���Ĵ�ý

We mentioned this a couple weeks back, but this morning, has a more factual follow-up to Douglas Kibbee���Ĵ�ý�s claim that translations are on the rise, as evidenced by the increase in coverage for translations in the New York Times Book Review.

Michael Orthofer���Ĵ�ý�who both questioned the veracity of this statement and the idea that a review of a translation a week was a success���Ĵ�ý�compiled some stats on the last three issues:

Of the 62 books reviewed in all a mere two ���Ĵ�ý� Ogawa Yoko���Ĵ�ý�s The Diving Pool and Michael Krüger���Ĵ�ý�s The Executor ���Ĵ�ý� were originally written in a foreign language (and they only received the ���Ĵ�ý�books-in-brief���Ĵ�ý�-treatment).

I have a complicated relationship to all of this, in part because I feel that Kibbee���Ĵ�ý�s kind of right���Ĵ�ý�things are getting better for translations, he just chose an odd way of ���Ĵ�ý�proving���Ĵ�ý� it���Ĵ�ý�and that it���Ĵ�ý�s not necessarily the mandate/responsibility of the NYTBR to cover a certain number of literary translations. True, it���Ĵ�ý�s unfortunate that so few foreign voices make their way into the Book Review, and as a publisher who is always scrapping for any review coverage we can get, I wish the Times reviewed only literary translations, but I don���Ĵ�ý�t feel like the Times is unilaterally hostile towards all books in translations.

(I���Ĵ�ý�m sure many bloggers will disagree with me about this, but I really believe that what gets reviewed is tied up in a more complicated dynamic including who the publishers are, what���Ĵ�ý�s hot, how publishers publicize, etc., etc. It���Ĵ�ý�s just not as simple as translation vs. English . . . It may fall more into the realm of large publisher���Ĵ�ý�with all the clout and organizational resources associated with that���Ĵ�ý�versus small���Ĵ�ý�and often disorganized or too busy to focus���Ĵ�ý�and since large publishers have the means to really promote their books, and since so few are works in translation, these statistics turn out the way they do. I���Ĵ�ý�d be interested in seeing what the percentages are for coverage of translated books from commercial presses versus translated books from indie presses. I suspect that a healthy percentage of books reviewed in the NYTBR from independent presses are literature in translation���Ĵ�ý�but that the number of reviews of books from independent, or university, presses is rather modest. In shorthand, it���Ĵ�ý�s complicated . . . )

One thing that came up at the Translation Conference panel was the relative lack of translator-reviewers. At a panel that took place a few weeks ago, representatives from the New York Times and The New Republic commented on how it can be difficult to find a good reviewer familiar enough with the context and tradition surrounding a particular work of international literature to be capable of writing a really thoughtful, interesting review.

That may be a bit of a cop-out, but it is absolutely true that there are far more American writers reviewing these days than there are translators . . . Not sure in the end if this would make a difference, but if there were a couple dozen very active translator-reviewers out there pitching books, capable of writing about a work from Brazil without relying solely on the English version and flap-copy bio of the author, maybe there would be an overall increase in the amount of general coverage of translations. . . .