Power struggle defined by Arrojo should not only be thought as between the author and the regular readers. The reader can also be a professional reader as defined by Lefevere. And when the reader profile changes, profile of the reading activity, thus interpreting activity also changes which will finally affect the profile of the struggle.
This struggle on a text results from the general idea that translation is subordinate to the original. That is, the author is the sole creator of the meaning while translator is the person who interprets the meaning created by somebody else. Thus Mehmet’s question, “is every act of interpretation can be defined as a ‘power struggle’?”, should be assessed with this manner. If the idea of subordinate translations is to be accepted, then interpretive act of the translator can be thought as her struggle with the author in order to overcome this role. Of course, the author herself creates the meaning by interpreting other things around her or other books she read. Thus every action includes some sort of interpreting, and subversion with Mehmet’s words. And in a deconstructionist world it is quite possible to define all conversations, dialogues, or communications as a kind of struggle between interlocutors.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder