▲ 20 points
back
6 comments
> Translation is not secondary or incidental to these works. It is a condition of their production.”
If something is written in language A and then translated, then the translation is secondary. It doesn't matter that it happens very soon or that it's a condition of the production. Secondary means not primary; derived from. Cheese is still secondary to milk, even as we milk the cow under a contract to product cheese; the milk is not "born curdled and ripened".
To be "born translated" would mean that a polyglot author writes each sentence or paragraph in several languages at once, directly from the meaning to each language, without translating among them. Or that multiple collaborating authors come up with the semantics for each element of the book, discussing and coming to an agreement about each idea and then rendering it into their respective languages. In these cases, each book is then secondary only to the raw ideas; it is not secondary to another version of the book in a different language.
We can regard it as a book being a body of ideas which are "born translated" to language. So all books are "born translated", but usually to just one language. Additional translations are secondary book-to-book translations. But we could have an intriguing situation in which a book is "born translated" directly from ideas to two or more languages.
I think you have a different standard for what is "primary" or "secondary", and that if you draw such a sharp line when it comes to interpreting the language of the article, you are of course going to find a reason to disagree with it. If you argue about what it means for a work to be "born"--whether that happens at publication or when the author sets pen to paper--of course you are going to disagree.
Find a more interesting way to disagree, rather than discussing such superficial trimmings.
You don't think the idea of a book being actually produced in multiple languages at once is interesting? I was hoping that's what the article would be about; instead it's about Harry Potter coming out in a bunch of languages.
My standard for "primary" versus "secondary" is simply that the primary thing exists first, before the secondary thing exists and is derived from it. I'm definitely not moving the goalposts here or setting the bar high; no game of "true Scotsman's primary and secondary". By "born", I also take it to mean "come into observable existence in the world" or something like that; nothing special. A book is born when we have a manuscript.
Also, there are still the different roles of author and translator in these "born translated" projects, right? The author is still writing the manuscript in one language and the translator (a different person) is still producing translations. (Though presumably the translator can make suggestions or ask questions like an editor would, which is a pretty meaningful difference in the production process.)
I'm pretty sure the article meant China Miéville's Embassytown, a novel about aliens who speak with two mouths in unison using a language of similes (referencing events they orchestrate to expand their vocabulary), not The City & The City:
So what, a book is being translated faster. What's the big deal? What's the real impact? Do you think JK Rowling wrote the last Harry Potter books thinking about the translations and that it impacted her writing? Do you think it made her rewrite some sentences because they would be hard to translate?
I have a hard time believing that. I have a hard time finding the point of the article anyway, so... They're trying too hard.