Search

This article brings together perspectives from world literature and translation studies to compare the international reception of two ‘glocal’ literary cases: Andrea Camilleri’s Montalbano books, and Elena Ferrante’s tetralogy L’amica geniale. The national and international success of these series raises important questions for scholars of translation studies, multilingualism, world literature and literary markets, and sheds light on the significance of different kinds of multilingualism in fiction and of their treatment in translation. The article addresses the following questions: how do monolingual book markets contain and discipline multilingual fiction? What happens when multilingual fiction travels through translation? How do we explain the present openness of the Anglo-American market to translated fiction with an emphasis on the vernacular? The author argues that while both Camilleri and Ferrante foreground cultural difference and linguistic incommensurability, the way in which they portray the experience of diglossia had an important impact in determining their national and international success as well as the route through which they achieved international visibility.

Through an analysis of the novels written under the pen name Elena Ferrante and of the paratextual elements that surround them, this article examines the portrayal of Naples and its outskirts in these narratives, and how the specific geographical and cultural context is rendered and variously translated for different audiences. It argues that the concealment of the author's identity has enhanced the perceived authenticity of the texts, and that the emphasis on marginal backgrounds and subaltern characters entails a contradiction not dissimilar to the phenomenon that Huggan (2001) describes as ‘staged marginality’ in the context of postcolonial narratives. Ferrante's cultural specificity can therefore be read as a highly ambivalent discourse that entails both resistance and adherence to the mechanisms of a global market. Lastly, the article examines how the emphasis on dialect influences the process of translation for diverse readerships, showing the relevance of the ‘Ferrante project’ within world...

This essay suggests that the ultraminor can function as a paradigm to examine literature that emphasizes the minority status of the language in which it is composed. Engaging with Deleuze and Guattari’s definition of minor literature and with Pascale Casanova and Lawrence Venuti’s reflections on the role of translation in the shaping of world literature, it develops a comparison between two rewritings of Shakespeare into Italian dialects: Eduardo De Filippo’s translation of The Tempest into Neapolitan and Luigi Meneghello’s translation of Hamlet into vicentino. The essay underlines how these endeavors represent translations into languages that, at the time of writing, are considered by their authors in decline and doomed to extinction, and argues that both authors use translation to emphasize the historical memory of their native idioms. Both De Filippo and Meneghello, in fact, set out to challenge the subordinate status of Neapolitan and vicentino by proving that dialects are apt to express great thought as well as philosophical, abstract, and theoretical concepts.

This special issue discusses texts and cultural artefacts that defy the idea of Europe as a homogeneous and coherent construct, with a focus on north/south, East/West divisions. Starting from a series of case studies, the contributions address questions such as: Where does Europe begin and who establishes these boundaries? Who is considered European and who is not? How is difference described, represented and imagined in zones that are positioned within Europe, often at its core? What metaphors or narrative strategies are used to describe the other within Europe? Do writers from minority cultures participate in orientalized representations of their own culture? If orientalism can be conceptualized as the opposite of civilization, is it necessarily connected to notions of backwardness? If so, how does this play out in a European context? The range of the case studies considered in this issue is broad: chronologically, the essays span the nineteenth century to the present, and geographically they go from Russia to France, from Croatia and Hungary to Catalonia and the Basque countries. Overall, the essays take a transnational approach that considers ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and notions of belonging within and beyond political units. A common ground is provided by recurrent critical concepts that offer a useful theoretical framework for discussion, such as Roberto Dainotto’s argument that Europe constructs itself not only in opposition to the non-Western, but also to its internal other, and Milica Bakić-Hayden’s notion of ‘nesting orientalism’: that is, the idea that countries who have been orientalized can also appropriate this discourse.

In the last two decades, the task of the translator for the theater has been frequently discussed and translation has been recognized as an important element in the process of play production. In light of these developments, and keeping in mind that a translation, as a “politically and ideologically charged creative process of rewriting” ( Krebs and Minier, 2009 : 66), is always shaped by constrictions that go beyond linguistic and semantic criteria, this article examines and compares the Italian, German, and French dramatic texts of Luigi Pirandello's Questa sera si recita a soggetto and their relation to first productions in Germany and France, within the time frame of 1929–1935. The aim is to investigate strategies for drama translation in the context of the late 1920s to early 1930s ideology and to examine how translators' choices affected the representations of regional and national transnational identities. The analysis sheds light on drama translation as well as on the role of the translator in the process of play productions; in addition, it questions the porous boundaries between translations and adaptations, as well as the hierarchy according to which scholars have often read the “original” in relation to subsequent versions.