post-colonial_translation

Border writing in Quebec 63
with himself. It is not a question of simply overturning cultural
influences, of reversing the tide of influences, but of creating a new idiom
through the encounter of languages and traditions.
Brault suggests in fact that Quebec poets, traditionally unreceptive
to the idea of translation, would find advantage in the ‘de-alienating
odyssey’ which such work can become. What is more, he suggests,
translation is a good investment. It is only if you translate others, if you
establish your presence on the world translation market, that others
will even consider translating you. Much reticence towards translation,
he explains, consists in a misconception of its goals grounded in an
idealistic ideology of writing. There is no absolute truth to be conveyed
in translation, just as there is no absolute meaning to be attained once
and for all in the text.
Brault’s non-translation is very close in inspiration – if not in
practice – to the projects of ‘transtextualization’ which have been
conceived in response to situations of unequal cultural exchange.
The most articulate of these projects comes out of Brazilian
modernism and is known as antropofagia or cultural cannibalism
(Vieira 1994). Translations, often parodic, are part of the
reworking of foreign influences. They aim to absorb and assimilate
the literary influences which contribute to the oppression of
dominated cultures.
But while Brault shares the sensibility of these writers towards the
unequalness of cultural exchange, and shares their confidence in the
powers of translation to help redress this inequality, he does not share
their parodic intent. Having chosen the work of nearcontemporaries,
poets with whom he senses a similar poetic sensibility, Brault approaches
translation with a respectful attentiveness. But here lies a paradox. When
we do compare Brault’s translated poems with the originals (the
detective work having been done by the author of a thorough study on
the subject 6 ) it becomes evident that Brault has not deviated from
conventional norms as much as his concept of ‘non-traduction’ might
have suggested. The ‘liberties’ which Brault takes are entirely consistent
with the aesthetic aims of poetic translation.
What defines the non-translation, then And in what way does it
carry a transgressive charge Brault’s act of defiance consists in
cutting the poems off from their sources. Not only does Brault refuse
to give precise indications as to the identity of the original texts (he
gives only the titles of the volumes from which he has taken the
poems), he also eliminates their titles. His translated poems integrate
the poem’s title into the body of the poem, effectively decapitating