Index
Thursday 1st December, Vaudeville Theatre
► 20.00 – 21.15
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
p. 3
► 20.15 – 20.25
OPENING OF THE CONGRESS
p. 4
► 20.25 – 21.15
ON THE TRANSLATOR AS A VERY SPECIAL READER
p. 5
Friday 2nd December, Egmont Palace
► 09.30 – 10.00
WELCOME & GENERAL INFORMATION
p. 6
► 10.00 – 10.30
ON CARTOGRAPHY ACTIVITIES
p. 7
► 10.45 – 12.45
3 WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
p. 10
► 14.00 – 16.00
3 WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
p. 10
► 16.30 – 17.30
PLENARY SESSION: BEST PRACTICES
p. 11
Saturday 3rd December, Egmont Palace
► 09.30 – 10.30
WORKING GROUP REPORTS
► 11.00 – 12.15
LITERARY TRANSLATION AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION p. 47
► 12.15 – 13.00
QUESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
p. 51
► 13.00 – 13.05
CLOSING WORDS
p. 55
2
p. 17
PETRA
► 20.00 – 21.15
Thursday 1st December, Vaudeville Theatre
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Jürgen Jakob Becker and Bart Vonck
Mrs Androulla Vassiliou, the European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism, Sport,
Media and Youth, was welcomed to the congress by Jürgen Jakob Becker (Literarisches Colloquium
Berlin) and Bart Vonck (Passa Porta). A very warm welcome was also extended to the numerous
literary translators present, and everyone active in the field of literary translation.
Jacques De Decker, president of the PETRA congress, was excused due to illness. It was hoped that he
would be able to preside over the plenary session on Saturday 3rd December.
Jürgen Jakob and Bart Vonck outlined the background to the PETRA congress:
“In April 2009, at the Literary and Cultural Translation conference organised in Brussels by the
European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, the president of the Commission, made clear his
determination to enhance the status of translation.
These aims provide the framework for PETRA’s involvement in the evaluation of the current situation
and gave us the idea to draw-up concrete plans to change the status of literary translation and the
situation of literary translators.
As a European platform for literary translation, PETRA brings together organisations and networks
from all over Europe, EU member states and neighbouring countries. No less than thirty-four
countries are ‘represented’ at the PETRA congress.
On Friday 1st and Saturday 2nd December, almost 150 representatives from the broad field of
literary translation in Europe will deal with a number of issues – six in total – and help formulate a
European plan. The aim is for the plan to create a new dynamic within the field of literary translation
in Europe.
Passa Porta (Brussels) initiated PETRA in partnership with the Polish Book Institute (Krakow), the
Literarisches Colloquium Berlin, the Slovak Literary Translators’ Society (Bratislava) and
Transeuropéennes (Paris). They carry the project in respect of content and budget.
The associated partners of PETRA are: CEATL (European Council of Literary Translators’ Associations),
CETL (Centre Européen de Traduction Littéraire), ELV (Expertisecentrum Literair Vertalen), the Dutch
Foundation for Literature, the Robert Bosch Stiftung, Het beschrijf, the S. Fischer Stiftung, the
Gulbenkian Foundation, the Flemish Literature Fund, HALMA and the School of Toledo.
Of course, PETRA also counts upon many other organisations and networks active in the field of
literary translation to fully participate in the initiative.
The PETRA congress is not intended to be a gratuitous assembly. The final congress report will be the
basis of a publication: The Plea for Change. This publication, to be published in Spring 2012, will mark
3
the start of an awareness campaign and numerous events in a large number of European countries.”
On behalf of the five co-organisers, Jürgen Jakob Becker and Bart Vonck thanked the European
Commission for its moral and financial support, and for recognising PETRA as a cooperation project
within the framework of the Culture Programme. They invited Mrs Androulla Vassiliou to officially
open the congress.
► 20.15 – 20.25
OPENING OF THE CONGRESS
Androulla Vassiliou
A selection of quotes from the opening speech:
“(…) Above and beyond my duties as European Commissioner, I am an avid reader of literature. So I
can honestly say that I am an avid reader of translations.
And I know that I'm not the only one who benefits from translation. There are more than 500 million
people living together in the European Union. We speak 23 official languages, and many regional
languages, not to mention the many languages spoken by immigrants from countries outside the EU.
This diversity represents an enormous asset for Europe. But it also poses a challenge. That is why,
since the beginning of the European project, we have been working with the Member States to
promote both the learning of foreign languages and translation.
The EU's current programme for education and training has been helping thousands of Europeans –
young and old – to acquire language skills for their personal lives and for their professional careers.
And since 2007 the Culture Programme has helped translate over 2,000 works of fiction.
Europe's great heritage should be enjoyed by the many, not by the few. That is why translators are
essential. They open the gates to ideas, knowledge and cultural and artistic expressions that
otherwise would not be accessible to us. As Anthony Burgess said: "Translation is not a matter of
words only: it is a matter of making intelligible a whole culture."
This illustrates the enormous task of the translator who has to build a bridge between cultures. It is
only fitting therefore that we give due recognition to translators as creators of original works.
I am very happy to see that this congress will continue the Europe-wide debate started in 2009 on
the importance of literary translation and on the role of the translator. I look forward to the results
of your discussions.
(…)
I would like to wish all of you a fruitful congress.
We sometimes refer to the Renaissance as the "great age of translations". I hope all of us will aspire
to the same level of ambition, so that the next great age of translation can begin tomorrow.”
4
► 20.25 – 21.15
ON THE TRANSLATOR AS A VERY SPECIAL READER
Alberto Manguel
A selection of quotes from the lecture:
“(…)The many translations of any single text grant that text something like the miracle of Pentecost,
allowing readers the possibility of hearing the original words spoken each in its own tongue. Unlike
my early intuition of utterly distinct entities, every translation is very much the same text, but the
text questioned, re-examined, doubted, amplified, revised, moved into a different context,
commented upon, brought up to date and changed as the tongues of flame changed the speech and
thought of each of the twelve apostles. In this endless cumulative process, an infinity of translators
might approach something like the perfect, definitive, archetypal text, fulfilling in its congress all its
aesthetic possibilities and making explicit all its nuances of emotion and meaning.
(..)
All art is approximation, and that which we construct out of words even more so. But perhaps, by
attempting the wordsmith's craft through multiple voices, the orginal drafts and the successive
translations, something of what the poet has imagined can begin to take shape.
Paul Valéry (and Shelley as well) imagined that all poems are part of an unfinished universal poem.
More modestly, the original text of any poem, together with its translations, can be read as a single
stanza of that poem, which, like the entire inconceivable whole, is still in the process of being
written. Magically, we readers have been granted the privilege to be present at the creation.”
Bart Vonck and Françoise Wuilmart (who replaced Jacques De Decker) interviewed Alberto Manguel
in English, French, German and Spanish. Mr. Manguel replied brilliantly in these four languages.
5
PETRA
► 09.30 – 10.00
Friday 2nd December, Egmont Palace
WELCOME & GENERAL INFORMATION
Paul Buekenhout and Nathalie Schmitz
Paul Buekenhout (coordinator of Passa Porta) and Nathalie Schmitz (coordinator of PETRA)
welcomed everyone to the first day of the PETRA congress day on behalf of the five PETRA
organisers: Passa Porta, Literarisches Colloquium Berlin, Transeuropéennes (Paris), the Polish Book
Institute (Krakow) and the Slovak Literary Translators’ Society (Bratislava).
They thanked Steven Vanackere, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, for making it possible to hold
the congress in the splendid surroundings of the Egmont Palace. The Minister generously granted
PETRA a very significant reduction in the price of the venue, for which the organisers were very
grateful.
Paul Buekenhout and Nathalie Schmitz described PETRA’s objectives:
“This congress marks the start of PETRA: an ambitious project to develop a European plan for the
support and upgrading of literary translation in Europe. One of the main aims of the congress is the
formulation of the ideas and recommendations that will form part of the plan. PETRA is, indeed, an
ambitious project. However, it is not the intention to make other literary translation projects and
organisations, or networks active in the field, unnecessary or redundant. PETRA does not aim to
replace what exists, but to add to it. PETRA wants to create a new dialogue and dynamic.
PETRA is organised and steered by five organisations. The steering group consists of: Katarína
Bednárová (for the Slovak Literary Translators’ Society), Jürgen Jakob Becker (for the Literarisches
Colloquium Berlin), Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes (for Transeuropéennes), Elżbieta Kalinowska and
Tomasz Pindel (not present) (for the Polish Book Institute) and Bart Vonck and Paul Buekenhout (for
Passa Porta).
Passa Porta, the International House of Literature in Brussels, coordinates the project. The Passa
Porta working committee consists of Françoise Wuilmart, Sigrid Bousset, Henri Bloemen, Anne
Casterman, together with Nathalie Schmitz and Anne Janssen, coordinators of PETRA.
PETRA stands for ‘European Platform for Literary Translation’. However, PETRA is not yet the
platform that we’ve been dreaming of. There are five organising organisations, eleven associated
partners and a large number of organisations and networks from all over Europe involved in the
initiative. The true European Platform for Literary Translation will exist as soon as there is a basic
consensus on a number of issues.
Six themes will be discussed in the working group sessions. It is important that each working group
concludes with a number of recommendations for regional, national and European level decision and
policy makers; recommendations for beneficial changes in the field of literary translation are also
important.
6
In Spring 2012, these recommendations will be published in a booklet. The working title is: A Plea for
Change. This publication will be disseminated, with your help, throughout Europe.
It will mark the start of a media campaign, a number of professional and public events and contacts
with the policy and decision makers across Europe. To achieve all this we need the input of the
organisations and networks present here.
In this context, a few words of self-criticism might be appropriate. The staff of PETRA tried their best
to respond to the numerous questions and remarks that were raised but, in the end, there were just
too many.
An evaluation of PETRA, of the congress management and its content, will be made. Later in
December, a form will be sent out to gather reactions and suggestions.”
► 10.00 – 10.30
ON CARTOGRAPHY ACTIVITIES
Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes and Andy Jelčić
CEATL and Transeuropéennes / Traduire en Méditerranée have, among other things, been mapping
literary translation on a transnational, European scale. While preparing the text for this congress,
Towards a Cartography of Literary Translation in Europe, PETRA was grateful to be able to draw on
their work and expertise.
Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes (Transeuropéennes / Traduire en Méditerranée)
“When, in the middle of the Noughties, everything that was culturally and politically at stake in the
field of translation should have hit the headlines, no one paid any attention. Nevertheless, as the
founding document of the project Traduire en Méditerranée stressed in 2008, translation is an
essential lever of cultural and social development, participating in the renewal of forms and methods
of exchange in the social, economic, political, intellectual and artistic domain. And it is a gesture of
emancipation with regard to a closed conception of identity, inviting us to construct a relationship
with alterities freed from stereotypes and fears. It is on the basis of that shared vision of translation
that the partners in the survey of translation in the Euro-Mediterranean region – members for the
most part of the Traduire en Méditerranée network – joined forces.
This survey of translation in the Mediterranean region is therefore unprecedented, both by virtue of
its objectives and of its perspective. Whereas most of the reports and studies on Euro-Mediterranean
cultural realities concentrate on the unmet needs of the Arab world, the present survey raises
questions about current practices in the European Union, Turkey and Israel, and the reality of
exchanges between societies involved in the Union for the Mediterranean. Its first aim is to
investigate, in the light of translation, the reality of our exchanges today and during the last twenty
years. Its second aim is to cast light on the crucial role of translation in works of imagination and
7
thought (literature, the humanities and social sciences, drama and children’s literature) in the
development of interculturality. Its third aim is to pave the way for a formative Euro-Mediterranean
programme for translation, based on evidence, both in terms of statistical data (so far inexistent) and
of observed practice. Any recommendations that emerge will be submitted to the parties involved in
the Euro-Mediterranean Cultural Strategy and in the European Neighbourhood Policy in its “EuroMediterranean” aspect; to the officials responsible for cultural policy in the member states of the
Union for the Mediterranean; to those involved in aid programmes for translation; and to all actors in
the translation chain.
In 2010 the survey proposed by Transeuropéennes attracted the attention of the Anna Lindh
Foundation which made it the central plank of its Euro-Mediterranean Programme for Translation.
This programme was co-organised with Transeuropéennes and Literature Across Frontiers in 2010
and co-organised with Transeuropéennes in 2011. It benefited in particular from the joint support of
the Anna Lindh Foundation and the French Ministry of Culture and Communication. It resulted in the
commissioning of 69 studies by paired languages and themes and in some ten résumés entrusted to
academics, researchers, translators and publishers. The general conclusions and the
recommendations to be delivered at the beginning of January 2012 draw upon their results as well as
several seminars. The survey of translation in the Euro-Mediterranean region embraces the entire
translation chain: authors, translators, publishers, booksellers, libraries, translation aid programmes
and the media. It covers literary translation in the widest sense since it includes the important but
always neglected strand of humanities and social science translation as well as drama and children’s
literature.”
Andy Jelčić (CEATL)
“The origin of the idea to found a European literary translators’ organization and the first steps in this
direction were undertaken in the early eighties. It took several years – until the early nineties – to
make CEATL official in all respects. One of its founders – Françoise Wuilmart – and one of its first
presidents – Peter Bergsma – were present at the PETRA Congress. At first CEATL comprised ten
countries, in the early nineties this number rose to sixteen and then continuously grew to reach the
present thirty-two, with two more countries – Poland and Serbia – to join this organization in 2012.
CEATL is organized in accordance with the initially mentioned problem areas: there are five members
of the Board, who are each responsible for one working group: Visibility, Copyright and E-rights, Best
Practices, Education, and Social and Economic Status of Translators.
-
the Social and Economic Status Group published its encompassing survey in 2008 and it
brought important insights, particularly one: that the average yearly income of a European
translator cannot match the average income of the European employee in any country, this
discrepancy only varying from medium to enormous. If we take other benefits coming with
employment into consideration, as well as the necessary education level of translators, the
discrepancy is even larger. Now the Group is working on an even more detailed survey
especially focusing on the issues that proved critical in the first survey
-
the Copyright and E-rights Group published its first survey in 2009, which showed mixed
8
awareness of these issues in different countries and partial lack of understanding of
particular questions, which are gaining momentum with the rise of the e-book. The survey
will be repeated in expanded and somewhat altered form; the work on it is in progress. The
results will be compared and conclusions drawn
-
the Education and Training Group made its results public at the CEATL yearly conference in
Prague. It now continues its work not only in the passive form of observation, but also in
interaction with educational institutions in different countries
-
the Best Practices Group is closely linked to visibility and its work is of editorial nature: it
continuously expresses readiness to include any fresh, original or successful practices in the
field of literary translation into its CEATL webpage section and spread relevant information
to different stakeholders, encouraging them to follow the selected practice(s)
-
the Visibility Group has launched a short survey before the PETRA Congress in order to
include its results into the Congress Report, but plans to draw up a more encompassing, indepth report on this important issue, which precedes all negotiations on rights and
contractual aspects, and also has a direct impact on the social status of translators
CEATL communicates mainly through the web, but also through brochures and personal contacts
with legislative bodies and other stakeholders. Its general policy is to solve problems through
negotiations and agreements and only if there is no other way through influence on the legislation to
impose demands and sanctions in certain areas like copyright and social status.”
9
► 10.45 – 12.45
3 WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
- education and training of the literary translator
- copyright and e-status
- literary translation in Europe: culture, politics and cultural policies
For the working group reports: see the congress report for Saturday 3rd December.
► 14.00 – 16.00
3 WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
- the cultural situation of literary translation and visibility
- editorial policies and the relationship with the market
- the economic and social status of the literary translator
For the working group reports: see the congress report for Saturday 3rd December.
10
► 16.30 – 17.30
PLENARY SESSION: BEST PRACTICES
A Transnational Masters Course in Literary Translation
Ton Naaijkens (Centre of Expertise for Literary Translation)
“The Centre of Expertise for Literary Translation (ELV) was founded by the Dutch Language Union in
2001. It is a collaborative effort between two countries, two national foundations of literature,
between translators and translation scholars, between the universities and the so-called field. The
ELV aims to give a boost to the quality of literary translations to and from Dutch, by means of
education and the promotion of professionalism. This takes place through, amongst other things:
1. The organisation of high-level courses and other educative activities;
2. The facilitation of so-called mentorships;
3. The sharing of knowledge.
The priorities of the ELV program are set in consultation with a policy council and an advisory board.
Members of the council and board are representatives of the collaborating organisations and people
active in the field: translators, instructors and publishers. The ELV discusses which skills and
languages are needed, tries to understand the complex situation of the market, sets goals and then
takes action.
The emphasis lies on exercising literary translation skills, which for the ELV courses results in a
working method in which theories are tested in practice. Course participation is always preceded by
a selection procedure: candidates are accepted based on their motivation, talent (partially proven by
a test translation) and existing expertise. Courses are organised on two levels, courses for
professionals just starting out and master classes for established professionals – the concept of
lifelong learning underlies the didactics.
The ELV organises also translation workshops abroad, ‘on location’. Together with the Language
Union and the literary foundations of Flanders and the Netherlands, the ELV published a pamphlet
(Vertaalpleidooi) in which the infrastructure was defended and a proposal put forward to establish a
new degree programme in literary translation at university level: “Literary translation is a creative
profession that requires an academic level of knowledge and critical thinking skills.”
The Dutch and Flemish ministers of Culture and Education accepted the challenge and supported our
goals – the Dutch Language Union provided the ELV with the money to employ a coordinator for a
new transnational masters degree in literary translation. The ELV opted for a didactic model that
evolved from its own working methods, with mutual fructification of theory and practice and
alternation between intensive and extensive courses. An important outcome was the design of a
comprehensive learning trajectory for literary translators, in which competences can be defined on
several levels. This represents a reference framework in this special field and a first attempt to
formulate quality standards for common European use. The tricky part will be when the master
students enter the field. As they enter the phase of professionalization and start to translate literary
works, the aim is to keep them linked to the learning trajectory and for it to continue after
graduation. The real challenge is to spot talented candidates and to encourage them to commit to
the profession.”
11
Traduki
Antje Contius (S. Fischer Stiftung)
“The South-east Europe translation project ‘Traduki’ was founded in 2008 as a European network for
public and private-sector organisations working with literature and books in Albania, Austria, BosniaHerzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia,
Slovenia and Switzerland. Traduki was initiated jointly by the Austrian Federal Ministry for European
and International Affairs, the German Foreign Ministry, the Swiss arts council Pro Helvetia,
KulturKontakt Austria, the Goethe Institute and the S. Fischer Foundation. The Slovenian Book
Agency (JAK) became a Traduki partner in December 2009, and the Croatian Ministry of Culture in
October 2011.
For Traduki, translation means exchange via translations of literary works, non-fiction and books for
children and young people from German into the languages of south-east Europe, from these
languages into German, and between the languages of south-east Europe.
The founding organisations began with the premise that all members of the network should be on an
equal footing, including the participating publishers in south-east Europe as well as the participating
translators, who play a key role in the project as cultural mediators; support for them is central.
Decisions as to what is supported are based on publishers’ contracts. Royalties are covered, which
means publishers must cover the costs of layout, print, marketing, distribution and so on
independently. The cost of translation is covered in full, with fees paid directly to the translators. At
the same time the quality of each translation is independently assessed. This procedure was from the
outset a non-negotiable condition for the founding partners.
A project like Traduki relies on establishing and maintaining channels of communication: between
those managing it, and the participating publishers, translators, agents and organisers. Since the
summer of 2008 nearly 600 books have been translated and published, or are under contract.
Another core concept of Traduki is that as many events as possible relating to the books published
should take place – book presentations, author tours, discussions, conferences and translation
workshops – both on the ground in south-east Europe and in the three German-speaking countries.
All this can only succeed if the sponsoring groups can regularly, amongst themselves as well as with
the many and varied partners and participants, look each other in the eye and literally sit around the
same table. An important matter for a project dedicated to a part of the world where proximity does
not always equate with neighbourliness, and much mistrust between potential partners has still to
be defused.
Further information in eleven languages can be found at the website www.traduki.eu.”
12
Schwob
Alexandra Koch (Dutch Foundation for Literature)
“In every language, in every country, there are so many beautiful books that we just don’t know
about. The aim of Schwob is to make these books visible to publishers and readers.
A Schwob book is a modern classic of world literature, a kind of truffle: one has to make an effort to
find it, whether it is a work of prose, poetry or quality non-fiction.
What does Schwob do?

Looks for books and presents them to publishers

Supports publishers

Promotes translated books to readers
Looking for books and presenting them to publishers
Our main partners in finding Schwob titles are translators but we also ask for recommendations from
publishers and sister organisations from all over the world.
The editors read these suggestions and the Schwob titles are presented on our website
(www.schwob.nl) with a sample translation, an essay and a factsheet. We keep in touch with
publishers, telling them personally about the books we have read. We try to match the right book
with the right publisher.
Supporting publishers
As the publication of this kind of book means a higher risk for publishers – the author can’t promote
his own book, newspapers cut down on reviewing translated literature – we offer financial support
for production, promotion and translation expenses.
Promoting translated books to readers
For the curious reader it is becoming more and more difficult to find interesting books from abroad
that are off the beaten track. By collaborating with bookstores, libraries, reading circles and
newspapers, and by using the website and social media, we are building a reliable guide to translated
literature.
An example
The first Schwob book was The Doll by the Polish writer Bolesław Prus. We heard about the title from
Karol Lesman, a translator from Polish into Dutch, who had been dreaming for over thirty years of
introducing The Doll to readers of Dutch. This 19th century, Dickens-like book of almost 600 pages has
sold three million copies in Poland since WWII. It has been translated into more than forty languages
and recently re-issued in English by New York Review Books (NYRB).
We asked Karol Lesman to write an essay and to translate the first chapters. We added a factsheet
and a biography of both the author and the translator. The Polish writer Olga Tokarczuk wrote an
article about The Doll and why it is important to her. The Polish Book Institute supported us and
provided background information.
13
After receiving the newsletter, the publishing house LJ Veen contacted us for an English copy. By this
point, the publisher has applied to the Polish Book Institute for a grant. Karol Lesman will now spend
next year translating this Polish masterpiece. As a result, we can all look forward to the first Dutch
translation of The Doll.
A European project
We are now planning to launch the website in English. On the site, one will find translated and
published literature alongside books that have yet to be translated.
Schwob is a European idea and at its very core is the belief that knowledge of other cultures feeds
your own culture. This is why we think that Schwob can work with different partners. I’d therefore
like to invite you to think about the possibilities of a European cooperation.”
El Libro Blanco
Maria Teresa Gallego Urrutia (ACETT)
“Literary translators are essentially people working alone, hence their vulnerability. Often, they are
unaware of their rights and, even when they are aware, they dare not invoke them for fear of losing
their job. Moreover, they are ignorant about the working conditions of other translators so
sometimes believe that their misfortunes are uniquely their own. Associations that bring literary
translators together are therefore indispensable. They provide information, put translators in touch
with each other and offer support, rather like a trade union (in Spain, freelance workers cannot, as
such, form a trade union). At the same time, the associations try to raise awareness of this
indispensable profession and of the conditions under which it operates, to alert lawmakers to the
gaps in the legislation that need to be closed, and to remind publishers of translators’ rights and of
the existence of the excellent Spanish intellectual property law, which is not always respected.
With this in mind, ACE Traductores published its first Libro blanco de la traducción en España in 1997.
In 2010, under the title Libro blanco de la traducción editorial en España a second study was
published; it was more comprehensive and had greater scope because we had better resources. It
took two years to complete and it is addressed to translators, publishers, lawmakers, budding young
translators and the universities that offer courses in literary translation.
How was the Libro blanco created? We asked a specialist-polling firm to design and approve the
questionnaire. We worked closely with them throughout the drafting process. Indeed, the first thing
we did was run a training course about literary translation for all those who were going to be
involved. We asked a professor of sociology and political philosophy at Madrid’s Universidad
Complutense to write a report commenting on, and elaborating, the results. We added the
submissions we had requested from all the parties concerned: the Director General of Books,
Archives and Libraries (Ministry of Culture), the director of the Publishers’ Guild Federation, a lawyer
specialising in intellectual property, the director of CEDRO, our management firm, and the literary
director of a publisher whose list includes a large and prestigious series of non-Spanish nineteenthcentury classics. We secured the support of the Ministry of Culture for the production and
publication of the Libro blanco and for the adoption of its recommendations. The Ministry’s own
publication service issued the Libro. The poll embraced all translators, whether they were members
of translators’ associations or not. For that we relied on the assistance of CEDRO and Spain’s other
14
translators’ associations. The Director General of Books, Archives and Libraries presented the Libro
blanco at the LIBER Book Fair in September 2010. It has been since been discussed by panels of
teachers and students in every faculty of translation, and copies have been sent to all publishers. The
Libro blanco is available as a PDF via our website and on the websites belonging to the Ministry of
Culture, the Publishers’ Guild and CEDRO.
In two or three years time we intend to update the Libro blanco by adding a study of digital
technology which, to date, has not been analysed.”
ViceVersa
Ulrich Blumenbach (Robert Bosch Stiftung & Deutscher Übersetzerfonds)
“Bilingual translation workshops have been taking place for some fifteen years now. They came
about through the initiative of translators. Each workshop consists of a group of ten to twelve
translators, evenly split between, for example, those working from German to Russian, and those
working from Russian to German. Participants can highlight any difficulties they are having with their
current translation projects, receive informed feedback on their work and establish links with
colleagues from the countries in which the language they translate from is spoken.
The Vice Versa Workshops are a collaborative project between the German Translation Fund
(Deutsche Übersetzerfonds) and the Robert Bosch Foundation (Robert-Bosch-Stiftung). The German
Translation Fund is an institution supported financially by the German federal and regional
authorities, as well as by the Foreign Ministry. It awards grants to literary translators, initiates and
organises training seminars and arranges other events linked to literary translation. The Fund’s
seminars and workshops form part of the Academy for the Art of Translation (Akademie der
Übersetzungskunst), which aims to train and to offer continuing professional development to
experienced translators, as well as those at the start of their careers.
The Robert Bosch Foundation is one of the largest corporate cultural foundations in Germany; it has
been deeply involved in the promotion of literary translation for many years.
The Vice Versa Programme (ViceVersa-Programm) facilitates bilingual translation workshops, each
lasting several days, for participants working with a particular pair of languages. If these happen
repeatedly, then the venue alternates, if possible, between the countries in which the two languages
concerned are spoken. The German Translation Fund and the Robert Bosch Foundation are
constantly seeking new international partners, funders and venues. To date the latter have included:
Translation House Looren (Übersetzerhaus Looren) in Switzerland, the European College for
Translators (Europäische Übersetzer-Kollegium) in the German town of Straelen, the Literary
Colloquium Berlin (Literarische Colloquium Berlin), Pushkinskie Gory in Russia and Villa Morghen in
Florence. Other workshops have taken place in Salamanca, Guadalajara and Istanbul.
The Vice Versa Programme offers bilingual workshops a financial foundation, support in finding
partners and other funders, as well as advice regarding the content and administration of the event.
To date, the following organisations have collaborated and co-funded initiatives: the Swiss cultural
foundation Pro Helvetia, the University of Bologna, the Israeli Embassy, the Goethe Institutes in
Moscow and Mexico and the S. Fischer Foundation (S. Fischer Stiftung).
15
In 2011, seven Vice Versa Workshops took place, in which German was paired with French, Italian,
Hebrew, Russian, Spanish, Mexican Spanish and Turkish.”
16
PETRA
► 09.30 – 10.30
Saturday 3rd December, Egmont Palace
WORKING GROUP REPORTS
Henri Bloemen, Kurt Van Damme, Bart Vonck, Jürgen Jakob Becker, Carlo Van
Baelen, Ildikó Lőrinszky
The presidents of the working groups reported on the discussions and conclusions
(recommendations) made in their working group session.
The reports are paraphrased below:
Education and training of the literary translator
President / moderator
Henri Bloemen
Keynote speakers
Vincenzo Barca and Ton Naaijkens
Discussant
Françoise Wuilmart
Minutes secretary
Morgane Batoz
In his opening remarks the chair outlined the current paradox of literary translation. On the one hand
literary translation is seen as a cultural activity of the highest order, while on the other it is relegated
to mere service provision; on the one hand translation contributes significantly to the book market,
while on the other no-one is prepared to offer concomitant rates of payment, so that the existence
of many literary translators borders on precariousness; on the one hand literary translation is viewed
as a highly complex human activity, while on the other educational opportunities which recognise
this complexity are only slowly coming into being.
Attempting to come to terms with this paradox should not mean however becoming bogged down in
it or simply complaining about it.
The PETRA conference is taking place because the EU itself has indicated that it wishes to develop
initiatives which can lead to this situation changing. It would be naïve to think that the problems will
be solved in a ‘top-down’ manner, but it would also be extremely cynical not to respond to the EU’s
offer with clear recommendations and constructive ideas.
The chair encouraged all those present to contribute to the success of the working group with
constructive and intelligent ideas.
In his contribution Vincenzo Barco presented the results of a survey undertaken by CEATL in 2009.
183 questionnaires were sent to universities and high schools in 26 European countries; the results
17
are based on the 81 which were completed. The most important findings are:
•
There is extreme disparity in the educational landscape as regards literary translation.
•
In a minority of countries there are dedicated courses for literary translation, which lead to a
commensurate diploma;
•
In several countries courses in translation are only partially geared towards literary
translation;
•
In many countries literary translation modules are available as part of literature or linguistics
degrees;
•
In certain countries universities offer no literary translation options.
Nonetheless the speaker believes that the education of literary translators today should take place at
university level, as a guarantor of quality. But there are many critical issues outstanding which should
be dealt with first.
•
A harmonisation of courses of study and their components is necessary, although the
harmful effects of the Bologna reforms in Europe should be avoided.
•
Such harmonisation should not be forced, account needs to be taken of national traditions.
•
A degree does not in itself equip someone to become a translator, but it is a condition of
their becoming one. Courses should be based then on the twin fundamentals of a solid
theoretical education, which encourages a consideration of the process of translation, and a
thorough practical education. The old master–apprentice model, practised in translation
workshops, is still valid.
To achieve this, several conditions must be met:
Practising translators must be offered the opportunity to lecture as part of university courses.
Academic recognition of working translators is indispensable; they must be offered the possibility of
pursuing an academic career;
The bureaucratic obstacles which stand in the way of this must be dismantled;
Student numbers should not create a barrier to the establishment of courses of study in literary
translation, especially in the cases of so-called minority languages.
As regards content the following points should be taken into account:
•
Alongside the twin fundamentals of theory and practice, courses should also cover business
matters (rates, contracts, taxes, copyright);
•
A good general education is indispensable for literary translators;
•
Care should be taken to avoid flooding the market with graduates;
•
Literary translation contributes to culture generally, which in times of crisis comes under
pressure. It is essential that great literature, also that in so-called minority languages,
continues to be translated.
18
•
It’s about creating a balance between the demands of the market and the cultural value of
the works to be translated.
Ton Naaijkens is himself a literary translator – he has translated the poems of Paul Celan into Dutch –
but he is also an academic, and is speaking as such. His starting point is that there is some kind of
relationship between the original text and a translation, and that it’s good to talk about this
relationship. It’s a relationship defined by difference: ‘It is no longer a matter of as if, but it is simply
the case that translations can never completely correspond to their original.’ When we discuss
educating literary translators, we are essentially talking about the future. What kind of literary
translators will there be in the future? How can we encourage, indeed seduce, students into enrolling
for a Master’s degree in literary translation? How can we offer them opportunities to continue their
development, to professionalise themselves?
All this is not unproblematic, if one considers the route from the desired endpoint.
•
The first question is, to what standards of competence in and knowledge of translation
should undergraduates be taught?
•
The second is to what extent a Master’s degree should be focussed on translation itself,
before one even considers whether there should options for concentrating on literary
translation;
•
And the third is whether and how it is feasible within a given language area to bring together
the wider field of translators, publishers and literature funders as part of the important
phase of professionalisation.
Ton outlined the situation in the Netherlands and in Flanders, two separate countries with different
traditions and institutions but with a shared language, which have for some time now been trying to
offer initial and continuing education for new and more experienced translators, bringing together
the common language institute, literature funders and practising translators. He concludes, ‘what is
lacking is European collaboration, with the countries and languages which are being translated from
– here European synergy would be extraordinarily useful.’
Questions were then raised as to what an infrastructure for initial and continuing education in
literary translation at a European level might consist of. Questions which need further discussion are:
•
Which didactic concepts are most suitable? What is the best way of proceeding in terms of
the individual, texts and practice?
•
How can theory and practice be mutually beneficial?
•
In what ways can literary translators together with academics train students and young
professionals and raise their awareness of translation?
•
In what ways can the range of languages be increased?
It’s clearly time to take the initiative to develop a European frame of reference, that is a common
framework with recommendations which will make standards of literary translation, translation skills
and translation competences fit for purpose, transparent and comparable.
19
In a sketch for such a framework five levels were differentiated:
•
competence in literary translation at undergraduate level
•
competence in literary translation at postgraduate level
•
competence in literary translation at early-career level
•
advanced competence in literary translation
•
career translators who are prepared to pass on their knowledge and experience to future
generations.
Each level should be further broken down as follows:
•
language knowledge
•
literary knowledge
•
competence in translation
•
competence in research
•
work experience
•
‘attitude’.
Questions which arise here are: What is excellence? What is professionalism? At what point does one
become a literary translator? What does experience mean? These questions should be discussed, so
that we have today an image of the literary translator of the future.
Françoise Wuilmart believed that the lines taken by the two speakers were in fact not so very
different, and contained more areas of agreement than conflict.
She herself believes that there has been a consensus for many years that the quality of literary
translation has to do with initial and continuing education. These filter out all sorts of amateurism
and opportunism, which flood the market with bad translations.
Drawing on both speakers, she made further suggestions:
•
Harmonisation at European level should in no sense lead to homogenisation;
•
The introduction of minimum student numbers for the establishment of study programmes
has led to a disappearance of smaller languages;
•
Harmonisation should take account of national traditions and the norms of the book market;
•
Translation practice must be included in university programmes, in two regards: 1) the
commercial and legal practicalities of literary translation (rates, contracts, taxes, clients,
20
networking, copyright…); 2) practising translators must be offered opportunities to lecture as
part of university programmes.
The following questions should be discussed:
•
What sort of education for literary translators do we need? Are only practising translators
suited to educating translators (somewhat like musicians and painters)?
•
Is the master–apprentice model adequate for a good education? Or is reflection at an
academic level necessary?
•
What forms of European-level exchange do we want to see?
•
How do we want to evaluate literary translation? What about literary translation in the press
and media?
In order to structure the discussion, it was suggested that the following topics be discussed in the
following order:
•
What type and what level of education in literary translation are desirable?
•
What forms of European-level collaboration are possible and desirable? What forms of
collaboration between academics and practising translators should be developed?
•
What should be the content of an education in literary translation?
The view that literary translators should be educated in an academic context was by no means
shared by all participants. The following points were made:
•
There are translators who after a simple practical education have done excellent work;
•
Why should an education in literary translation be markedly academic? There are good
alternative models of education for and ways into the field;
•
Academic programmes from which translators graduate annually create a glut in a market of
no great size;
•
Students should not be led to believe that after their studies they will automatically become
translators;
•
In universities literary translation is often taught by lecturers who are not themselves active
literary translators;
•
University students are too young to translate challenging literary texts, because they lack
the necessary life experience;
•
Translators should be regarded as artists and educated as such, rather than as academics;
•
Ultimately the market, by way of publishers, decides how many translators find work and
21
who becomes a translator.
Linked to these critical voices are opinions based on the assumption that literary translation is
primarily a question of natural ability and talent. If one lacks these, four or six years of university
education will make no difference.
On the other side there are those who support an academic education which involves other
professionals, such as publishers and practising translators, so that within an academic programme
there is collaboration with publishers.
It is about bringing into education as many professionals as possible who are involved with the
realisation of a translation. This means above all the publishers and literature funders, both public
and private, but also experienced translators, authors and so on. To keep the sphere of caprice and
amateurism at arm’s length, or rather to gather these energies and experiences, an academic
framework is the most suitable. Within such an open structure the university must take its place as
one of the professional bodies.
In addition an academic education offers the possibility of learning more than one way of working.
Whoever hears only a single voice soon becomes stuck in a rut.
As to the question of talent: talent can be developed if it receives the right encouragement.
Everything possible should be done to familiarise talented young people with literary translation as
early as possible in their university careers.
It is certainly possible to reconcile academic and artistic approaches. They should not been seen as
opposites.
As regards the content of translation courses, several voices made themselves heard:
•
Literary translation often appears in the curriculum at a late stage; it should be seeded
earlier, at undergraduate level, so students are confronted by its particular challenges;
•
It was pretty universally felt that standards of general education left something to be desired,
and especially for a career such as literary translation were completely inadequate;
•
Within general education the idea of ‘culture’ should certainly be taught, but many people
would also like to see courses in ‘formal thinking’ to improve analytical competences;
•
Within education, literary translation should be not simply an end in itself, but also used as a
means of foreign language acquisition. Students then not only learn a language, but also
experience the various levels of a text at an early stage of their education;
•
The education of literary translators should, in those countries where this is still the case, be
moved out of the domain of Applied Linguistics, to enable an education more focussed on
the particularities of literary translation.
There are also contributions from representatives of organisations offering extra-academic training in
literary translation. At the Collège International de traduction littéraire (CITL) in Arles (Fabrique des
traducteurs) young people at stages LT2 and LT3 and with little literary experience are offered the
chance to work as translators in a non-university context, as follows:
•
They work in tandem;
22
•
They work with several teachers, so are exposed to a variety of working methods and
perspectives;
•
Economic and legal aspects of the subject are also covered.
Collaboration with universities, the professional world and with all those who are active in this field is
however necessary. The network should be as dense as possible.
There was a general warning expressed that questions of education should not be overdetermined
by what exists and by current circumstances, but rather by what we would wish to see in the future.
As much as the discussion of educational standards provoked controversy, there was agreement on
the following points, which can also stand as recommendations:
1) Open structures should be created which, without excessive administration, enable universities
and secondary schools as well as the many existing extra-academic organisations and the profession
(translators, publishers, funders) to collaborate;
2) It should be made possible for practising translators to play a significant role as lecturers or tutors
on academic courses;
3) It is important that courses confront students with various viewpoints and working methods;
4) Continuing education remains of great importance to literary translators; in this area particularly,
more efficient collaboration is needed between all those with responsibility for literary translation;
5) The question or problem of minority languages can only be solved at a European level; the
problem of minimum student numbers for the establishment of new courses should be solved;
6) Collaboration at European level should be strengthened; existing structures should be maintained,
and new ones created which serve education. European collaboration and the creation of networks
(inter-university or inter-institutional) are indispensable for the education of literary translators
working in the so-called minority languages;
7) The collaboration of all education providers, whether academic or not, and the profession,
particularly experienced translators and publishers, is essential.
Report: Henri Bloemen and Morgane Batoz
23
Copyright and e-status
President / moderator
Kurt Van Damme
Keynote speakers
Andy Jelčić and Frédéric Young
Discussant
Enrico Turrin
Minutes secretary
Taina Helkamo
Kurt Van Damme, the president, opened the session and introduced himself as the Managing
Director of Librius, the collecting society of the Flemish book publishers, and head of the legal unit of
BOEK.BE, the umbrella organisation of the Flemish book trade.
He then introduced the themes of the discussion and raised several questions:
Times are changing. A book is still a book. Or is it?
New devices and multimedia apps are reaching the market and books are published in different
forms.
Is copyright law fit for the digital era?
National copyright laws predate the Internet era, so do we need a new law? Are there any other
alternatives? Creating new laws is a very slow process.
Would it not be better, therefore, to try to create a so-called “soft law” through negotiation and
contracts between publishers and authors?
In the Netherlands, a model contract between translators and publishers was finalised in 1994 using
the “soft law” process.
As the literary translator is the author of an original work it is evident s/he must be protected by
copyright.
But what kind of remuneration should the translator get? A one-off fee, or a share of the sales?
Should the fee be based on words, or sales? Is the translator giving up full rights to his/her work?
Should we try to aim for some kind of a licence contract? What is the best solution?
There are many different types of contracts in use throughout Europe.
The digital environment has given rise to another problem: piracy.
The digital world has also brought new players to the literary publishing field, such as Apple, Amazon
and Google.
Do we need collective rights management?
After his introduction, the president introduced the keynote speakers: Andy Jelčić, the Croatian
representative and co-vice president of CEATL, and Frédéric Young, the Managing Director of the
authors’ rights society SACD-Scam in Belgium. The discussant, Enrico Turrin, an economist from the
24
Federation of European Publishers in Brussels, was also introduced.
The first keynote speaker, Andy Jelčić, made his statement and stressed the following points:
1. When discussing copyright and e-status in the case of literary translation, it is important to
differentiate between copyrights and e-rights and a translation.
2. It is difficult to build everything into legislation. Other intelligent solutions and settlements
need to be considered.
3. Does it make sense to have a special European copyright when the monsters of the digital
era are global?
4. There is already a great deal of knowledge at EU-level and the decision makers have made it
clear that recommendations from the field are welcome.
5. It is not the book that needs protecting but the intellectual content. Nobody knows where
technology is going. It is possible that the e-books aren’t here to stay and so we must think
ahead. We need to create rules for the reproduction of intellectual content in any form.
The floor was then given to Frédéric Young who also spoke about authors’ rights.
In his opinion, the so-called “black holes” are disappearing and it is possible to improve the
authors’ situation by settlements.
Old copyright settlements are out of date and, because of that, Google (for example) is able to
make a lot of money by offering access to literary works. Frédéric Young reminded the group, as
did Kurt Van Damme earlier, that new players are entering the field all the time.
Frédéric Young asked: are we are heading towards a new universe? He found it hard to say
where the issue of digital rights is leading, but he was sure that many conflicts lie ahead. One
special case to consider is the “orphan works” (a copyrighted work for which the copyright owner
cannot be contacted).
He likened copyright to a set of galaxies, with digital rights constituting just one small part of it.
Frédéric Young wanted to give the following advice to literary translators and authors:
1. Master your own destiny. Get organised. Raise your voice.
2. Create societies to foster public lending rights. With a united management you can negotiate.
3. Authors need to be organised and ensure that they are paid.
4. When it comes to piracy – be innovative. Claim your rights.
Kurt Van Damme gave the floor to the discussant, Enrico Turrin, and introduced the minutes
secretary, Taina Helkamo, a literary translator from Finland, representative of the Finnish
Association of Translators and Interpreters and a member of the CEATL board.
Enrico Turrin remarked that the speakers had raised many sensible issues and said that he found it
difficult to disagree with them. Nevertheless, he pointed out some contradictions.
25
He found it contradictory that Andy Jelčić insisted on the difference between translation and the
original work AND also wanted the translator to be treated as an author.
The fact that Andy Jelčić considers a literary translation to be both a commissioned work and an
original one also seemed contradictory.
Enrico Turrin reminded the group that there is a difference between fraud and the misuse of a
copyright.
Referring to Frédéric Young’s statement, Enrico Turrin mentioned that the management of collecting
bodies could be a useful tool for an author. However, he reminded the group that the rights of the
work are in the hands of the publishers who don’t need collective management to exploit them.
Kurt Van Damme, as the president of the session, then opened the floor to all the participants. A
discussion followed and the working group prepared their recommendations.
Holger Fock, a literary translator from Germany and the other vice president of CEATL, made a
couple of points:
1. Different European countries have different copyright situations and neighbouring rights do
not exist in every country.
2. “Soft laws” are not the solution for every country. The question is: how can publishers be
made to negotiate with translators without resorting to the law?
Bjørn Herrman, a literary translator from Norway, pointed out that things could alter. However,
in order for translators to have the right to negotiate the law needs to change. Translators need
rights.
Elisa Comito, a translator and syndicate member from Italy, mentioned that the Italian copyright
law dates from 1941. It’s a good, general law that defines the rights of all authors.
She then asked if other countries have similar laws.
Elisa Comito also mentioned that there is the Bern Convention but queried whether the
principles enshrined within it are respected. She also asked what kinds of laws exist in Europe.
Miroslava Brezovska, a literary translator from Slovakia, pointed out the literary translators in
Slovakia share the same problem as those in Norway and Germany. “Soft laws” are therefore
impossible. It isn’t possible for the literary translators to negotiate with the publishers.
Freelancers don’t have any rights. It’s not an employer/employee situation. Translators’
associations don’t have any legal status or power. Consequently, publishers refuse to negotiate.
Kurt Van Damme then asked the following questions:
Do we need legislation? Should it be national or European?
Do we need some kind of law that allows negotiation? What is the situation of freelancers in
Europe?
Markéta Hejkalová, a translator and publisher from the Czech Republic, agreed that we do need
26
a copyright law, but it’s just one aspect of publishing. Books also need to be read and sold. If
publishers are in financial difficulties then bad translations are inevitable - because they need to
be made cheaply.
Sławomir Paszkiet, from the Polish Association of Literary Translators, explained that Polish
translators face the same problems as those in Norway. However, the main problem is not the
copyright question, but the fact that in many cases all the rights are given to publisher - even
though the translators are entitled to a number of rights. Some translators fail to think about this
situation. And if translators don’t think about their rights, then it becomes very difficult to
negotiate for those who do.
Irina Horea, a literary translator from Romania, introduced the situation and problems from her
country’s point of view:
In Romania there are few professional translators because it is impossible to live on the low fees.
A normal fee is 3.00 Euros per page, which works out around 500 Euros per book. Furthermore,
the publishers often fail to pay.
The translators’ association is trying to raise awareness amongst translators and help them
understand what should be in a contract and how copyright law works. Irina Horea was sceptical
about EU-legislation as a solution because it cannot be imposed on the private enterprises at the
national level.
Publishers just say that they don’t have the money.
Sławomir Paszkiet pointed out that there are special terms that oblige the publishers to pay.
Irina Horea agreed. However, she said it wasn’t enough because even if the laws exist, the
publishers don’t respect them and the translator can’t afford to sue. She found that editors are
not interested in quality.
Andy Jelčić pointed out that the notion of the author is not always clear and that it carries many
meanings. Often, it is considered to refer only to the writer - but not always. A book can even
have four authors. He reminded the group, however, that Romania has many grants and an
efficient funding system. He thinks that funding bodies ought to be told how publishers behave.
Might this be a better solution than rebellion? Perhaps umbrella organisations, like PETRA, for
example, could help?
Frédéric Young wanted to point out a few things:
1. The European Commission is working with the collecting bodies. A collecting body might
negotiate with the publisher.
2. Model contracts are very useful. Perhaps there could be a model contract at the European
level?
3. We must be more humble than we’ve been before. This applies to both parties. Materials are
going to be used in many different ways. Publishers take more rights than they actually need
and these rights remain frozen and unused. It’s horrible that publishers propose contracts
that include rights unrelated to the actual work they are engaged in.
4. We need basic remuneration- a common goal for us all.
Kurt Van Damme reminded the group that good relationships between translators and
27
publishers are important. Google, and the other big players, are the threat on the other side. If
there are unused rights then they should revert back to the translators. There should be a cut off
point, after which the publisher returns the rights to the author of the translation.
Bjørn Herrman asked what the difference is between a model and a standard contract. What is a
model contract? In Norway, only a standard contract exists. Is there a difference?
Carlo Van Baelen, the Managing Director of Vlaams Fonds voor de Letteren, explained that there
is indeed a difference. In Belgium, a model contract exists and is commonly used. A model
contract cannot be changed. On this point, there needs to be solidarity amongst translators.
Everybody must ask for the model contract to be used.
Kurt Van Damme agreed and said that there is very little to be changed in a model contract. In
Belgium, for example, a 15-25 % share from sales (e-rights) is recommended. The percentage is
about the only thing to negotiate and even this is done within a scale. The model contract also
guarantees a minimum fee.
Holger Fock felt that people were talking about ideals. He reminded the group that in many
countries the situation is much worse than in Belgium and Holland. He didn’t think it was
important to talk about fees in the copyright session and said that the real problem is that
translators are forced to give up all their rights. If they don’t, then they don’t get jobs and
contracts. It is not possible to demand rights for literary translators and this is why a legal
initiative is needed. Writers have agents, but translators do not have even that possibility or
power. The giving up of rights should also be time limited. It is not possible to use collecting
agencies as a potential negotiating tool in every country.
Kurt Van Damme highlighted the contradiction in what people were saying. Some people said
they wanted a law whilst others said they didn’t.
Peter Klöss, a German literary translator, raised another question: what do we do with the digital
rights if we keep them? How do we reach potential users? How do we sell our rights? He felt that
if the rights couldn’t be sold then there was no point in claiming them.
Holger Fock thought a register of rights would be a good idea.
Frédéric Young stated that it is difficult to force people to negotiate. You can limit the rights but
it is impossible to force people to comply. All authors are given rights under the Bern Convention
and, therefore, literary translators are also given rights.
Sławomir Paszkiet pointed out that it is already possible to register your work in every country.
Kurt Van Damme suggested that PETRA could ask the EU to foster a model contract to be used as
a backup at national level.
Holger Fock told the group that, as the result of a court case, the publishers and translators in
Germany now talk to each other. Therefore, the legal framework really does help to get people
to the same table.
Kurt Van Damme reminded the group that it was time to draw up the recommendations.
Klaus-Jürgen Liedtke, a translator and online publisher from the virtual Baltic Sea Library, raised
a question: how can we benefit from digital possibilities? He said that people were often asked
to give away the rights for free. A translator has every right to see his name in the book. But what
28
about in digital publications?
Holger Fock stated that this was a problem in the digital world.
Sławomir Paszkiet pointed out that the name of the translator should always be mentioned
when the original author is mentioned.
Shaun Whiteside, a literary translator from Great Britain, agreed. The British contract states that
the name of the translator must be mentioned, even in the publicity material.
Klaus-Jürgen Liedtke also found it problematic that there’s support for book publishing in the EU,
but none for digital publishing.
Holger Fock insisted that there must also be a set time limit for the rights.
Enrico Turrin agreed that the authors have a lot at stake in terms of remuneration and moral
rights. He thinks it is difficult, if not impossible, to place a time limit on copyrights in the digital
environment.
Holger Fock disagreed and pointed out that certain limits already exist in many countries.
However, once a translator’s work is on the Internet then he/she can never sell it again.
Irina Horea mentioned that the publisher has the rights to publish the translator. A translator can
therefore do nothing with his/her rights.
Holger Fock reminded the group that a translator does not give all his/her rights to the publisher.
Kurt Van Damme stated that a recommendation would not be made if there were a lack of
agreement between translators and publishers. PETRA is a co-operative body.
The group finally formulated seven recommendations, six of which were accepted unanimously.
The seventh was rejected because of disagreements between translators and publishers.
1) PETRA calls upon EU member states to foster negotiations between translators' associations,
publishers' associations and/or collecting societies with the aim of concluding a model-publishing
contract for translators. The contract is to be fair to both translators and publishers and suitable for
the digital era. It is to be backed-up, if need be, by appropriate legislation at national level and/or by
ad hoc government initiatives that provide an incentive to the aforementioned associations or
societies to initiate, or (re)activate, the said negotiations;
2) PETRA calls upon the European Commission and on EU member states to continue to
acknowledge the value of copyright, especially but not exclusively in the digital environment, as a key
instrument that protects the creations of translators, their livelihoods and the investment made by
publishers. It should also be acknowledged that copyright is a key driver of any modern knowledgebased economy;
3) PETRA calls upon the European Commission and the EU courts to closely monitor the situation in
EU member states that have a system of exceptions to copyright within a collective remuneration
scheme (such as legal licenses and extended collective licensing) to ensure that the said schemes
provide for a fair remuneration for all rights holders and for a fair split of that remuneration between
the rights holders concerned (e.g. reprography, private copy, public lending);
29
4) PETRA calls upon the European Commission and EU member states to provide for an adequate
legal framework with regard to the enforcement of copyright law in the digital environment and the
fight against piracy, which is detrimental to translators, authors and publishers alike. PETRA rejects
the idea of a cultural flat fee;
5) PETRA calls upon the European Commission and on EU member states to ensure that any
digitization project (and/or the making of digital content available) that is undertaken or supported
by a private company and/or a government body, or public institution, is fully compliant with
copyright law. It must also be based on the express prior consent of all rights holders concerned
(except in the case of an exception to copyright, within the limits of said exception) and provides for
a fair compensation of said rights holders;
6) PETRA calls upon EU member states to take appropriate legislative action to ensure that the
translator's name features in, or on, each tangible or digital copy of a translated book. This is to be
done in such a way that it is sufficiently visible to end-users and in the way that is customary for the
mode of exploitation concerned. This also applies to all promotional material pertaining to the book
in question;
7) (REJECTED) PETRA calls upon EU member states to take appropriate legal action with an aim of
limiting the duration of licenses given by, for example, rights transfers from translators to publishers.
Report: Taina Helkamo
Literary translation in Europe: culture, politics and cultural policies
President / moderator
Bart Vonck
Keynote speakers
Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes and Antje Contius
Discussant
Dieter Hornig
Minutes secretary
Christine Defoin
To allow more time for general discussion, the workshop chair, Bart VONCK, immediately called upon
the first speaker, Ghislaine GLASSON DESCHAUMES, to give her address. She summarised her article,
published in the Cartography of Literary Translation, in which she draws attention to the appeal
More Than One Language: Towards a European Translation Policy launched on 26 September 2008
by some twenty European intellectuals. It contained the following assessment: “Because it
represents the experience of difference and the transcendence of identities, translation must be at
the heart of the European public space which, in its social and institutional dimensions, in its cultural,
social, political and economic components, it is incumbent on all of us to build”. What is the situation
three years after this appeal? Ghislaine GLASSON DESCHAUMES indentified two dangers which seem
30
to represent a particular threat to literary translation: its exploitation by those seeking to justify
clinging to national identity and the marketing logic into which it seems to be getting bogged down.
However, where translation is concerned, it is not enough to focus attention on the financial aspect
by obliterating the notion that “the journey of works of imagination and thought and their linguistic
and cultural mise en traduction” are much more than an anecdotal aspect of the European Union’s
cultural policies or a mere adjunct, like language learning, of multilingualism policy. And while she
would not deny that there is money (to the tune of nearly three million euros) to support translation,
Ghislaine GLASSON DESCHAUMES nonetheless deplored the fact that only works of fiction are
eligible for support from such funds: no books in the humanities or social sciences! These fall within
the remit of the research sector and are therefore mostly English, and yet they constitute the
crucible of thought and contribute to the exchange of ideas which is fundamental to the progress of
the Union. Ghislaine GLASSON DESCHAUMES said she was no more satisfied with the prizes awarded
by Europe which are supposed to reward the best translations; she wondered what their significance
is, what criteria govern their attribution, how credible they are and how well-qualified are the judges.
European translation policy tends moreover to favour giving assistance to works that are already in
the system and form part of lists like the “Top 50 best books”. That being the case, how can a
genuine literary translation policy – so useful for “enhancing what we have in common” and “getting
to know each other better through texts” – be constructed? Ghislaine GLASSON DESCHAUMES’s
advice was to select texts for translation according to “corpus” and themes, and to give translators’
colleges greater visibility and support. She then reminded her audience of the three
recommendations set out in her article: to encourage, at European level, a more diversified and
more ambitious supply policy, to give greater precision to the real status of the translated book, and
to design a European programme for literary translation on the basis of existing initiatives. She
pointed out, in conclusion, that PETRA could be the common platform and spokesperson for
European literary translation.
The second speaker, Antje CONTIUS, presented the European programme TRADUKI aimed at
countries in south-eastern Europe, especially Albania, Austria, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Germany, Kosovo, Macedonia, Rumania, Serbia, Slovenia and Switzerland. Translation programmes
have long existed, but this one is special in that it aims to enable south-eastern countries to
understand European history from the point of view of the Other, that is to change the perspective in
which a frequently tragic, common history can be viewed, in order to bring about greater integration
and a shared sense of destiny. Moreover, TRADUKI is a work-in-progress whose priority is to
recognise the Other in their difference and thereby to make dialogue possible. Every translator is a
messenger who takes up an existential political challenge: via fiction and literature and through
personal histories to bring us to a better understanding of each other. Because it results from a
conscious, concerted decision the choice of translated books has a similar aim. Here the supremacy
of the bestseller (generally the most frequently translated) disappears to the benefit of new lesserknown languages in south-eastern Europe placed henceforth on an equal footing with other more
widely-spoken languages. TRADUKI is an independent project subsidised both by public and by
private funds, and it offers 100% finance for translations. It is rooted in long-term collaboration
between publishers and translators and connects all parties in the chain: from the author to the
translator via the publisher, the agent and others. Six hundred translation contracts have already
31
been signed or are about to be signed. A whole succession of events are planned to publicise
TRADUKI’s work (see http://www.traduki.eu).
In this workshop Dieter HORNIG’s role was to react to the speakers’ presentations. He began by
thanking the translators providing simultaneous translation and regretted the fact that they were
unseen, a symbolic but nevertheless concrete representation of the profession’s lack of visibility!
Referring to the More Than One Language appeal, Dieter HORNIG pointed out that there was only
translator among the signatories and wondered whether such an appeal, if launched Europe-wide
and not just within France and signed by European intellectuals and translators, might not have much
greater impact and prove more immediately effective. He added that as far as he was concerned the
struggle for a multilingual community was not in itself an advance because within Europe a primitive,
false and reductive vision of the role of language – seen too often as a simple succession of
functional sounds – was widely prevalent. And if the linguistic tool is secondary, what is to be said of
translation? In his view the logic of lists of works to be translated should not be dismissed out of
hand, but he argued rather for a list drawn up by well-known authors who would make clear their
“love” for this or that work, as is the case with Finnegan’s List. As for the translator, he/she is too
often seen as a “word ferrier”, a kind of disembodied and inevitably disinterested prophet. Dieter
HORNIG nonetheless thought that we are at a pivotal moment in the promotion of the translator’s
image and craft, as gatherings like the PETRA colloquium prove. On the subject of TRADUKI he
regretted that the programme is organised “à l’ancienne”, that is under the influence of a
government (the German government) that seeks to promote the spread of its own language. He
recommended the creation of a European authority endowed with the means to foster activities and
launch initiatives in the field of translation.
Antje CONTIUS intervened to clear up a misunderstanding: TRADUKI is not a programme “à
l’ancienne” working in one direction only in order to have German texts translated, nor was it a
partnership between two governments working hand-in-glove to decide what works should be
translated. On the contrary: the partnerships are multiple and all interested parties are actively
involved.
In reply Ghislaine GLASSON DESCHAUMES said she fully supported the idea of ridding the translator
of the metaphorical paraphernalia surrounding his/her function. She made it clear that the More
Than One Language appeal was also signed by author-translators and intellectuals who reflect upon
literary translation in the long term. Moreover the online version of the appeal attracted 1,821
signatures. She nevertheless had to admit that the appeal was without effect and despite the hopes
vested in it had failed to have a wider impact, but the text is still accessible and is available for
circulation in 19 languages on the Transeuropéennes website
(http://www.transeuropeennes.eu/fr/articles/325).
The chair Bart VONCK then invited contributions from the floor, after reminding the audience that
the purpose of the workshop was to make concrete recommendations.
In the debate that followed reference was made to the large number of national, regional, public and
private initiatives that involve every EU language; almost all, however, are in difficulty.
32
Macedonia is celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the STROUGA poetry festival in the course of
which more than 4,000 poetic texts in 122 have been translated over the years, constituting a solid
base for the “Europeanisation” of poetry translation. The problem now is to find a way of digitalising
the archives and the means to pay for it (http://www.svp.org.mk).
In Italy, in Rome, the drama festival “Face to Face: Parole di Francia per scene d’Italia” plays the
“small is beautiful” card and confines itself to a Franco-Italian face-to-face: French dramatic works
are translated, published and performed with the support of the Beaumarchais Foundation which,
unfortunately, has decided to cease funding the project.
In Albania the international literary prize BALKANIKA is awarded every autumn by a panel of seven
judges made up of publishers and authors from the Balkan countries. From a shortlist of seven novels
or short story collections they choose a work published in one of the seven regional languages
(Bulgarian, Macedonian, Greek, Rumanian, Turkish, Serbian and Albanian). Those works ranked by
the panel in the top three are translated into the six other languages. That is particularly difficult for
little-known languages, so publishers tend to favour emigrant authors writing in the language of their
adopted country (Italian, English, etc.) which reduces translation fees but goes counter to the
protection of original literatures. Moreover, it is a matter for regret that the Balkans no longer
feature in Mediterranean projects.
Finally, the importance of Translators’ Colleges in facilitating contacts between authors and
translators and in serving as a crucible for a number of translations was widely noted. Unfortunately
the colleges - initially supported by the European Union - are experiencing difficulties in getting their
grants renewed and are therefore finding life rather difficult.
At this point in the debate the chair Bart VONCK, in inviting participants to focus on the workshop’s
theme, asked them to express an opinion about the common European policy for literary translation.
It soon became apparent that the financial aspect of European support was of particular concern to
the audience. Since there can be no such thing as a unfinanced policy, a truly European policy of
translation support required a structure and it needed financing. Why not imagine a system for
distributing European funds via national translators’ associations? Would the translators’ college not
be the ideal interlocutor, the perfect locus for the profession to share subsidies between peers? But
it is well known that the Union will never finance individuals, so this solution seems a non-starter.
Rather we should devise subsidies for the export of a language. But we also know what a difficult
and complex task it is to subsidise projects involving several partners and bring them to fruition. And
is not the real difficulty the lack of communication between the actors?
Let us be realistic: we are in the middle of an economic crisis, so we must not expect too much of the
Union over the next few years. We must embrace the notion that European Union does not have to
be the only source of aid. National cultural policies need to support the translator too. But if we look
at the many ways the exportation of national languages is promoted, we can see no structural
support for the translator. There are many sources of funding, but we are unaware of them because
too little information on the subject is made available.
33
Chair VONCK then proposed standing back a little from the financial issue: one could not, he said, be
satisfied with a recommendation that tended to reduce the European Union to a simple purveyor of
funds. On the contrary: he invited the participants to explore further the idea of information
exchanges in order to find out what is being done and who needs what. Can means be found to
exchange initiatives and to get information about opportunities and achievements?
Although there is RECIT (Réseau européen des Centres Internationaux de Traducteurs Littéraires, or
European International Literary Translators’ Centres Network, http://www.re-cit.eu), there is no
network of foundations, and yet, as mentioned above, they are very numerous. Setting up a network
of all organisations devoted to translation seemed to command unanimous support. But what form
would it take? An agency for multilingualism, such the one formerly under the aegis of a
Multilingualism Commissioner, in which translation would have pride of place? That did not seem
very promising. A European Translation Institute? But the national agencies remain the “foot
soldiers” in the campaign for translators’ rights; they must be preserved because it is to be feared
that a generalised organisation would not be up to the task of promoting diversity.
The idea of a “centre of coordination” for information, activities and initiatives was supported by the
participants. They made several comments about what such a centre might undertake:








a summary of what exists already is indispensable to avoid duplication, to know what
information to share, to formalise statistics, etc.;
a public awareness campaign featuring the work a translator does seems to be of prime
importance;
the genuine inclusion of the translator in the literary translation chain and his/her
recognition as a fully-fledged author remain a primary objective;
close cooperation between all parties to the translation process, from the author via the
translator to the publisher, cannot be avoided;
a database of languages and translated works must be set up as soon as possible;
as is shown by the ever-increasing concentration on American bestsellers, it is a fact that the
exportation of translated works is linked to the market, but editorial policy and exportation
logic can no longer be ignored;
self-evaluation must be achieved in order to progress and do better;
the promotion of the translated text must not be restricted to hard copy but must take into
consideration all other media (electronic, cinematographic, etc).
Cultural policy recommendations
1) Of primary necessity in the “cultural policy” context is, on the one hand, to reach out to the
general public and help it to indentify more clearly the work of the literary translator, and on the
other to confer on the literary translator the status of an independent professional, recognised as
such by the European Commission. To that effect a vigorous hearts-and-minds campaign should be
embarked upon.
2) If a maximum of national organisations and other institutions are affected, the corpus of literary
translators should not be dissolved in a common cultural policy but rather brought together in a
34
network of their own, and windows should be opened by giving them the necessary communication
tools to encourage exchanges, the sharing of data, the transfer of information, and the like.
3) All literary funds and other regional, national and international bodies should form the basis of a
resource hub taking on board a mission to regulate the market, to analyse export practices, to
identify needs, to locate actors, to raise the profile of the translated text whether it be in the form of
a book or another medium, and to channel aid to translators.
4) It would be beneficial to encourage all actors in the literary chain (authors, translators, publishers,
rights organisations, etc.) to work closely together in order to spread awareness of all existing
initiatives and promote other possibilities.
Report: Christine Defoin and Bart Vonck
The cultural situation of literary translation and visibility
President / moderator
Jürgen Jakob Becker
Keynote speakers
Martin de Haan and Burkhard Müller
Discussant
Maria Teresa Gallego Urrutia
Minutes secretary
Nadia d’Amélio
The Trap of Invisibility
We live in a culture of translation – and are barely aware of it.
In most European countries literature in translation has an extremely strong presence. It has a major
impact on readers’ feeling for language and their reading experiences. Translators ensure that
language barriers can be surmounted; metamorphosis is their profession. They create the conditions
for cultural exchange, generate diversity, open up our thinking beyond national limitations. They
stand for much which, in the realm of cultural politics, and from one country to the next, is valued.
Anyone who, broadly speaking, takes seriously statements by politicians on the topics of cultural
exchange and European understanding has to come to the conclusion that the art of translation is
THE art of our time. For who else, other than the translator, delivers so much in terms of
understanding and cultural transmission?
That foreign-language authors speak to us in the voice of a second, somehow invisible author goes
without saying, yet an explicit awareness of this fact and its implications is much less pronounced.
This workshop focussed on the dilemma of anonymity. Translators work mostly behind the scenes. A
text which does not immediately come across as a translation is considered to be particularly
successful. Unfortunately this behind-the-scenes element all too often goes hand-in-hand with a lack
of respect for the translator’s achievement. There any many instances of this problem of anonymity:
no mention of translators in book reviews and literary essays, in publishers’ marketing materials or in
library catalogues; a pervasive ignorance of literary translation as a career; and, most significantly, a
view of the status of a translation in the world of texts which is often one-sided (concerned with
what has been lost) and limited. Translators as silent service-providers of the communication
industry working away in the background, merely adding to the costs of book production – this image
is fatally flawed and does a disservice to the cultural importance of the activity.
35
In our discussion we quickly reached consensus that ways out of anonymity have to be found, and
that invisibility is the cause as well as the effect of what’s wrong in our profession. In this regard
certain changes for the better have already taken place in recent years. Examples of good practice
have been recognised and where possible used to support initiatives leading to improvements.
The Translator as Originator: the Right to Visibility
Martin de Haan took issue with the ideal of invisibility. The Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works of 1886 recognised the translator as a creator of form and content,
placing him or her alongside the author. Translators are originators, and their works are protected by
copyright. Article 2 states that “translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other
alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works”.
Literary translation involves interpretative and creative decisions in which the concepts of difference,
with regard to the uniqueness of a translation, and that of similarity, with regard to a restatement of
the original work, are brought to bear. This confirms the moral right of being named, that is the
naming of the translator in the translated book itself, when extracts from the translated work are
used, and of course also when his or her text is referred to in the media or in advertising.
Unfortunately all too often this right is overlooked.
Martin de Haan drew attention to the bridge and ferryman metaphors which are used repeatedly to
characterise translation. Translators do not merely transport texts from one language to another,
they also interpret texts and create from them something new in another language. The act of
translation is one of creative interculturalism. It is imperative that the translator is no longer viewed
as a word-porter but as a protagonist, a creative subject who reconstructs a foreign-language work
for a new readership. He or she performs a significant undertaking in the ongoing transmission of
literature. This role with its significant responsibilities must be made visible and accorded a
corresponding degree of respect.
Translation and Book Reviewing
Burkhard Müller’s contribution came from the perspective of a German book reviewer. On the
whole, the first reactions to the appearance of a book come from reviews. These, as authoritative
channels of information about literature, take on a disproportionate importance in terms of public
awareness of literary translations. Burkhard Müller researched reviews of translated literature in
terms of what they had to say about translation – with sobering results: little attention is paid to the
translator. There are long articles which discuss at length, and are positive about, a book’s language –
in which the translator’s name isn’t mentioned. Perhaps succinct words of praise like ‘perfect’,
‘faultless’, ‘wonderful’ are used to describe the translation, or it’s remarked that the work has been
‘sympathetically’ translated. Complex, nuanced labour is repeatedly granted a single, vague
adjective, outside the context of any wider argument.
If reviews of translations are found wanting, this is not simply a failure of goodwill on the part of the
critics; they often lack the necessary tools. Of course ideally the reviewer will know the original work,
to be able to judge how it has been transposed into another language. But even without a knowledge
of the source language one can comment on the language of a literary text – and consider it in
relation to its status as a translation.
36
Under day-to-day pressures, many testimonies to translation fall by the wayside for reasons of space.
And working conditions for book reviewers too are generally precarious – a serious engagement with
the theme of translation means more work for no extra fee.
One starting point for improvements in this area is to offer professional development opportunities.
In Germany seminars for translators have been opened up – with initial success – to publishers’
editors and reviewers interested in learning more about the subject. One topic of particular interest
to reviewers is that of new translations of the classics – here the opportunity for comparison allows
the topic of translation to take centre-stage. But even professional readers still have some way to go
in terms of understanding translation as a branch of literature, and as a particular challenge for
literary criticism. The development of a serious critique of translation is an important element of an
informed culture of translation. The first steps must be taken in schools and universities, indeed
everywhere that literary texts are a focus of attention.
A Presence in the Literary World
It’s important at this stage to overcome the invisibility of the translator in the trade. Translators
should be named – but there are no guidelines as to how exactly this should be done. Clarification is
needed – and not just in the offices of reviewers and their editors.
– It can happen that the translator’s name is given some prominence in a book, appearing for
example on the cover. Many publishers place the translator’s biography next to that of the author. In
several countries things are changing, for publishers too have noticed that a good translator can be a
good indicator of a book’s quality. The CEATL website is collecting examples of books in which the
translator is properly named.
– The lack of translators’ names in the biographical fields of books listed in library and bookshop
catalogues is a common complaint, which mainly comes down to ignorance rather than intent. One
participant reported a successful intervention with www.amazon.de, where translators’ names are
now routinely listed. Examples from France and Belgium were given, where reactions to the omission
of translators’ names have been quick and systematic (for example mass mailings). Without the
constant public relations work of the translators themselves and their organisations change will be
slow. Here a pragmatic approach obtains the best results.
– What else can translators do to increase their visibility? Under the banner ‘World Reading Stage’
(www.weltlesebuehne.de) a group of practising translators in Germany has started to run book
events focussing on translation. They use them to promote international literature, and their mostly
unknown co-authors. Translators report back from workshops, and together with the audience
explore the open spaces between languages and cultures. Responses have been positive, and the
events work well as eye-openers for all those interested in literature. The group’s activities are now
to be extended into the area of books for children and young people, and into working with schools.
– Book fairs too could be better utilised as platforms for the visible translator. The ‘Translators’
Centre’ at Frankfurt, established a few years ago, quickly became a meeting point for those working
in the field, while also acting as a visible reminder of the translator’s importance to the way literature
is transmitted. In the meantime the ‘Translators’ Centre’ has evolved into a larger whole (an
international centre ‘for Politics, Literature and Translation’), but it remains an example of best
practice worth imitating.
37
– The creation of prizes for translators is one of the more obvious forms of recognising publicly their
achievements. Several participants spoke of their experiences. The idea of adding a translation prize
to prominent literary prizes was particularly attractive (a Prix Goncourt or a Man Booker for
translation…?) The prestigious ‘Leipzig Book Fair Prize’ in Germany, which is awarded in the
categories of literature, non-fiction and translation, generates enormous publicity.
Recommendations
1) Translators are originators with a right to have their creative and cultural achievements
recognised. Publishers, newspapers, those who make use of translations and institutions generally
should undertake to name translators in books and digital media, in publicity materials, in reviews
and essays, and in library and bookshop catalogues. Whenever the author is mentioned, the
translator should be too.
2) Naming the translator on the cover of a book is a particularly effective means of making the
translator visible – and is something which already happens in many countries (noteworthy examples
can be found on the CEATL website). As a model of good practice the EU should lead the way in its
programme of support for translations. An obligation to name the translator on the cover should be
written into the funding contract for all publishers in receipt of support.
3) Increasing awareness of translations is a task which must be taken more seriously by those in
positions to influence the transmission of literature. This is true of schools and universities (beyond
Translation Studies departments), but especially of reviewers and essayists. Initiatives should be
developed and supported which grab the attention of readers, critics, event organisers and funders.
4) Translators should be supported in their efforts to develop new types of events. Initiatives like
‘World Reading Stage’ (www.weltlesebuehne.de) explore new ways of communicating translation
theory and practice and of creating an informed readership for texts in translation. They are
transferable to all European countries.
5) Book fairs and literature festivals are large-scale public events where literature takes centre-stage.
Translators should have a role to play there – and not just that of interpreter during a panel
discussion. The potential to establish translation centres (following the example of Frankfurt) and
event strands featuring translation, with translators on stage as full participants, remains to a large
extent unrealised.
6) Funding for translation should become an integral part of funding for literature generally. This can
only be to the benefit of literature in Europe, and to European readers in general.
Report: Jürgen Jakob Becker and Nadia D’Amélio
38
Editorial policies and the relationship with the market
President / moderator
Carlo Van Baelen
Keynote speakers
Peter Bergsma and Beata Stasińska
Discussant
Yana Genova
Minutes secretary
Anne Casterman
The workshop chair, Carlo Van Baelen, approached the theme of Editorial Policy and Relationship to
the Market from an analysis of the book production chain and of the costs associated with book
manufacture. What is the position of the translator and publisher in the book market?
The first speaker, Peter Bergsma, began with an analysis of current problems, as set out in his article
in the cartography.
First of all, the diversity of literary supply was becoming increasingly impoverished; this was a matter
of regret. Publishers decide what translated books will be put on the market, where the “best-seller
culture” reigns supreme. The big international publishers, created by transnational mergers, magnify
the problem. Various initiatives have been launched to promote literary diversity, such as the
internet site www.schwob.nl set up by the Nederlands Letterenfonds. It is intended to develop this
national programme into an international one.
Next, there is growing pressure on the work of literary translators. Their professional status is
uncertain and their pay is very low. The situation is particularly critical in Italy, Portugal, Spain and
most of the countries in central and eastern Europe. Their remuneration should be linked to their
educational level, their creativity, their investment in terms of time and effort, and the cultural
importance of their work. The standard contract should include clauses about royalties and other
rights. But even if they joined forces publishers would have great difficulty in making sure translators
are decently paid because translated books would cost so much they would never sell. So it turns out
that a bursary system, such as exists for example in the Netherlands and Flanders, is indispensable
for ensuring that literary translators enjoy an acceptable income and good working conditions. Also
most European countries have translators’ school and fourteen of them are members of the RECIT
network (http://www.re-cit.eu).
The third problem is the threat of a shortage of literary translators. CEATL is conducting an
investigation into the training situation in Europe. Because of the social and financial precariousness
of the profession, too few graduands (in universities or other schools) wish to enter the literary
translation market to counter the aging of the workforce in most European countries.
Beata Stasińska, the second speaker, stressed the specific role played by literature in Poland: to help
sustain national identity. Under communism translations of world literature were a means of
defending freedom and opening up the world beyond historic and cultural borders. Translators
benefited from the prestige of making accessible works that were not subject to ideological
censorship. After the fall of communism, the translator’s role was profoundly altered by the logic of
the free market and of consumer choice. Nowadays the cost of translation is often the reason for not
publishing a book unless the publisher can find a cheaper or less experienced translator, which
results in mediocre translations, in poorly-edited books and in readers disappointed to find that the
literary quality is well below the standard of the original. Contracts guaranteeing the translator
39
royalties for future editions in addition to the initial fee are becoming rarer, as indeed are second,
third - or more - editions. The translator’s role has been reduced to a mere extra service, and for the
publisher an expensive one.
Moreover, since it was opened up to the free market Poland has neglected both the modernisation
of its libraries and the promotion of reading. The level of book buying is now very low, as is the
number of readers, a phenomenon affecting other countries too. The number of translators for all
languages except English has fallen dramatically everywhere in Europe. Most publishers think that
books of considerable literary value require a higher level of subsidy and a different distribution
system. Beata Stasińska drew attention to the significance of an ambitious open project like the
Bibliotheca Alexandrina (http://www.bibalex.org/home/default_fr.aspx). So she thinks it necessary
for the European Union to devise a programme for European cultural integration based on the
recommendations of all the actors in book publishing which recognises literature as an indispensable
factor in the construction of the new European identity. Also western publishers should be
encouraged to open up to other literatures, particularly those of central and eastern Europe.
Following these two speakers the moderator Yana Genova took the floor to launch the debate. What
was the relationship between the publisher and the politics of the market place? Were his choices
dictated by his idea of the market or by his conception of what the public expected? With the market
and the entire politics of publishing in mind, should the translator see the publisher as a friend or as
an enemy?
Beata Stasińska noted that the cost of book production and
the nature of the market varied from
country to country in Europe. Moreover in some markets one can speak of unfair competition and
corruption, even of a complete moral vacuum. Alongside bestsellers and the supremacy of English
she stressed the need to make space for translation from minority languages; the number of
publishers promoting them is too small.
Haye Koningsveld drew attention to the phenomenon of cross-subsidy. The profits engendered by
successful books allowed a publisher to finance the translation of promising authors.
Publishers’ choices will be heavily influenced by economic factors, but a not-always-visible
infrastructure, present and supported in a public manner, such as festivals, book fairs and prizes,
underlie them too. Moreover publishers are not the sole intermediaries guaranteeing the public’s
diversity of interests. More and more bloggers, websites, newspapers and even translations not
undertaken for payment appear on the net, so the question of the role of the new technologies and
of their repercussions needs looking into.
In the view of Peter Bergsma, publishers are often subject to the laws of the market: good book,
good reader, good timing. But the role of the translator is also to precipitate these.
Yana Genova raised an important question: should grants be paid to the publisher or to the
translator? Books by foreign authors entail a long period of work and a high translation cost,
necessitating a system of subsidy if the translator is to be decently paid. In order to defend proper
remuneration the system needs to be evaluated in its entirety because there is great disparity
between the countries of the EU in this respect. It must be made sure that the money from subsidies
reaches the pockets of the translator and, in the light of some current failings, it needs to be made
sure that the help goes directly to the translator.
Some countries give aid to translation under certain conditions. As Carlo Van Baelan explained, in the
Netherlands and Flanders a sample is checked anonymously by two external translators of the same
40
language, who correct, approve or turn down the candidate’s work and decide for or against the
financing of the translation. France and Germany also possess funds for translation that are not
inconsiderable. But it is sometimes difficult to check translations from some languages, such as
Chinese, because there are too few translators familiar with that language.
Koen Van Bockstal suggested promoting solidarity between author, translator and reader through a
genuine educational process. The public should be given to understand that a good translation has
value and that it does not come cheap. The financing of a translation should be covered by a slightly
higher selling price, borne by the state and by the reading public.
Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes drew attention to the space devoted to translated books in libraries.
In Gallica (http://gallica.bnf.fre) translated works are invisible because they do not form part of the
digital catalogue. It is impossible to tell what language the work is translated from or even that it is a
translation. In France if one looks at reviews and even professional publications like Livre hebdo one
notices that there too the space devoted to foreign literature is reduced and in any case deals
essentially with commercial writing. Balkan or Arab authors are practically non-existent. As for the
Europeana library project (www.europeana.eu), it was very open to translations at the outset but is
no longer so. Only the national heritage is digitised so it is impossible to know what foreign authors
are included: translation is not considered part of the national heritage. In all Europe-wide cultural
projects translated books and the name of the translator should be included.
Between European countries the situation is uneven. According to Daniel Hahn the translator is well
treated in the United Kingdom. Working conditions are respectable because there are grants and
other forms of financial support, but the number of translations is very limited because few
publishers publish them. Those that are published are of high quality but few in number. Translators’
fees in other countries, as a Finnish colleague pointed out, are very low. After translating several
books, since they cannot make a living from them, they either turn to other forms of translation
(such as commercial or legal translation) or they change career altogether. Many young people who
want to translate give up because they cannot survive: the financial situation is untenable. Talented
young people do not stay the course long enough to gain experience. Few translators can make a
living from literary translation alone; generally they do other kinds of translation or they have a
different day job.
Koen Van Bockstal noted that the translator’s deadline is often linked to the publication date of the
original and does not always allow sufficient time to ensure high-quality work. Alliances between the
author and the translator of a bestseller could increase the number of books sold and prove
profitable to both. Yana Genova remarked that that will no doubt depend on the author and the
interest he or she takes in the quality of the translation, but it could allow the translation fee to be
increased.
The publication of a book in several languages simultaneously is linked to the book’s promotion. For
some authors media coverage in the language of the original is of great importance. For the
translation to benefit from it too, the translator’s deadline is reduced even if that risks compromising
on quality. If the translator’s deadline is extended the effects of the media circus around the original
publication are lost. So as to be able to publish the translation on the same day as the original the
manuscript has to be made available in advance. Andreas Jandl stressed that such a practise already
exists in Germany. One solution is to divide the work between several translators while trying to
safeguard the quality of the translation, or for the publishers of the original to wait until the foreign
language publishers are ready to publish the book. Commercial pressures meant that Ana Alcaina
took part in such a translation “by several hands”: it meant working together in the same office with
a coordinator. This was done to respond to the law of supply and demand. The translation was issued
41
under a collective signature. Another solution is to reach an agreement with the foreign publisher
and introduce clauses in the contract to “coordinate” the publication of the original and its
translations. Some authors, such as Paul Auster, make the publication in English coincide with that of
the translations. The situation never applies in reverse because the publication of a translation has
no impact on the original, particularly where the original is in English.
Koen Van Bockstal noted that people buy the book in the original language, often through websites
like Amazon, because they haven’t the patience to wait for the translation. Yana Genova pointed out
that if one compares the time taken to deliver a book in paper form with the instantaneity of a
download it does not take one long to work out that the latter is quicker and cheaper. The
repercussions of e-readers and their effect on literary translation need to be studied. It could lead to
people buying the translation both as en e-book and in paper form. People need to take account of
this new phenomenon because the sales of e-readers and other platforms will inevitably increase
and with them the sales of e-books. Already there are repercussions on the terms of contracts
(copyright assignment, etc.), with conflicts of interest in prospect. The role of the publisher will
evolve and may even be limited to that of a literary agent. Peter Bergsma pointed out that people
will need to get used to the idea that they will have to pay something if they wish to download a
book.
To encourage literary diversity Antonia Byatt proposed taking inspiration from the popularity of
blogs: a blogger has for example specialised in commentary on translated books. It would not be a
case of subsidising an individual but rather supporting a public service. Librarians making the book
selections and writing the commentaries would thus be engaged in a modern form of book
promotion. Alexandra Buchler mentioned another project: a free online magazine (www.lit-acrossfrontiers.org) in three languages (English, French and German). Its translators are paid. Klaus-Jürgen
Liedtke has created the Virtual Baltic Sea Library (www.ars-baltica.net) covering the Baltic region in
order to make people conscious of a European identity. He noted, though, that there are no
subsidies for online publications. Moreover as publisher he suffers from a lack of translators in socalled minority languages like Icelandic or Lithuanian.
Cecilie Cave pointed out that the progress of the last culture programme for 2014-2017
(http://ec.europa.eu/culture/creative-europe/index_fr.htm) should not be underestimated. Her
article in the cartography paints a picture of the different forms of aid available for literary diversity.
The position of member states on the subject of translation should be very clear. Translators’
Associations must exert pressure both at national and European level. For their voice to be heard
translators must seek partners and interlocutors who will be able to take part in consultations and
meetings aimed at defining the issues at stake and correcting mistakes.
Carlo Van Baelen summed up the points raised in the debate that coincided with the
recommendations proposed by Peter Bergsma. It falls primarily to publishers to ensure that
translators are properly paid and enjoy good working conditions. But very often they are in no
position to bear alone the cost of translation.
All national literary funds and the European Commission should
1) agree to enhance the social status and remuneration of literary translators. National literary funds
and the EC should cooperate to establish a system of direct aid to the translator and could set up a
system of bursaries to that end;
2) urge literary publishers, through advice and financial support, to conduct a more varied
42
translation policy, with an opening-up to so-called minority languages;
3) ensure the stability of networks which have a good track record, such as RECIT, so that they can
develop harmoniously. All European countries should have a translators’ college. The renewal of
European aid to RECIT could take two distinct forms: an annual working subsidy for translators’
colleges and a system of bursaries (for travel and residence made available to the translator) to
enable contact with the culture and source language and with translators from other countries.
4) promote a greater visibility of literary translators so as to consolidate their social and financial
status. Library projects such as Gallica and Europeana should include the digitisation of translated
literary works. To support literary diversity the promotion of a programme to change readers’
behaviour in relation to translated works is seen to be necessary. For example, the creation of an
investment fund in libraries of translated literature of high quality.
Report: Anne Casterman and Carlo Van Baelen
The economic and social status of the literary translator
President / moderator
Ildikó Lőrinszky
Keynote speakers
Holger Fock and Mark Pieters
Discussant
Adan Kovacsics
Minutes secretary
Loes Chielens
Our working group was from the outset aware of the difficulty of the task confronting us. Among the
topics suggested by the organisers of the PETRA Congress, that of the “Economic and Social Status of
the Literary Translator” was without doubt the most sensitive, and the one most likely to provoke
serious dissensions among those taking part in the debate.
Over the past few years CEATL and several national literary translators’ associations have conducted
surveys into the economic and social status of literary translators. These surveys are unanimous in
concluding that the situation is alarming and that, unless something is done at national and European
level, it is likely to get worse in the years to come. The aim of the working group’s meeting at the
PETRA Congress is to draw attention to what is at stake in an important cultural sector in which the
chief actors are publishers and translators. We hope that our discussions will give rise to some
general recommendations that will offer useful guidelines to each individual country.
The two speakers, Mark Pieters and Holger Fock, along with the discussant Adan Kovacsics, enabled
us to approach the topic from many different angles.
In Mark Pieters’s opinion literary translation is one of the most underestimated professions. Public
opinion seems unaware of the fact that this work requires specific abilities. Pieters gives precise
details about the economic situation of literary translators in the Netherlands where generally
speaking a minimum tariff is applied (at present 6.3 euro centimes a word). As for royalties, they
correspond in general to 1% of the selling price once 2,500 copies have been sold and to 2% when
5,000 have been sold. Such amounts are not enough to live on. Besides, for the less lucrative titles no
royalty is payable since fewer than 2,500 copies are printed. Publishers have little room for
43
manoeuvre to increase payment because they are struggling to keep their heads above water,
especially in the case of books with low print runs. Certain publishers are very conscious of their
cultural responsibilities: alongside best-sellers they continue publishing interesting works in
translation that do not sell well. Public authorities can take measures to correct the market: they can
give publishers grants to translate a work and thereby promote the culture from which it arises. As
for translators, they insist that some of that money should go to the person who has translated the
book.
According to Mark Pieters a model contract should be compulsory where a grant is applied for (as is
the case in the Netherlands). He urges the adoption of a model contract with a minimum tariff, of a
subsidy system applicable to all European countries, and of a financial contribution from the
publisher of the original work, the whole helping through translations to enhance the cultural
heritage.
Following this contribution from a well-qualified publisher, we heard the point of view of a
committed translator, Holger Fock. He has become an expert on the subject in his German
association (VdÜ) and in CEATL. He noted that the attribution of a social and economic statute is not
applicable in the case of literary translators, because literary translation is a free, creative profession
like an author’s or a painter’s, and cannot be protected like a doctor’s or an architect’s. That is one of
the reasons why the situation of literary translators is generally very bad more or less everywhere in
Europe, although a comparison of incomes reveals differences between northern Europe on the one
hand and southern and eastern Europe on the other. There are only three countries where literary
translators’ gross earnings are higher than 80% of average earnings in the industrial and service
sectors (PPM, or purchasing-power measure); two of these countries are Ireland and the United
Kingdom, where only 3% of all books published are translations and where professional literary
translators (earning almost 85% of their income from translation) are very thin of the ground. The
situation is even worse in all other countries, where net income is never higher than 60% of PPM; in
half of those countries, it represents less than 50% of PPM. These are the main reasons why earnings
are so low: the profession is not protected; the market is unregulated; the tariffs per word, page,
keystroke or leaf are not based on the cost of living; a system offering royalties or a share in the
profits is either completely lacking or does not often provide translators with extra money.
What are the consequences for literary translators of such low incomes? They are forced to work
more quickly and botch their translations. They have neither the time nor the means to undertake
research and make the necessary journeys. Spanish literary translators, for example, are very badly
paid: in order to survive they frequently translate 2,000 pages of 2,000 keystrokes or more each year,
whereas in the Netherlands a translator only translates, on average, 800 pages of 1,800 keystrokes a
year. The Dutch translator works only half as much as his or her Spanish counterpart in order to
make double what the latter earns. It is not difficult to imagine that such differences have an impact
on the quality of literary translation in the two countries.
How can the situation of literary translators be improved? Without offering a universal remedy
offering immediate results, one can nevertheless envisage four measures that will produce their
effects in the medium term.
First of all, payments to translators must be increased. In many countries, however, publishers are
coming under pressure from three angles: (1) literary agents demanding ever higher percentages for
their authors; (2) supermarket chains requiring large discounts; (3) the e-book exercising downward
pressure on book prices. Nevertheless, it is clear that the situation is better in countries where
agreements between literary translators and publishers on fees, royalties and standard contracts are
in place. Unfortunately in many countries publishers refuse even to negotiate with translators at the
44
level of translators’ associations, or the two parties persist in hostile or confrontational attitudes,
whereas it is imperative for both sides to negotiate in order to arrive at common rules, including
minimal fee and royalty levels. In countries where professional associations do not yet exist, that
lacuna must be remedied by setting up associations that will take up the cudgels on behalf of literary
translators.
Secondly, limits must be placed on rights agreements so that translators can resell their work later. In
many countries, however, translators are forced to hand over all copyright in their work, even in the
event of derivative editions of the original in which the publisher no longer owns the rights.
Thirdly, because it has a bearing on his or her remuneration, the translator must be given a higher
profile. Indeed, the literary translator is the author of his or her translation in the same way as the
writer who created the original is. But the translator’s name is rarely mentioned on the book’s cover.
The media conspire to make the translator invisible. As a matter of principle the translator should be
named wherever the original’s author is mentioned, including publishers’ advertisements, all
references to the book in the media, in booksellers’ and library catalogues, etc.
Given that where books are concerned marketing conditions will not change, none of the above will
suffice to give literary translators the chance of making a decent living from their work. For that to
happen funds for literary translation must be created in every European country on the lines of those
in Norway and the Netherlands.
Given that it is not in a position to make grants directly to literary translators, what can the EU do in
this domain?
First of all it could broaden its directives on intellectual property so that member nations adopt four
basic principles: (1) the recognition that the literary translator is an author; (2) naming him or her
wherever the book is mentioned; (3) limiting the duration of rights in the translation to the duration
of rights in the original work; (4) the right to appropriate and fair remuneration.
Holger Fock highlighted the issue of the mobility and continuing training of literary translators: here
the EU could assist, (1) by creating a reserved budget or a fund aimed at promoting and financing
travel by translators in the country of the source language, meetings and exchanges between
translators, meetings with translators’ authors and translators’ participation in seminars and
workshops; and (2) by promoting and financing all this through the European Colleges and Centres
for Literary Translation that have the necessary structures and experience.
The group’s discussant, Adan Kovacsics, is a member of a Spanish association (ACEtt) to which we
owe the “White Book” on the practice of literary translation in Spain. He presented the situation of
literary translators in the country he represents. In Spain “professional” translators (who depend on
translation to make a living) are very rare. Although they are highly trained they do not manage to
earn enough to live. So thought must be given to the value accorded to translation. In Spain barely
0.98% of a book’s value goes to the translator; all the rest goes to the publisher, the printer and the
author. The general public is unaware of the peculiarities of this profession and of the demands it
makes. So there is much work to be done to inform readers about the true value of translation.
Translators should be accorded symbolical recognition by the general public and by their fellowwriters, but they should also benefit from economic recognition.
Following the contributions by the principal speakers, those who took part in the discussion enriched
the debate by presenting the particular situation in a given country (with some examples, such as
Malta, that are less well known). Rare or less widely-disseminated languages constitute a separate
45
category: their support requires specific measures to safeguard the cultural wealth and diversity of
Europe.
To conclude: we can see that the social status of the literary translator does not lend itself to easy
definition, and that the legislation covering it seems to vary considerably from one country to
another. The economic situation of literary translators shows greater similarities: in a Europe that is
proud of its cultural heritage, in a Europe that aspires to unity and whose common language is
translation, most literary translators find it difficult to make a living. Those who are keen to produce
work of real quality can rarely work full time at the job they love. Literary translators are almost
penniless, but their difficulties are obviously not identical in the richest and the poorest countries of
Europe.
In making our recommendations we have tried to maintain a certain balance. We had to take
account of reality, to remain optimistic without deluding ourselves, and to try to keep up the
momentum, since that is indispensable for our future.
Recommendations:
1) to the literary translators in each country: in collaboration with cultural-policy authorities, public
bodies and private cultural institutions, the creation of foundations, for example national funds
devoted the promotion of literary translation and to the assistance of translators (grants for work on
concrete projects, research trips, travel for necessary consultations, intercultural workshops and
continuous learning);
2) the creation by the EU of a mechanism to support the mobility and continuous learning of literary
translators, and in particular the European translation centres and translators’ schools which play an
indispensable role in cultural exchange within Europe. The countries which have such structures
should safeguard and develop them, and those which do not should take the necessary steps to
create translation centres, taking their cue from existing models;
3) the launch – enforced if necessary through copyright law - of negotiations at national level
between translators’ associations and publishers’ groups: discussions about tariffs, royalties (profitsharing) and acceptable forms of contract; for this to happen we wish to stress the necessity for the
EU to formulate concrete directives about copyright in member states;
4) we wish to be open about something we do not want: it would be entirely misplaced to create a
“European” literary prize awarded each year to a translator from one of the 27 European states, for
the very simple reason that it would be impossible to find a panel of judges competent to make such
an award; rather, we recommend that the EU creates a sort of European “quality label” as a mark of
distinction for high quality literary translations that are awarded prizes at national level;
5) on the other hand we appreciate the prizes which confer real prestige on the profession and raise
the profile of a translator’s work, and we consider it urgent to create more prizes for literary
translators and to organise more events that draw attention to the importance of literary translation,
such as the “Literary Translation Day” already celebrated annually in several countries on the feast of
Saint Jerome (30 September).
Report: Ildikó Lőrinszky and Loes Chielens
46
► 11.00 – 12.15
LITERARY TRANSLATION AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Vladimír Šucha
Mr Šucha, Director for Culture, Multilingualism and Communication at the Directorate General for
Education and Culture of the European Commission, presented the new Cultural Programme of the
European Commission, ‘Creative Europe’, and commented on the EU policy concerning literary
translation in particular. A résumé follows:
“The European Commission for Education and Culture is well aware of the importance of literary
translation. Throughout the European Community so many languages are spoken, so many books
published. A new law is being drafted to provide cultural support, including support for translation of
5,500 books and other literary works. If this bill is passed, the overall budget between 2014 and 2020
will be raised by 40% to 1.6 billion Euros. It will not be easy to convince the European Parliament of
the importance of the cultural sector. In fact, the argument is that if we want to get out of this
economic crisis, then we have to invest in people’s capacity to create.
In these times of crisis, our proposal is very brave. It is now up to the legislator to decide whether to
accept or reject it. As the legislator is the European Parliament, an assembly of all members of the
European Community, the best way to influence the European Parliament is by lobbying your own
minister of Economic Affairs. You have to convince them of the fact that, at the end of the day,
investing money in culture is going to be profitable.
There already exists a cultural policy on a European level. The basis for it was secured in 2007. The
main guidelines are: supporting cultural differences, investing in creativity and the fact that culture is
vital for the European Community. The ultimate expression of cultural diversity is the number of
different languages. In the EU there are 23 official languages, 58 regional languages and about 270
spoken languages.
Culture is not an easy domain in the European Community. A study of the impact of funding has been
made in certain areas. Other departments, such as those of Industry or Agriculture, are used to
providing exact figures about the impact of funding. It is a good bureaucratic exercise for us to take
the same approach. The study can be very useful in our line of argumentation.
Culture is not a classic domain for investment. It tends to be seen as a waste of money. People can go
to the opera, smartly dressed and everything but, nevertheless, this is not considered to be an
investment, let alone an economic motor. In 2007, a study was presented in which culture was
compared to industry in terms of economic output. Culture represented 2.7% of the GNP. More
recent material shows that this figure has already risen to 4.5% - more than the GNP for food. Of
course, these statistics can be a powerful argument for our case.
In his State of the Union address this year, European Commission President Barroso acknowledged
the economic and financial problems of Europe but said that we still have our culture. This is an asset
for the future. In this respect, the Commission is supporting the positive message with a budget
increase of 40% (although this still has to be accepted by the parliament). The programme, called
‘Creative Europe’, includes literary translation, and this in turn includes related areas such as the
47
subtitling of films. Literary translation is only part of the cultural ‘output’ that is to be supported by
Europe.
This is an explicit appeal to all players in the field to come forward with recommendations and
suggestions. The proposal is finished to the point that it is still open for ideas coming from literary
translators and their representatives. So, please send emails, ask for a meeting… But do consider the
fact that although some requests should be addressed to the Commission, others are more
appropriate for implementation on a national level.
Translators should become more active. They are co-responsible. The ministers of your own
countries are in the EU. Go to them. Make them aware of your problems. Now, in the next six to
eight months, is the time to come forward.
The funding for culture in Europe has changed considerably in past years. Now it’s more a question
of capacity building. The dossier includes cross border initiatives, and initiatives reaching beyond
Europe. Multilingual diversity is an asset, but at the same time, it creates a barrier. Our great
challenge is to overcome this barrier. Differences should be respected, but we intend to cross
cultural boundaries. In an economic context, you can eliminate borders to attain a single market, but
this doesn’t work in a cultural context. The boundaries need to remain intact and ways of crossing
them devised. Crossing borders does not only apply to regions and nations, it also implies crossing
the outer border of Europe.
This means the proposal of the Commission, as it now stands, is open to the entire region. If, for
instance, Azerbaijan meets the financial agreements, it can also participate. By incorporating other
countries the budget might be raised further. There is even a proposal about the requirements that
need to be met if third world countries want to join in. In fact, windows are provided. If China, for
example, wanted to cooperate to a certain extent, there could be a window in the programme to this
effect. In Europe, translation, and expertise in translation, is the best in the world. Partners from
abroad are aware of that and might therefore be interested in a transfer of this expertise.
One important recommendation for improving skills and training in translation is to look outwards,
out of your own box. Forging alliances based on knowledge is one of the possibilities made possible
through education. More specifically, this might mean cooperation between universities and
business partners, such as publishing houses. All the players in the field should research these
possibilities, which might be included in Erasmus projects and lifelong learning initiatives. By 2014, a
large amount of money will be reserved for this kind of cooperation under the title ‘Erasmus for All’.
It might also encourage negotiations between translators and publishing houses.
The harmonisation of education within Europe, and cooperative ventures, is bringing this perspective
within your reach. Universal curricula for translators can be installed all over Europe. Make use of
this platform for exchange and the harmonisation of the curricula. It is, for instance, impossible to
cover all language combinations within one university, but cooperation between universities might
be the solution. The European Commission has already created lifelong learning programmes. They
are at your disposal. Professionals in technical translation have already taken initiatives.
On the other hand, organising ‘a day of the literary translation’ takes up a lot of energy and money
without guaranteeing any significant result. Moreover, September 24th is already ‘European
Language Day’, so this might be a focus for literary translation. Make use of existing European level
initiatives involving media and cultural literacy. There are already some examples of very good
48
practice. The Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs is deploying initiatives for
certain professions. Apply for this kind of call, just like the performing artists do. You just have to
pass on the events on your agenda. Europe has worked out funding channels for these initiatives.
Concerning the very specific problem of Italian translators being underpaid: provide reliable data so
that the flat rate can be adapted. To that effect you should gather concrete information from last
year’s declaration of income. First of all, you need to make a solid case.
European funding for literary translation is often criticised, but it is not a simple matter. Suggestions
are always welcome. Recent statistics show that 95% of the financial support goes to translations
from so-called “large” into “small” languages, and from one small language into another small
language. Translations from small languages into a dominant language are very rare. English speaking
countries almost never apply for funding. They just aren’t interested – it’s a problem. The matter has
been discussed with British publishing houses, but nothing has come of it. Ideas for ways to alter this
situation are more than welcome.
Yet another issue is literary translation prizes. The EU receives many requests from organisations that
want to organise prizes. In our view, this doesn’t lead anywhere. Prizes for literary translation raise
many questions: for example, will there be only one winner and will literary or translation experts
serve on the jury? So a prize is not such a good idea. It is a waste of effort and money. On the 28th of
November, the third European prize for literature was given to the twelve best new or emerging
authors. Together with the prize they are also given a place on a priority list for the EC translation
programme. However, maybe it would actually be a better idea to support, for instance, the
translation of these books by American publishing houses. That would give them an even larger
range of dissemination. Nevertheless, the prize is a real boost for the visibility of the twelve authors.
One of last year’s winners, a Macedonian author, has now been translated into seventeen languages.
This is, after all, a very good thing for literary translation.
There is room still for discussion concerning e-copyright, which is almost like an engine. Since music,
film and publishing houses are all in a crisis, a new approach is necessary. If you look at diversity on a
purely economic level, you will see that out of thirty different kinds of toilet paper in a supermarket,
most people buy the brand they have seen on television. Likewise, we have to take care not to
become the victims of our own cultural diversity. Where there is quantity, you have to watch the
quality. It mustn’t go down, which means that translators should be paid a decent fee. Reconciling
these two parameters is a real challenge.
By way of conclusion, I want to thank you for your recommendations. Please communicate any
useful ideas, but bear in mind the fact that not everything is within our power. And try to go beyond
simple literary translation. Consider the bigger picture and all the links in the wider chain, including
promotion. Without promotion, no one knows about content. So think about the profiles of authors
and translators, book extracts…”
Q&A
– Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes (Transeuropéennes)
Thinking about social and human sciences, translation must be interpreted in a deeper and broader
sense. Languages are a way to get to know the world. In actual fact, there is a deficit in the
49
dissemination of ideas. What are the other members discussing? And is there a European plan on the
level of the countries around the Mediterranean? All members should be considering this.
– Vladimir Šucha
How do we identify social and human sciences when they go beyond culture? What is quality nonfiction and is it worthwhile to have it translated? How can we get other countries interested in our
activities? Quite often, we aren’t interested in what our neighbours do. This calls for a proposal.
Which instruments can be used in this respect? Please react. European support for festivals, for
instance, calls for a success rate of 5%. So when it comes to subsidizing a translation we have to be
certain of a large enough impact.
– Holger Fock (CEATL – European Council of Literary Translators’ Association)
Purely on the bureaucratic level, financial support should be requested within the available
programmes. But these programmes are not designed for the cultural needs in the European
countries. In fact, we have to adapt our requests to meet the requirements of the programme. And
programmes don’t have any impact on the translators themselves. Their social status and precarious
financial situation doesn’t change.
– Vladimir Šucha
The European Commission wants to continue the real work and not just react to criticism. We don’t
want to support projects that can’t guarantee a certain degree of success. Ideas are less distributed
through written text. It’s the circulation and the cultural context that counts. The reason why the
financial support cannot go directly to the translator is that it doesn’t guarantee the publication and
distribution of the book. But on the other hand, there must of course be a guarantee that the money
will be transferred from the publisher to the translator.
– Yana Lubenova Genova (Next Page Foundation)
Where can we find the European study into the impact of the future programme on culture?
– Vladimir Šucha
You can find it on the EU website:
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/creative-europe/documents/impact_en.pdf
The new programme is largely a financial instrument. One of the innovations is the bank guarantee
provided to cultural organisations that have to take out a short-term loan. These organisations
seldom have access to private funding but in the case of a congress, for example, they need money
for certain expenses that will be reimbursed at a later date.
Patents have a certain value, but copyright does not. This has to change. The cultural sector will be
asked to provide private collateral. In some cases cultural ideas have received funding in Europe.
There should be one bank per country that offers loans that are guaranteed by the European
Commission.
50
► 12.15 – 13.00
QUESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
– Katarína Bednárová (CEATL - European Council of Literary Translators’ Association)
The proposal concerning training should be refined further. The recommendations are too general.
The wording is still at an initial stage. This must become much more concrete and we need a more
focused proposal. Certain things are still missing: minor languages, lifelong training and a statement
about the need to support training outside universities in countries where this is not the case.
Translation centres should be installed in close association with universities. But the training problem
is complex. CEATL has already been working on it for two years. We must make sure that our
recommendations are convincing.
– Holger Fock (CEATL - European Council of Literary Translator’s Association)
Concerning the recommendation to protect our profession. Does that mean protecting our trade of
literary translator, just like doctors for instance? This protection should provide a legal framework so
our income as literary translators is more secure.
In reference to continuous training: the basic training is not the most important thing. It is from an
academic point of view, but not from a purely literary point of view. There are big differences
amongst European countries, and the situation in the market makes things even more difficult.
– Reaction:
This basic training can be seen as protection for the trade. Other recommendations remain very
general. We want an open structure. Whether this training is given at universities or other
institutions is not an issue. Moreover, the harmonisation of education is heading in the same
direction. It just has to be a structure that can cover everything.
– Ton Naaijkens (ELV - Expertisecentrum Literair Vertalen)
The discussion was complex but thorough. It should be continued in an expert meeting with a limited
number of people.
– Françoise Wuilmart (CETL – Centre Européen de Traduction Littéraire)
Mr Šucha is not in favour of subsidising the literary translator because it doesn’t guarantee
publication of the translation. But you could pay the translator who already has a contract. Often the
publisher gets, for example, 2,000 Euros from the European Community if the contract stipulates
that the translator will get 1,000 Euros. But then the translator pays the tax for the full 2,000 Euros.
This happened in Bulgaria. Are there any similar cases elsewhere?
– Aglika Markova (Union de traducteurs en Bulgarie)
Unfortunately this is not an exceptional case. It is also happening in smaller countries and new
member states of the EU. International organisations should point this out. The Bulgarian translator
is not in a position to protest. He is afraid of losing interesting assignments. Only a limited number of
publishers are offering quality texts.
– Alena Lhotová (Czech Literary Translators’ Guild)
The reports from the working group sessions are preliminary. As they were made spontaneously,
they might not be accurate. A number of themes from the working groups were overlapping, so
there was a lot of repetition and redundancy. So it was difficult for Mr Šucha to react accurately.
51
– Bart Vonck
Of course these reports are not final. Full reports will be sent to you later and, after that, a final text
will be made.
– Lena Pasternak (Baltic Centre for Writers and Translators)
As a reflection upon what Mr Šucha said: there is a hidden contradiction in the programme and this
will create problems. The new programme is called ‘Creative Europe’, so this involves the creative
process. Nevertheless the European Commission is linking financial support to a book, which is the
product deriving from it. Our centre wants to support the creative process itself.
– Alexandra Büchler (LAF – Literature Across Frontiers)
The recommendations of this congress will have to be refined. How will you go about it?
– Paul Buekenhout (PETRA)
As we said, the full report of this congress will be sent to you in the course of December. It will be
better balanced, and it will serve as a primary text for the publication in spring 2012. We will consult
with the presidents of the working groups, and you will also be asked for your further reactions and
suggestions. PETRA is a platform under construction. As such, it is not yet operational. Proposals
about this are going to be sent out. So the recommendations will be discussed further.
– Jörn Cambreleng (CITL – Collège International de Traduction Littéraire)
Concerning the working group of copyright and e-status: which procedure is to be followed by our
working group? For instance, not every proposal was mentioned in the report. What happens to the
proposals?
– Bart Vonck
We would rather submit proposals with a large consensus of support.
– Kurt Van Damme (VUV – Vlaamse Uitgevers Vereniging)
None of the proposals had the unanimous support of the working group. Indeed, there was a seventh
recommendation concerning digitalisation that had quite a lot of opposition. This is why we didn’t
include it in the list of recommendations I read out, but it will be included in the final report in
December. But in view of submitting our recommendations to the European Commission, we must
try and formulate concrete recommendations that are backed by a consensus.
– Holger Fock (CEATL – European Council of Literary Translator’s Association)
Several of our recommendations are to be directed at the external world, more specifically the
institutions of the EU. But just like Mr Šucha said, we also have to make recommendations such as
the ones involving the harmonisation of training. This implies translators taking the initiative and
implementing certain measures on another level. There are things that shouldn’t be imposed on
others.
– Sonia Garcia (Institut Ramon Llull)
Concerning cultural policies: PETRA wants to be a network of national organisations. But
organisations such as Traduki and the Next Page Foundation are working on a transnational level. So
maybe the national character of member organisations should be rephrased. Is it PETRA’s task to set
up such an umbrella organisation? And as people are asking for a new structure, should it be a
‘centre de coordination’ in the way PETRA first presented itself to us?
52
– Bart Vonck (PETRA)
Did we present ourselves as an umbrella organisation? We didn’t mean it that way and it was very
provisional. PETRA can develop into a number of things and take up certain tasks. We used the term
‘centre de coordination’ without any technical implication.
– Lena Pasternak (Baltic Centre for Writers and Translators)
Mr Šucha is anticipating the future. But a programme that is called ‘Creative Europe’ calls out for
reflection upon the creative process itself - it don’t always end in a physical book. The European
programme is about the capacity to create. It means that they should also be funding scholarships
and artistic work not necessarily resulting in a tangible end product. If the entire chain is stressed as
a condition for support, then things become very pragmatic. Because of this hidden contradiction
there will be a problem of money being divided amongst certain organisations.
– Peter Bergsma (RECIT - Réseau Européen des Centres Internationaux de Traducteurs littéraires)
We are, in fact, working along the same lines but this doesn’t have to make a difference. Hopefully,
the European Community will fund translators’ centres. When we support a certain project we
always ask for a contract, and at the end of the line a book is published in translation. Being involved
in a creative process doesn’t have to exclude a tangible outcome.
– (???)
Notions such as foreign relations and the creative process have to be understood in the broader
sense. This is about cultural policy and vision.
– Peter Bergsma (RECIT - Réseau Européen des Centres Internationaux de Traducteurs Littéraires)
Mr Šucha’s predecessor said that translation centres don’t have a concrete goal. This is risky because,
in that case, they cannot be subsidised.
– (???)
One of the goals of translation centres might be cultural exchange. What are the consequences of
this?
– (???)
Are these funds justified and does the Commission support the budget?
– Holger Fock (CEATL – European Council of Literary Translators’ Association)
The current proposal is not as favourable as Mr Šucha made it seem. To begin with, the 40% increase
in the culture budget is not correct. The budget for media is seriously increased to 900 million euro,
but the cultural programme has gone from 430 to nearly 500 million. So there is a lot of money going
to the media, whilst literary translation remains only a small part of the cultural programme. Mr
Šucha wants to discuss the proposal on a national level with the different members of the EU. That’s
where we come in. We have to transfer our needs and requirements to our national representatives.
We are asked to give our advice on the current proposal, and we should do so within the next six
months.
– (???)
This advice of ours will be limited to an adaptation of certain details. The programme has already
been designed, so there is very little room for changes. However, we could ask for measures that
improve the payment for literary translation.
53
– (???)
What about stress that the programme places on the tangible outcome? There is a definite change in
the terminology and it stresses the economic point of view. For example, the impact study of the
programme talks about the transnational circulation of a book, which points to an increase in trade if
nothing else. Cultural cooperation used to be encouraged in order to effectuate a creative boost.
That is something completely different.
– Bart Vonck
There will be another meeting to look into the details we might be able to change. But it will have to
be done within the next six months.
– Martin de Haan (CEATL – European Council of Literary Translators’ Association)
This is an initiative that CEATL is already taking. PETRA should not be doing the same thing.
– Bart Vonck
This congress itself is proof enough that cooperation is possible.
– Holger Fock (CEATL – European Council of Literary Translators’ Association)
From January onwards we should present our recommendations. Since the discussion within the
European Commission is finished, we should all approach our own Ministers of Culture, because it
will be the European Parliament that is going to decide the budget.
– Bart Vonck
What we can do, together, is try and reinforce the programme.
– Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes (Transeuropéennes)
None of this goes beyond national interest. The prevailing preoccupation within the debate in the
European Parliament concerns the economic crisis. So on the level of the European Parliament we
should defend the idea of translation and multilingual diversity. Translation is, of course, limited to
texts. We should address the European Parliament about their vision of translation in Europe. PETRA
represents everybody. So ‘everybody’ should continue the debate and make sure the idea of the
necessity of translation is transmitted.
– Klaus-Jürgen Liedtke (Virtual Baltic Sea Library)
We are missing a common portal through which to continue the debate. New ideas from the digital
scene, for example, could also prove very useful for us.
– Paul Buekenhout (PETRA)
I agree completely. We want to continue the debate on literary translation. Let’s hope we will find
the budget to make it possible.
54
► 13.00 – 13.05
CLOSING WORDS
Jacques De Decker was unfortunately not able to join the third day of the congress. Paul Buekenhout
and Bart Vonck replaced him as chairpersons. However, Jacques De Decker wrote a text, which was
read by Françoise Wuilmart. A résumé follows:
“I am convinced that this inaugural session of PETRA will be long remembered and will take its place
in the annals of history. It is no accident that it is being held in this Palace, dedicated by the Belgian
state to foreign affairs, where some of the most important meetings leading up to the foundation of
Europe have taken place. This had to be the location of a meeting like ours, because it can never be
said often enough how much translation is the fuel, cement and compass of Europe.
In this gigantic display of linguistic ability, literary translation obviously occupies a privileged, and
impregnable, position. One can very easily imagine, even if it is not at all desirable, that Europe,
taking the easy option, may reduce the share of multilingualism in its daily communication, the
administrative one to start with. It is even, in practice, largely the case, and I am the first to deplore
it. But there will always be a preserve, a form of sanctuary, in which it will be the business of a
culture’s rarest and richest poetic accomplishments, its particular legends, its emblematic dramas, to
circulate from one culture to another. In a word, its literature, the province of culture that uses
language and not sounds, colours or shapes. We must be free to read Pessoa without learning
Portuguese, Tsvetaeva without knowing Russian, Auden without being an English speaker, and be
able to feel that we are nevertheless hearing their voice when it is conveyed through the language
we are most familiar with. Even though you hesitate to admit it to yourselves - because it is what you
labour at, day after day - that is a prodigious feat.
To be an Auden – and I could cite many others – you must have talent and genius; to translate him,
you must have a different kind of talent, of genius, together with much humility and generosity of
spirit. One can imagine egocentric - even autistic - creators, but there are no translators with such
failings.
For far too long, therefore, they have been content to form a sort of army of the shadows, to be
exploited at will. It is that situation which these days spent in each other’s company have sought to
challenge. Translators have long made their demands clear, and various associations, represented
here, have echoed them. But such demands needed to be articulated in the appropriate institutional
framework. That is the framework which PETRA has sought to construct, and these days have
witnessed its first manifestation. It puts Europe on notice to take up the cudgels on behalf of the
profession which is the most consubstantial with it, and Europe has said it will do so, as was shown
by Commissioner Vassiliou’s presence on the first evening and by the speech Mr Šucha made, for
which we are most grateful. Umberto Eco was not merely joking when he said that translation is
Europe’s language: that formula is a sesame opening the door to our future, on this day, the third of
December 2011, in the Egmont Palace in Brussels.”
55
Paul Buekenhout and Bart Vonck considered the congress a success:
“The sole fact that so many organisations and networks from so many countries have come together
here and initiated this discussion and dialogue is remarkable. With so many different backgrounds
and so many agendas and missions, it is inevitable that we don’t agree on everything. But we have a
common goal: to change the situation of literary translation for the better. We should, of course,
continue this discussion.
As a first step, the congress report will be sent to all the congress participants in the course of
December. In January 2012, an updated version will be sent, as well as a congress evaluation form.
In February 2012, a first version of The Plea for Change will be sent, which should be considered as a
work in progress. The final publication is planned for spring 2012.
On behalf of the organisers of this PETRA congress, we thank you all for your ideas and remarks. We
hope that everyone will maintain this commitment. Let us continue to support literary translation
and the literary translators in Europe.”
Brussels, 23rd January 2012
Translations:
German > English: Ken Cockburn
French > English: John Fletcher
56
57