear was something to the effect of, “Translated works are just as good as works originally in English, it just takes longer to get them going, which is the only reason 200,000 books were published in English last year and 380 were published from other languages into English, and I do this to share great work with people who need it in English.”

What I heard instead, again and again, was that translating, was an individualized process, meaning that the translators at the table (save for Xiaolong and Levine) were really saying they were working through the works of another, not translating to help get beautiful literature out to the general public. This scared me, these people are the biggest in the biz, and here they are, admitting it’s all about personal art, and money; they admitted money was a factor, not politics.

I thought, somebody bring me some hope, somebody tell me you’re letting the author speak through you, not using the author, and then Edie Grossman said, “The narrative voice has to have a certain authority,” and I thought, we’re back on track. Galassi smiled and took it a step further, opening the floor to a fight nobody wanted to touch, by saying, “There’s an imperialist value involved, that we the editors know what this text should be.” To which Peter Cole responded by bringing it back to art, but generous art: “It’s listening, a tone has been struck, and now I have to repeat that tone.”

And the sounds of millions of people chanting in the streets started ringing in my ears, people saying beautiful things, “Vive La France,” I imagined reporters sending information back from Vietnamese frontlines after interviewing townspeople, translating humanity so the world could know what was happening.

I thought, it might be a lone art, but it’s sharing another artist’s word with the world, and thank Jesus somebody’s doing it. “I sometimes translate out loud,” said Edie, “Your eye forgives everything.” I imagined thousands of translators, up late at night, echoing to themselves, to the air, to the rest of us, works that had been written in the past, yet to be shared, doing it because they knew it must be done, because we are responsible for passing on the word, communication.

“The World of the Translator” was a roundtable discussion at The Philoctetes Center for the Multidisciplinary Study of the Imagination in New York City, held on January 17, 2009. For participant bios and more information visit the Philoctetes Center Website

Nicolle Elizabeth is a Brooklyn-based fiction writer, editor and observer. She won the 2007 National Outstanding Haiku contest and won’t let anybody forget it.

No Time For Comma Reports

Underdog vs. Top Dogs:
Read this on UC Regent Top Dog Blum:
Blum Rap FROM SILICON VALLEY NEWS

Turns out Senator Dianne Feinstein isn't the only one in her family with an ethics problem

By Peter Byrne

I HAVE reported recently in these pages the history of United States Sen. Dianne Feinstein's 2001-2005 conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's former stake in two war contractors, URS and Perini corporations. Unfortunately, the senator is not the only one in her family with an ethics problem. In March 2002, Gov. Gray Davis appointed Blum to a 12-year term as a regent of the University of California. For the next three years, both URS and Perini benefited from construction contracts awarded by the Regents.

A "conflict of interest" is defined as using a governmental position for personal gain. But since the laws governing official ethics are written by people who often have actual or potential conflicts, they are packed with loopholes and are basically unenforceable. So if you're waiting for Feinstein or Blum to be indicted, dream on. Nevertheless, we serve history by documenting such trespasses.
Advertiser Links

San Francisco.com Real Estate
Moving to the Bay Area just became easy. Let San Francisco.com show you all the homes currently for sale.

San Jose.com Real Estate
Relocating to San Jose or Silicon Valley? Let San Jose.com introduce you to some expert area real estate agents.

In 1992, former regent Willis Harman enthused to the San Jose Mercury News about the pleasures of appointment because "this is definitely a great club to belong to, because the majority of members travel in fairly high circles. Through them, you tend to meet others in high financial, business and society circles." The current crop of regents is full of such politically savvy business folks as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal financial adviser and longtime business partner Paul Wachter. Blum was a genuine catch for the club, which, it turns out, was already doing business with him.

In May 2001, URS announced the award of "a contract from the University of California at Los Angeles to perform construction-management services for the $150 million replacement project for Santa Monica Hospital."

URS, which designs and sells advanced weaponry, also held a $125 million design and construction contract at UC's Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab. So URS had substantial interests in UC capital projects when Blum, its principal owner, became a "decider" on construction planning and awarding contracts.

Perini was similarly situated. When Blum became a regent, the construction firm of Rudolph & Sletten was midway through building dorms and a dining hall for UC-San Diego under a contract with the Regents. After Blum's appointment, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is managed by the Regents, hired Rudolph & Sletten as the construction manager and general contractor for a $48 million nanotech laboratory, the Molecular Foundry.

(Construction management and general contracting are not normally awarded to the same firm, as the construction manager is supposed to oversee general contracting costs. By the nanolab's dedication in March 2006, the project had gone over budget by $4 million.)

On Oct. 4, 2005, Perini Corp. announced the acquisition of Rudolph & Sletten while it was still building the Regents' nanolab. It paid $53 million cash for the $700 million-a-year construction firm. Shortly thereafter, Blum divested his Perini stock at a substantial profit.

Back to URS: On May 26, 2005, 50 UC-Berkeley students interrupted a meeting of the Regents to protest the Blum-URS-Los Alamos conflict of interest. Nevertheless, UC's general counsel ruled that Blum's ownership of a university contractor while a sitting regent was not a conflict—which is illogical but not surprising given that the regents have a long history of tolerating ethical conundrums. But the Los Alamos and Santa Monica Hospital deals were only part of Blum's ethical problems. Public records available at the UC-Berkeley Facilities Services website show that, after Blum joined the board, URS wrote portions of the Long Range Development Plan for UC-Berkeley: the sections on hydrology, air quality and hazardous materials. These construction projects will change the face of the campus and cost hundreds of millions of dollars through 2020.

In an expensive act of privatizing a governmental function, Blum's URS was hired by the Regents on July 29, 2005, to provide "program management services" for the development of a $200 million Southeast Campus Integrated Project, which includes a seismic retrofit of Memorial Stadium and a substantial expansion of the Haas School of Business. The university delegated URS to manage the planning, design, contracting and construction of the mammoth project for an initial fee of $4.5 million. So far, according to a UC-Berkeley representative, URS has been paid $1.7 million.

In November 2005, Blum resigned from the URS board of directors and also divested his investment firm of about $220 million in URS stock. In April 2006, the Feinstein-Blum family made a $15 million "gift" to UC-Berkeley. The expanded business school is slated to house the Richard C. Blum Center for Developing Economies, which will encourage students to study the effects of global poverty upon political radicalism.

Words fail me.