One of the many things I’ve thought about looking into for the post is the reception of prior translations of The Second Sex and their reception. From what I understand, which is very little, it seems like prior translations communicated Beauvoir’s ideas effectively enough for her to become such an iconic figure in feminist philosophy and literature. This then begs the question of what differences are noteworthy about Borde and Malovany-Chevallier’s translation; did the pair include sections left out by other translations due to their content being deemed “unnecessary,” or was there just some linguistic barrier that made certain ideas in the piece lack clarity in prior translations. This then begs the question of if the piece will ever get another highly marketed translation as the one I have was originally put together in 2009. While it may get in the way of other aspects of publishing, I think a good chunk of this blog post may involve the question in the process of “Why does it need to be translated again and how will it influence both new readers and those familiar with the original piece or past translations.”
I also am tempted to look into if anyone had complaints about the length of Beauvoir’s writings and if that affected how the novel was translated and then marketed, since while I do enjoy the piece and other texts written by Beauvoir and Sartre the pair did seem to have a tendency to ramble and present ideas that can at times lose itself in the fanciful language.
