Three consecutive publishings of Dracula in Turkish, that are in 1997, 1998 and 2003, display observable differences concerning the textual and extra-textual features they’ve adopted in representing the original work of Bram Stoker. Without a focused textual comparison, the only thing they have in common seems to be the existence of a Dracula figure in all. Otherwise, with a quick look, it’s realized that the setting for the first book is Istanbul, the second one seems to have leapt out of the movie, and the third one is a Victorian novel making the critic of the era’s moral values. Heading from the diversities between these three different versions, it wouldn’t be hard to achieve some of the norms adopted within both ‘rewriting’ and publishing process.
The first two rewritings are published by the same publishing house, Kamer Yayınları. Publishing the Istanbul version of the novel first, then introducing the more ‘adequate’ one later seems to be a conscious strategy. The forewords within these two that direct one to such a conclusion. Within the foreword of the 1997 edition, it’s revealed that the book has already been published in 20’s under the title ‘Kazıklı Voyvoda’, but it wasn’t until 50’s that it was adapted to a movie and both the novel and the movie acquired fame. Actually the edition of the 20’s is worth a study by itself, in that it is a great example of rewriting a source text through adopting target culture norms. Besides replacing the original names with Turkish ones, the usage of Kur’an instead of Bible and the elimination of the crosses from the settings reveal either the cultural constraints the target text author is exposed to or the ideology internalized by him. (surely both is possible also)
Re-editing this book under the title ‘Drakula İstanbul’da’ in1997 is another matter of debate; in that, there’s an obvious marketing concern here that aims to benefit from the movie’s success. The fact that Kamer Yayınları published the more ‘adequate’ (here the word is used in Toury's terms) translation of Dracula one year after publishing this Istanbul version (through lots of references to the first attempt) may be taken as another marketing concern. Here, it’s obvious that the publishing house attempts to compose a ‘Serie of Dracula’ which regards all types of metadiscourse developed around the original text within both source and target cultures. The movie, the re-edition, the new edition (the first translation as they call this), the biography of Bram Stoker, the journey of the novel within history, and surely the forewords that introduce the texts all serve for this type of a compilation.
Here, there’s another question to be asked: Why would re-publish this 1920 version today? It’s for sure that there are hundreds of historical works waiting for such a second birth. Here the social dynamics intervene into the scene. In 90’s there might be some shift in readership that has directed Kamer Yayınları to Dracula; an interest towards the works of horror and fantasy might have arisen. For the researcher this may be a point of departure. S/he could search for other works of the same genre that has been re-introduced to the system in the same time period. If there’s none, this would also be used as a data that indicates the pioneering role this specific publishing house has adopted. In this case, the researcher could look at what other texts of this genre have been publised by this publishing house. Has it continued such a pioneering role? If so, has it been influential on the development of the system or have these reintroductions remained as peripheral activities?
Lastly, in the 2003 version published by Ithaki Yayınları, there seems to be an attempt of introducing the work as a 'novel' in the conventional sense. This could be taken as a mode of differentiation regarding the industry, in that a different type of readership might have been determined for this specific edition. It is introduced as a ‘critique of the Victorian ethics and scientific perspective’ as revealed in the short passage on the back cover. Apparently, this latest 'rewriting' attempts to raise associations other than ‘horror’.
All these remind the fact that the translations are the products of certain decisions; obviously there were hundreds of them before both the translator and the publisher (and other agents involved within the process). Whether these decisions are conscious or unconscious could be unearthed through a focused look, which is the scholar's task as Lefevere reveals. Displaying these would reveal what kind of constraints the 'recreator' was exposed to. It's through such a path one would achieve the norms applied within (and around) the translated texts.
12 Kasım 2009 Perşembe
5 Kasım 2009 Perşembe
On Lefevere's Systemic Thinking
Today, systemic thinking has been adopted as a fundamental perspective within the field of translation studies. This not only elevates the discipline’s main object of analysis, but also the position of the agents involved (the researcher and translator) into a higher level. Studying translations within a broader context is a rather complicated task at times; yet, at the same time, the researcher is freed from the elitist type of textual comparisons and acquires a position that is socially recognizable. Especially such studies adopting the systemic thinking as that of Lefevere’s, the task of the scholar is concretely legitimized. In his Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame,the researcher is defined as a social expert that is expected to unearth the internalized discursive relations surrounding what Kant calls ‘thing in itself’.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of Lefevere’s theory is the link he establishes between constructivism and polysystem theory. By doing so, Lefevere overcomes what’s mostly criticised within systemic thinking, that is its abstractism and lacking agency. The addition of such components as ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ within the grand scheme enables his theory to be classified as more realist and down to earth than prior systemic theorists.
In his book, Lefevere heads from indicating the existence of a grand system of culture and its sub-systems of literature, science, politics etc that are in constant interaction. All these sub-systems display an internal functioning and possess a inner control mechanism, and simultaneously, they are controlled by the greater mechanism of the grand culture. This internal and external controls are in close-contact, in that the former follows the rules devised by the latter. As seen, all dynamic within and around systems is a product of compiled conscious practices.
In the second and third chapters of the book, Lefevere engages in defining the position and function of translation- he classifies it among other types of rewritings- relating it with patronage and poetics consecutively. Firstly, as all other types of rewriting, translation is also dominated by both internal and external control mechanisms. Besides, as all othre rewritings it may choose to remain conservative and obey rules, or become innovative and violate rules. (Here, it should be pointed that Lefevere touches on the cases in which innovative function of translation also serves for sustaining the existing patronage, but these are the cases of exception.) The fact that translation has a manipulative character- in that it is able to create ‘images’, in other words, it 'naturalizes' things through making the artificial seem natural- increases the significance of its function within the whole picture and displays its contribution to the ‘cultural construction’. When it comes to poetics- that is in close contact with patronage and ideology as all other sub-systems since they all are dominated by them- Lefevere displays the multiple role adopted by translation. Certainly, it plays a significant role in all stages: it is a means of establishing, sustaining the dominance of the existing models, introduces new models to prevent stagnation, and too innovative at times, causes a shift in the hierarchical roles. Briefly, it has the capacity of both establishing and destroying. And as exemplified by Lefevere himself within the book, studying them reveal a lot of this whole ‘complex’, ‘interrelatedly functioning’ and ‘historical’ discursive relations.
Concludingly, as Douglas Robinson says, systemic approach provides Lefevere a fruitful framework. It enables him to embrace and explicate both the internal and surrounding dynamics. Though there are things he mentions that does not exist in polysystem theory, we could say that none of his statements contradict systemic thinking. As a further outcome of adopting the theory of polysystem, Lefevere stays out of the boundries of political activism and doesn’t take a side. According to his theory, the researcher is to stay within the value-free empiric boundaries and analyse with a purely descriptive manner. What’s interesting is the fact that the main components of Lefevere’s theory, that is ideology and patronage, are subjected to such descriptivism. As Douglas Robinson says, the power described by Lefevere is value-free, unlike the one described by post-colonial theorists. This also sets him apart from his Foucauldian point of departure in that the discursive relations aren’t implied to be destroyed, but are to be unearthed with a ‘purely empirical’ focus. [1]
[1] In Foucauldian way of thinking, people are not expected to destroy the implicit discursive relations too, but the reason to this is such a practice’s impossibility. Actually, here, we could correspond both theories in that there’s always a hegemonia in both. Lefevere also mentions the ongoing hegemonic process within systems. Once the existing patronage ceases functioning, it is replaced by another. One could take this as an implication of the impossibility of eliminating power from the scene which would adhere Lefevere a social activism. Lefevere, unlike Foucault, indicates a change, but the touchstones of ‘ideology’, ‘power’ and ‘patronage’ are always there. It’s only their agents and ways of dominating that change. The examples provided by Lefevere is a clear justification of this.
References
Lefevere, Andre
Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame
Robinson, Douglas
What is Translation?
Perhaps the greatest achievement of Lefevere’s theory is the link he establishes between constructivism and polysystem theory. By doing so, Lefevere overcomes what’s mostly criticised within systemic thinking, that is its abstractism and lacking agency. The addition of such components as ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ within the grand scheme enables his theory to be classified as more realist and down to earth than prior systemic theorists.
In his book, Lefevere heads from indicating the existence of a grand system of culture and its sub-systems of literature, science, politics etc that are in constant interaction. All these sub-systems display an internal functioning and possess a inner control mechanism, and simultaneously, they are controlled by the greater mechanism of the grand culture. This internal and external controls are in close-contact, in that the former follows the rules devised by the latter. As seen, all dynamic within and around systems is a product of compiled conscious practices.
In the second and third chapters of the book, Lefevere engages in defining the position and function of translation- he classifies it among other types of rewritings- relating it with patronage and poetics consecutively. Firstly, as all other types of rewriting, translation is also dominated by both internal and external control mechanisms. Besides, as all othre rewritings it may choose to remain conservative and obey rules, or become innovative and violate rules. (Here, it should be pointed that Lefevere touches on the cases in which innovative function of translation also serves for sustaining the existing patronage, but these are the cases of exception.) The fact that translation has a manipulative character- in that it is able to create ‘images’, in other words, it 'naturalizes' things through making the artificial seem natural- increases the significance of its function within the whole picture and displays its contribution to the ‘cultural construction’. When it comes to poetics- that is in close contact with patronage and ideology as all other sub-systems since they all are dominated by them- Lefevere displays the multiple role adopted by translation. Certainly, it plays a significant role in all stages: it is a means of establishing, sustaining the dominance of the existing models, introduces new models to prevent stagnation, and too innovative at times, causes a shift in the hierarchical roles. Briefly, it has the capacity of both establishing and destroying. And as exemplified by Lefevere himself within the book, studying them reveal a lot of this whole ‘complex’, ‘interrelatedly functioning’ and ‘historical’ discursive relations.
Concludingly, as Douglas Robinson says, systemic approach provides Lefevere a fruitful framework. It enables him to embrace and explicate both the internal and surrounding dynamics. Though there are things he mentions that does not exist in polysystem theory, we could say that none of his statements contradict systemic thinking. As a further outcome of adopting the theory of polysystem, Lefevere stays out of the boundries of political activism and doesn’t take a side. According to his theory, the researcher is to stay within the value-free empiric boundaries and analyse with a purely descriptive manner. What’s interesting is the fact that the main components of Lefevere’s theory, that is ideology and patronage, are subjected to such descriptivism. As Douglas Robinson says, the power described by Lefevere is value-free, unlike the one described by post-colonial theorists. This also sets him apart from his Foucauldian point of departure in that the discursive relations aren’t implied to be destroyed, but are to be unearthed with a ‘purely empirical’ focus. [1]
[1] In Foucauldian way of thinking, people are not expected to destroy the implicit discursive relations too, but the reason to this is such a practice’s impossibility. Actually, here, we could correspond both theories in that there’s always a hegemonia in both. Lefevere also mentions the ongoing hegemonic process within systems. Once the existing patronage ceases functioning, it is replaced by another. One could take this as an implication of the impossibility of eliminating power from the scene which would adhere Lefevere a social activism. Lefevere, unlike Foucault, indicates a change, but the touchstones of ‘ideology’, ‘power’ and ‘patronage’ are always there. It’s only their agents and ways of dominating that change. The examples provided by Lefevere is a clear justification of this.
References
Lefevere, Andre
Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame
Robinson, Douglas
What is Translation?
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)