Ed. Susan
Basnett and Harish Trivedi. London: Routledge, 1999.
For several decades now, theory has displayed one prime
pattern of argument: turning on itself, burrowing through its subterranean, and
emerging othered. The ‘original’ and ‘other’ are engaged in a
metaphorical duel with each other and fragments— multiple versions—fallout
from the tussle. Basnett and Trivedi edit and introduce some very interesting
versions of translation theory in Post-colonial Translation:Theory and
Practice. It is evident from the essays included in this book that
translation theory and practice has come a long way from the position of keeping
faith with the ‘original’. Translation is now another name for writing.
The superior-inferior relationship between the original and
translation which stemmed from factors including copyright besides
colonial-cultural attitudes, is variously questioned and cracked apart. And
equations are established which view translation as a complex and rich form of
cultural interaction that is symbiotic. Translation practice is an equative, not
a determinant hierarchy. This is especially true in the context of the
postcolonial project because it exposes the colonial practice of appropriating
into its dominant grid the variety of local cultures. In dedicating the book to
Andre Lefevere (1945-1996) the editors tell of their agreement with his views
("Composing the Other"). Tejswani Niranjana’s assertion that
translation functions "within the asymmetrical relations of power that
operate under colonialism" is cited with approval; and Homi Bhabha’s ‘third
space’ or ‘in-between’ness lends further support. Maria Tynoczko suggests
that there is a little difference between postcolonial writing and the act of
translation ("Postcolonial writing and literary translation"). Vinay
Dharwardker writing on A K Ramanujan says that translator should
"translate" foreign reader into native reader i.e. argues for a
cultural re-siting of reader.
By far the most interesting discussion is around
Antropofagia. Oswald de Andrade, the metaphor of cannibalism, and Haroldo de
Compos are examined in depth by Else Vieira as well as the editors. The
possibility that cannibalism is like blood transfusion and translation gains
from cannibalism is quite startling but opens up interesting theoretical space.
An uneasy feeling crawls around a little, however, not
because of cannibalistic metaphor, but because Trivedi’s Colonial
Transactions lurks in the introductory ground. Translation and transaction
are fairly synonymized. Also, the font in section two of the introduction is
different and smaller than in sections one and three. Is there a colonial
reduction or a postcolonial shrinking?
G K Subbarayudu
