Why does Veeky Forums care so much about picking certain translations of books over another(or sometimes even advocates...

Why does Veeky Forums care so much about picking certain translations of books over another(or sometimes even advocates reading the book in the author's first language)
Do translations suck that badly in general?
t.newfag

Meh, put 3 or more months into learning to read the language if you want. Translations are a time saving solution not 'the' solution.

Isn't it a little obvious user? Translations affect how you read the text. A bad translation might ruin a lot of the effect and quality of the novel, and fail to convey the feel of the original. The translator should care about the book almost as much as the author, if not more, with just enough investment and detachment in good portion to make the best rendition of the novel in the other language as possible.

Spoken by someone who has never read a truly bad translation

>context matters, user
That's not what I asked tho. I asked if translations suck in general (so I should put my time into finding the one that doesn't suck)

Besides, this comment gave me the impression that bad translations are rare

You should probably steer clear if everyone says a certain translation sucks, but objectively right translations don't exist. Translation is like asking a painter, a photographer, and a 3D modeler to reproduce Michaelangelo's David.

some things you can not translate
its like trying to make a burger with just broccoli and some cat food

This. Anything that uses stylistic language is pretty much impossible to translate. You can only convey the essential message, the setting, and so on - not the art of the words. It will be a new work, which may also be good, but it won't be the original that you're reading.

So not only context matters, now I understand that, and I suppose I should read the original indeed if any author is notoriously known for his writing style.
But what about philosophical non-literary works? Will I be able, for example, to understand more clearly Hegel(who, again, is notoriously known for his writing style) in his own language than in my own?

Not even Hegel understands Hegel.

Because some translations are better than others. Is it really that hard to fathom? And yes, you should learn other languages and read texts in the original if possible.

daily reminder reading originals is for plebs

Eh, another one who fails to grasp the intention behind the question in the OP. Again, I was asking about the quality of the translations in general, not the advantages some translations have over others.
Not like it matters anyways.
And yet I can't tell if "reading originals" is just a way to troll newfags like myself or if people actually do it (like "starting with the greeks").
I honestly wonder how many of those who advocate reading the originals have actually learned greek to read Homer or russian to read Tolstoyevsky.

Nice meme, but my question still remains. I'm not saying I will attempt to jump on Mt. Hegel from the sea level I'm currently staying on (well I suppose Hegel was a bad example of a philosopher who could be understood better in his native language indeed, since hegelian is a language of its own)

>trolling someone into learning a language

whoa epic troll! Learning another language is totally useless!

I have expected this reply. But proposing to someone to learn a new language only for reading an "original" is dubious, you have to admit.
My question still remains.

Because transposing a literary work from 1 language irremediably damages it. A good translation damages it a little less.

Lemme guess, you only speak one language?
Because the answer would be obvious to you if you did not.

I speak 2, one of them being english. Also learning spanish coz ez. Still don't see the reason someone would learn japanese only to read Murakami "the proper way". Still haven't seen one user to confirm it was worth it(if only for reading an original)

translations always suck, no matter what you do, the totality of a work in its original language, where its reputation emerged, will always be lost to you.
translations do matter a lot, because experts on foreign or dead languages are not always also literary artists in their own right.

Some people might choose a language like French to read Flaubert, Camus, Dumas. Maybe they also have French relatives too. Maybe they live near a French speaking community. Maybe they want a job that requires bilingualism. I fail to see how telling someone to read the originals is "trolling" as if learning a language is useless outside of reading a few popular titles in their original language. You are using very difficult and distant languages (Ancient Greek, Russian and Japanese) as examples because your argument is weak.

Damn dude, you sound like you need to get some Vitamin D
>another one who fails to grasp the intention behind the question
>I have expected this reply
>
another one

Learning a language, with the exception of english, with the objective of being able to read literature from another country in the 'original language' is honestly a waste of time (Unless you plan to do some serious study of a country's literature). Translations might not be able to convey a writer's style perfectly, but it will still provide you with a very good understanding of the text and you'll still have at your disposal several research tools to search for the messages that an author wanted to pass. If in a translation you can still understand perfectly what the author wanted to say, so think very carefully before dedicating time to learn languages, because, again, if you aren't planning to do a serious study of the literature, philosophy etc of an entire culture, than it's just a waste of time.

With english at your disposal you can get excellent translations of practically every meaningful and important book out there and their commentators.

A good translation takes the original and makes a different but equally good work of art.
t. Beckett

Here's the funny part. You learn another language to read a book, it's STILL a translation, only it's done by you.

Exactly. What this guy said.

A French book in French is more enjoyable than a French book in English. But how many hours is it going to take for you to have an advanced knowledge of another language to enjoy it on the same level. You going to spend hours every day just to read a novel?

That being said everyone should learn another language. Learn the language of your ancestors or something. Or if you're in Canada learn French because we all learn English for you fucks.

>You going to spend hours every day just to read a novel
Learning a language doesn't take hours a day if you don't want it to. You can spend a single hour a day, not even a contiguous hour and make enough gains to read in a language in about a year to a year and a half. Find sometime in your day where you do nothing, waiting for the bus, lunch-break at work, wake up 15 minutes earlier etc, use that time to practice and you will have the exact same amount of time to do everything you do already and you will be able to read a new language in a year and a bit. Learning a language doesn't have to be a very big commitment if you don't want it to be.

Doing something every day for a year and a half could be considered a big commitment.

And you could do a duolingo course and read a book in another language in 2 months. The point is will you know the language well enough to enjoy and understand it as well as you would in your native language

Knowing how to read a language and reading in that language are two different things. There are things like social cues embedded in languages that if you don't get you'd be better off reading a translation done by someone who does.

>Doing something every day for a year and a half could be considered a big commitment
>could
That was my whole point. Learning a language can take up such a small amount of a day that would fill in time that you aren't using/can't use anyway it doesn't have to be a big commitment.

>And you could do a duolingo course and read a book in another language in 2 months
No you can't. Duolingo does not give you the necessary knowledge of grammar nor does it give you a very big vocabulary.

>to enjoy and understand it as well as you would in your native language
More effort =/= less enjoyable. As per the understanding part that's why you stagger what you read to suit your level. You don't start reading Rabelais three weeks after you start doing French. You read things that are just difficult enough to help your grow. Something of that level is a lot easier than many parts of Ulysses.

>I fail to see how telling someone to read the originals is "trolling" as if learning a language is useless outside of reading a few popular titles in their original language.
Understand this, if you tell someone to read the originals you are advicing them to learn the language ONLY for reading the originals, since you have no way to know whether or not this is gonna be useful for a random user.
>You are using very difficult and distant languages (Ancient Greek, Russian and Japanese) as examples because your argument is weak.
Is using them as examples erroneous? Nay, at this point you will at least have to admit that people put effort in learning a language and the benefit you present is kinda small. That would be the reason I thought it's a troll.

>another one
There was also , unless they were the same person. Dunno.

Pretty much this.

As for choosing the best translation; I only have so much time in my life and therefore if I'm going to spend it reading, then I want to get the words and phrasing closest to the original, rather than spend the same amount of time reading something skewed.
As for learning another language to read the literature; there is absolutely a payoff but you have to be extremely committed. There is no translation as good as reading something written by someone doing something original and stylistic with the idiosyncrasies of their native language.

>then I want to get the words and phrasing closest to the original
These sorts of translations aren't very popular precisely because they actually make it harder to understand what the text is actually saying. Figures of speech that won't be understood are kept as is, words that convey nuances or differences from any suitable English word can't be explained (because that alters the phrase). These strict translations tend to be more academic in use with the use of heavy footnotes or even the original on the alternate page.

translations can be good, but often require extremely meticulous work
the second greatest influence on modern english after Shakespeare is the KJV translation of the bible, for example