This is sort of an updated take on Borges' "Los teólogos" I think -- a man is reading and blogging about a book which he's reading in a language not his own (one not available in translation); he manages to create a controversy or at least a bit of publicity around blasphemy in the text which is, however, not actually present in the source material -- it is the product of a fundamental misreading on his part, but nevertheless the controversy necessarily involves the original author of the piece, a contemporary of the blogger's who is not seeking the spotlight. This publicity becomes the author's route to fame or celebrity -- a different fame than he would have had in mind, while the (mis-)translator is of course pretty much ignored in the press and ultimately forgotten by history.
posted afternoon of Sunday, November 28th, 2010
➳ More posts about The Theologians
➳ More posts about Jorge Luis Borges
➳ More posts about Readings
➳ More posts about Translation
➳ More posts about Writing Projects
➳ More posts about Projects
➳ More posts about Mistranslation
➳ More posts about Story ideas
Response to this idea, lifted from a notebook of mine --
The mistranslation idea is not as much of a cure-all as it seemed like it would be -- it just pushes the responsibility for creating the narrative up one level, to a fictional character, but you the author still have to create that character, he will not be able to create this meta-fictional world unless you give him, with your pen, the inspiration to do it -- still you the author must inseminate this world contained. This is the key to understanding Borges -- [illegible] the reason he is such a rewarding writer, that his worlds are so stimulating to the imagination, is he's not just writing metafiction, in doing so he writes the fiction he is describing -- a nice shortcut since to write an actual library of Babel would be impossible, to implement Saramago's idea of the universal autobiography impracticable to say the least -- and reading it, you are able to partake in these new realities/meta-realities underlying his text.
So it's legitimate to think of mistranslation (or "Mistranslation") as a shortcut, a creative shortcut to writing the text which you or your character is mistranslating; but simultaneously you need to get your ducks in a row as far as that text having some substance, some inspiration/insemination from your pen -- the shapes and shadows you are creating on the paper need to create their own reality, but they won't be able to unless you their creator endow them with your substance. How could Faulkner not have evaporated?
posted evening of July first, 2012 by Jeremy
