W. George Lovell and Christopher Luz have written a reply to Marco Fonseca's critique of their translation of La patria del criollo into English. It is good that they have taken the time to read such an extensive critical review of their... more
W. George Lovell and Christopher Luz have written a reply to Marco Fonseca's critique of their translation of La patria del criollo into English. It is good that they have taken the time to read such an extensive critical review of their translation and editing of such an important work and offer their response. But it appears that the title of their response to Fonseca's critique is more exaggerated than the rest of the piece actually demonstrates. Given that they speak of "misrepresentation" in the title of their piece, it was to be expected that they would offer concrete and substantial examples drawn from Fonseca's comments that would actually demonstrate exactly in what sense Fonseca's critique is "lost in misrepresentation." Disappointingly, however, Lovell and Lutz's reply contains no proof of it. Once again, the authors formulate a purely formal apology for what they did with La patria del criollo, offer a new attempt to justify it by appealing to the popular reception that their translation has had among colleagues, some in effect "award-winning" representatives of the field of Latin American Studies, and thus essentially avoid the substantial philosophical and methodological problems raised by Fonseca's critique. What Lovell and Lutz fail to do in their reply to Fonseca, therefore, is to point out at least a single "misrepresentation" that actually deserves that name.
