LTSovietmečio verstinės literatūros cenzūra pirmiausia pasižymi tuo, kad nors iš pažiūros ji buvo švelnesnė nei originaliosios literatūros cenzūra, vis dėlto buvo labai apgaulinga, efemeriška, išsklaidyta. Kartu ji buvo įsismelkusi, mažiau reflektuojama, bet veikė tiek vertimo kūrybos ir leidimo procesus, tiek jo recepciją, skaitytoją, visą verstinės literatūros lauką. Kitas sovietmečio vertimo cenzūros ypatumas kyla iš paties vertimų leidybos proceso: iš jo etapų geografinės dispersijos (dalis sprendimų buvo priimama Maskvoje, kita dalis – Lietuvoje), o užtekstiniame lygmenyje – daugybės įvairių veikėjų, kurie, prisidėdami prie vertimo, prisidėjo ir prie jo cenzūros. Todėl vertimo cenzūros (savi)refleksija yra labai sudėtinga, reikalaujanti beveik detektyvinio darbo ją nušviesti ir įvardyti. O sovietmečiu suformuotas užsienio grožinės literatūros kanonas ir tekstinės refrakcijos, įtvirtinančios ideologizuotą kūrinių perteikimą, yra dauginamos iki šių dienų.
ENThe book "Translation and Censorship under Soviet Ideology: Lithuania, 1940-1990 represents the culmination of several years of research, offering a comprehensive exploration of the censorship of translations of foreign literature into Lithuanian. This edited volume makes a significant contribution to the broader discussion on the enduring impact of the Soviet era on Lithuanian society and culture, as well as the mechanisms of translation censorship under repressive regimes. The book contains four parts: I. Ideology, Censorship, Translation, II. The Soviet Context of Foreign Literature Publishing in Lithuania, III. Case Studies of Political, Religious and Moral Censorship. IV. Postcolonial Effects of Translation, comprising fourteen chapters. The first part of the book is an in-depth investigation of various theoretical approaches to ideology and censorship. The focus is on key questions such as how ideology affects culture and cultural production in general, the functions and notions of censorship and its relation to ideology, and what contexts, processes, and conditions specifically influence literary translation. It investigates the effects of dominant ideological frameworks, state policies, and the agency of actors within the literary translation field, while also exploring how the individual's complex positionalities at the intersection of multiple axes of identity (Mihai 2022) influence its dynamic. The second part of the volume examines the context of publishing literature in translation during the 50-year Soviet occupation in Lithuania from three angles.First, it explores the field of publishing of foreign literature translations, its boundaries and dynamics, then it delves into the network of actors (as roles) and participants (as individuals) and, finally, into the system of Lithuanian foreign literature translations within the polysystem of Soviet Lithuanian literature (cf. Even-Zohar 2004). A particular focus is on principles of book and author selection for translation under preventive censorship and the shaping of literary reception. The use of paratexts in translated books is termed secondary censorship, because the book was already approved, translated and copy-edited, but the publisher takes one more step to ensure that the reader perceives its content correctly by explaining the merits of the author and the book and how to correctly understand its message, sometimes with a cautionary note that in some aspect the author may have failed to see the causes of the evils of the capitalist society or a way to find the solution that a socialist path could offer, and the like. The third part of the book supports the findings in the first two parts with detailed case studies, showcasing patterns of political, religious, and moral cen- sorship. These analyses illuminate the extent, manifestations, and nuances of translation censorship during the Soviet era, as well as its lingering effects in the post-Soviet period. This not only gives a comprehensive picture of the entirety of foreign literature translations into Lithuanian but also of the cultural policy pursued by the Soviet Union, where it was important to show a relationship with the Other while maintaining strict control over its representation. [...].