venuti

Notes1 Invisibility1 These cultural and social developments have been described by variouscommentators. My sense of them is informed especially by Mandel 1975,McLuhan 1964, Horkheimer and Adorno 1972, and Baudrillard 1983.Instrumental conceptions of language are of course not unique to thepost-World War II period; they date back to antiquity in the west andhave influenced translation theories at least since Augustine (Robinson1991:50–54).2 Holden 1991: Chap. 1 offers a similar assessment of contemporaryAmerican poetry, although from a “centrist” position. For the historicaldevelopment of transparent discourse in English-language poetry, seeEasthope 1983.3 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48), sections 1 (1) (a), 16 (1)(e), 21(3) (a) (i); 17 US Code, sections 101, 102, 106, 201 (a) (1976).4 The ambiguous legal status of translation is discussed by Derrida 1985a:196–200 and Simon 1989.5 The UNESCO Recommendation on the Legal Protection of Translatorsand Translations and the Practical Means to Improve the Status ofTranslators (adopted by the General Conference at Nairobi, 22 November1976), follows the wording of the Berne Convention:Member states should accord to translators, in respect of theirtranslations, the protection accorded to authors under the provisions ofthe international copyright conventions to which they are party and/or under their national laws, but without prejudice to the rights of theauthors of the original works translated.(article II.3)6 This account of Blackburn’s Cortázar project draws on documents in thePaul Blackburn Collection, Archive for New Poetry, MandevilleDepartment of Special Collections, University of California, San Diego:Letter to John Dimoff, National Translation Center, University of Texas,