Western American Literature

Note February 9, 1982 Dear Editor: An example of misinformation recently came to my attention in Vol. XV, No. 3, Fall, 1980, Western American Literature, in a review of Ameri­ can Indian Poetry. A major factual erroneous statement was noted about this critical, analytical study of traditional song-poems preserved by literary translators compared or contrasted with Indian poems of literary interpreters. The reviewer stated: “One must also question the selection of trans­ lators discussed: while Alice Fletcher, Frances Densmore, Mary Austin [an interpreter, not a translator] and Natalie Curtis call for no apologies . . . [other writers who were interpreters] would not seem to have produced work as valuable as have many not included in this book: for example, Franz Boas, Ruth Bunzel, James Mooney, Herbert Spinden, and Ruth Underhill.” (p. 236) Contrariwise, in fact, the book reveals that: On p. 156 all (except Franz Boas) of the foregoing translators, in addition to seven others, were repre­ sented in the text with examples of their work and a discussion of it. Ruth Bunzel, 100-102; Daniel Brinton, 37-39; Edward S. Curtis, 22-23; Frank H. Cushing, 31; Horatio Hale, 37, 77, 78, 79; Washington J. Matthews, 69, 80, 141, 145-46, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152; James Mooney, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75-76; Frank Russell, 97-98, 104; Herbert J. Spinden, 34-35, 108, 115-116, 155; John R. Sw'anton, 122-23, 126; Ruth M. Underhill, 64-65, 66. This totals 45 pp., which, in conjunction with translators Fletcher, Densmore, Natalie Curtis, adds 46/ 2 pp. for a grand total of 91^ pp. critically ana­ lyzing the works of translators in 157 pp. of text. That leaves 6 5 pp. devoted to the works of literary interpreters. Only translator Franz Boas’ work on the Eskimo was omitted because, as stated in the Preface, the study was limited to the metrical compositions from representative tribes in the U.S. proper, and Boaz is the only translator who received two one-line mentions. Sincerely, in the interest of accuracy, Helen Overland * * 262 Western American Literature March 3, 1982 Dear Editor: I’m afraid I must admit to overstating the case in my review of Helen Addison Howard’s American Indian Poetry. The sentence to which she objects should have read, . . would not seem to have produced work as valuable as have many who are either drastically underrepresented or not included in this book. . . .” Unfortunately, her response overstates her case almost as much as I overstated mine. Of the pages she lists, half contain no substantive discus­ sion of the translators in question — only their names appear in some cases, in others brief references to their work. Nonetheless, they do appear in the book, and I was certainly incorrect to say that they do not; and there is indeed some substantive discussion of their work — though most often for purposes of comparison with that of an ‘interpreter’ whose work is the real focus of discussion. My original review should have made clear, but didn’t, that I don’t find the distinction between ‘translators’ and ‘interpreters’ very meaningful. It seems to me that today the debate among translators is between those who believe that translation has always been interpretation, and those who believe that translation has always been the creation of new works of litera­ ture. In that context, I find her distinction between ‘translators’ and ‘inter­ preters’ to be one of degree rather than kind, and still not justification enough for the inclusion of some of her ‘interpreters.’ But that’s a legitimate difference of opinion, and many will no doubt side with the author of American Indian Poetry. I do continue to feel that the book might better have been titled The Translation of American Indian Poetry, since it is clearly less interested in the poetry for its own sake than as material for translators. That is, of course, a legitimate concern, and the book has some interesting things to say about the matter. Clearly, Helen Addison Howard is knowledgeable; I happen to disagree with her emphasis, and to wish she had shared with her readers more of her knowledge about the poetry itself, and perhaps less about...