{"id":395266,"date":"2018-04-03T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-03T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wdev.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent-dev\/2018\/04\/03\/thinking-about-book-reviews\/"},"modified":"2018-07-21T10:47:10","modified_gmt":"2018-07-21T14:47:10","slug":"thinking-about-book-reviews","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/2018\/04\/03\/thinking-about-book-reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Thinking Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ Book Reviews"},"content":{"rendered":"

Clarice Lispector is undoubtedly one of the great writers of the past century. Her recent rediscovery\u2014sparked off by the reissuing of The Hour of the Star<\/em> in Ben Moser\u2019s new translation\u2014is definitely merited, and will hopefully usher in a time in which any number of very deserving female authors from the not-very-distant past finally get their due. Writers like Nathalie Sarraute (the author who most came to mind as I was reading Lispector\u2019s The Chandelier<\/em>) or Merc\u00e8 Rodoreda or Ann Quin or Dorothy Richardson or Elsa Morante. (I\u2019m sure you can come up with twenty others.)<\/p>\n

The most recent entry in Lispector-mania is The Chandelier<\/em>, Lispector\u2019s second novel, published in 1946, three years after Near to the Wild Heart<\/em>, is a true literary event. It\u2019s rare enough that an author of this magnitude and difficulty breaks into the widest circles of the literary establishment, and triply rare that the author in question has a never-before-translated novel right there waiting to be devoured by an already desirous audience.<\/p>\n

This book is going to get so much coverage over the next few months. Which is why I really don\u2019t feel bad taking some time to explore my personal reaction to reading this book\u2014and think through some questions about reviewing translations\u2014especially since I personallyhad a really hard time connecting to this novel.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Chandelier<\/em><\/a> by Clarice Lispector, translated from the Portuguese by Benjamin Moser and Magdalena Edwards (New Directions)<\/b><\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure exactly why I couldn\u2019t ever really get into The Chandelier<\/em>, but there it is. I spent a few weeks working my way through this, occasionally enraptured by the philosophical nature of the prose, frequently skimming to try and find the next plot point, often feeling more obliged to pick this up than excited to get back into it\u2014all of which is probably user error. I generally read too fast. There are so many books stacked up, so many self-imposed reading goals. And time is a premium. Usually that\u2019s not a huge deal\u2014I live in a town whose two sources of pride are a garbage plate and a grocery story, so there aren\u2019t a lot of distractions\u2014but I just couldn\u2019t find the right reading pace<\/em> for this book.<\/p>\n

Beyond that\u2014and again, this is on me, for being a bit of a dummy\u2014I just couldn\u2019t find the right hooks to get into this. I got the general point of it, but to me it read like a much less elegant version of one of Sarraute\u2019s brilliant novels. Over the multiple weeks of reading this, I texted a half-dozen literary friends to see if they had read it and maybe had that magic insight that would make it all fall into place and get me hooked. But, alas.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

This got me thinking about reviews, and what their role can\/should be. Nothing that comes after this statement is all that revolutionary, or even necessarily connected to this book. But trying to envision the perfect review for The Chandelier<\/em> led to a lot of circular arguments about reviews in general. I\u2019m not going to go over all of them right now\u2014this is probably the first of several posts over the next few months about reviewing translations\u2014but let\u2019s see where this all goes. So I\u2019m just going to make some general statements and then argue with myself for a bit.<\/p>\n

A Review Should Hype a Book<\/b><\/p>\n

I think this is a commonly held belief\u2014especially when it comes to reviews of translated books. There are so few opportunities for most of these titles to get any ink-time, so what\u2019s the point in writing about a subpar book that you don\u2019t really like? These opportunities should be maximized by drawing attention to wonderful books that are masterfully translated. If reviews are supposed to bring readers to particular books, shouldn\u2019t we use this opportunity to direct the curious to the masterpieces out there?<\/p>\n

Furthermore, what is gained\u2014for the translation profession as a whole\u2014by shitting on a translated title? Just don\u2019t write\/tweet\/say anything! There are so many good books out there deserving of attention, not to mention all the great translators doing amazing work\u2014so just write about those.<\/p>\n

But is that really what criticism is? How can the translation profession really improve if these books aren\u2019t ever criticized? Translators, not to mention readers of international fiction, can gain a lot from seeing what works, what doesn\u2019t work, witnessing the mind of a sharp reader in action. We expect critics to actually break down books originally written in English and examine what works and what doesn\u2019t, thus saying something about art & the world & writing, and we should expect the same treatment for a book that happens to be originally written in another language. There are truths about art and life that can be pulled from this, especially if we give it a close, critical reading.<\/em><\/p>\n

There\u2019s a fundamental difference though: most translations have been critically analyzed in their original language and have gone through an extensive vetting process to get here. It\u2019s a bit suspect to suddenly be taking down a translated book that was critically acclaimed in its home country. What are you criticizing? The form and writing of the book itself? Based on what? American standards? Biases that are built out of reading mostly American novels with their American styles? If the ending of a Chinese novel isn\u2019t Hollywood enough, then it should ripped apart? Or are you actually criticizing the translation and just not on sure enough footing to say so?<\/p>\n

One Should Never Criticize Individual Word Choices in a Translation<\/b><\/p>\n

So much of so-called \u201ctranslation criticism\u201d is just nitpicking translations with little to no understanding of the original. Actually, it\u2019s even worse than that. There are two types of people who criticize translations: those who know the original language and get all bent up about the translator using \u201cmom\u201d instead of \u201cmama\u201d or \u201cdove\u201d instead of \u201cpigeon,\u201d and there are those critics who don\u2019t<\/em> know the original language, but still attribute any and every quirk of the prose to the translator as some sort of \u201cmistake.\u201d It\u2019s another example in which translation criticism is basically taking an international text, comparing it to American-centric literary values, and declaring it inferior. And the \u201ccritic\u201d never takes into consideration all the thought about possible choices that the translator went through with nearly every word\u2014the translator, who\u2019s not even given an opportunity to explain\u2014-<\/p>\n

Hold the fuck up! We\u2019ll get to the last part of that soon. But first off: sometimes individual word choices are valid examples of how a text works or doesn\u2019t. And NOT<\/span> just for translations. Remember the criticism of Uncle Charles \u201creposing\u201d to the outhouse in Joyce? The example that Hugh Kenner turned around into an example of Joyce\u2019s genius and the way he \u201cgave over\u201d that word to Uncle Charles, saying something about his particular perspective on how he sees himself? Individual words are important in constructing characters and a legit critic will apply the same sort of standards to books written in English or in any other language. If a character is using words in dialogue that he would NEVER<\/span> EVER<\/span> USE<\/span> then there\u2019s a problem\u2014no matter who wrote it. Again, a good critic shows how these sorts of choices are building blocks to great literature.<\/em><\/p>\n

A Review Should Always Talk about the Translation<\/b><\/p>\n

Fine, except that a translator doesn\u2019t have the same leeway as a writer working in English. We\u2019re bound by the original text and if we don\u2019t reproduce it, we\u2019ll be savaged\u2014by you, by an academic, by a fellow translator\u2014for not being \u201cfaithful\u201d enough. It\u2019s unfair to hold us to the same standards, since we\u2019re under a different set of constraints.<\/p>\n

I figured you were a translator, given your general defensiveness.<\/em><\/p>\n

Watch it.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure exactly what a critic is supposed to do. On the one hand, we\u2019re supposed to review as many translations as possible to help readers break out of their provincialism, but we\u2019re not supposed to apply the same criteria to these books as those originally written in English. If we criticize the words on the page, the translation, I suppose, then we\u2019re being unfair to translators like Gregory Rabassa\u2019s \u201cProfessor Horrendo\u201d; if we don\u2019t write about the translation, then we\u2019ll get a letter from PEN<\/span> about how we need to \u201cname the translator\u201d; and if we say the translation \u201cseems pretty competent,\u201d then we\u2019re just dumb assholes who aren\u2019t giving credit and don\u2019t know how to review translations. What is it that you want, exactly?<\/em><\/p>\n

To be treated as an equal to the author. You wouldn\u2019t be reading this book at all if it weren\u2019t for us. (Triply so if it\u2019s from a language that\u2019s not Spanish or French.) The amount of time put into the creation of this book is astonishing, not to mention the sheer amount of critical and creative thought. It\u2019s not like a translator is the same as a goddamn app\u2014we\u2019re artists and deserve to be included in the conversation about the art works that we create. That\u2019s not too much to ask. Sure, it takes you a bit of extra work to engage with the book on two<\/em> levels\u2014as a book and as a translation\u2014but that\u2019s just the sort of critical thinking that you\u2019re good at, right?<\/p>\n

What\u2019s a Review Good For?<\/b><\/p>\n

But wait. If the point of reviewing a translation is to get general readers to read a great book, do we really want to get into all this technical shit?<\/em><\/p>\n

Not shit.<\/p>\n

Technical SKILL<\/span> then. Deep dives into translation theory and how to reproduce a language\u2019s syntax in English are 100% guarantees of boring the piss out of a general reader. A solid quarter of Americans didn\u2019t read a book last year. Check that. A quarter of Americans are PROUD<\/span> they didn\u2019t read a book last year. And half of the rest of them read one book and it was either their high school girlfriend\u2019s self published 99 cent Amazon ebook of dinosaur porn or whatever piece of mediocrity was part of their \u201cOne City, One Book!\u201d environment. People don\u2019t give fucks about the intricacies of translation\u2014unless you\u2019re a translator, and the bookselling world shouldn\u2019t be all about YOU<\/span>. There are, what?, 20,000 readers of literary fiction out there? And, let\u2019s be honest, the translations we\u2019re talking about are works of literature, not spy novels or romances or whatever. Of those 20,000 readers, probably 500 or so read actual book reviews. If you want these reviews to be promotional tools for international literature, we need to up that number. And to up that number, we have to focus on what readers want: plot descriptions, information about what makes a book unique, why it\u2019s worth reading and what about it might not work for everyone. The SAME<\/span> reasons why they come to a book (or don\u2019t) when it\u2019s written in English. Why should they treat translations as something exotic and more complicated? Doesn\u2019t that defeat your very point?<\/em><\/p>\n

There must be a middle ground.<\/p>\n

One of the things I\u2019ve encountered are book review editors shying away from reviewing translations because they don\u2019t have a reviewer on hand who\u2019s read the original. Or can! But even if they can, do you understand our deadlines? And that they\u2019re REAL<\/span> deadlines? And Christ, none of us get paid. Yeah, I know YOU<\/span>\u2019RE underpaid, but $500 for a 500 word review? Can you imagine asking someone to read a novel in the translation AND<\/span> the original for $500? AND<\/span> write a review AND<\/span> have it in by next Saturday? We\u2019re all doing the best we can.<\/em><\/p>\n

That\u2019s exactly the point! Why are you criticizing us when we\u2019re also<\/em> doing \u201cthe best we can\u201d? We\u2019re slaving away\u2014also for no money\u2014riddled with self-doubt and the fear that critics like you will blow apart all of our work over a single word? A word we chose because it was the best of five bad options? We\u2019re just as talented of wordsmiths as you are, but criticizing our work is somehow just, but criticizing a critic is a bad look and sour grapes and whatever.<\/p>\n

How Small Is This World<\/b><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s my big problem: I\u2019m paid next to nothing to talk about books. Books! Books barely matter anymore to anyone. It\u2019s a thankless project that doesn\u2019t earn money, can maybe find you love (if you love books, like, legitimately), and gets no respect. I\u2019ve said it before and will again that book people are only in it to make it to the end. Just get by. Win and advance. Whatever your inspirational of choice might be. So I do my job. I read books that are by dumb young Brooklyn kids about trust fund living and college aspirations. These books are fucking terrible. I read experimental jet set trash from the intellectuals who feel threatened by the idea that most everyone would rather be playing Netflix and chill. (Fuck YOUR<\/span> mixed metaphors.) I read translations that are basically just boring books and some that are poorly written\u2014in both languages\u2014and some that are great. Most of the time I just feel manipulated by rich people, but that\u2019s America circa 2018. Yet the things I write about translations\u2014which I think are fun and from the perspective of an informed reader who is just READING<\/span> the books\u2014are the ones that lead into a tiny wormhole filled with translators saying translator things about how translations translate and translations should be translation translate. It\u2019s the most unreal world. So touchy! American authors are less concerned about reviews because they know no one gives a FUCK<\/span> about reviews. But translators only want reviews to exist in a world that\u2019s there just to please them.<\/em><\/p>\n

You\u2019re such a self-involved old white man prick. Wanting to be part of the conversation, instead of judged from on high by someone with questionable taste and knowledge is completely batshit insane. You make all these comments about the tenuous state of books and translation, but, hey, you\u2019re a fat white dude writing reviews in the Age of Yelp.<\/em> You know who doesn\u2019t matter? You.<\/em> Reader responses will always exist, but your livelihood comes from newspapers.<\/em> Newspapers.<\/em> Seriously. We\u2019re creating something and you\u2019re sitting there blogging.<\/em> Eat shit. The future of bookselling or readership or whatever you think you understand doesn\u2019t need you at all.<\/em><\/p>\n

You know who sucks? Publishers.<\/em><\/p>\n

OMG<\/span>. They are<\/em> the worst.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s all just a racket for their benefit. A game in which we pretend our lives have meaning so that they can make more money.<\/em><\/p>\n

I think my editor got paid twice my salary to fix three comma splices. Whereas I translated a goddamn book.<\/em> Commas! We\u2019re talking about commas.<\/p>\n

Because assholes.<\/em><\/p>\n

Have you ever looked into how much money the big publishers make? The book industry has<\/em> to be profitable for some people, right? But how does that work? And who is screwing us?<\/p>\n

_Look. I\u2019m not a journalist, but . . . _<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/center><\/p>\n

1<\/sup> I ended up relying on this review from Music & Literature<\/em>.<\/a> It\u2019s a really smart piece that will appeal to those new to Lispector and seasoned Lispector readers. Here are the three quotes I found most useful and intriguing:<\/p>\n

The power of Lispector\u2019s heavily textured sentences and Virginia\u2019s unbridled introspections and contemplations of who she wants to be cannot offset the fact that this three-hundred-page book would have benefited from being as economically edited as her more acclaimed works. Virginia\u2019s monotonous ruminations often blur together; her thoughts and struggles can be profound and beautiful, but so many pages of the same rolling waves of dreamy sentences can sap even the hardiest reader\u2019s will to dig into the work. This novel is perfect for those who already revere Lispector and want a further understanding of where her thoughts and aesthetic went after Near to the Wild Heart.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Benjamin Moser and Magdalena Edwards\u2019 shrewd, supple translation of The Chandelier<\/em> showcases the brilliance of Lispector\u2019s singular style and astutely unfurls the longer, more complex sentences that the author had come to use as a fundamental unit of composition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Coming out, as it does, during Lispector\u2019s many travels with her husband, The Chandelier<\/em> deals with a larger alienation and disconnect not only from society, but from other people, and even from oneself. Virginia\u2019s monologues and internal struggles often feel more akin to the philosophical wrangling of a person struggling for the right language to wring herself out. Near the end of the book\u2019s first part, Virginia laments how \u201cSuddenly the words from which she lived in childhood seemed to have run out and she couldn\u2019t find any others\u201d as well as how words define her deepening relationship with her lover Vicente: \u201cShe started to change into Vicente\u2019s words and sometimes she would feel that it was more than words that were transformed.\u201d This linguistic transformation gives rise to perhaps the most convincing and joyous moment in the novel, where Virginia is able to speak \u201cthe first word of her new experience.\u201d This crisis of identity and where Virginia sees herself within the world is at least glimpsed at in that beautiful moment between her and Vicente.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Clarice Lispector is undoubtedly one of the great writers of the past century. Her recent rediscovery\u2014sparked off by the reissuing of The Hour of the Star in Ben Moser\u2019s new translation\u2014is definitely merited, and will hopefully usher in a time in which any number of very deserving female authors from the not-very-distant past finally get […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":292,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[67486],"tags":[66836,24866,25506,67556,56,67546],"class_list":["post-395266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","tag-2018-translations","tag-benjamin-moser","tag-clarice-lispector","tag-magdalena-edwards","tag-new-directions","tag-the-chandelier"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/292"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=395266"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395266\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":399202,"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395266\/revisions\/399202"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=395266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=395266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=395266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}