@article{71a2d044-1949-4073-96a4-a75b6d6fe763,
author = {Magdalena Heydel},
title = {Tłumaczenie jako „wojna światów”?},
journal = {Przekładaniec},
volume = {2009},
number = {Numer 22-23 – Baśń w przekładzie},
year = {2011},
issn = {1425-6851},
pages = {333-340},keywords = {},
abstract = {Translation as a War of the Worlds?
	Translation studies and comparative literature as well as literary theory have common
	goals, but also common enemies. To prove his point, Edward Balcerzan entitles his
	collection of essays Translation as “the War of the Worlds”. On Translatology and
	Comparative Literature (Tłumaczenie jako „wojna światów”. W kręgu translatologii
	i komparatystyki) and develops his controlling metaphor through a series of engaging
	arguments and examples which demonstrate the ongoing struggle in the two disciplines
	between the need to order, classify and canonize – which he himself strongly advocates – and the tendency to blur and shift boundaries, visible in postmodernist thought,
	deconstruction and intertextuality. The multilingual in translation proves a risky
	challenge which insists on recording the traces of foreignness; the monolingual safely
	counters the Babel myth and offers evidence that language can be a space for the
	coexistence of literary worlds. Whereas it is diffi cult not to appreciate the author’s
	subtle and inspiring analyses, which support his well-known claim that translation is an
	art (elaborated over the thirty years of his work as a theorist of translation and literature,
	translator and poet), one cannot resist asking questions about Balcerzan’s major premise
	that translation is a war of the worlds. Should we no longer see translation as a creative
	exchange where versions engage in a dialogue, but rather as a military expedition where
	every subsequent version wars against all its predecessors as well as the original? If we
	accepted that the function of translatology, comparative literature and literary theory
	is to sanction unity and order, rather than transgressive abundance, who should decide
	on canon-makers and select a single canonical translation? Balcerzan’s controversial
	claims deserve attention and should be treated as an invitation to discussion – an
	approach which complements the two pointed out by Anthony Pym as typical of
	translation studies: confl ict or indifference.},
doi = {},
url = {https://ejournals.eu/czasopismo/przekladaniec/artykul/tlumaczenie-jako-wojna-swiatow}
}