Book review
Cristina Carneiro Rodrigues. Tradução e diferença
(Translation and Difference). São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 2000. 238 pp. ISBN 85-7139-290-0

Reviewed by John Milton
São Paulo
Table of contents

Rosemary Arrojo’s Universidade de Campinas deconstruction stable has beenvery active in the publishing world in Brazil in recent years, with Arrojo’s owncollection of previously published essays Tradução, Desconstrução, Psicanálise[Translation, Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis] (1993), Maria Paula Frota’s ASingularidade na Escrita Tradutória [Singularity in Translation Writing] (1999),and now Tradução e Diferença, which follows the pattern of much of Arrojo’swork: a critique and condemnation of traditional (logocentric) theoriesfollowed by the celebration of deconstructive criticism. This pattern can befound in her critique of feminist criticism in “Feminist ‘Orgasmic’ Theories ofTranslation and their Contradictions” (1995), of more personal ‘dilettante’criticism of poetry translation in “A que são fieis tradutores e críticos detradução? Nelson Ascher e Paulo Vizioli discutem John Donne” [What areTranslators and Critics of Translation Faithful to? Nelson Ascher and PauloVizioli discuss John Donne] (1993a), and the ‘foreignizing’ translation intoFrench of the complete works of Freud coordinated by Jean Laplanche in“Laplanche Traduz o Pai da Psicana’lise: As Principais Cenas de um RomanceFamiliar” [Laplanche Translates the Father of Psychoanalysis: The Main Scenes of my a Family Romance] (1993b).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.


Arrojo, Rosemary
1993a “A que são fieis tradutores e críticos de tradução?: Nelson Ascher e Paulo Vizioli discutem John Donne”. Tradução, Desconstrução, Psicanálise. Rio de Janeiro: Imago 1993 15–26.Google Scholar
1993b “Laplanche Traduz o Pai da Psicanálise: As Principais Cenas de um Romance Familiar”. Tradução, Desconstrução, Psicanálise. Rio de Janeiro: Imago 1993 35–50.Google Scholar
1993c “A tradução passada a limpo e a visibilidade do tradutor”. Tradução, Desconstrução, Psicanálise. Rio de Janeiro: Imago 1993 71–89.Google Scholar
1995 “Feminist ‘orgasmic’ theories of translation and their contradictions”. TradTerm 2. 67–75.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frota, Maria Paula
1999A Singularidade na Escrita Tradutória. Campinas: Pontes.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André
1985 “Why waste our time on rewrites?: The trouble with interpretation and the role of rewriting in an alternative paradigm”. The manipulation of literature, ed. Theo Hermans. Beckenham: Croom Helm 1985 215–243.Google Scholar
1992Translating literature:Practice and theory in comparative literature context. New York: MLA.Google Scholar
1992Translation/history/culture. London: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992Translation, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
1992 “Introduction”. Rethinking translation. London: Routledge 1992 1–17.Google Scholar
Wolf, Michaela
ed. 1999Übersetzungswissenschaften in Brasilien. Berlin: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar