RSS

#9 Nov 11 - Studies on Translation Theories

#9 Nov 11 Manipulation School excerpts from André Lefevere’s Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992).

1 意見:

charlotte wu 提到...

In this reading, Lefevere points out the element of poetics (inventory of literary devices and concept of the role of literature in the social system) and also how poetics are established by rewriting and canonization.

I think the notion of the role of literature in the social system in Lefevere’s discussion is very similar to Even-Zohar’s concept of polysystem. Various kinds of literature sub-systems have to compete in the whole system to win the dominant position/ role. However, I think that Lefevere puts more emphasis on the institution (e.g. educational institution) or the patronage (e.g. the highly-valued critic of the time) and their influence on how to decide what can be the dominant one. I would say that with the consideration of the institution and the patronage, Lefevere’s viewpoint illustrates more clearly how one sub-system ‘wins out’ the other ones than Even-Zohar’s viewpoint.

Furthermore, I think what Lefevere also stresses repeatedly in this chapter is that poetics is a transcendental concept. It is much more than politics or languages. And it is hard to be influenced by the changing of the environment of the system or by the boundaries of language.

As far as I am concerned, the notion of poetics is a very handy tool if the different devices and roles of literature are under discussion. However, I wonder whether this notion can only be applied to those systems which is fully developed, or, in other words, dominant in the social system. As what this reading suggests, it seems that only the dominant systems can form their own poetics. In this case, does it mean that if we are adopting this kind of viewpoint, we have to see poetics as a product? And in the case of the poetics of translation, does it mean we have to see it as a product as well?

張貼留言