The method of translation does not guarantee a plurality of possibilities. Both in East and West, the ways of translating are being discussed within the framework of dichotomy. The dichotomy between those who argue that you should translate the letter just as it is, and those who claim you should make the author’s message easy to read, has haunted every major moment of translation’s history, and it kept giving rise to controversies. Literary text is what makes most obvious the inability of these two aspects held as representative translation methods because a translation can only succeed through the process of translating the literary elements of a literary text, in other words, what turns a text into “literature.” Special configuration of sentences, a style that reflects the artist’s personality, and the use of specialized vocabulary, all these factors we often refer to as “literarity” (Jakobson) are the core upon which translators need to stay focused in their work of translating. What needs to be translated is the unique path the text draws, which corresponds to “the maximum value of subjectivity” (Meschonnic) in the text. The task of the translator is precisely the process of transforming this unique organization of the text into other languages, and to capture what occurs throughout this process. The uniqueness of literary translation is to make the reader feel he is reading a translated text through the translation of the author’s unique style. Literary translation is bound to cooperate with the process of criticism that assesses the particularities of the text. Literary criticism and literary translation work together inextricably.


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 69-95
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.