translation studies. retrospective and prospective views

has the special vocation of watching over the maturing process of the
original language and the birth pangs of its own.
What about the annotation of a literary work? Is it charged with a
similar potential of watching over the maturing process of the original?
Does it link more to life (the author’s, the work’s, reality) than fiction
proper?
I think that very much like in the case of certain literary works which
cry out their translatability, the same goes for some such works which cry
out their annotatability. But, it may well be for completely opposite
reasons: The works’ translatability is intrinsic, while the works’
annotatability is extrinsic. The former happens at the level of creation, the
latter, at the level of reception. It also seems that, in the case of annotation,
the cause becomes its justification or raison d’être. To be more explicit, I’ll
just mention some examples of literary works that have annotation thrust
upon them, so to speak: Ulysses (1922) — see Don Gifford’s Ulysses
Annotated, 2008; Finnegans Wake (1939) — see Annotations to Finnegans Wake
by Roland McHugh, 1991; The Confidence Man (1857) — see Herman
Melville’s Confidence Man, edited by Hershel Parker, 1971; Lolita (1955) —
see Carl R. Proffer’s Keys to Lolita, 1968; The Annotated Lolita by Alfred
Appel Jr., 1970; “Emendations to Annotated Editions of Lolita” by Leland
de la Durantaye, 2007; Ada or Ardor: A Family Chronicle (1969) — see
ongoing Annotations to Ada by Brian Boyd, 1993-2008; The Satanic Verses
(1988) — see Paul Brians’ project Annotating The Satanic Verses: An Example
of Internet Research and Publication, 2004. To take only the most celebrated.
As dissimilar as these works may appear, they certainly share a
common temptation for annotators. Here are some commonsensical reasons
that come to mind: (1) the paramount feeling of intimidation the reader
(novice or not) has in front of the maze of literary/ historical/ political/
religious/ cultural allusions; (2) the innumerable language games they
display; (3) the recondite material in rich, multi-layered referential
constructions (from elaborate intra-textual reference, through self-reference
and textualized extratextual reference to hermeneutic reference); (4) the
infinite intertextual patterns of thought and thinking within and outside the
text; (5) the paratextual information to keep track of; (6) the baffling
architextuality as part of transtextuality or transcendence (Genette’s
nomenclature) the work reinvents; (7) the inferential dialogue between
life/reality and its fictional transposition.
Annotators like critics and certainly translators must develop a huge
interest in the literary work they come to annotate. But, of course, the
reasons for which they get so involved with the respective work can vary.
For instance, Alfred Appel Jr. confesses that his Annotated Lolita addresses
the needs of college students first, but also those of the general reader who
13