Ccaps Blog

Interfering with the text of an author is a sensitive issue. What should be the attitude of the reviewer: preserve the original text as much as possible or be a hidden co-author? During the course of my internship, I have intuitively formed some opinions about this and can now make them clear for myself — which is a great exercise of self-evaluation.

The more objective the text, the more I interfere. I tend to make myself present with textual interferences because, like authors, I believe that we should be humble enough to acknowledge that our texts can be constantly improved — by others or by ourselves. It is a never-ending process, I am sorry.

Each revised text is a learning experience! And this has nothing to do with (in)experience; it has to do with being receptive to other writers, other styles, other minds. Reviewers somewhat put authors down. In this process, we are looking through the lens of the author to see his vision of the world and how it reflects in the writing and is incorporated in it.

Therefore, in my work I try to offer solutions that reconcile my ideology and that of the author. But this is not always possible. What is right or wrong? I do not believe in this dichotomy as an objective plan. One cannot simply say that the apple should replace the orange; one should find the roots of the tree, the history and conditions of the seeding, along with climate factors. Please do not adopt this as a formula; I do not even know how to grow apples and oranges. Before you tell me to go plant some trees, let us see what we can do together!

Reflect with me for a moment: Good use of language comes from hypothetical notions, from ideal conditions for cultivation and consumption. But it is not always rainy or sunny, as forecasted. I am not saying that we should burn our manuals. Why not recognize that wild fire, for example, is not only illegal but also harmful to the environment? Like my colleague Marilena Moraes says, we are always surrounded by Cegalla, Bechara, Aurélio, Houaiss and other philologists, grammarians and scholars. They are not only some printed references but mostly everything scholarly that is dedicated to systematize intuitive knowledge that we all have in respect to language.

We as reviewers — or eventually as translators of our own language — are precisely the language professionals licensed by our extensive linguistic experience. We are like referees at a soccer game, calling the shots on the field. People are constantly ridiculing and throwing tomatoes at us because the fans and the players are not always willing to accept our calls. They obviously also have their moments of reason: those moments when we are too strict or too lenient, when we are wrong and right. After all, in any social context judgment does exist.

As readers, we are rather objective when correcting, especially when it comes to spelling and accentuation, which for me are minor issues as they remain on the surface of the text. I recognize the importance of unifying our spelling system, but I also think that spelling and accents are utterly the final touches to any text, the make-up of the writing. Our inspiration does not come from the supreme world of ideas, but from our grammar, our intuitive and systemic knowledge of the language that we use everyday.

On behalf of the Portuguese language, please call us reviewers, and not correctors!

Related posts:

1. Call the Reviewer!

Posted in 12/07/2009 at 1.12 pm.
You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post’s comments.
Your comments must be approved before they are published.