Lawrence Venuti, in his The Translation Studies Reader (Routledge, 2005) translates the title of the discourse as “What is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?” and it is my first reading of (rather than about) Derrida. In the morning I mentioned this to my officemate, who has taken Critical Theory and made it his own. Tomes from that canon pile on his desk, a new one almost every day and I marvel at this living, breathing example of hermeneutics. He truly enters into dialog with those texts, expressing respect for some of the theorists and critical disdain for others , accepting some theories, but often battling against them in reaction papers, which he writes with relish, the volume of the keystrokes reflecting his enthusiasm and/or vehemence. He asked to see my Routledge reader and after scanning “What is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?”, knowing that my affective filter was up, he recommended another article "..that might be a gentler introduction to Derrida."
Two sentences of this one, however, surprised me enough to lower the filter. He's still difficult and sometimes very annoying, but I can't deride everything Derridian after reading this.
"As for the word (for the word will be my theme) - neither grammar nor lexicon hold an interest for me - I believe I can say that if I love the word, it is only in the body of its idiomatic singularity, that is, where a passion for translation comes to lick it as a flame or amorous tongue might: approaching as closely as possible while refusing at the last moment to threaten or reduce, to consume or consummate, leaving the other body intact but not without causing the other to appear - on the very brink of this refusal or withdrawal - and after having aroused or excited a desire for the idiom, for the unique body of the other, in the flame's flicker or through a tongue's caress. I don't know how, or in how many languages, you can translate the word lécher when you wish to say that one language licks another, like a flame or a caress" (424).
No comments:
Post a Comment