Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 12:3 (2017) ► pp.449–468

Flaubert’s Parrot

Transfiction in disguise or Geoffrey Braithwaites’s quest for the invariant

 | University of Montenegro
 | University of Montenegro
The strict boundaries between disciplines have been seriously challenged by various links established between them through cross-fertilization. Links between literary and translation studies are not new. However, in the (post)-modern world, when interdisciplinarity is starting to give way to transdisciplinarity, a new meeting point has been found in transfiction, enabling translation to become an interpretative paradigm for literature. Attempting to support this rather neglected approach, this paper analyzes Julian Barnes’s Flaubert’s Parrot in the light of the relationship between source and target texts and the concept of the invariant as a reflection of the postmodern quest for truth, claiming that the novel makes a fictional dethronement of the source text and calls for a shift from instrumentalism to the hermeneutic approach in translation.
Keywords: transfiction, Barnes, invariant, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Transfiction as the object of study
  • Translation studies, source text, and the invariant
  • Julian Barnes and Flaubert’s Parrot as a quest for the invariant
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.12.3.05pra
References (43)
References
Anderson, Jean. 2005. “The double agent: aspects of literary translator affect as revealed in fictional work by translators.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 41: 171–182.Google Scholar
Arrojo, Rosemary. 2002. “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolányi .” In Translation and Power, ed. by Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler, 63–79. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Translation, Transference, and the Attraction to Otherness – Borges, Menard, Whitman.” Diacritics – A Review of Contemporary Criticism 34(3–4): 31–53. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. “The power of fiction as theory: Some exemplary lessons on translation from Borges’s stories.” In Transfiction: Research into the realities of translation fiction, ed. by Klaus Kaindl and Karlheinz Spitzl, 37–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2009. “Introduction: Translational Turn.” Translation Studies 2(1): 2–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Julian. 1995. Flaubert’s Parrot. London: Picador.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Translating Madame Bovary.” In Through the Window: Seventeen Essays and a Short Story, ed. by Julian Barnes, 146–163. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Bassnett, Susan. 2014. Translation Studies. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beebee, Thomas. 2012. Transmesis: Inside Translation’s Black Box. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borges, Jorge Luis. 1998. “Funes, His Memory.” Trans. by Andrew Hurley. In Collected Fictions, 131–137. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Che Suh, Joseph. 2002. “Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama / Theatre Texts.” Meta 47(1): 51–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Lydia. 2016. “Eleven Pleasures of Translation.” The New York Review of Books 63(19), 8 December 2016.Google Scholar
Delabastita, Dirk. 2009. “Fictional representations.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 109–112. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 2001. “What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?” Trans. Lawrence Venuti. Critical Inquiry 27(2): 174–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, Oona. 2007. “Heart’s Blood: Derrida and Portia on Translation.” Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory 8(3): 83–96.Google Scholar
Feltrin-Morris, Marella, Deborah Folaron, and María Constanza Guzmán. 2012. Translation and Literary Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Fenton, James. “A Novelist with an Experiment: Discuss.” The Times 61953, 4 October 1984.Google Scholar
Freiburg, Rudolph and Jan Schnitker, eds. 1999. Do you consider yourself a postmodern author?: Interviews with Contemporary English Writers. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
Gaddis Rose, Marilyn. 1997. Translation and Literary Criticism. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Gentzler, Edwin. 2008. Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Translation Studies: Pre-Discipline, Discipline, Interdiscipline, and Post-Discipline.” International Journal of Society, Culture and Language 21: 13–24.Google Scholar
Guignery, Vanessa and Ryan Roberts, eds. 2009. Conversations with Julian Barnes. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
Guignery, Vanessa. 2006. The Fiction of Julian Barnes. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil. 2001. Teaching and Researching Translation. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Holmes, Frederick M. 2009. Julian Barnes. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 2000. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 113–118. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaindl, Klaus. 2014. “Going fictional! Translators and interpreters in literature and film: An introduction.” In Transfiction: Research into the realities of translation fiction, ed. by Klaus Kaindl and Karlheinz Spitzl, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van. 1990. “Shifts of Meaning in Translation: Do’s or Don’t’s?” In Translation and Meaning 1, ed. by Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 226–233. Maastricht: Euroterm Maastricht.Google Scholar
Moseley, Merritt. 1997. Understanding Julian Barnes. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nergaard, Siri and Stefano Arduini. 2011. “Translation: A new paradigm.” Translation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 01:8–17.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1991. About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2006. “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873).” Trans. Daniel Breazeale. In The Nietzsche Reader, ed. by Keith Ansell Pearson and Dunkan Large, 114–123. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Pagano, Andriana S. 2002. “Translation as Testimony: On Official Histories and Subversive Pedagogies in Cortazar.” In Translation and Power, ed. by Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler, 80–98. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Matthew. 2002. Julian Barnes. Tavistock, Devon: Northcote.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ryan. 2011. “Inventing a Way to the Truth: Life and Fiction in Julian Barnes’s Flaubert’s Parrot .” In Julian Barnes, ed. by Sebastian Groes and Peter Childs, 24–36. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Scott, James B. 1990. “Parrot as Paradigms: Infinite Deferral of Meaning in ‘Flaubert’s Parrot.’” ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature 21(3): 57–68.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spitzl, Karlheinz. 2014. “Fiction as a catalyst: Some afterthoughts.” In Transfiction: Research into the realities of translation fiction, ed. by Klaus Kaindl and Karlheinz Spitzl, 363–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stout, Mira. “Chameleon Novelist.” New York Times Magazine, 22 November 1992. [URL], Accessed 6 January 2015.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2000. “Translation, Community, Utopia.” In Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 468–488. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Genealogies of Translation Theory: Jerome.” Boundary 2 37(3):5–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar