Clarice Lispector’s translators in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Clarice Lispector’s entry as an author into the United States happens at different moments, beginning in the 1950s, with the translation of several short stories, carried out among others by Elizabeth Bishop, culminating with a biography of the author written in English by Benjamin Moser in 2009, and a little later, with the publication of the short stories and other pieces, in the emblematic edition entitled The Complete Stories, in 2015, edited by Benjamin Moser and translated by Katrina Dodson. These publications put the translators in the spotlight, as they were responsible for renewing Clarice’s presence on American soil. This paper aims to research the translators of Clarice Lispector’s works in the English-speaking cultural system, considering only the American context. The aim is to highlight these professional figures who contributed to the dissemination of this important Brazilian writer abroad, analyze their profile, and also examine their presence and imprint on some of the translations performed, such as prefaces, postscripts, notes, etc., assessing the degree of visibility and invisibility (Venuti 2021). By considering the relevance of translators as social actors/dialogical bodies (Robinson, 1991, 2012) and as “translating subjects” (Berman, 1995) and the fact that English translations of Clarice’s works have influenced and stimulated the circulation of this author in other literary systems, by examining the biobibliographical profile, verifying its presence or not in the paratexts (Genette, 2009/Batchelor, 2018) of Clarice Lispector’s English-language translators and their translation position, as well as their project and horizon (Berman, 1995), we gain an understanding of the translation policies of a given cultural polysystem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".