/ kalebeul / 2006 / 06 / 11 / ali smith on literature in translation /
Ali Smith (via Transblawg) makes some ill-conceived remarks in the London Times re the availability of translated literature on the UK market:
Of all the books published in the UK, only 3 to 4 per cent are translations. What’s the matter with us? Don’t we like to look at anything but ourselves? Are we so vain? Do we simply not care, not want to know what’s happening in the literatures of the rest of the world? It’s embarrassing. It’s like a terrible leftover of imperialism. Thank God for the publishers who take chances. Thank God for prizes like The Oxford Weidenfeld Translation Prize…
This is simply nonsense. Is it really true that we English-speakers can only experience The Others through literature in translation? (I wonder if this isn’t a case of the syndrome described here by Rushdie: “There is a whiff of political correctness about them: the ironical proposition that India’s best writing since Independence may have been done in the language of the departed imperialists is simply too much for some folks to bear.”) Can anyone think of an institution that did as much as the British empire to stimulate translation into English, the study of strange languages and cultures, and writing itself?
There are various simple explanations for the comparatively low proportion of translated work available on the English-language market as compared to the Spanish (this is partly a paraphrase of a paraphrase of Jacques Mélitz):
(Here’s a fascinating off-topic claim by Manas Saikia: “In English language publishing, India is probably the second largest in the world in unit terms. This is anecdotal, as there is no data to call upon. In value terms, it is way down the list. In a decade or so I expect it to become the second largest.”)
Trackback link.
Tell me if the spam dragon gives you a hard time. Log in if you want to be really foul.