Is this worth reading in English translation, or is too much of the aesthetic quality lost? Are people like Bloom...

Is this worth reading in English translation, or is too much of the aesthetic quality lost? Are people like Bloom, who say that this is some of the best literature ever created, but only read it in English translation, just pseuds full of shit, or not? What is the best translation?

translations being bad is a meme. italian monks living in monasteries read translations of the greeks and derived far more pleasure and meaning than we can with our annotated editions and scholarship

just fucking read it

anyone else got better justification than "it's a meme"?

Well if you're that concerned about it learn mideval Italian.

Would it be worth it to read the Rime of the Ancient Mariner in Italian?
Probably, yeah. Not the same thing, though.

A lot of the poetic quality is lost in translation but it's still essential reading. If you want a translation that retains the most of the pacing and rhythm of the Italian go with Mandelbaum, but Ciardi is also fine.

Most of the well known translators that have worked on the classics were fantastic writers in their own right, and spent an inordinate amount of time studying the work.
There is no reason a translation can't be better than an original. No reason it should be worse at expressing emotion or getting across ideas. No reason it should be less enjoyable.
The best reason for reading translations is because it's the only reasonable, and realistic option. What are you going to do, learn the language? Why would you avoid critically acclaimed translations by great writers, in favor of learning an entire language to read a book that you don't know if you will like.
It's unreasonable to learn another language just to read books, especially when you consider how long you will have to spend to get to a level where you can truly understand the text at the same level you could with a translation. I guarantee you've had trouble with books in the language you've been speaking your whole life, imagine the difficulty. Why would you ever not read translations?

Being Italian, I had the luxury of being able to read the full, original version, and I cannot even conceive Dante in another language.

If you want to read it exclusively for the plot, by all means go ahead, it's still worth it. But bear in mind that its poetic quality will inevitably be lost. I have seen many English translations, but none comes even close to the original Italian version.

>Being Italian, I had the luxury of being able to read the full, original version, and I cannot even conceive Dante in another language.
This, the images and the sounds Dante tries to convey are all lost in the translation. You are basically reading a abridged version 2bqf

Good post

> What are you going to do, learn the language?
Yes? I mean of you to fully appreciate a masterpiece you need to

It is better to have read a translation of Dante, than to have never read Dante at all.

If I learn Italian will I understand it or is it an archaic version of the language?

yes you will but probably you need a dictionary for some words. But there are online dictionaries with the vocabulary from dante

The Swedish translation of Dante actually outshines the original Italian version imho.

Lmao

>Lmao
What do you mean by this?

No where near as bad as pussyfooting around trying to form a solid enough opinion about translations so you have a "patrician" reason for not reading masterpieces. Go back to >>/GRRM/

You don't need to speak italian to appreciate Don Giovanni.

>acronym expressing exhilaration, intense laughter caused by an absurd or ridiculous experience
>What do you mean by this?
I find it funny that some Swede could 'outshine' Dante Alighieri.
Which isn't me denying the possibility of it - your Swede could be a genius, the Swedish language could be far better suited to expressing the thousands of images, analogies and references of the Commedia than Italian, not to even mention the intricate metric structure and the extreme vocabulary variance throughout the book.
Sure, it could happen. But I find it unlikely and, frankly, funny.

Of the two translations that I've read the one in op's pic was by far better, plus it includes annotations for every canto which are helpful if you're not familiar with all the references Dante makes.

Well laugh all you want. Swedish is a very expressive language, many describe it as emotive, passionate, and often sexual.

If you can read it in the original, why would you bother with a translation? But those with no time to learn the language have to settle, of course.

Read the Hollander translation. Very good in its own right, plus it has the original in it as well in case you ever decide to learn Italian.

The Hollander translation is one of the most enjoyable reads I've had.

I'm pretty certain Bloom has read Dante in Italian, OP. No clue why you assume he hasn't.

I learned Italian to read Dante, then Swedish to read Dante in translation. I wish i'd gone to Medical School instead.

Well who cares, are you going to learn every language on Earth and never read a translation? Are you a language savant? Its a stupid question

>There is no reason a translation can't be better than an original.

Only someone with zero idea of being an artist would ever say this. It's actually chilling how automoton-like it is.

Run me through your reasoning then.

>Only someone with zero idea of being an artist would ever say this.

Not the user you're responding to, and you're wrong. Two immediate examples spring to mind -- Birnbaum's translations of Murakami (which at the very least gave him access to a much wider audience) and Moncrieff's translation of Proust (regarded by many as superior to the French originals). BTW, the word is spelled "automaton," and you're misusing it -- not wise when you're trying to come off as superior.

Borges has stated that he has read translations of his works that he deemed better than the original, DFW refused to read Infinite Jest in French because he was nervous about it being better, and many Germans consider translated Shakespeare to be better than the English.

>You're wrong
>Gives two opinions and a spell-correct

Really made me think. You're the type of guy who fits the chilling category. Whenever I see the phrase "regarded by many" I know I can safely discard the poster. Do not reply to me again.

I'm not sure what's the significance of these anecdotes. DFW is literally famous for being beta and it's transparently preposterous that Shakespeare is better translated.

And I'm not "misusing" automaton, dumbass.

>transparently preposterous that Shakespeare is better translated.
So your argument is I am right because you are obviously wrong? Many Germans do think Shakespeare is better in German. Are you saying we should just believe you without an argument because you are smarter than people like Schlegel? You also didn't mention Borges. Borges is also on record saying that Dostovkesi doesn't is as good in translation as in the original. Márquez once said the English translation of One Hundred Years of Solitude is more accurate than the original... whatever that means. Does that mean that Beckett's own translations of his work must be worse than the originals?

Edit: Dostoevsky is as good in translation as in the original.

>Really made me think.

No, no it didn't. You're not a person who likes to think. You much prefer pretending to think.

>I'm not "misusing" automaton

But you are. Anyway, you've learned to spell it now, which proves that you're not completely resistant to change. Perhaps if you pull your head out of your ass you can make some real progress.

>argument is I am right because you are obviously wrong?

That's pretty much it. He'll of course offer no evidence whatsoever to back up his argument, and if you press him he'll tell you he has "the soul of an artist" and you don't, so you couldn't possibly understand. It's his preferred way to disregard everything he's told without having to actually consider it.

This guy is funny.

You still aren't giving me any actual reasons.
Why are translations inherently worse than the original material?

It's actually a little different than modern Italian, I would say that Dante's Italian is to today's Italian like Shakespeare's English is to modern English. Still the same language, but with a few subtle, yet important differences.

There is no denying that a translation can be done well. However, it will definitely be a completely different experience.
Translating a poem is not like translating a novel: poets inevitably rely on the language to express themselves even more than novelists do.

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with reading a translation. You just have to keep in mind that you will be having a different experience from the one the original author intended.

"NO!"
You can't even imagine how genius this work is
It's all in hendecasyllables, and the rhyme pattern ABA BCB CDC, the "terzina incatenata" (chained tercet) or "terzina dantesca".
Plus, it's really thought out phonetically as well, the sound of the words used emphasizes what's going on.
I read the beginning of it and it doesn't even rhyme, but it made sense that nobody would even try their hand at something like this
Definitely need to read it in Italian, and it's not any different from modern Italian except a few archaic words

Have a Longfellow translation. Is it worth reading or should I jump to Ciardi or someone else?

You have the option to not read it at all or to read a translation.

Is it recommended to read the bible before the divine comedy?
Was going to start the bible pretty soon anyway.

If you're going to read it anyway, then I'd suggest reading the Bible first. However, bear in mind that you don't need such detailed knowledge of the Bible to appreciate the Divine Comedy: all that is required is a basic understanding of history up to the late 13th century and some Christian symbolism.

...