1. The current position of
English translations of Korean literature
Between 2001 and the end
of 2005, 66 volumes of Korean literature translated into English were
published. Of these, 34 volumes were poetry, 30 were fiction, 2 were drama.
3 of the volumes of
poetry were published in Korea.
4 volumes (1 drama, 2
poetry, 1 fiction) were published in the United Kingdom.
The rest (59 volumes)
were published in the US, including 29 volumes of fiction:
12 were published by
American university presses or university East Asian or other institutes.
The others were published
by small, privately run “non-profit” presses:
14 were produced by
presses that have a good reputation in the United States, publishers of a
considerable number of significant writers from a variety of countries, such as
Green Integer, Archipelago, or White Pine.
Over 30
were produced by really small presses that are not at all remarkable for the
number or quality of the writers in their catalogue, or for their production
and marketing, such as Homa & Sekey, Jain, and EastBridge.
However, no book
was published by an imprint belonging to a major conglomerate, that is to say
by a recognized “commercial” publisher.
2. Some American publishers’ thoughts on
publishing translations
(a) In his Center for Book Culture, an
American publisher, John O’Brien (of Dalkey Archive) has analysed in a
series of online articles some of the main problems, though only with regard to
“western” fiction since his figures do not extend to Asian or African
literature.
http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no19/translations_5.html
|
COUNTRY: LANGUAGE |
TRANSLATED TO ENGLISH |
AVERAGE PER YEAR |
|
Albania: Albanian |
3 |
.5 |
|
Argentina: Spanish |
5 |
.8 |
|
Belgium: Flemish |
1 |
.2 |
|
Bosnia & Herzegovina: Bosnian |
1 |
.2 |
|
Brazil: Portuguese |
7 |
1.2 |
|
Bulgaria: Bulgarian |
1 |
.2 |
|
Chile: Spanish |
6 |
1.0 |
|
Croatia: Croatian |
6 |
1.0 |
|
Cuba: Spanish |
12 |
2.0 |
|
Czech Republic: Czech |
12 |
2.0 |
|
Denmark: Danish |
5 |
.8 |
|
Ecuador: Spanish |
1 |
.2 |
|
Estonia: Estonian |
1 |
.2 |
|
Finland: Finnish |
1 |
.2 |
|
France: French |
52 |
8.7 |
|
Germany/Austria/Switzerland: |
36 |
6.0 |
|
Greece: Greek |
8 |
1.3 |
|
Hungary: Hungarian |
7 |
1.2 |
|
Iceland: Icelandic |
1 |
.2 |
|
Italy: Italian |
39 |
6.5 |
|
Latvia: Latvian |
0 |
.0 |
|
Lithuania: Lithuanian |
1 |
.2 |
|
Macedonia: Macedonian |
1 |
.2 |
|
Mexico: Spanish |
8 |
1.3 |
|
Netherlands: Dutch |
18 |
3.0 |
|
Norway: Norwegian |
12 |
2.0 |
|
Peru: Spanish |
2 |
.3 |
|
Poland: Polish |
13 |
2.6 |
|
Portugal: Portuguese |
6 |
1.0 |
|
Romania: Romanian |
3 |
.5 |
|
Russia: Russian |
29 |
4.8 |
|
Serbia and Montenegro: Serbian |
8 |
1.3 |
|
Slovak Republic: Slovak |
1 |
.2 |
|
Slovenia: Slovene |
2 |
.3 |
|
Spain: Catalan |
2 |
.3 |
|
Spain: Spanish |
12 |
2.0 |
|
Sweden: Swedish |
7 |
1.2 |
|
Turkey: Turkish |
6 |
1.0 |
|
Uruguay: Spanish |
4 |
.7 |
A now-famous National
Endowment for the Arts study in 1999 showed that only 3% of the fiction and
poetry published in the United States that year were translations. The actual
number was 197 books, which stands in sharp contrast to the practice in other
countries, where that percentage can be as high as 50%.
In catalogs from Knopf,
Norton, Viking, Harcourt, and Farrar, Straus & Giroux, for the past two
years there were altogether 31 translations of contemporary foreign fiction and
poetry. Americans are particularly disinterested in the literature from foreign
countries, for much the same reasons they are not very interested in their own
literature (in a country of 250 million people, a literary novel that sells
15,000 copies is a walloping success).
Between 2000 and 2005 only
18 Dutch works of fiction were published in the United States—though that
perhaps compares favorably with the 8 from Greece and the 7 from Sweden. By
contrast, during the same period, American publishers published 52 French, 39
Italian, 36 German, and 29 Russian volumes of fiction in translation. These
figures do not include old classics or popular fiction, only serious modern
fiction has been counted. In addition to those much-translated literatures, the
list show that Cuba, the Czech Republic, Norway, Poland, and Spain each had a
dozen volumes published, but no other country produced more than 8. (Note:
Compare these figures with the 29 volumes of Korean fiction published in the US
during the same period).
Why are so few
translations published in the US?
The
only foundation in the United States that has a program for supporting
translations is the Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Otherwise,
support has to come from outside the US.
We
mostly publish books from Europe or Latin America. It is not uncommon for
foreign (government) agencies we have worked with to feel that they are
providing enormous support by producing sample translations in English—of books
they themselves select—and then, if an American publisher is foolish enough to
sign on a book based upon such a small sample, giving a grant that covers only
about 50% of the cost to have the book translated, ignoring all the
other costs involved in producing the book, that are only rarely recouped.
At
the end of the day, this means that the American publisher invests a
significant amount of money and time (much more than it would on a book written
in English) on a book that will sell, almost inevitably, far fewer copies than
a book by an American.
The
economics of book production
The
average cost for a small press (such as my own Dalkey Archive) to publish a
translation is approximately $35,000-$40,000. Typically, a foreign government
will donate, let’s say, $7,000 (usually 50% of the total) towards the
translator’s fee (usually only paid some time after publication), and
first-year sales will generate approximately $14,000. That’s a loss of nearly
$20,000 and assumes sales of about 2,000 copies. Often translations only sell a
few hundred copies and the loss is much greater. Once again: with a typical
literary work in translation, the approximate cost to the publisher is $35,000,
with the expectation that (with luck) $12,000 will come back (eventually)
through sales. Which leaves a gap of $23,000. How does this gap get filled?
To the foreign country’s question,
“Why don’t Americans publish more of our books?” the only answer is, “Because
you make it so difficult to find out what we need to know, and then scarcely
help in allowing the publisher to so much as break even financially.” Several
thousand miles separate us and there is no easy way of finding out about a country’s
literature and what’s really going on in it, short of actually going there and
meeting and talking with as many publishers and critics as possible. A common
response, however, is that “we don’t have such a program.” Instead, you are
handed a catalog filled with the books that someone somewhere thinks Americans
will like.
Is subsidizing the
translation enough in order to offset the costs of publishing a translated work?
Simply put, no. On average, an editor (if he or she cares at all about the
book) must spend two to three times more time working on a translation than on
a book originally written in English; most editors I know have argued, at one
time or another, that they—rather than the translator—have translated the book,
given how much rewriting the translation requires. So, that is one of the extra
costs. But a second extra cost is the nearly inevitable low sales of a
translation. On average, a very good novel from another country will sell fifty
percent fewer copies in the United States than a rather mediocre novel written
by an American.
(b) M. A. Orthofer (on
the same site, in response to O’Brian): Getting books translated isn’t
the sole or possibly even the main problem: what is needed is to find readers
(and to connect the readers with the books). Even if more titles are
translated, the question remains as to whether the audience for translated
literature in the U.S. would grow merely by making more titles available.
While
there’s something to be said for making worthy books available even if
practically no one cares to read them, it is surely preferable to increase
demand for translated literature (which would then also make translated
literature a more appealing business risk for publishers to take). Increased
demand does not necessarily (or, in this case, even likely) follow from
increased supply, but increased demand would almost certainly also lead to increased
supply: if there’s a market for translated literature, if readers are clamoring
for it, then publishers will respond by making more available. Clamoring crowds
of readers seem unlikely, but the demand side is the one to focus attention on.
(c) What follows is from an article by Stephen
Kinzer that first appeared in The New York Times on July 26, 2003. http://www.transcript-review.org/section.cfm?id=157&lan=en
When Hungarian novelist
Imre Kertesz won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2002, Mr. Kertesz's work was
virtually unknown in the United States. Only two of his novels had been
translated into English. The more successful one, Fateless, published by
Northwestern University Press, had sold just 3,500 copies. After the Nobel was
announced, Northwestern quickly printed more copies of Fateless and
ultimately (at least claimed to have) sold 40,000. Even that, however, was not
enough to change the press's decision to pull back from publishing contemporary
world fiction. "We were seen as a leading university press for literature
in translation, but we've decided to make it a smaller part of our program
because it just is not viable," said the director of Northwestern
University Press. "It's expensive, and the sales aren't there.”
In comparison, readers in
other developed countries still have appetites for translated literature.
German publishers, for example, bought translation rights to 3,782 American
books in 2002, while American publishers bought rights for only 150 German
books. You'll find the same thing in France or Holland or most other European
countries. (These figures are for every kind of book; literature will not be
more than a small proportion.)
Since English is the lingua
franca, translating a book into English puts it in a position to be
translated into many different languages. The United States is the clogged
artery that prevents authors from reaching readers anywhere outside their own
country.
In interviews publishers
cited many reasons for their increasing reluctance to bring out books by
non-American writers. Several said a decisive factor was the concentration of
ownership in the book industry, which is dominated by a few conglomerates. That
has produced an intensifying fixation on profit. As publishers focus on
blockbusters, they steadily lose interest in little-known authors from other
countries.
Some publishers said that
they had no staff editors who read foreign languages and that they hesitated to
rely on the advice of outsiders about which foreign books might capture the
imagination of Americans.
Others mentioned the high
cost of translation, the local references in many non-American books and the
different approach to writing that many foreign authors take: "A lot of
foreign literature doesn't work in the American context because it's less
action-oriented than what we're used to, more philosophical and
reflective," said Laurie Brown, senior vice president for marketing and
sales at Harcourt Trade Publishers.
"As with foreign
films, literature in translation often has a different pace, a different style,
and it can take some getting used to. The reader needs to see subtleties and
get into the mood or frame of mind to step into a different place. Americans
tend to want more immediate gratification. We're into accessible information.
We often look for the story, rather than the story within the story. We'd
rather read lines than read between the lines."
(d) The issue of the American Publishers’
Weekly that appeared as the 2005 Frankfurt Book Fair was closing contained
an article that said:
While the American publishers in Germany last week might
not have noticed it, the United States was not the center of attention
at the Frankfurt Book Fair. This year, that honor went to Korea, which shelled
out an estimated $13 million to conduct symposia, build and staff booths and
mount extraordinary exhibitions on Korean literary history in a hall the size
of a football field.
It's no secret that most large and medium-size American publishers
are not exactly devoted to publishing literature in translation. And it's
unclear that a program like this is going to change anyone's publishing
program. Of the several editors I asked, none was taking a special look at books
by or about Korea and Koreans, and some seemed surprised that I'd even asked.
(That a couple of titles by Koreans or Korean-Americans were just bought or are
currently on submission was deemed a coincidence.) While open, in theory, to
the idea, publishers say, the realities of the marketplace—surprise!—win out.
"We have a hard enough time getting our own books to readers," one
cynic told me. "Books in translation are a very hard sell."
And while it's true that the average American
publisher can probably count on one hand the number of translations that have
turned bestseller (Gabriel García Márquez, Peter Hoeg, the recent Carlos Ruiz
Zafón), there is a sense, at the fair, that the American failure to embrace
non–English-speaking authors is yet another function of our arrogance and
xenophobia. After all, the thinking goes, the Spanish, French and particularly
the Germans buy our books all the time; it's as if we're expected to
return the favor. But publishing, for all its admirable, high-end and altruistic
qualities, is not about politically correct favors, it is—or it should be—about
publishing books that will sell.
1. It is clear from the above discussions
that in actual figures, the number of volumes of translated Korean fiction
published in the United States since 2000 (27 volumes) has been much more
considerable than is often realized, far exceeding the figures for all western
countries other than France, Germany, Russia, and Italy. It would be
interesting to have figures for American publication of literature from China
and Japan. To this must be added the rather extraordinary number of volumes of
Korean poetry (30) published in the US in the same period.
2. The grants offered to translators
by the Korean funding agencies are far more generous (at least double) than
those offered by almost any western governments, and they are paid directly, in
part even before the translation is completed. This can be explained by Korea’s
deliberate policy of spending generously in order to make up for its low
profile on the international stage. However, subsidies offered to publishers
to support the actual costs of producing the translations are far too small
in realistic terms, even if the figure of $35-40,000 for one book quoted above may
be somewhat exaggerated. $5 - 7,000 per book still seems to be the standard
subsidy offered by the KLTI and Daesan.
Korea’s
cultural authorities (like those of most countries) see the publication of
literary translations mainly as a form of promotion / publicity for their
country and its literature.
But--
American
publishers (like those of most countries) see the publication of books as a
commercial activity that can only be justified in terms of sales.
Governmental funding agencies want to support the translation of works / writers that are popular / esteemed in their country.
But--
Publishers
want to publish books that they will be able to sell well in their own culture.
The
Korean authorities want as many translations of Korean literature as possible
to be published.
But--
Publishers
want to publish books that have a good chance of being bought, and know that
markets are limited, easily saturated.
Common
sense says that it is a waste of money to support the publication of books that
have no hope of being bought, read and admired.
But--
Non-Americans cannot easily sense what kind of writing will appeal to American readers.
4. The most important questions seem to be
:
1) Who best makes the
decision as to which works are to be translated / published?
a. In most cases, at present the
translators of Korean literature choose a work on the basis of their own and
Korean public opinion’s positive evaluation of it, and their choice is
sanctioned by the KLTI. The completed translation is then submitted to any
publishers overseas who are prepared to consider it. But in the United States,
major publishers and even some small presses refuse to consider “unsollicited
submissions” and only deal with agents.
b. There is as yet no program of the kind
proposed above, by which representatives of major foreign publishers are
invited to Korea to meet publishers and writers, so that the publishers can see
what is currently being published and choose for themselves works that they
think might be worth translating and publishing.
2) What readership is
expected to buy translations of Korean literature and how can it be expanded?
a. In the US, a clear distinction should
be made between an academic (above all a Korean Studies) readership, which buys
textbooks, often published by university-based presses, listed by teachers and
available in university bookstores, and a general readership, which needs to
hear about books through publicity, reviews, or word of mouth, and wants the
books to be distributed to and stocked by bookstores nationwide.
The second kind of
readership is that we should be aiming at, if our aim is to make Korean
literature part of world literature. It is much more difficult to penetrate
that market. Visits by writers, good publicity, having books featured on radio
and TV, book-reviews in newpapers and literary reviews all encourage bookstores
to stock a book and readers to go in and ask for it. It is too much to expect a
small press with no staff to do very much to promote and advertise every book
it produces, and most have no time or interest in organizing reading tours by
Korean (or any other) writers.
1. One important method of increasing
awareness, suggested during our discussion, is to encourage translators to
submit small samples of their translations to the multiple literary magazines
that exist in the US, and elsewhere. Serious lovers of literature read them,
and publishers also read them. The KLTI might try to compile and provide a list
of reviews that are open to translations.
2. More work needs to be done to send
Korean writers to participate in those literary festivals that are author-centered
(many “book fairs” are entirely business-oriented). No form of publicity can
rival the impact of a writer’s physical presence. In particular, the writers
should be able to express themselves in English (or another useful language),
though the actual readings should be done by a native of the country involved;
younger writers, in particular, should be selected.
3. As suggested by John O’Brian,
KLTI should have a program designed to bring representatives of suitable
American and British publishers to Korea so that they can meet Korean
publishers and (especially) dynamic, younger writers, and gain first-hand
knowledge of what is being published here. This will give them an awareness of
Korea’s existence and motivate them to take Korea more seriously. There
would be no point in inviting "famous" publishers who will never
publish a book by unknown writers from little-known countries..