I certainly agree that reviewers of translations "must have knowledge of the original language and culture of the work in order to be able to really evaluate the translation within their review" (Reading in Translation). I would go farther and say that a critic needs to have such knowledge if he/she is to plausibly evaluate a translated work at all, not just the purported quality of the translation. Since the translation is not the book the writer wrote but someone else's version of it in a different language, at best any judgment or interpretation a critic who is less than proficient with that language might make can only be provisional, ideally contingent on a later reading of the book in its own language to back it up.
Of course, reviews must be written anyway, and even if some particularly conscientious critic endeavored to learn a language (or learn it better) in order to substantiate previous claims resting, in effect, on an incomplete reading, this would be an act of self-improvement, not of practical criticism. "Global" literature may be an ideal achievable only as an approximation, but that doesn't make translation less important (arguably more), nor does it obviate the need for purposeful criticism of translated work, although I would argue that credible reviews of translations are more important for building up a long-term critical interest in translated fiction than for bringing transitory attention to any one translated book. I understand that individual translated books must sell in order for publishers to publish more of them, but I also think that the very eagerness to get reviews for translations encourages the bad practices, which come from regarding the translated book as if it were written in English, the participants in the translation panel decry in the linked-to post.
I myself review translated fiction, but I approach the task with an awareness of the limitations of such a review in mind, as I explain further here.
Comments