“We
English-speakers are not interested in translations,” says translator
Edith Grossman, in a story in Publishing Perspectives (translated from
Spanish by Fred Kobrak, that was originally published in La Nación, a
daily newspaper in Buenos Aires.)As a bookseller, I have heard my fair share of this: customers insisting that they do not like books in translation because of what is lost. I have wondered about that, and I have to agree that it would be almost impossible to translate every nuance of one language to another. Let’s take the Malay word merajuk, which is generally translated as ‘sulk’, although the English word does not quite capture all the different shades of meanings it implies. Try translating another Malay word jeling, with all its loaded meanings!
That argument is, certainly, not without merit, but consider what we gain, what our lives would be if we never read Kafka, or Borges, or Saramago, or Kundera, or ... God, the list is endless! There, definitely, is a case for the half-loaf.
Slumdogging
Salman Rushdie, famously (or notoriously) said in his foreword to the Vintage Book of Indian Writing, 1947-1997 that the only writing he considered worth including in this anthology were those originally written in English (apart from Toba Tek Singh by SH Manto). He drew plenty of flak for that, and you can read all about it on the internet, so I do not wish to go there.
Frankly, for me, I am tired of Indian writing in English and have stopped reading them (apart from those by Salman Rushdie and VS Naipaul -- I know, I know) for several years now. Sometimes I forget why. Then, I come across a passage like this (verbatim): Bomanbhai’s wife’s earlobes lengthened with the weight of South African diamonds, so great, so heavy, that one day, from one ear, an ear-ring ripped through, a meteor disappearing with a bloody clonk into her bowl of srikhand (Kiran Desai’s Inheritance of Loss), and I am reminded why, and I toss the book. (By the way, that sentence also put me off all books on the Booker (and other prize winning) lists. It was waiting to happen.
‘Slumdogging’, is one way of becoming a millionaire. New orientalism sells. Schadenfreude owns the market. (Imagine this dialog, “Ooooh ... it’s so-oo Indian,” said with music score by AR Rahman in the background. Sorry, Daphne.) For me, I’ll take Shivshankar Pillai, NT Vasudevan Nair, OV Vijayan, Asokamitran, UR Ananthamurthy, Bibhuthibushan Bandapadhyay, etc, any day; they are not afraid to tell stories. RK Narayan was not afraid to tell stories.
Is ‘literary’ a synonym for ‘boring’?
Fact is, I am struggling to count the number of books originally written in English, from the UK and the US, that I have read in the last ten years, which has left any impression in my mind -- I have too many fingers. That is not to say there are no good anglophone writers. I am sure there a hundreds of them. Unfortunately, unearthing them is no easy task, given an industry on a death spiral that clings on desperately to the usual suspects. (At one time, I used to buy books by imprints, but even that is not safe anymore.) I had a customer come in once -- anglophone, expatriate, senior with a fair amount of books under her belt -- ask me about a certain book. I said that one could describe it as literary, to which she replied, “You mean boring ...” She was spot on, of course, although I did try to defend the book as I liked the author.
Anglophone writings come in a few broad categories: good story, lousy writing (The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown), good writing, lousy story (On Chesil Beach, Ian McEwen), lousy story, lousy writing (the vast majority) and good story, good writing (like hen’s teeth, like Diane Setterfield’s The Thirteenth Tale). (Guess the winner.) In other words, I am trying to justify why I prefer books in translations. Edith Grossman says that only three percent of the books published in the United States, Great Britain and Australia are translations, whereas in Europe and Latin America this percentage number is between 25% and 40%. Sounds glum, but I look at the positive side: 3% of 300,000 new titles per year works out to 9000, that’s much more than the Anglophone titles I’d like to read!
When I pick up a European, Japanese, or South American title (I am now working towards the Chinese and African), I can be almost guaranteed a good story told in decent English, because most translators have good language skills, too. (Which is more than you can say of some editors in the big houses -- later-day Harry Potters should have been edited down by 30-50%.) No verbal gymnastics, no showing off, no pretensions, and no earrings or meteors. One may argue, it’s because the translated titles have already been curated, but I don’t care.
Imprints
It’s strange that I should say this, given that I am a publisher of English language books. Malaysia is not an Anglophone country, and English is the second or third language of most Malaysians, which means the authors do not necessarily think in English, hence giving their stories a ‘translated’ flavour, which is fascinating.
Ultimately, this question must be raised: how is Anglophone writing to save itself? Go back to imprints, I’d say. Let a genre or title be identified with an imprint that defines its quality. The sci-fi, fantasy, horror people already know that. The rest of us can do worse than watch and learn.
You know, I used to bristle at one time if anyone suggested that I was reading ‘story’ books; mere story books! Ah ... but, I was so much older then; I’m younger than that now.
