I saw many people bashing on translations. What's so bad about it?

nothing. Veeky Forums is full of pseuds who claim to be able to read every language in the world. in reality most of them can't communicate with other people in their own native language.

people make claims like but in reality there is no language that is uniquely untranslatable, even if you have to use a few more words to do it. humans experience the same emotions everywhere. it's not like e.g. people in austria can feel "fire and passion" that people in other countries can't.

however, not all translations are alike. translations are like a window. the better the translation, the clearer the window.

>sub-vocalizing a translation

Start with the Greeks

bump

Both opinions seem to be largely correct. On the one hand literature is not just about information conveyed, but about the use of language to convey that information, and translation inevitably loses a lot of what makes an authors use of language so artistic and gripping. But on the other hand, (good) translations are fantastic for expanding your horizons and exposing you to traditions outside of your native tongue. If you can read Cervantes in Spanish or Homer in Greek, definitely do that. If not, there are fantastic translations of both.

Tl;dr works are best in the original language but it's not a big deal (unless you're a scholar).

In the past people like Schopenhauer shit talked translation because translations were mostly complete dogshit until the early-mid 20th century.

Nowadays translation tends to be much better than it was. You will always lose some meaning and you will lose some of the lyrical aspects in many cases. But that honestly isn't important for most authors. You'll seldom find someone who will tell you that, for example, you will miss out if you don't read Marx in his original German.

But some works such as Zarathustra become almost completely neutered when translated. Zarathustra is the best example because it's a work done so beautifully in context, in the style of the Lutheran bible. It is still a respectable work in translation but the style lends so much to it. One who reads it in English is often left asking why it is considered such an important work. Faust too is mangled by translation.

you need to remind that Veeky Forums is full of retards that barely read books, you are talking about a board that have actual people that consider speereading a thing

you want a fucking shitstorm? try saying you've read Joyce or Pynchon in anything other than english, and I bet most of these people have read at least some of the russians and french in english

claims like are so empty and parroted all the time around here, look at Bloom, do you really think he is fluent in 10+ languages? He read Marquez translated and still puts Gabo in his cannon, also Proust and Rilke read translations, and the translators of that time didn't have the same resources we have today

yea i don't read i just shitpost memes here

Because many great works rely on quirks in their native language, which is often impossible, sometimes only very difficult, to translate.

For example, if you're trying to read Finnigans Wake in Chinese, you may as well quit and learn English first. Or, less extreme, Shakespeare and Stirner both play with language in a way you can emulate in translation, but which is more obtuse (for Stirner) or a hell of a lot of effort/footnotes when you could read the original (for Shakespeare). Then you have people like Dostoevsky and Borges, who can be more easily translated, because they rely more on content than playful style (not to say they don't have good style).

>try saying you've read Joyce or Pynchon in anything other than english
The main issue with this is that posting here is generally a good sign that you could have read the work in its original language.
>you are talking about a board that have actual people that consider speereading a thing
What.

I think he meant "speed reading".

This