Arredondo 1

Phillip Arredondo
Professor Indra Levy
Translating Japan, Translating the West
20 October 2009

Response Paper #3

Venuti’s book on particular extant “scandals” of translation was an interesting

work filled with intriguing ideas, albeit somewhat extreme at times. In general, I found

his treatment of translators’ rights in comparison to those of traditional authors’

unorthodox yet morally sound. In particular, his analysis of skewed ethics in the realm of

copyright law as it pertains to derivative works by translators greatly piqued my interest.

Throughout the book, Venuti makes certain claims (most notably, that translators

are authors themselves, whose works – while derivative of original creations – are

original unto themselves given the nature of their creation from a set of cultural materials

separate from those that begot the original) which come off as radical and reveal a

professional bias not suited for an objective academic discussion of translation studies.

However, one point on which I unswervingly agree with him is the injustice done to

translators by modern day copyright law.

Copyright (and moreover, intellectual property in general) law has been a specific

interest of mine for a number of years now. In the course of my reading, numerous

occasions of draconian rules binding contemporary creative efforts have caught my eye.

Oftentimes, they appear in the form of restrictions of the rights of those who create

something new from something which already exists. A good example of this is a remix

of a song created from the samples of another song or songs. Now, while it is bad enough

that these restrictions are often predicated on an overemphasis of profit-maximization by

the creators, the ethical implications are more troubling, for these recreations or
 Arredondo 2

“derivations” are often borne of goodwill and a sincere interest in the original subject

material.

The example Venuti gives in his introduction to the text perfectly fits the mold of

these sorts of “scandals” of copyright; in it, Milan Kundera, author of The Unbearable

Lightness of Being, fashions his own English translation of the book after being quoted as

dissatisfied by the work of foreign translators. However, not only did he largely draw

from said translations when composing his own, but he neglected to credit any of the

translators, let alone give them part of the royalties of the wildly popular English version

of his book. The worst part of this ignominy is that it was perfectly legal under modern

day copyright law, which gave Kundera full rights to all aspects of his work, including

the alteration and distribution of any materials derivative to his own work. While that

may seem logically sound from a profit-maximizing standpoint, his disrespect and

betrayal of those who attempted to faithfully translate his work (most likely not driven by

profit themselves, but rather a genuine love of his book and desire to see its message

disseminated) shall go down as one of the more ethically debased and heinous crimes of

the literary world.

While I could write about this topic for days, I will simply restrict my already-

beginning-to-rant discussion to this: I agree with Venuti’s contention that translators are

authors themselves in that they draw from a completely different set of cultural materials

when attempting to adapt a foreign work to a culture other than that for which it was

originally written, and that they end up with a completely different book in the process.

While that logic would seem to deign it appropriate that this “completely different”

derivative work should profit solely the translator (it being entirely their own work), it
 Arredondo 3

seems both fiscally and morally sound that a financial compromise be reached where the

translator and original author share in the proceeds of the translation (along the lines of

the “joint work” as Venuti puts it). However, it seems that the current copyright mentality

far overemphasizes an author’s ownership over their own works, however public they

may be, and subsequent alterations of those works, particularly where commercial

interests are involved. This may change, but only after man’s interest in the progression

of human values such as intellectual exchange and good faith outstrips his desire to

further fatten his wallet.