Anyone else here just completely put off by translations and translated works?

Anyone else here just completely put off by translations and translated works?

The older I get and the more I advance in my literature studies, the less I can stand translated works. Let me try to phrase this right. I'm not saying translation is useless, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, I'm not saying people who read translated works are plebs or any of that shit (trying to have a serious discussion). I care a lot about the formal qualities of literature (structure, metre, syntax), and I mostly read poetry and novels. I have come to accept the fact that some things are just out of reach. Because I am fluent in several different languages and have a decent grasp on some others, I have often compared translations with the originals. It's not that all translations are bad at all, it's just that they're essentially entirely different products in the end. Of course, this doesn't happen to the same extent with entirely plot-based novels with mediocre style, but for the sort of literature I'm interested in, it's pretty noticeable. Fortunately for me, I have good enough reading comprehension in the 5 languages I care about the most. Still butthurt I'll never be able to read Russian lit, and Japanese lit to a lesser extent.

Tl;dr I find reading works from cultures entirely foreign to yours originally written in a language you know nothing about is not good enough for me and I would much rather entirely focus on stuff I can understand better at the expense of a narrow, in a sense, knowledge of literature.

What's your stance on this issue, Veeky Forums?

Pic unrelated.

>Because I am fluent in several different languages
>I have good enough reading comprehension in the 5 languages

We get it. You speak multiple languages.

Translations are shit and they should be avoided at all costs.

They are for the monolingual American masses, not for intelligent people who actually care for literature.

Humblebrag.

>thread about languages and translation
>mentioning you're not monolingual since it's the basis for this opinion

HURR BRAGGING MUCH?

Never change, Veeky Forums. It's my own fault for coming back here after years and expecting actual discussion.

This is really not it either, at all.

There's no stance to be had, there's a few rare cases but they are out there, where the translation adds a whole new element to the novel in the first place or even improves it.

You know 5 languages don't ask me what's what.

All you have to do is be careful, works have been translated into english for hundreds of years now, if someones too lazy/doesn't care about the translator of a specific book then they can just buy the latest penguin or whatever is at the book store.

Most people don't have a choice with translations.

>there's a few rare cases but they are out there, where the translation adds a whole new element to the novel in the first place or even improves it.

This is my point, though. If that's the case, then it's not a good translation if you think about the authority of the writer. If it adds something or it improves it, it's a different end product entirely. Translator as author. I don't want that.

For poetry I agree. For some novels, maybe; but, to a lesser extent.

That is a beautiful rare pepe

Then you just need to find more literal translators, like Lattimore is reputed to be for Homer.

I don't think there is much to discuss. The amount of people that learn a new language to actually read original works is very low so really there is no way around and I don't think you can blame the translators, there is no way to EXACTLY say the same things in different languages..
So I think its really up to the indiviual to dedicate so much of his time to reading.

English is my second language, now learning Italian, next I want to learn French and Spanish, eventually German

I think eugene onegin is a good example at fluctuation by translator.

Nabokov took 2 volumes aka around 600 pages to translate it, while normal translations clock in around 300.

But then you lose out on muh artistry. Can't have both. My point is that translation is inherently imperfect and the more I realise this the more it puts me off to the point where I can't enjoy a work in translation. And Lattimore is great for help with the original. I use translations sometimes as an aid for the original.

I read some article on Nabokov being pretty autistic about translation as well iirc. I'll look for it later. I think he more or less agreed with my point, but I could very well be wrong.

>rare

I like that rare abstract pepe OP. Shame you hung it upside-down though.

Are you saying he turned the frown upside down?

I'd distinguish between people studying translations in detail as though they were texts in the original language and those only reading a translation in order to better understand where writers in languages they do understand drew inspiration from. For example when i'm studying Milton it's useful to be able to refer to a translation of Dante in order to see parallels and develop understanding of Milton's inspiration.

Ideally of course you would be able to speak every language and translate yourself, but the problem that arises here is the lack of cultural and semantic knowledge that a non-native has, stifling accurate comprehension. It's quite enough for me to read a translated text, though i'd never attempt to study one in the depth that i do an English one.

IMO without the broader contextual knowledge of European literature that reading translated texts (ideally with extensive footnotes to explain these cultural/semantic aspects) affords you you will find any understanding of great literature in your native language to be stunted and incomplete.

Agreed! I have read a lot of classics in translation because I know how relevant they are to certain works I like. But then it's more like reading it as a means to an end, if you know what I mean.

Wow trips of 3

The translation-hater threads are always the biggest pseud circlejerk on the board. There's simply no need to learn a million different languages in order to understand literature - there's enough theory and context to keep a person studying for a lifetime.

How do you feel about Beckett? I feel like part of the reason he wrote in French was to create a unique prose style. Writing in a language that is not your native tongue and having another translate it is an interesting experiment in how different minds interpret the words on the page.

I entirely agree that translations are a different product from the original but this does not discourage me from reading them.

Hey there! Thanks for visiting my thread. I suggest you read the original post and base your reply on the actual words written. Nice straw man tho! I do not hate translation, and I have never claimed that there's need to learn a million different languages. I presented an entirely subjective and personal idea, and was asking if anyone else felt the same way. No need to project so much, friendo. Look:

> I'm not saying translation is useless, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, I'm not saying people who read translated works are plebs or any of that shit (trying to have a serious discussion).

But heh, surely someone who has no issue with basic reading comprehension (a couple short paragraphs in Veeky Forums in English) can read works from any time period written in any language and get a whole lot out of them! Great point.

I'm not familiar enough with Beckett's French work to have an educated response for this, to be honest. Seems like an interesting idea though, I'd love to hear what your thoughts on it are. I also read somewhere that Márquez claimed to like some of his works in English translation better, I think.

I like to think that every act of reading is an act of translation.