Reviewing Translations

Also on PEN's website, this guide to reviewers. Interesting.....

REVIEWERS GUIDELINES FOR TRANSLATED BOOKS

The members of the PEN Translation Committee have grown increasingly concerned about the way book reviewers approach works in translation, and specifically about the attention being given to translators and their indispensable role in bringing us the literature of other languages and cultures. We thought it might be useful to offer some suggestions to reviewers of translated works, in a spirit of cooperation in what is after all our common endeavor: encouraging the reading, study, and enjoyment of literature.

It is understandable that with limited space available, reviewers may be reluctant to stop and discuss the translation. But in fact comments about the translation are not a distraction or divergence. The translation is integral to the book; without it, there would be no book in English. All translations are literary collaborations. All translations display not only the writer but the translator as well, who has chosen every word in English and worked to replicate every nuance of sentence structure, idiom, diction, metaphor, rhythm, tone, and voice.

First and foremost, reviewers should state that the work is a translation and should mention the translator's name. This may seem obvious, yet it is surprising how often the translator is not acknowledged, as if the book had metamorphosed into English on its own. Reviewers might also mention the translator's previous works, along with awards or other distinctions. If the translator has written a preface indicating his or her approach to the work, this too should be considered.

Reviewers who don't know the book's original language may feel unequipped to evaluate the translation. Even so, they are certainly equipped to address matters of style, coherence, and narrative tone. For instance, at the simplest level, does the language flow naturally and smoothly? Does the author present any special stylistic or other challenges that the translator has successfully--or heroically--met? In a work of fiction, is the dialogue persuasive and idiomatic? Does the tone shift to represent different characters' voices? Has the work been translated before, and if so, how does the version in question compare to earlier ones?

New translations of classics or very well-known books, of course, are usually assigned to reviewers familiar with the original language, who can comment on the need for a new translation, what the new version highlights or omits, how its idiom suits present-day readers, whether it offers new insights or emphases. In such cases the crux of the review is rightfully the translation itself.

One practice that is distinctly unhelpful is pouncing upon minute errors (or assumed errors) of word choice. Reviewers who do this seem to be under the impression that translating is like working a crossword puzzle. But literary translation is an elusive art--the rendering of a sensibility and a style--in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, such “errors” may be careful choices intended to support the entire structure. Focusing on minutiae out of context deflects from the overall evaluation of the book and the translation.

Even for those who devote their working lives to it, translation is difficult to define. At its best, we tend to forget that it exists, like a window so clear that birds attempt to fly through it; at its worst it makes reading like trying to see through a glass darkly. A poor translation can make a good book appear less good, just as a fine translation can enhance a mediocre book. In any case, reviewers would do well to consider these issues, for in describing the book, they are describing the translation, intentionally or not. Far better, then, to be aware of what they are encountering: a work whose words have been selected and arranged by the translator to convey not simply the letter of the original but its spirit.