![]() ![]() Focusing on textual features that are particularly important for literary translation or for Mann’s style, Horton examines both microstylistic (syntax, lexis) and macrostylistic elements (leitmotifs, irony, direct speech) and combines quantitative analysis with qualitative interpretation. The second part of Horton’s book presents detailed analyses of the ways in which translations interpret and recreate literary texts. This did not, however, prevent him from complaining about her translations to others, even though he praised Lowe-Porter’s achievements in his correspondence with her. ![]() Without interfering with Lowe-Porter’s work, he made every effort to support her, mostly through explanations of lexical choices and cultural contexts. Mann never found translations of his works (in any language) adequate, but merely accepted them as necessary and supported any transformations that would make his works more palatable to foreign audiences. Nonetheless, Mann recognized the importance of her translations both as a means to expand his reputation beyond a German readership and, especially after he had left Germany, as a source of income. Knopf, had contracted Lowe-Porter against the writer’s objections. The success of her Mann translations was apparent early on, as the Book-of-the-Month Club selected them repeatedly. To this end she would, for instance, simplify sentence structures and add or omit portions of text. He shows that Lowe-Porter’s notion of translation was perfectly in line with the expectations of her time: she wanted to produce texts that suppress cultural differences and “read as naturally as possible in English” (57). By contrast, Horton provides a more balanced view of Lowe-Porter’s and other translators’ works. Since the 1950s, her translations have been the subject of at times harsh criticism from scholars, whom Horton faults for their neglect of extratextual phenomena and a tendency to measure Lowe-Porter’s translations against the scholars’ own subjective and contemporary notions of equivalency. Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter, Mann’s regular English translator from 1921 to 1951, was instrumental in creating Mann’s English “voice,” and her work plays a central role in Horton’s study. Horton draws on his excellent knowledge of Mann’s œuvre and Mann scholarship, as well as his expertise in current translation studies and linguistic analysis. At the same time, Horton contributes to the field of modern translation studies, as his textual analysis is complemented by explorations of the extratextual and extralinguistic considerations that have shaped English renditions of Mann’s works and their reception. ![]() His analysis draws readers’ attention to key linguistic and stylistic elements of Mann’s writing, their effects on readers, and the challenges they pose for translators. Horton focuses on the transformations Mann’s texts undergo in translation, the political, economic, ideological, and socio-cultural considerations driving the translation process, and the different experiences of readers of German and English versions. David Horton considers literary texts to be products of ever-evolving interpretations as opposed to creations of fixed meanings, and in Thomas Mann in English, he explores the extent to which this meaning potential can be translated. Thomas Mann’s international success relied on the translation of his works, and the English translations in particular were critical for establishing Mann’s status as a canonical writer beyond Germany. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |