Imagined Community as a Solution to a Paradoxical Translation

elements into him as a character? What would a translation that would not link the character to abstract concepts look like? To what extent should this note influence a translation of the play? Since the Gross and Potbellied Man’s dialogue mostly consists of grunts and his actions are mainly communicated through stage directions, the most challenging element of translating the character was the name itself. Character names are of determinate importance since they impact what readers might think of them. Even in a staged version of the play, viewers would see the name of the character on programs or other associated media. Translating the name in a very literal sense posed two problems: (1) it limited the casting possibilities for a staged production of the play, and (2) it didn’t fully express the range of emotions that Marinetti specified in his note. If I choose to use a term like “fat,” any directors or producers attempting to stage the play would be obligated to cast an actor who visually conforms to the physical description. Moreover, the character should, according to Marinetti’s note (or at least my interpretation of it), provoke negative emotions in the audience. Considering the unique contributions a translator can make in the process of theatrical translation helped me to determine how to translate the name of this character. Instead of a physical description of the character, such as “fat,” “portly,” or “large,” I chose to focus more on the unpleasantness of his presence. For this reason, I settled on “The Gross and Potbellied Man” as the name for the character. This is a much less literal translation of the name, but this translation resonates with the connotations that grasso can refer to someone or something being “greasy” or “oily” (as grasso can mean “fatty” in a chemical or nutritional sense in addition to the way it can describe someone physically). The Treccani Institute Dictionary includes, for the term grasso, the following definition: “Che ha consistenza untuosa, viscosa, densa” [“That which has a greasy, viscous, or dense consistency,” my translation]. I liked this solution, as it seemed to resolve the dilemmas I had been considering. By focusing more on the “greasiness” or “sliminess” of the character, my choice of “gross,” although a less direct or literal translation of grasso, put a greater emphasis on the emotional response from the audience that the character should provoke. Additionally, this translation, being more abstract, would allow directors, producers, or others who would be involved in any theatrical production of the work to have a greater freedom when casting the role. By translating in a way that was more abstract, I increased the potential for engagement with the work. Imagining how a community in the target language might engage with a translation can help translators make difficult choices. I managed to work through Marinetti’s paradoxical (non) symbol when I considered how an English-speaking theatrical community might approach the work. This consideration led me to make my translation more abstract, and this abstraction left room for others to engage with the text. My decision to make the name of the character more abstract may have gone against Marinetti’s note, which claimed the character should not be a symbol. However, this instance of abstraction and symbolization was necessary to invite others to engage with the play and to put it to use in the target language.