5-1 | Table of Con­tents | http://​dx​.doi​.org/10.17742/IMAGE.periph.5-1.6 | Kölling PDF

With over 7,000 exhibitors from over 100 coun­tries and cir­ca 300,000 vis­i­tors each year the Frank­furt Book Fair is a play­ground for polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic, and cul­tur­al imag­in­ings, includ­ing many domes­tic and for­eign places. The Book Fair is often con­ceived of and stud­ied as a site of inter­cul­tur­al pol­i­tics and com­merce but has not yet ful­ly been explored as a site of trans­la­tion and translator’s agency. This essay offers crit­i­cal reflec­tions upon metaphors for the trans­la­tor, argu­ing that a shift of the base metaphor in com­par­a­tive lit­er­a­ture stud­ies of trans­la­tion from con­flict to fric­tion could redi­rect inter­dis­ci­pli­nary trans­la­tion stud­ies. I pro­pose that the fric­tion metaphor leads toward an appro­pri­ate bal­ance between com­plex detail and order­ing reduc­tion of data that allows us to describe the inten­si­ty and the chal­lenges of trans­la­tion with­out recre­at­ing the old-estab­lished real­i­ties we already know.

Comp­tant plus de 7,000 exposants, une cen­taine de pays par­tic­i­pants, et au-delà de 300,000 vis­i­teurs chaque année, la Foire du Livre de Franc­fort est un vivi­er pour les imag­i­naires poli­tique, économique, et cul­turels, et met ain­si en représen­ta­tion plusieurs lieu locaux et étrangers. La Foire du Livre est fréquem­ment conçue et envis­agée comme un site de com­merce inter­na­tion­al et de trac­ta­tions poli­tiques, mais elle n’a pas été étudiée en tant que site pro­pre à la tra­duc­tion et à l’agentivité du rôle de tra­duc­teur. Cet arti­cle offre une réflex­ion cri­tique sur la métaphore pour le tra­duc­teur, en arguant qu’un déplace­ment, dans les études en lit­téra­ture com­parée de la tra­duc­tion, de la con­cep­tion basique de la métaphore du con­flit à la fric­tion peut engager les études inter­dis­ci­plinaires de la tra­duc­tion dans une voie inex­plorée. Je pro­pose que la métaphore fric­tion­nelle pointe vers un équili­bre entre les détails com­plex­es et une réduc­tion des don­nées qui per­met de décrire l’intensité et les défis de la tra­duc­tion sans retomber dans les pon­cifs ou para­phras­er les con­nais­sances acquises.

Angela Kölling | Uni­ver­si­ty of Gothenburg

Imagining New Zealand’s Guest of Honour Presentation at the 2012 Frankfurt Book Fair from the Point of View of Literary Translation

Fig. 1

The reflec­tions on metaphors for the trans­la­tor I want to offer in this essay are based on my obser­va­tions of encoun­ters between a num­ber of agents, includ­ing myself, involved in the net­work­ing for New Zealand’s Guest of Hon­or pre­sen­ta­tion at the 2012 Frank­furt Book Fair. My involve­ment in what I call the NZ@Frankfurt net­work was work-relat­ed and con­nect­ed to the fol­low­ing insti­tu­tions: the Uni­ver­si­ty of Auck­land (UoA), the Goethe-Insti­tut Welling­ton, the New Zealand Soci­ety for Trans­la­tors and Inter­preters (NZSTI), the New Zealand Cen­tre for Lit­er­ary Trans­la­tion (NZCLT), the New Zealand Lit­er­ary Trans­la­tors (NZLitT) ini­tia­tive and the New Zealand Ger­man Busi­ness Asso­ci­a­tion Inc. (NZGBA).

Ini­tial­ly, I was moti­vat­ed by a desire to gain expe­ri­ence in lit­er­ary trans­la­tion and sup­ple­ment my income but also to con­tribute in some way to this unique coop­er­a­tion between my native coun­try and my host coun­try. My first con­tact with the NZ@Frankfurt net­work was through the New Zealand Lit­er­ary Trans­la­tors ini­tia­tive, which was set up short­ly after the offi­cial announce­ment mid-2011 that New Zealand had accept­ed the offer to be the Guest of Hon­our in Frank­furt. The mem­bers of this ini­tia­tive are high­ly qual­i­fied trans­la­tors who are also first-gen­er­a­tion immi­grants to New Zealand. They under­stand their role as ambas­sado­r­i­al and aim to pro­mote and sup­port trans­la­tions of New Zealand lit­er­a­ture over­seas. I glad­ly fol­lowed their invi­ta­tion to become a mem­ber and was soon able to absorb the world of lit­er­ary trans­la­tion in the con­text of real-life com­mer­cial pres­sure and com­pe­ti­tion, as opposed to the rather priv­i­leged and abstract point of view that I had so far been accus­tomed to as a schol­ar of Com­par­a­tive Lit­er­a­ture. At the same time I applied for mem­ber­ship with the NZSTI. Here, I found inter­est­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties to dis­cuss my ideas and ques­tions about the socio-polit­i­cal con­text of trans­la­tion with trans­la­tors who main­ly worked in a non-lit­er­ary envi­ron­ment, such as med­ical, legal, or tech­ni­cal translation.

In June 2012 the NZSTI held its annu­al con­fer­ence in Welling­ton and includ­ed in its pro­gramme a Frank­furt Book Fair round­table, which brought togeth­er rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the NZCLT, the Goethe-Insti­tut, the New Zealand pub­lish­ing indus­try, the NZLitT and me. The event mem­o­rably reflect­ed the gist of the conference’s title “Trans­lat­ing and Inter­pret­ing: Cel­e­brat­ing Strength in Diver­si­ty” as the pan­el mem­bers addressed and dis­cussed in detail the dif­fer­ent expec­ta­tions each had as par­tic­i­pant in the NZ@Frankfurt net­work and how it so far had shaped the coop­er­a­tive process­es they were involved in.

Fig. 2

Short­ly after the con­fer­ence a review of the Guest of Hon­our press con­fer­ence held on 17 June 2012 in Ger­many appeared in the Frank­furter All­ge­meine Zeitung (FAZ). It stirred up a con­tro­ver­sy about how much or how lit­tle New Zealand’s pre­sen­ta­tion actu­al­ly focused on books. The main points of dis­pute were that Peter Jackson’s film adap­ta­tion of The Hob­bit (Fig. 2), which was also the theme for the 2012 Cos­play (short for cos­tume play), was large­ly divert­ing atten­tion towards New Zealand as loca­tion for fan­ta­sy films and out­door recre­ation; that the rich nar­ra­tive tra­di­tion of the Maori was main­ly pre­sent­ed in the form of carv­ings (Fig. 3), dance (Fig. 4), tex­tile art and graph­ic art, and tat­toos rather than books; and that a large num­ber of the books that would be pre­sent­ed in trans­la­tion at the Fair were either reprints of the usu­al sus­pects, i.e. Janet Frame, Frank Sarge­son, Alan Duff, Witi Ihi­maera, or trav­el and cook books (Platthaus). Unfor­tu­nate­ly, a pro­fes­sion­al trans­la­tion (in Eng­lish) was nev­er made avail­able to the New Zealand pub­lic, and thus many of the respons­es neglect­ed the extent to which the author had attrib­uted the deplorable state of the New Zealand book at the Fair to a great shift with­in the Ger­man book indus­try towards “trans­me­dia sto­ry­telling” and a lack of courage to sup­port the import of fresh New Zealand lit­er­ary works. It was obvi­ous that the Frank­furt Book Fair net­work both in New Zealand and in Ger­many was marked by coop­er­a­tion that was not nec­es­sar­i­ly built on a com­mon point of view or shared goals. Every group rep­re­sent­ed in this net­work imag­ined New Zealand@Frankfurt in a very dif­fer­ent way.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Dur­ing this time, I also worked as part-time tutor for the Ger­man and the Eng­lish Depart­ments at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Auck­land and became involved in activ­i­ties that were designed to raise inter­est amongst stu­dents and staff for the Book Fair. In response to the FAZ arti­cle, I had want­ed to cre­ate a round­table with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of both depart­ments and expe­ri­enced my own share of dif­fi­cul­ties trans­lat­ing from one cul­ture to anoth­er. Fol­low­ing the sug­ges­tion of a more expe­ri­enced col­league, I chose the title “The Frank­furt Book Fair – Eine ver­passte Chance/A Missed Chance?” for the event and sent out invi­ta­tions. The respons­es were unen­thu­si­as­tic, and I should have known bet­ter. In a Ger­man con­text, it is quite com­mon to use a neg­a­tive ques­tion like this to pro­voke con­tra­dic­tion. Espe­cial­ly as the Book fair was yet to take place, I expect­ed my guests to hap­pi­ly dis­agree. But the feed­back I received clear­ly showed that such a set-up did not trans­late well into the New Zealand con­text. One let­ter of refusal point­ed out that I might not be up to date with recent devel­op­ments being under­tak­en to pro­mote the Fair in New Zealand and that only if I was will­ing to change the char­ac­ter of the fore­seen round­table and set a pos­i­tive, for­ward-look­ing frame­work would they con­sid­er par­tic­i­pat­ing. Anoth­er respon­dant explained that she had found the title dis­heart­en­ing but thought that the informed and robust debate I was propos­ing would be very healthy. The round­table nev­er even­tu­at­ed. I instead cre­at­ed and chaired a round­table with mem­bers of the New Zealand Soci­ety of Authors (for­mer­ly PEN New Zealand), which allowed me to see that inde­pen­dent authors and lit­er­ary trans­la­tors shared a num­ber of expe­ri­ences in their efforts to gain ground with­in the NZ@Frankfurt net­work. Over­all, my impres­sion from this obser­va­tion­al peri­od was that coop­er­a­tion among dif­fer­ent agents in the NZ@Frankfurt net­work was fraught and the whole formed a high­ly com­plex sys­tem of inter­ac­tion that involved mul­ti­ple points of view and diverse goals and strate­gies that kept devel­op­ing and evolving.

I soon dis­cov­ered that schol­ar­ship had already addressed the com­plex­i­ty of the Frank­furt Book Fair but main­ly in terms of its his­tor­i­cal devel­op­ment and its eco­nom­ic and pro­mo­tion­al rel­e­vance for dif­fer­ent sec­tions of the lit­er­ary indus­try. Detailed stud­ies on the task of the trans­la­tor in the con­text of the world’s largest plat­form for lit­er­ary and cul­tur­al exchange are still lack­ing, despite the fact that the Fair estab­lished the “Wel­temp­fang” (World Recep­tion) Cen­tre for Pol­i­tics, Lit­er­a­ture and Trans­la­tion in 2003. Geo­graph­ic pres­ence at the Fair has thus not yet been trans­lat­ed into a pres­ence with­in the larg­er book fair, aca­d­e­m­ic or pub­lic consciousness.

Avail­able his­tor­i­cal and monop­er­spec­tive stud­ies of the Frank­furt Book Fair sub­stan­ti­ate the fact that the annu­al event is a ref­er­ence point of major rel­e­vance for the entire sys­tem trans­la­tion, mean­ing its func­tion as a plat­form for cul­tur­al diplo­ma­cy, lit­er­ary dis­cus­sion and eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment. The Guest of Hon­our phe­nom­e­non at the Book Fair lends itself to a trans­dis­ci­pli­nary approach, draw­ing on eco­nom­ic, cul­tur­al, polit­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal ele­ments to answer the ques­tion: How do trans­la­tors posi­tion them­selves in the Frank­furt Book Fair net­work? In the fol­low­ing I will address some of the method­olog­i­cal chal­lenges and offer reflec­tions on how these can be met.

A Highly Complex System of Interaction

Each year in Octo­ber, the Frank­furt Book Fair pro­duces a vari­ety of com­mer­cial, cul­tur­al and nation­al top­ics in asso­ci­a­tion with an ever-evolv­ing glob­al lit­er­ary book mar­ket. With over 7,000 exhibitors from over 100 coun­tries and cir­ca 300,000 vis­i­tors each year, it is con­sid­ered the world’s largest book fair. Heir to a 500-year-old tra­di­tion, the Frank­furt Book Fair today has almost noth­ing in com­mon with its orig­i­nal char­ac­ter, espe­cial­ly with regard to its func­tion. Con­se­quent­ly, the opin­ions of experts and observers about its sig­nif­i­cance and mean­ing for the book indus­try diverge greatly.

Peri­odi­s­a­tions are dif­fi­cult to estab­lish due to devel­op­men­tal over­laps, gaps in avail­able sources, and alter­ing foci. How­ev­er, major recent stud­ies (Füs­sel in 1999, Niemeier in 2001, and Wei­d­haas et al. in 2007) seem able to agree on sev­er­al caesuras in the devel­op­ments of the Fair since its reestab­lish­ment after WWII. The Fairs are gen­er­al­ly set themed in close rela­tion to the eco­nom­ic and cul­tur­al forces in Ger­many dom­i­nant dur­ing the giv­en peri­ods: the inter­na­tion­al­i­sa­tion in the 1950s, with 1953 mark­ing the year in which for­eign exhibitors out­num­bered the domes­tic ones for the first time; the politi­ci­sa­tion in the 1960s, in par­tic­u­lar, the peak years 1966 and 1969 of the left intel­lec­tu­al and stu­dent protest move­ment; the grow­ing com­mer­cial­i­sa­tion in the 1970s, indi­cat­ed by the intro­duc­tion of “Schw­er­punk­t­the­men” (focus top­ics) that did not have a strong lob­by but helped to embed the Fair with­in a larg­er net­work of inter­na­tion­al ini­tia­tives and debates,[1] which was then replaced in 1984 by the “Schw­er­punk­tlän­der” (focus coun­tries); last­ly, the increas­ing sig­nif­i­cance of elec­tron­ic media from the 1990s onwards; the con­nect­ing of emo­tion and infor­ma­tion and grow­ing event cul­ture inau­gu­rat­ed by vet­er­an art fair orga­niz­er Loren­zo Rudolf, who ran the Fair from 2000-2003 (“Buchmesse”). One might say that one func­tion dom­i­nates a cer­tain chap­ter in the his­to­ry of the Fair because cer­tain social, polit­i­cal, com­mer­cial and tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ments draw atten­tion to it, but in its entire­ty the Fair is multifunctional.

The estab­lish­ment of focus coun­tries in the 1980s is a par­tic­u­lar­ly good exam­ple of how intri­cate­ly inter­wo­ven cul­tur­al and eco­nom­ic func­tions are in the con­text of the Fair. On the one hand, the focus coun­tries grew out of the idea to sup­port themes that oth­er­wise did not have a strong lob­by in the sys­tem of the Fair (Thiel­mann 130). On the oth­er hand, the focus coun­tries organ­ise and finance a great num­ber of events, which is of sub­stan­tial eco­nom­ic ben­e­fit to the Fair.[2] Anoth­er indi­ca­tor is the fact that the guest nations them­selves often seize the oppor­tu­ni­ty to accen­tu­ate oth­er eco­nom­ic branch­es with­in their pro­gram. In 1988, for exam­ple, Italy pre­sent­ed a vibrant tourism indus­try and Japan, guest­land in 1990, fore­ground­ed their strong high-tech indus­try. Platthaus’s cri­tique regard­ing a lack of focus on New Zealand books thus can­not entire­ly be reduced to the book industry’s recent trend away from print­ed paper.

Hav­ing the guest­lands large­ly design and organ­ise their pre­sen­ta­tions them­selves was intend­ed to ensure that enough cul­tur­al trans­la­tion occurred in advance to avoid a rep­e­ti­tion of the deba­cle that tran­spired dur­ing the pre­sen­ta­tion of India in 1986, which was then still in the hands of the Fair itself:

Although the tone of ini­tial reports in the media was gen­er­al­ly neu­tral and innocu­ous, it soon became clear that the cov­er­age was pri­mar­i­ly depen­dent on clichés relat­ing to clas­si­cal India, instead of address­ing the com­plex­i­ties of the present. Unfa­mil­iar philoso­phies, com­plex plot­lines, a bewil­der­ing delin­eation of char­ac­ters, and even the unfa­mil­iar pro­nun­ci­a­tion of the Indi­an authors read­ing their works in Eng­lish were all per­ceived as being too for­eign for pub­lic con­sump­tion. The audi­ence remained either puz­zled or indif­fer­ent. (Wei­d­haas et al 204)

On the oth­er hand, Iceland’s focus on fables in their 2011 “Fab­u­lous Ice­land” pre­sen­ta­tion was huge­ly suc­cess­ful. Whether and the extent to which a shift of respon­si­bil­i­ty from the receiv­ing cul­ture to the guest coun­try resolves mat­ters of cliché and unfa­mil­iar­i­ty or puz­zle­ment and indif­fer­ence mer­its case-by-case studies.

In con­nec­tion with the finan­cial cost of pre­sent­ing as Guest of Hon­our at the Frank­furt Book Fair, Niemeier points out that guest nations dis­play a need to out-do each oth­er, which has led to ever-increas­ing sums spent and a grow­ing Euro­cen­trism in the selec­tion of the guests owing to their bet­ter finan­cial stand­ing (Niemeier 53-4). In oth­er words, eco­nom­ic inter­ests have pushed aside the orig­i­nal idea of draw­ing atten­tion to mar­gin­al top­ics. Instead, as recent stud­ies of the Fair’s incen­tive mea­sures and devel­op­ment of funds for trans­la­tions indi­cate, trans­la­tor ini­tia­tives take on the task of lob­by­ing for eco­nom­i­cal­ly less for­tu­nate lit­er­a­tures (cf. Bach­leit­ner and Wolf 2010).

The atten­tion nation­al PR and cul­tur­al trans­la­tion have received in aca­d­e­m­ic and pub­lic forums point to the polit­i­cal sig­nif­i­cance of the Fair. This is often addressed in heat­ed debates, which occur in Fair-exter­nal set­tings. The Platthaus review and ensu­ing reac­tions in New Zealand are just one of many ways in which this can occur. Wei­d­haas et al. describe anoth­er exam­ple from the 1980s. Under the Schw­er­punkt “Black Africa,” apartheid became a hot­ly debat­ed issue, open­ly address­ing the diachron­ic role of Ger­many as host coun­try and colo­nial pow­er. South African writer James Matthews expressed his con­fu­sion open­ly at a pub­lic ses­sion titled “The Func­tion of Mod­ern African Lit­er­a­ture?” in the Con­fer­ence Hall of the Römer:

I ask myself what the dev­il I’m doing here. I am only half-lit­er­ate, and yet I have been giv­en a room at a super-lux­u­ry hotel. I push a but­ton and food is brought to me. Should I be won over? This coun­try, like all oth­er Euro­pean coun­tries, has exploit­ed my coun­try. And where is the com­pen­sa­tion? This is the first time I have even been allowed to leave my coun­try. For twen­ty years I was refused a pass­port. How come I have one now? Is your coun­try so pow­er­ful that it can exploit us and still nego­ti­ate a pass­port for us at the same time? (as quot­ed in Wei­d­haas et al. 197)

His words found a recep­tive audi­ence and led to fur­ther pro­cess­ing through the Ger­man pub­lic (Wei­d­haas et al 204-207).

While serv­ing as a major ref­er­ence point for top­i­cal debates of glob­al pol­i­tics and ide­olo­gies, the Fair itself sub­scribes to neu­tral­i­ty and free­dom of thought and expres­sion: “The found­ing mem­bers [of the Fair] were inspired by the idea of an inter­na­tion­al lit­er­a­ture with­out nation­al cen­sor­ship, the free devel­op­ment of opin­ion as the foun­da­tion of democ­ra­cy” (Schulz 2458-2488).[3] His­tor­i­cal analy­sis shows, how­ev­er, that the Frank­furt Book Fair net­work is too com­plex to yield to clear-cut bound­aries. As the Fair often nec­es­sar­i­ly responds to the socio-polit­i­cal cli­mate at a giv­en time, the neu­tral­i­ty prin­ci­ple has been chal­lenged with dif­fer­ent out­comes on sev­er­al occasions.

In 1950, a stall run by a neo-Nazi pub­lish­er was removed by oth­er stall own­ers, who con­se­quent­ly demand­ed that such pub­lish­ers be exclud­ed in advance. This demand was refused under ref­er­ence to the neu­tral­i­ty prin­ci­ple. The exclu­sion of anti-reli­gious lit­er­a­ture, on the oth­er hand, which was a con­di­tion for the book­ing of the Paulskirche in 1949, had been, after much heat­ed debate, accept­ed. Oth­er sig­nif­i­cant exam­ples of indi­rect cen­sor­ship include China’s boy­cott of the Fair in 1957 in response to Taiwan’s par­tic­i­pa­tion; the exclu­sion of Iran from the 1989 Fair in response to Aya­tol­lah Khomeini’s call for a fat­wa against British writer Salman Rushdie fol­low­ing the pub­li­ca­tion of The Satan­ic Vers­es; the clo­sure of the Fair to vis­i­tors, includ­ing experts, at the height of the protests in 1968 on the Sun­day after­noon that the Peace Prize was award­ed in the Paulskirche; and the seiz­ing of the GDR state pub­lish­ing company’s show­cased “Braun­buch über Kriegs- und Naziver­brechen in der Bun­desre­pub­lik” (Brown Book of War- and Nazi-Crimes in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic) by the Frank­furt dis­trict judge’s office fol­lowed by mas­sive protests by oth­er exhib­iters (cf. Niemeier 45-46). Anoth­er inci­dent worth men­tion­ing occurred in 1967, when the GDR as well as the Sovi­et Union threat­ened to boy­cott the Frank­furt Book fair when the organ­is­ers refused to use the state­name “GDR” for the books pub­lished in the East Ger­man coun­try.[4]

The per­me­abil­i­ty of the sys­tem, mean­ing that cer­tain func­tions can be trans­ferred from actors who sole­ly work with­in the Frank­furt Book Fair net­work and oth­ers who may only be tem­porar­i­ly attached to the wider Frank­furt Book Fair net­work (news­pa­pers, exhi­bi­tions before and after the Fair, exter­nal­ly organ­ised round­ta­bles), makes it dif­fi­cult to deter­mine the posi­tion­ing of the trans­la­tor by look­ing at his/her func­tion. A bet­ter way to approach this top­ic is through an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary focus on interaction.

Chaos and Order

The Fair’s mul­ti­func­tion­al­i­ty and per­me­abil­i­ty have already pushed research towards ele­ments that are not sole­ly prof­it focused, such as cul­ture and pol­i­tics. The con­tri­bu­tions to the Suhrkamp anthol­o­gy 50 Jahre Frank­furter Buchmesse (1999) reflect the grow­ing inter­est in analy­ses that crit­i­cal­ly ass­es the field of ten­sions between cul­tur­al and com­mer­cial inter­ests. Stephan Füs­sel, the volume’s edi­tor, empha­sis­es the Fair’s sig­nif­i­cance as a con­nec­tion point between the his­to­ry of the Ger­man repub­lic after WWII and a scaled book industry:

Due to the fact that one does not only trade eco­nom­ic goods at the Fairs, but also heat­ed­ly debates their con­tents, the his­to­ry of the Frank­furt Book Fair can be traced as a mir­ror image of the his­to­ry of the Fed­er­al Repub­lic and also of the Euro­pean and world­wide book mar­kets.[5] (8)

The select­ed essays in the anthol­o­gy empha­sise his­tori­co-polit­i­cal aspects of the Fair and also to a large extent rein­force the afore­men­tioned peri­odi­s­a­tion of the Fair. For exam­ple, Füs­sel and Fis­ch­er focus on the ear­ly inter­na­tion­al­i­sa­tion of the Fair after WWII. Schei­del­er and Schnei­der describe polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed coun­ter­move­ments in the Ger­man pub­lic in the 1960s. Sabri exam­ines the best­seller mar­ket­ing of the 1970s. Thiel­mann, Rüt­ten and Fis­ch­er look at the con­se­quences of the intro­duc­tion of focus top­ics for the Fair and the shift towards nation­al­ism and eco­nom­ic out­sourc­ing through the intro­duc­tion of focus coun­tries. Götz con­sid­ers the shift towards elec­tron­ic media against the back­ground of the 1984 focus top­ic “Orwell 2000.” Next to a detailed his­tor­i­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tion, the anthol­o­gy deliv­ers a valu­able impres­sion of the Fair as a com­plex sys­tem of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and inter­ac­tion, which pro­motes fur­ther shifts in method­ol­o­gy.[6]

The shift in study towards the soci­o­log­i­cal embed­ded­ness of the Frank­furt Book Fair and its diverse actors can be traced to the far-reach­ing influ­ence of the foun­da­tion­al works of the cul­tur­al turn in the 1970s, such as Hay­den White, Clif­ford Geertz, Pierre Bour­dieu and Michel Fou­cault. In trans­la­tion stud­ies, Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of habi­tus in par­tic­u­lar facil­i­tat­ed the growth of socio-cul­tur­al trans­la­tion stud­ies. Ita­mar Even-Zohar’s poly­sys­tem and Gideon Toury’s descrip­tive method­ol­o­gy set the course for researchers to engage in map­ping the micro (indi­vid­ual instances of trans­la­tion) and macro (the socio-pol­i­tics sur­round­ing a trans­la­tion) lev­els of lit­er­ary and prac­ti­cal trans­la­tion. This has helped to dis­cern the cog­ni­tive, social, and cul­tur­al con­straints under which trans­la­tors oper­ate counter to the reduc­ing of trans­la­tors to the sta­tus of transcoders and trans­la­tion machines that had his­tor­i­cal­ly forced them into invis­i­bil­i­ty (Venu­ti 1995).

While the surge of new method­olo­gies and per­spec­tives on trans­la­tion has widened the scope of trans­la­tion stud­ies, the new avenues in trans­la­tion research have also led to new chal­lenges. Atten­tion to the speci­fici­ty of trans­la­tion runs the risk of pro­duc­ing data that is chaot­ic and lack­ing in explana­to­ry force. The visu­al rep­re­sen­ta­tion Šehnaz Tahir-Gurçağlar devel­oped of the net­work mod­el to map the net­work com­posed of pub­lish­ers, trans­la­tors, authors, edi­tors, read­ers, and gov­ern­ment and lit­er­ary insti­tu­tions illus­trates the shortcomings:

Fig. 5

Acknowl­edg­ing that the visu­al rep­re­sen­ta­tion is prob­lem­at­ic in a num­ber of ways, Tahir-Gurçağlar fore­most crit­i­cis­es the model’s fail­ure to ful­ly exhib­it the avail­able data: “the more ele­ments one adds to the map, the more com­plex it becomes and the lines become impos­si­ble to trace on a two-dimen­sion­al plane. Since the goal is to be as com­pre­hen­sive as pos­si­ble with the inven­to­ry of ele­ments, visu­al­iza­tion is near­ly impos­si­ble and the map becomes con­cep­tu­al” (736).

The mul­ti­far­i­ous­ness of the object of study makes con­cep­tu­al mod­els that help struc­ture it all the more attrac­tive. But the prob­lem here is that the struc­tured­ness of the mod­el may dis­tort the unstruc­tured­ness of the object. A case in point is the ATCS (Acquired Capa­bil­i­ties for Trans­la­tion Sys­tems) by Thom­son-Wohlge­muth and Thom­son. It lays out the rela­tion­ship between five core abil­i­ties (pro­fes­sion­al­ism; organ­i­sa­tion; con­sis­ten­cy; refine­ment; inno­va­tion) and relat­ed behav­iours (com­mit­ment, dis­ci­pline; com­mu­ni­ca­tion, team­work; ser­vice; self-reflec­tion; embrac­ing change) com­pared to the five gears of a car.

Fig. 6

The 5-gear-mod­el sug­gests a neat hier­ar­chi­cal sequence of process­es, and the lan­guage the authors employ to describe the mod­el rein­force the sense of order, of straight­for­ward cause and effect: “Used togeth­er, these should enable an organ­i­sa­tion to cre­ate an effec­tive, dis­ci­plined process so as to meet the require­ments of its cus­tomers, min­imis­ing inter­nal costs and in the hope that every­one in the organ­i­sa­tion can take pride in their work (see Fig­ure 1 above)” (257). Of course, there are oth­er ways to rep­re­sent col­lect­ed data, but visu­al rep­re­sen­ta­tions as in the two fig­ures above illus­trate the chal­lenge in descrip­tive trans­la­tion stud­ies very clear­ly: how does one posi­tion and direct one’s study? From com­pre­hen­sive detail or data chaos to order (Tahir-Gurçağlar) or with­in order (Thom­son-Wohlge­muth and Thomson)?

This is a chal­lenge com­mon to stud­ies that face com­plex socio-cul­tur­al data. Review­ing the sta­tus quo of stud­ies avail­able on the Frank­furt Book Fair, Niemeier assumes that it is the deter­rent effect of data com­plex­i­ty that explains the lack of inter­dis­ci­pli­nary stud­ies in the field (xi). Her own study offers an insight­ful overview of the his­tor­i­cal devel­op­ment of the Fair and inves­ti­gates how actors of the “Sys­tem Book” posi­tion them­selves at the Fair. She links the com­plex­i­ty of the Fair to nec­es­sary adjust­ments of sci­en­tif­ic approaches:

The course of the fair is shaped by eco­nom­ic, cul­tur­al, polit­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal inter­ests. The fair turns into an instru­ment for the pro­duc­tion of col­lec­tive expe­ri­ence. This inevitably influ­ences sci­en­tif­ic approach­es to the book fair, because, if one con­sid­ers all aspects of it seri­ous­ly, one has to study it dif­fer­ent­ly. We are deal­ing with a com­plex sys­tem and a per­son­al expe­ri­ence, thus the non-ratio­nal com­po­nents also belong with­in our focus. All the more impor­tant it is to draw on as many per­spec­tives as pos­si­ble to help bet­ter under­stand the emo­tion­al, not pure­ly prof­it-ori­ent­ed rela­tion­ship between branch and book fair. (Niemeier xi-xii) [7]

Con­se­quent­ly, her study makes use of his­tor­i­cal stud­ies, analy­ses cur­rent cov­er­age in the trade jour­nals, peri­od­i­cals and pub­lic media, and draws on con­ver­sa­tions with exhibitors, vis­i­tors and rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Ausstel­lungs- und Messe AG (AuM, sub­sidiary of the Asso­ci­a­tion of Ger­man Pub­lish­ers and Book­sellers), sta­tis­tics released by the Frank­furt Book Fair, and her own expe­ri­ence, obser­va­tions and tar­get­ed inter­views (xii).

Like Tahir-Gurçağlar and Thom­son-Wohlge­muth and Thom­son, Niemeier uses fig­ures to rep­re­sent parts of her method­ol­o­gy and find­ings. Three fig­ures rep­re­sent the rela­tion­ship between main agents/participants at the Fair: one rep­re­sents the “Sys­tem Book,” which includes agents, pub­lish­ers, authors, buy­ers, read­ers, review­ers, libraries, dis­trib­uters and book sell­ers (58), anoth­er sit­u­ates the Fair with­in the “Sys­tem Book” (59), and a third illus­trates the net­work of inter­ac­tions between the dif­fer­ent groups par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Fair, which includes the exhibitors/publishers, book sell­ers, authors, the pub­lic, politi­cians, media, the organisers/AuM and oth­er ser­vice providers (food, accom­mo­da­tion, bank­ing, secu­ri­ty, med­ical, trans­port, etc.) (88). Niemeier’s fig­ures share the same short­com­ings as the oth­ers, name­ly the reduc­tion of detail and com­plex­i­ty; how­ev­er, the direc­tion­al­i­ty in her study is dif­fer­ent. The fig­ures appear at the begin­ning of the respec­tive chap­ters “Sys­tem Book” (58 and 59 of 57-85) and “Inter­nal Struc­ture” (88 of 86-112). Niemeier thus moves from a sim­pli­fied rep­re­sen­ta­tion to elab­o­rate detail and com­plex­i­ty. Sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of data is the point of depar­ture not the goal, and nei­ther is com­plex­i­ty. While this approach is prefer­able to the oth­er two stud­ies, ide­al­ly, an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary study of the translator’s posi­tion­ing in the NZ@Frankfurt net­work would include both direc­tions from a sim­pli­fied approach to com­plex details to a mean­ing­ful order­ing or reduc­tion of data. But how?

Friction - An Invisible Gap Made Visible

Niemeier’s study stands out from the larg­er sum of monop­er­spec­ti­val approach­es to the Frank­furt Book Fair, but it still shares one of the most com­mon blind spots: the trans­la­tor. Giv­en the ear­ly inter­na­tion­al­i­sa­tion, the focus on for­eign coun­tries, and the fact that the Fair is often her­ald­ed as a site that offers a pletho­ra of oppor­tu­ni­ty to strength­en inter­na­tion­al ties through “cul­tur­al diplo­ma­cy”; and giv­en that the job of the trans­la­tor is often described as that of a bridge mak­er, a medi­a­tor between cul­tures, and a tourist guide, it is quite sur­pris­ing how lit­tle men­tion there is of this group of par­tic­i­pants in con­nec­tion with this annu­al event. Even the schol­ar­ly essays com­ing from Trans­la­tion Stud­ies, such as the con­tri­bu­tions by Hofer and Mess­ner and Fis­ch­er, Pölz­er, Sei­dler, and Havranek to the 2010 anthol­o­gy Streifzüge im Trans­la­torischen Feld: Zur Sozi­olo­gie der lit­er­arischen Über­set­zung im deutschsprachi­gen Raum (Explor­ing the Trans­la­tion Field: The Soci­ol­o­gy of Lit­er­ary Trans­la­tion in Ger­man-Speak­ing Coun­tries) are incom­plete in so far as that they men­tion the Fair pre­dom­i­nant­ly in con­nec­tion with its func­tion as the cre­ator of incen­tive mea­sures and devel­op­ment funds and less in con­nec­tion with how trans­la­tors inter­act with oth­er actors in the Frank­furt Book Fair net­work. Per­haps this is due to the fact that the Fair only rel­a­tive­ly recent­ly, in 2003, added the Über­set­zerzen­trum to its pro­gramme, a cen­tre for trans­la­tors, which aims to facil­i­tate con­tact with agents and col­leagues and wants to bring more atten­tion to the trans­la­tor as envoys of cul­tur­al and lin­guis­tic diver­si­ty. Although it seems more like­ly that the pre­con­cep­tion of the trans­la­tor as invis­i­ble has been and still is an unfor­tu­nate start­ing ground for a shift of (self-)positioning.

Invis­i­bil­i­ty is just one of the many metaphors that have shaped the way in which we under­stand trans­la­tion. These metaphors aid in train­ing suc­ces­sive gen­er­a­tions of trans­la­tors and the­o­rists, and often also deter­mine what facets of trans­la­tion are deemed to be impor­tant and there­fore mer­it study. As such they play a cen­tral role in the mod­el­ling of method­olo­gies in trans­la­tion stud­ies, which needs to be crit­i­cal­ly examined.

Schol­ars in dis­ci­plines as diverse as med­i­cine, busi­ness, adver­tis­ing, and music, have recog­nised the impor­tance of metaphors to their research. This is due to the unique role metaphors play in con­nect­ing the lit­er­al and the abstract and, as many schol­ars argue, in direct­ing thought as well as action. George Lakoff and Mark John­son, who have great­ly con­tributed to estab­lish­ing the cog­ni­tive impor­tance of metaphors, point out that metaphors are a means of struc­tur­ing our per­cep­tion. They can high­light or make com­pre­hen­si­ble and often reduce par­tic­u­lar aspects of any giv­en expe­ri­ence (87). The metaphor and the aspect it describes build a strong sense unit. So strong, Lakoff and John­son argue, that they can become “guides for future action” and even “self-ful­fill­ing prophe­cies” (112).[8] At the same time, metaphors are par­tial and imper­fect, as Mike Hanne reminds us in “Metaphors for the Trans­la­tor”: “it is rare to find a sin­gle phrase being treat­ed as exhaust­ing the metaphor­i­cal poten­tial of a per­son, object or phe­nom­e­non” (211). Thus metaphors are per­me­able enti­ties that allow for devel­op­ment and redi­rec­tion of thought and per­cep­tion. The large num­ber of metaphors trad­ed in trans­la­tion stud­ies is evi­dence of this.

An attempt to dis­cuss here the man­i­fold metaphors in cir­cu­la­tion in trans­la­tion research can only be as par­tial and imper­fect as any metaphor. Many metaphors for trans­la­tion, how­ev­er, share that they reflect the over­ar­ch­ing “sec­ondary” qual­i­ty of trans­la­tion as a form of com­mu­ni­ca­tion that “pro­vides access to some­thing, some mes­sage, that already exists” (House 3). As such, trans­la­tion entails intu­itive asso­ci­a­tions with fal­si­ty and trea­son. From a polit­i­cal­ly engaged per­spec­tive – be it in rela­tion to (post-)colonial pow­er strug­gles or cur­rent inter­na­tion­al affairs, or sim­ply with­in the field of trans­la­tion itself – invis­i­bil­i­ty quick­ly becomes a mat­ter of com­plic­i­ty, chal­leng­ing trans­la­tors to posi­tion them­selves on the scale of con­flict­ing ideas. Do you fol­low source-focused or tar­get-focused approach­es (Pym; Venu­ti)? Have you explored your social con­text (Even-Zohar; Her­mans 1985, 1994; Toury) in order to deter­mine whether you are com­plic­it in the con­struc­tion or dis­lo­ca­tion of empires (Spi­vak; Sala­ma-Carr; Mil­ton and Ban­dia)? Sum­maris­ing the gist of major con­tri­bu­tions to the dis­ci­pline, Myr­i­am Sala­ma-Carr writes: “The notion of ‘con­flict’ is part and par­cel of con­tem­po­rary dis­course on trans­la­tion and inter­pret­ing” (1).

The import and grow­ing accep­tance of the con­flict metaphor can also be linked to glob­al­i­sa­tion and its per­ceived cre­ation of a world that is “increas­ing­ly polar­ized” (Sala­ma-Carr 1) and “con­flict-rid­den” (Bak­er 1). Focus­ing on the role trans­la­tions and trans­la­tors play in con­flict sit­u­a­tions such as war­fare, racial per­se­cu­tion, etc. gives Trans­la­tion Stud­ies the oppor­tu­ni­ty to attach itself to a larg­er pub­lic plat­form (Apter). The extreme con­text lends the real­i­ty and inten­si­ty of the chal­lenges of trans­la­tion imme­di­ate rel­e­vance. But, like any oth­er metaphor that comes to dom­i­nate a sci­en­tif­ic dis­ci­pline, the con­flict metaphor threat­ens to lim­it the range of the­o­ry devel­op­ment and study. A focus on trans­la­tion in con­nec­tion with glob­al con­flicts leads to a dis­place­ment and dis­tanc­ing of issues that are too mun­dane to mer­it much inter­est or atten­tion under less extreme cir­cum­stances. It is anoth­er form of ‘oth­er­ing’ the trans­la­tor and dis­count­ing the every­day life chal­lenges of lit­er­ary translation.

Fur­ther at stake is the notion that con­flict sup­ports the per­ceived incom­pat­i­bil­i­ty that results from the the­o­ret­i­cal dichotomies in trans­la­tion: “source/ tar­get,” “domestication/ for­eigni­sa­tion,” “coloniser/ colonised,” “individual/ sys­tem.” Oxford Dic­tio­nar­ies defines con­flict amongst oth­ers as “a seri­ous dis­agree­ment or argu­ment, typ­i­cal­ly a pro­tract­ed one”; “a pro­longed armed strug­gle”; “a state of mind in which a per­son expe­ri­ences a clash of oppos­ing feel­ings or needs”; “a seri­ous incom­pat­i­bil­i­ty between two or more opin­ions, prin­ci­ples, or inter­ests.” The con­flict metaphor more­over rein­forces the sense that the main task of trans­la­tors is to per­form only sec­ondary com­mu­nica­tive acts; they serve to medi­ate a pre­ex­ist­ing dis­agree­ment or sit­u­ate them­selves in rela­tion to pre­ex­ist­ing dichotomies. What is need­ed is a metaphor that denotes a shift from per­ceived com­plic­i­ty (neu­tral­i­ty) and incom­pat­i­bil­i­ty (the­o­ret­i­cal dichotomies) of trans­la­tion and trans­la­tors toward spe­cif­ic instances of con­tact between trans­la­tors and oth­er actors.

To meet this need and to over­come the prob­lems inher­ent in the con­fin­ing con­flict metaphor, I sug­gest that it be replaced with ‘fric­tion.’ Schol­ars in oth­er dis­ci­plines have pro­posed and illus­trat­ed that a focus on fric­tion pro­duces bet­ter results because it chal­lenges the bias that suc­cess­ful inter­cul­tur­al coop­er­a­tion is the con­se­quence of smooth inter­ac­tion. Anna Lowen­haupt Tsing argues that fric­tion forces the schol­ar “to become embroiled in spe­cif­ic sit­u­a­tions” (1) and thus lays bare the trans­for­ma­tion­al process­es that turn uni­ver­sal aspi­ra­tions into local cur­ren­cy: “Speak­ing of fric­tion is a reminder of the impor­tance of inter­ac­tion in defin­ing move­ment, cul­tur­al form, and agency” (6). Her study of col­lab­o­ra­tions between transna­tion­al invest­ment groups and local inter­est groups in the Indone­sian rain for­est is a valu­able warn­ing against assum­ing that such col­lab­o­ra­tions are based on com­mon view­points or goals, or that they will nec­es­sar­i­ly result in rec­i­p­ro­cal benefits.

The notion of cul­tur­al con­tact inher­ent in the fric­tion metaphor has been picked up by Shenkar et al., who analyse the organ­i­sa­tion­al and research ram­i­fi­ca­tions of the ‘cul­tur­al dis­tance’ metaphor in inter­na­tion­al man­age­ment (IM). They pro­pose fric­tion as sub­sti­tute metaphor for ‘dis­tance’ to counter a research envi­ron­ment “where ‘messy’ cul­tur­al encoun­ters and their poten­tial for dis­agree­ment antag­o­nism, and con­flict are nev­er dealt with; where social and polit­i­cal over­tones are squelched; and where sen­si­tiv­i­ties relat­ing to hier­ar­chi­cal posi­tion­ing and pow­er dif­fer­en­tials across par­ti­san inter­est are habit­u­al­ly over­looked” (909). The fric­tion metaphor, in their view, can help to redi­rect research in their field lead­ing to stud­ies which antic­i­pate and aim to under­stand the dialec­ti­cal and devel­op­men­tal nature of cul­tur­al inter­ac­tion and pro­vides bet­ter answers to the chal­lenges of inter­na­tion­al management.

Look­ing at col­lab­o­ra­tions between inter­na­tion­al con­ser­va­tion­ist groups and indige­nous com­mu­ni­ties, Jim Igoe sim­i­lar­ly comes to the con­clu­sion that a close study of types of fric­tions that arise in dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tions is essen­tial to pre­dict the like­li­hood of cer­tain out­comes. The out­comes can be pre­dict­ed in rela­tion to pat­terns, which, with the help of such study can be attrib­uted to cer­tain variables.

For instance, alliances between con­ser­va­tion­ists and indige­nous com­mu­ni­ties are more like­ly where indige­nous peo­ples have legal author­i­ty over nat­ur­al resources; where they have been allowed to live inside pro­tect­ed areas; where indige­nous lead­ers have good account­abil­i­ty to their con­stituen­cy; and where indige­nous peo­ples ini­ti­at­ed the rela­tion­ship with con­ser­va­tion­ists rather than vice ver­sa. In sit­u­a­tions where the con­di­tions are the oppo­site antag­o­nisms are more like­ly to pre­vail. (386)

These three exam­ples show that the fric­tion metaphor has improved stud­ies by pro­vid­ing at least three impor­tant vec­tors that allow for a bal­ance between com­plex detail and mean­ing­ful reduc­tion of data: 1) the shift from abstract to con­crete; 2) the premise of dialec­ti­cal, pos­si­bly uneven and devel­op­men­tal nature of inter­ac­tion; 3) the fil­ter­ing of com­plex data into pat­terns with rel­a­tive explana­to­ry force.

Of course, this sug­gest­ed sym­bi­ot­ic exis­tence between the fric­tion metaphor, the­o­ry and method remains to be test­ed for Trans­la­tion Stud­ies, and not just in the con­text of the Frank­furt Book Fair. Like all metaphors, it has lim­its that will nec­es­sar­i­ly be revealed. My hope is that fric­tion will make a mod­est con­tri­bu­tion toward tap­ping the rich veins of inno­v­a­tive metaphors that sig­ni­fy a will­ing­ness to imag­ine and explore trans­formed con­cep­tu­al­i­sa­tions of Trans­la­tion Studies.


[1] In 1978, for exam­ple, the top­ic was “Kind und Buch” (Child and Book), which was short­ly after the UNESCO had declared 1979 to be the Inter­na­tion­al Year of the Child. The Fair suc­cess­ful­ly posi­tioned itself as the send-off for a world­wide ini­tia­tive and debates about how dif­fer­ent soci­eties treat­ed chil­dren (Thiel­mann 139f.).

[2] In 1999 up to 40% of the events were organ­ised by the guest­land (Niemeier 106).

[3] „Die Grün­dungsmit­glieder [der Messe] beseelte der Gedanke ein­er Inter­na­tion­al­ität der Lit­er­atur ohne nationale Zen­sur, Frei­heit der Mei­n­ungs­bil­dung als Grund­lage der Demokratie.“ Com­pare also “Eine Zen­sur find­et nicht statt.” (1980) and “Zen­sur find­et nicht statt.” (2009). Unless oth­er­wise not­ed, all trans­la­tions are by the author.

[4] This is doc­u­ment­ed in detail by Sey­er (175-180).

[5] „Da bei diesen Messen ja nicht nur mit kaufmän­nis­chen Waren gehan­delt, son­dern auch über die Inhalte vehe­ment disku­tiert wird, kann die Geschichte der Frank­furter Messe als ein Spiegel­bild der Geschichte der Bun­desre­pub­lik und auch des europäis­chen und weltweit­en Buch­mark­tes nachgeze­ich­net werden.“

[6] More­over, that the last four of the ten essays explore the Fair’s focus topic/focus coun­try aspect can be seen as indi­ca­tor for the grow­ing impor­tance of the Fair’s event character.

[7] „Wirtschaftliche, kul­turelle, poli­tis­che und psy­chol­o­gis­che Inter­essen prä­gen den Mes­sev­er­lauf, sie wird zum Instru­ment für die Erzeu­gung kollek­tiv­er Erfahrun­gen. Dies bee­in­flußt die wis­senschaftliche Betra­ch­tung der Buchmesse unweiger­lich, denn nimmt man all dieses ernst, muß man die Messe anders unter­suchen. Wir haben es mit einem kom­plex­en Sys­tem und ein­er per­sön­lichen Erfahrung zu tun, also gehören auch die nich­tra­tionalen Kom­po­nen­ten in den Blick. Umso wichtiger ist es, möglichst viele Per­spek­tiv­en her­anzuziehen, die helfen, das emo­tionale, nicht nur absat­zori­en­tierte Ver­hält­nis zwis­chen Branche und Buchmesse bess­er zu verstehen.“

[8] In this con­nec­tion Hofer and Mess­ner (2010) point out that the sta­tus of the trans­la­tor as invis­i­ble is con­tin­u­al­ly rein­forced because trans­la­tors have to a large extent inter­nalised the desire that trans­la­tions should not be recog­nis­able as such (43).

Works Cited

Apter, Emi­ly. The Trans­la­tion Zone: A New Com­par­a­tive Lit­er­a­ture. Prince­ton: Prince­ton UP, 2005.

Bach­leit­ner, Nor­bert and Michaela Wolf, eds. Streifzüge im trans­la­torischen Feld: Zur Sozi­olo­gie der lit­er­arischen Über­set­zung im deutschsprachi­gen Raum. Mün­ster: Lit Ver­lag, 2010.

Bak­er, Mona. Trans­la­tion and Con­flict. A Nar­ra­tive Account. Lon­don and New York: Rout­ledge, 2006.

Bass­nett, Susan and Peter Bush, eds. The Trans­la­tor as Writer. New York and Lon­don: Con­tin­u­um. 2006.

Bour­dieu, Pierre. Out­line of a The­o­ry of Prac­tice. Trans­lat­ed by Richard Nice. Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge U.P. , 1977.

‘Die Buchmesse muss auch ein Event sein.’ Inter­view mit Loren­zo Rudolf.” Börsen­blatt 82 (15.10.1999): 7-8.

Even-Zohar, Ita­mar. “The Posi­tion of Trans­lat­ed Lit­er­a­ture with­in the Lit­er­ary Poly­sys­tem.” Poet­ics Today 11.1 (1990): 45-51. http://​www​.jstor​.org/​s​t​a​b​l​e​/​1​7​7​2​668, accessed 12 Jan. 2013

Faifax NZ. “Kiwi Writ­ers’ Time to Shine.” News Stuff​.co​.nz 21 May 2012. http://​www​.stuff​.co​.nz/​b​u​s​i​n​e​s​s​/​i​n​d​u​s​t​r​i​e​s​/​6​9​5​5​6​0​9​/​K​i​w​i​-​w​r​i​t​e​r​s​-​t​i​m​e​-​t​o​-​s​h​ine, accessed 12 Jan. 2013

Fis­ch­er, Ernst. “Geglück­te Imageko­r­rek­tur? Bilanz des Schw­er­punk­t­the­mas Öster­re­ich 1995.” Füs­sel 1999. 150-162.

---. “Gegen die Geschäftemacherei des Best­seller­be­triebs.” Füs­sel 2007. 115-119.

Füs­sel, Stephan, ed. 50 Jahre Frank­furt Buchmesse 1949-1999. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1999.

---, ed. Die Poli­tisierung des Buch­mark­ts: 1968 als Branch­enereig­nis. Wies­baden: Har­ras­sowitz, 2007.

Fou­cault, Michel. Dis­ci­pline and Pun­ish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans­lat­ed from French by Alan Sheri­dan. Har­mondsworth: Pen­guin, 1979.

Geertz, Clif­ford. The Inter­pre­ta­tion of Cul­tures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Gmün­der, Ste­fan. “Ein Elcht­est für die Guten­berggalax­is.” Octo­ber 14, 2012. der​stan​dard​.at, accessed 5 Decem­ber 2013.

Götz, Franz Jür­gen. “Von der Buch- zur Medi­en­messe? Elec­tron­ic Pub­lish­ing und Elec­tron­ic Media auf der Frank­furter Buchmesse.” Füs­sel 1999. 163-177.

Hanne, Michael. “Metaphors for the Trans­la­tor.” Bass­nett and Bush. 208-224.

Havranek, Erich. “Atmo­sphäre ohne Exotik: Ver­mit­tlung japanis­ch­er Lit­er­atur im deutschen Sprachraum.” Bach­leit­ner and Wolf. 293-313.

Her­mans, Theo. “Para­dox­es and Apo­r­ias in Trans­la­tion Stud­ies.” Ric­car­di. 10-23.

--. The Manip­u­la­tion of Lit­er­a­ture. Stud­ies in Lit­er­ary Trans­la­tion. Lon­don and Syd­ney: Croom Helm, 1985.

Hofer, Mar­ti­na and Sabine Mess­ner. “Frau macht Buch: Ein Blick auf die aktuelle Sit­u­a­tion von Über­set­zerin­nen und Ver­legerin­nen.” Inter­na­tionales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Lit­er­atur 29.2 (Jan. 2008): 41–51. DeGruyter 19.Sep.2013 DOI: 10.1515/IASL.2004.2.41 http://​www​.degruyter​.com/​v​i​e​w​/​j​/​i​a​s​l​.​2​0​0​4​.​2​9​.​i​s​s​u​e​-​2​/​i​a​s​l​.​2​0​0​4​.​2​.​4​1​/​i​a​s​l​.​2​0​0​4​.​2​.​4​1​.​xml, accessed 4 Decem­ber 2013.

House, Juliane. Trans­la­tion. Oxford Intro­duc­tions to Lan­guage Study Series. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009.

Igoe, Jim. “Glob­al Indi­genism and Space­ship Earth: Con­ver­gence, Space and Re-entry Fric­tion.” Glob­al­iza­tions 2.3 (2005): 377-390.

Lakoff, G. and Mark John­son. “Metaphors We Live By.” [1985] O’Brien. 87-97.

Mil­ton, John and Paul Ban­dia, eds. Agents of Trans­la­tion. Ben­jamins Trans­la­tion Library Series. Vol. 81. Ams­ter­dam and Philadel­phia: John Ben­jamins Pub­lish­ing, 2009.

Müller, Roland. “Frank­furter Buchmesse 2012 – der Tag der Kiwis.” Café Dig­i­tal: Mag­a­zin für analoges Leben und dig­i­tales Arbeit­en Octo­ber 13, 2012. http://​www​.cafedig​i​tal​.de/​2​0​1​2​/​10/, accessed 4 Decem­ber 2013.

Niemeier, Sabine. Funk­tio­nen der Frank­furter Buchmesse im Wan­del – von den Anfän­gen bis heute. Wies­baden: Har­ras­sowitz Ver­lag, 2001.

O’Brien, Jodi. The Pro­duc­tion of Real­i­ty. Essays and Read­ings on Social Inter­ac­tion. Fifth Ed. Thou­sand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011.

Platthaus, Andreas. “Wen juck­en denn noch Büch­er?” Frank­furter All­ge­meine Zeitung 18.06.2012 FAZ​.net http://​www​.faz​.net/​a​k​t​u​e​l​l​/​f​e​u​i​l​l​e​t​o​n​/​b​u​c​h​m​e​s​s​e​n​g​a​s​t​-​n​e​u​s​e​e​l​a​n​d​-​w​e​n​-​j​u​c​k​e​n​-​d​e​n​n​-​n​o​c​h​-​b​u​e​c​h​e​r​-​1​1​7​9​0​2​8​0​.​h​tml, accessed 5 Decem­ber 2013.

Pölz­er, Rudolf. “Abseits der gängi­gen Pfade des Mark­tes: Aktuelle Ten­den­zen in der öster­re­ichis­chen Über­set­zungs­land­schaft.” Bach­leit­ner and Wolf. 65-97.

Pym, Antho­ny. “Trans­la­tion as a Trans­ac­tion Cost” Meta 40.4 (1995): 594-605. ERUDIT http://​id​.eru​dit​.org/​i​d​e​r​u​d​i​t​/​0​0​3​8​8​0ar, accessed 5 Decem­ber 2013.

Ric­car­di, Alessan­dra. Trans­la­tion Stud­ies: Per­spec­tives on an Emerg­ing Dis­ci­pline. Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge UP, 2002.

Rüt­ten, Mar­i­on. “Die Län­der­schw­er­punk­te ab 1988.” Füs­sel 1999. 139-149.

Sala­ma-Carr, Myr­i­am, ed. Trans­lat­ing and Inter­pret­ing Con­flict. Ams­ter­dam, New York: Rodopi, 2007.

Schei­del­er, Brit­ta. “Von Kon­sens zu Kri­tik: Der Frieden­spreis des Deutschen Buch­han­dels.” Füs­sel 1999. 46-88.

Schnei­der, Ute. “Lit­er­arische und poli­tis­che Gegenöf­fentlichkeit. Die Frank­furter Buchmesse in den Jahren 1967 bis 1984.” Füs­sel 1999. 89-114.

Schulz, Gerd. “40 Jahre Buchmesse. Zen­trum des inter­na­tionalen Buchan­dels – Bemerkun­gen zu (fast) vier Jahrzehn­ten Frank­furter Buchmesse.” Börsen­blatt (Frank­furter Aus­gabe) 68. (26.08.1988): 2458-2488.

Sei­dler, Andrea. “Zeit­genös­sis­che ungarische Lit­er­atur: die große Unbekan­nte.“ Bach­leit­ner und Wolf. 265-277.

Sey­er, Ulrike. “Die Frank­furter Buchmessse in den Jahren 1967-1969.” Füs­sel 1999. 159-239.

Shenkar, O., Luo, J. and Orly Yeheskel. “From ‘Dis­tance’ to ‘Fric­tion’: Sub­sti­tut­ing Metaphors and Redi­rect­ing Inter­cul­tur­al Research.” Acad­e­my of Man­age­ment Review. 33.4 (2008): 905-923. Busi­ness Source Alum­ni Edi­tion. 13 Jan. 2013. http://people.brandeis.edu/~ghall/seminar/34421999.pdf, accessed 5 Decem­ber 2013.

Spi­vak, Gay­a­tri Chakra­vorty. “The Pol­i­tics of Trans­la­tion.” [1992] Venu­ti Read­er: 397-416.

Tahir-Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. “Chaos Before Order: Net­work Maps and Research Design in DTS.” Meta 52.4 (2007): 724-743. ERUDIT <http//id.erudit.org/iderudit/017694ar>, accessed 5 Decem­ber 2013.

Thiele­mann, Chris­tiane. “The­men­schw­er­punkt als Kon­trast­pro­gramm: «Kind und Buch» (1978).“ Füs­sel 1999. 130-138.

Thom­son-Wohlge­muth, Gabriele and Ian Thom­son. “Acquir­ing Capa­bil­i­ties in Trans­la­tion - Towards a Mod­el of Trans­la­tion Busi­ness­es.” Tar­get 16:2 (2004): 253-287. http://​dx​.doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​7​5​/​t​a​r​g​e​t​.​1​6​.​2​.​0​4​tho, accessed 5 Decem­ber 2013.

Tsing, Anna Lowen­haupt. Fric­tion: An Ethnog­ra­phy of Glob­al Con­nec­tion. Prince­ton, NJ: Prince­ton UP, 2005.

Toury, Gideon. Descrip­tive Trans­la­tion Stud­ies and Beyond. Ams­ter­dam and Philadel­phia: John Ben­jamins, 1995.

Venu­ti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invis­i­bil­i­ty. A His­to­ry of Trans­la­tion. Lon­don and New York: Rout­ledge, 1995.

---, ed. The Trans­la­tion Stud­ies Read­er. Lon­don and New York: Rout­ledge, 2000.

Wei­d­haas, Peter. Zur Geschichte der Frank­furter Buchmesse. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 2003.

---, Gos­sage, CM. And W.A. Wright. A His­to­ry of the Frank­furt Book Fair. Toron­to: Dun­durn Press, 2007. Trans. of Zur Geschichte der Frank­furter Buchmesse. 2003.

White, Hay­den. Metahis­to­ry: The His­tor­i­cal Imag­i­na­tion in Nine­teenth-Cen­tu­ry Europe. Bal­ti­more: Johns Hop­kins UP, 1973.

Eine Zen­sur find­et nicht statt.” Börsen­blatt (Frank­furter Aus­gabe) 87 (1980): 2589-2590.

Zen­sur find­et nicht statt.” Börsen­blatt 15.09. 2009. Börsen­blatt.Net http://m.boersenblatt.net/339426/, accessed 5 Decem­ber 2013.

Image Notes

Fig 1 http://​der​stan​dard​.at/​1​3​4​8​2​8​6​0​0​4​4​5​5​/​E​i​n​-​E​l​c​h​t​e​s​t​-​f​u​e​r​-​d​i​e​-​G​u​t​e​n​b​e​r​g​g​a​l​a​xis

Fig 2 http://​www​.the​bigidea​.co​.nz/​n​e​w​s​/​i​n​d​u​s​t​r​y​-​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​2​/​o​c​t​/​1​2​2​6​4​1​-​h​o​b​b​i​t​s​-​t​a​k​e​-​o​v​e​r​-​a​t​-​f​r​a​n​k​f​urt

Fig 3 http://www.cafedigital.de/2012/10/13/frankfurter-buchmesse-2012-%E2%80%93-der-tag-der-kiwis/

Fig. 4 http://​medi​en​ar​chiv​.buchmesse​.de/​d​e​t​a​i​l​.​h​t​m​l​?​a​s​s​e​t​I​d​=​3​4​5​4​9​&​l​a​n​g​=en

Fig. 5 From Tahir-Gürçağlar

Fig. 6 From Thom­son-Wohlge­muth, Gabriele and Ian Thomson

This arti­cle is licensed under a  Cre­ative Com­mons 3.0 License although cer­tain works ref­er­enced here­in may be sep­a­rate­ly licensed, or the author has exer­cised their right to fair deal­ing under the Cana­di­an Copy­right Act.