Identificación de Planes

Genette‟s terminology and analysis are not the only existing theoretical framework for describing this widened paratext. One alternative can be found in the idea of “megatext”, which has also been suggested to describe the extraneous data which influence a book‟s reading. However, I have found that in its most widespread usage, this label tends to be more limiting than Genette‟s. A. A. den Hollander provides a representative definition:

There has to be a channel of communication and, usually, a pre- existent body of literature which supplies the text with body. Because these aspects transcend the physical bearer of the text, but inform the reading of that text, they are called 'megatext'. Megatext is a container term for all textual artefacts that, textually, help make sense of the text; fragments of texts on which the reader, either consciously or unwittingly, draws to interpret another text. (viii, ix) It is the exclusively “textual” nature of the megatext which I find problematic: while there is a tendency to assume that even the most peripheral epitext constitutes a text of some description, a reader may well be aware of pertinent factors which he has absorbed through other channels. Den Hollander‟s definition fails to take them into account, but Genette does mention them and stresses their importance.

Most often, then, the paratext is itself a text: if it is still not the text, it is already some text. But we must at least bear in mind the paratextual value that may be vested in other types of

manifestation: these may be iconic … , material … , or purely factual. By factual I mean the paratext that consists not of an explicit message (verbal or other) but of a fact whose existence alone, if known to the public, provides some commentary on the text and influences how the text is received. … It is indisputable that historical awareness of the period in which a work was written is rarely immaterial to one's reading of that work. (Paratexts: Thresholds 7)

If historical awareness is fundamental for the understanding of any text, it is even more relevant in the case of anthologies of translated verse. Rather than referring to a single poet, the readers‟ factual knowledge will reflect on the entire group of authors represented in the book – a group frequently accepted as

emblematic of the entire source culture. This increases the likelihood of sweeping interpretive statements and reductive judgments. Consequently, establishing the image of the source literature prevalent in the target culture (or at least the target readership) can help identify the dominant factual paratext, which can then be compared to the book‟s peritext. The agreement or tension present between them will be indicative of the creators‟ attitude towards the dominant narrative defining the source culture8.

This type of comparative study can be a source of insight concerning the function the anthology seeks to impart through the texts. One may balk at the idea of poetry being simply assigned a function, but openness to interpretation, which

is a common feature of literary texts in general and poetry in particular, tends to be limited by its paratext, be it peritextual or factual. One specific reading of the work can easily be encouraged by extrinsic factors, to the detriment of all others. In his analysis of Rabelais‟ work, Samuel Kinser identifies this as the conflict “between textual attention to polysemic openness and paratextual concern for fixity of sense, such that the interpretation of the text is oriented by paratext

toward the historical, psychological, and social particulars of the text's production” (Rabelais‟s Carnival 197).

To take the metaphor of conflict a little further: anthologies of translated poetry form an especially complex battleground if the factual paratext and the intrinsic peritext do not align. The struggle tends to occur between these two, as the peritext‟s authors and the translators are more accessible sources of

information than the authors of the originals. Readers will be aware that they are reading a foreign text, and will turn to either their general knowledge or the expert assistance of the anthologists for guidance when faced with options for multiple readings or other signs of foreignness. The translated text‟s effect thus constitutes the net result of a struggle between factors originating in both its source culture and its target context. As Jacquemond indicates,

like any human activity, [translation] takes place in a specific social and historical context that informs and structures it, just as it

informs and structures other creative processes. In the case of translation, the operation becomes doubly complicated since, by definition, two languages and thus two cultures and two societies

are involved. A political economy of translation is consequently bound to be set within the general framework of the political economy of intercultural exchange. (139)

In other words, selections made by translators, editors and publishers cannot fail to be informed by extraneous factors ranging from the strictly literary to the social and political. Or, as Frank puts it, "the type and intensity of

anthologizing depend on the quality and stability of international contacts, as well as on cross-cultural perceptions and expectations." (Frank 15) This is a point of considerable importance, since one possible inference is that one can also use a corpus of anthologies to shed light on the evolution of cultural dynamics between two literatures, two nations.

For example, a body of paratext which fails to change over time to match a changing reality can be read as symptomatic of a dominating stance on the side of the target culture. As Tejaswini Niranjana notes in her study of the interplay between translation, post-structuralism, and post-colonial history, "one of the classic moves of colonial discourse (as, for example, in Orientalism) is to present the colonial subject as unchanging and immutable, historicity - which includes the idea of change - is a notion that needs to be taken seriously." (37) Once a

dichotomy establishes itself between two literatures (or indeed entire cultures), translation anthologies inevitably have to choose a position in relation to the emerging division. Rainer Schulte, meanwhile, shows how anthologies can reflect evolution in their source culture. "A comparative study - just within the frame of American and English literature - reveals the changes that these anthologies have

undergone in the last few years: the percentage of women included in the current editions of anthologies is a good illustration of how a particular political and social perspective has influenced the direction of anthology editing" (137). Schulte is speaking of monolingual anthologies, and in this context, his observation may lead to relatively straightforward conclusions: society is changing, and as a result, factual paratext such as a growing recognition of women‟s rights makes its way into the books‟ peritext. When transferred to the field of translation anthologies, however, the level of complexity increases: the paratext reflects more than just the evolution of one society, but rather the relations between two distinct cultures.

No study of anthologies of translated literature can afford to ignore the interplay between the book‟s intrinsic paratext and the factual paratext that

surrounds it without losing the chance to ascertain a number of crucial features. As Kittel puts it, "distinguishing basic types or models of anthologies in accordance with the choice of authors and corpora of texts is a fairly mechanical procedure which does not lead very far unless the relevant historical backgrounds and contexts - linguistic, literary, aesthetic, socio-cultural, economic, political, and biographical - are taken into account." (x)