In the “How This Book Was Written” section of The Falling Sky: Words of a Yanomami Shaman, editor/collaborator/we’ve-talked-about-whether-or-not-this-role-counts-as-authorship-but-I-remain-divided Bruce Albert describes how he and Davi Kopenawa met, became close, and wrote this book. Albert says: “[…] Davi Kopenawa decided to use that recording to describe his view of the Yanomami’s tragic situation and to launch an appeal to me. And so he did, in his own language […]” (pg. 440) I don’t think it’s a reach to say that this is reminiscent of other texts we’ve read- I, Rigoberta Menchú especially, and Our Word is Our Weapon to a smaller degree. Albert’s background, much like Elizabeth Burgos’ own, puts him in a specific position to tell this story (though, unlike Menchú and Burgos, Kopenawa and Albert do not have an instantaneous connection). This is also discussed throughout the “Setting the Scene” section, where Albert gives us context for his and Kopenawa’s lives, work, and backgrounds. It is in this section that Albert says “the book is the result of a written and oral process that was continually shaped by the intersecting projects of the two authors.” (pg. 8) (So, I guess that answers the authorship question.)
This is further complicated as later, Albert describes his contributions as not being “direct translations” (pg. 444) of Kopenawa’s words. Rather, he states that “[m]y own editorial strategy, as far as possible, was guided by the search for a compromise that tempers the hierarchical relationship embedded in the ‘ethnographic situation’ and the textual production that flows from it.” (pg. 445) Again, not unlike other works we have discussed, it would seem that Albert is trying to impart a sense of “authenticity” or reality onto this work. However, we have no way of knowing which parts are accurate/real/authentic, and what is being played up or down for the sake of prose. I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing or that changing certain details means we should be skeptical of the whole work. Kopenawa’s story, regardless of editorial intervention, is not one that is unfamiliar with or ungrounded in the reality of land dispossession and resource extraction.
I think my initial skepticism, or uncertainty, rests on the fact that Albert has had such an active role in the military in the past. Not that people can’t or don’t change. But I think that given the role that militaries have had in exactly the issues that Kopenawa is describing makes me wonder about his motivations and his conscience. I’m not sure how to place it.
I totally agree with your initial skepticism about Albert’s role in the military. I think it is very likely that his previous lived experience directly affects his motivations and conscience. There is the possibility of him evolving, but of course there is always that uncertainty about Albert’s intentions in engaging with Kopenawa’s narrative.
It is also worth acknowledging how Albert’s background weaves into his approach to the text. I understand that his military background is one that points towards potential biases or agendas, but with time, one can undergo a series of transformations. In addition, because this project is fairly collaborative there is room for more voices of “sober second thought” to thus further amplify Kopenawa’s voice rather than overshadow it. Nevertheless, your raised concerned with regards to his previous military experience is an important factor to consider when breaking down the text.
This is a good way to situate that thought. After having some time away from the text itself (I wrote this directly after finishing this week’s assigned reading), I think I agree with you. The narrative content of the book, aside from the introduction and post-book foreword, seems to be fairly focused on Kopenawa’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
As a person who has translated a lot of work (manga), I want to say that “not a direct translation” isn’t always like, the twisting of someone’s words but rather it’s more like a “if I translate this directly it would make literally no sense” due to the differences in grammar and language. At least for me, it’s more like a localization rather than a direct and deliberate misinterpretation. Then again this is mainly from Chinese/Japanese to English so take it with a grain of salt.
I think this is a good point to raise (and one I should have considered myself, since I have a couple languages under my belt as well)! Maybe I just got caught up because he doesn’t specify it’s for lack of directly translatable words, but even so, yeah of course there are going to be discrepancies between languages. Thanks for including this!