This contribution explores humour as a means of resistance against patriarchal authority in Gerd Brantenberg’s Egalias døtre (1977), a work of feminist science fiction, and its translation into English by Louis Mackay (1985). In this Norwegian gender-bender, humour serves as a facilitator for critical thinking: the coinage of a playful and subversive matriarchal language undermines and ridicules at once the male-as-norm premise that operates in everyday language. This article reflects on the literary tradition the novel belongs to and the key role of lexical creation in the feminist struggle, before analysing the means and effects of lexical creativity in the source text and its translation, from compounding and neologisms to gender-inverting idioms. The results of this contrastive analysis show that the all-important female-as-norm principle at work in the novel, combined with structural differences between source and target languages, lead the translator to make full use of his creative license. By resorting to compensation as a creative translation strategy to create similar effects throughout the novel, he ensures that the English reader also ends up “laughing at patriarchy”, thereby “[breaking] the rules” of patriarchy (Barr [1989: 90-91]).

This article presents some research on translation during the occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany (1940–1945). It seeks to add new insight to the body of knowledge from recent research that has drawn attention to literary translation during wartime or under military occupation in countries such as Belgium, Germany, and France. Focusing on the regulation of translated literature that was implemented by Nazi authorities during the occupation, the article first describes the process of how this regulation came about and, second, how publishers interacted with Nazi officials in their attempts to navigate the new policy. The main source of data is archival material from the Nazi-installed Ministry of Culture and Popular Enlightenment, notably that of the sub-department for literary affairs, the Literature and Library Office. By investigating this material, the article aims to shed new light both on the particularities of the origin of the censorial system implemented during the occupation of Norway and on its ideological implications, thus adding Norwegian data to previous studies on the politics of translation stemming from Nazi ideology.

Denne bokomtalen, skriven for Tidsskriftet Mellom, tar for seg Idellea föreningen Autors essaysamling Autor chap II (2020), der omsettarar som på ulike vis jobbar med skandinaviske språk, skriv fram sine omsettingspoetikkar. Dei seks tekstane står støtt kvar for seg, der dei skildrar kjærleiken til språket og litteraturen side om side med det utfordrande og iblant frustrerande ved å omsette. Det er dessutan eit spenn mellom tekstane, der det oppstår eit rikt rom fylt med vanskelege spørsmål kva ein verdset, og kven som får synast. 

Denne bokmeldinga, skriven for Bokvennen Litterær Avis (BLA), tar for seg Kreativitet (2020) av Hilde Østby. Østby skapar nye koplingar ved å trekke på hjernevitskap så vel som kunst, litteratur og kreative menneskes erfaringar. Boka er særs lærerik, men har dystre undertonar.

I denne bokomtalen, skriven for Bokvennen Litterær Avis (BLA), tar for seg den norske poeten og redaktøren Nils-Øyvind Haagen si diktsamling Det uregjerlige (2020). I boka stiller Haagensen seg ufråvikeleg på sida til den svake parten, idet han bind saman det politiske, det poetiske og det personelege. Men er det så enkelt som at identifikasjon skaper solidaritet? 

Among the cultural fields censored under the Nazi rule of occupied Norway (1940-1945) during WWII, translated literature stands out as the most strictly controlled part of the literary field, censored by the Norwegian Literature and Library Office. Moreover, the Reich Commissariat (the highest German authority in occupied Norway) used the field of translated literature as a site for soft propaganda, here understood as subtle messaging, in contrast to hard propaganda, which is cruder and more heavy-handed. Aiming to investigate how the Reich Commissariat influenced the field of translated literature, this article presents findings from archival research focused on correspondence directly or indirectly involving the Reich Commissariat, taking into consideration textual and contextual features of the books and authors discussed. The article concludes that the Reich Commissariat had various ways of influencing publications of translated literature, being both overtly and covertly involved in publishing processes.

This collectively authored reflection on translation began as a roundtable discussion by a group of feminists considering how translation can subvert, rewrite, or question hegemonic definitions of authorship, as well as how it can disrupt or dismantle intersecting regimes of power. Authorizing ourselves to explore a new form of collective writing enabled by digital technologies, one that both recognizes individual ideas and weaves them into the representation of a communal understanding, we explore the theoretical formulations and practical negotiations of the textual authority of translators within the interdisciplinary contexts of feminist studies, literary studies, and translation studies. The dialogic convergence of those three disciplinary territories allows for an in-depth examination of power and resistance in relation to women’s transformative roles as authors, translators, and social justice activists in different geohistorical contexts. Moreover, such criticism is useful in revealing the past and present silencing of women’s contributions to social change as cultural and political agents. The goal of this chapter is to consider how translation brings local and transnational feminisms into dialogue across time and place, and in doing so, challenges legacies of hegemonic cultural authority that too often reproduce heteropatriarchal, colonial formations. The participants of this roundtable chapter, coming from different interdisciplinary and transnational backgrounds, approach questions of feminist politics and philosophies of authorship and translation with their uniquely positioned epistemic voices. In doing so, they help expand critical understandings of translation in general and feminist translation in particular, and offer a multifaceted meditation that works from our various perspectives and experiences to go beyond (mis)perceptions of authorship towards practices of solidarity in translation.

Recent research has drawn attention to the roles of translators and translation during wartime in countries such as Belgium (Gouanvic 2001), Germany (Rundle & Sturge 2010) and France (Lombez 2013; 2016; 2017). This paper presents the first research on translation during the Nazi occupation of Norway (1940–1945).

Findings from research in newly opened archives shows how the publication of translated literature came to be controlled during the occupation by regulations implemented by German officials in Norway. In 1941 the “department for culture and enlightenment”, a propaganda department established by Nazi officials, demanded that Norwegian publishing houses ask permission for each translated book they wanted to publish, a time-consuming and costly process. The archives reveal obvious instances of censorship, but they also show several instances of the authorities pushing books to translate. Some publishing houses highlight in their applications that they have been urged by the Reichskommissariat to publish certain works.

By asking how the policies, processes and regulations of translation of literature were in this period, and how translators, publishers and Nazi officials interacted with each other in order to publish translated works, this paper gives insight into the politics of translation during Nazi occupation, as well as the ethical challenges of navigating regulations set by antidemocratic authorities – or, for some, profiting from them.

The flow (or lack of such) of foreign literature in a country occupied by a foreign power does not only indicate the attitudes towards, and conditions for, translation under a given regime. It also yields insight into how this power could use censorship and withholding of translated literature on one hand, and pushing certain kinds of translated literature on the other, as means in the fight to win the ideological war, as Lombez (2016) has argued was the case in occupied France.

Recent research has drawn attention to the roles of translators and translation during wartime in countries such as Belgium (Gouanvic 2001), Germany (Rundle & Sturge 2010) and France (Lombez 2013; 2016; 2017). This paper presents the first research on translation during the Nazi occupation of Norway (1940–1945). Findings from research in newly opened archives shows how the publication of translated literature came to be controlled during the occupation by regulations implemented by German officials in Norway. In 1941 the “department for culture and enlightenment”, a propaganda department established by the Nazi officials, demanded that Norwegian publishing houses ask permission for each translated book they wanted to publish, a both time-consuming and costly process. The archives reveal obvious instances of censorship of literature in translation, but they also show several instances of the authorities pushing books, as some of the publishing houses highlight in their applications that they have been asked by the Reichskommissariat to publish certain translations. By asking how the policies, processes and regulations of translation of literature were in this period, and how translators, publishers and Nazi officials interacted with each other in order to publish translated works, this paper gives insight into the politics of translation during Nazi occupation, as well as the ethical challenges of navigating regulations set by antidemocratic authorities– or, for some, profiting from them. The flow (or lack of such) of foreign literature in a country occupied by aforeign power does not only indicate the attitudes towards, and conditions for, translation under a givenregime. It also yields insight into how this power could use censorship and withholding of translated literatureon one hand and to push certain kinds of translated literature on the other, as means in the fight to win theideological war, as Lombez (2016) has argued was the case in occupied France.