ABSTRACT
Translation critics, in their capacity as ‘special’ readers, seem to play roles similar to those of reviewers and evaluators, but at least the latter two groups can be more narrowly differentiated. A sizeable proportion of the critical writing on literary translations consists of reviews that appear in newspapers, sometimes in weekend supplements and sometimes in special sections on foreign literature. Isabelle Vanderschelden’s study of the characteristic features of French reviews of translated fiction in newspaper supplements (like that of Le Monde) and weekly magazines (like Lire and Le Magazine littéraire) has usefully pointed out how they fail to mention the translation and the translators (who are usually not named), or to compare the source and target texts (Vanderschelden 2000:271–93). Penny Johnson has further analyzed their focus on content rather than style, their disregard for explicit criteria and their preference for readability rather than faithfulness (Johnson 2006:129–44). On the other hand, many evaluators are simply translation teachers who, in an instructional context, adjudicate the quality of translations for pedagogical purposes (see McAlester 1999:169–75). With reference to criteria such as accuracy and equivalence, they seek a supposedly objective and reliable assessment of the texts they teach or grade. Such evaluation is also meant to bridge the gap between translation theory and practice for students, and remains a crucial component of translation criticism courses. Critic-readers as described in the present chapter behave quite differently from reviewers in their avoidance of subjective and intuitive assertions, and, while not completely refraining from evaluation altogether, their work has little relevance for translator education.
