How much do translations really matter...

how much do translations really matter? is it better to spend time comparing a few different ones to see which is the best or spend that time just reading whichever one you can get your hands on first?

Other urls found in this thread:

eizie.eus/en/News/1092659205/
newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Most translations that get published are competent and disagreements over quality tend to stem from personal taste regarding translation methodology. Comparing translations is worthwhile, but chances are if you're reading a translation then you don't know enough about the original text or language to be an accurate judge of the matter. Do some research and take the choice that seems right to you without worrying about it too much.

What are the great translations? Off top my head are:
>Moncrieff's Proust
>Lattimore's Iliad
>Grossman's Don Quixote
>Maude's Tolstoy

Have you read multiple translations of Don Quixote? I always see Grossman cited but what makes hers better than Motteux? That was the one I read and it was very charming, although I never see it mentioned even in passing.

>grossman quixote
Yes, the text overall is excellent, but for me, the knight of the """sorrowful face""" left an unforgivably simplistic millenial taint on the thing, and in truth, nearly ruined the entire edition

>how much do translations really matter?
A lot.

>that one time years ago fell for the P&V meme

whats wrong with p&v ass hat???

If you're just reading and not studying those books for academic purposes, then please do not sperg about translations.

Their translation process is what's wrong. One with no interest in Russia and a shaky hold on the language translates literally, and the other pretties up the work after that.

>no interest in Russia and a shaky hold on the language
>is russian
?

inb4 his sources are that list of blogs and salty literalwhos who have a stick up their ass over P&V

eizie.eus/en/News/1092659205/

"First, Volokhonsky produces a rough, literal translation. Then Pevear -a Boston native who admits that his «Russian is not great»- produces a more idiomatic draft. Next, he says, «Larissa goes over it, raising questions. And then we go over it again. I produce another version, which she reads against the original. We go over it one more time, and then we read it twice more in proof.»"

Don't know what you're talking about, but nice ad hominem

I've totally missed answering your actual question, whoops. Let me dig up the article.

newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars

"“I’ve never been curious to see Russia,” he said during one of our conversations in Paris. “I’m not curious to see the city of Moscow. Should I be?”
Larissa looked faintly embarrassed by her husband’s incuriosity. “I don’t know what to say.”"


I used to be a P&V apologist but I am now wholly converted against them.

Bruh she's full on from Russia Russian

volokhonsky is a native russian. your point?

You swapped their roles in this first post

he's interested in literature from the 1800s, not architecture and modern day culture

>Moncrieff's Proust
Damn son. Even Marcel himself said how much he hated his work being destroyed by an Englishman.

I don't really care either way, but you aren't presenting a criticism of their translations -- just incredulity over their methodology, which I'm not sure is warranted given that it's basically just a translator working with an editor.

>the knight of the woeful countenance
God damn it's just so sublime

Why did you call me ass hat?

some translation from languages with different roots can fuck up really bad the meaning of the book. Even if it's with proper nouns the translator needs to undertand the book and avoid being mechanic. As an example, with this Pynchon book, the guy that translated didn't get the joke about ''The Battle of the Bulge'' (obviously a phallic reference) and translated it to the spanish name of the battle ''Batalla de Ardenas''. The joke was lost.

Grossman is solid choice. I do have an affinity for the Penguin Classics edition translated by Rutherford I believe.

whats shakespeare like in french or spanish

>I do have an affinity for the Penguin Classics edition

This and I would further say that if you find that you really enjoyed a particular book, read another translation of it later instead of rereading the same one.

French people would bitch about anything.

yeah this, you're gonna read don quixote or dostoevsky more than once so why not read a new translation next time? so the one you read first isn't that important

this

Not at all. There is no point at all in translations. You are not reading the original work. You're not reading anything close to the original because you cannot replicate one language in another.

>no Waley Genji

I've noticed that translations from russian into my native german are worse than translations into english. now I generally prefer translations into english as they seem to be generally of higher quality. between different english translations I usually find no major differences

I know of a spanish translation of Ulysses by an argentinian who supposedly didn't know english. I dont know if it's good or even close, but I wouldn't dare translate Joyce that way. Fucking retards, man.

Why do you talk in ebonics on a literature board?