it always bothers me, this fixation on defining what The Real Translation should be like, as if a work came into being with the Real Translation already hidden in it for the translator to uncover. but it's a fixation that, annoying as it is, makes sense as it is rooted in how the translation industry operates: unless the work is a classic, there simply won't be more than one translation as the publisher with rights to the book would create competition for their own product, and so capitalism hinders translation not just in making the One translation worse by making the translator work on a minimal budget under high pressure, but also by limiting us from thinking translation further, from viewing it as a way of engaging with a text, which can render visible different readings, different approaches, rather than how to let the reader erroneously believe translation is a neutral process in which the translator is at best tangentially involved