It is a mark of great literature that much of its greatness is lost in translation." True or false?

[Skald the Rhymer]

I can't recall where I read this, and while it's surely in one of the books on my bookshelf I can't be arsed to figure out which.

Anyway ... it is the contention of renowned critic whose name I'm too lazy to specify that truly great works of literature cannot, by their very nature, entirely retain the qualities that make them extraordinary when translated into another language than that they were originally composed in. Does anyone care to support or rebut this thesis?

Note that I'm only talking about literature: works primarily meant to be read, not performed.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

The problem with this adage is that bad literature suffers in translation too.

[Der Trihs]

I think there's a fair amount of truth to it, and is also related to the effective degradation of great works over time since language and culture changes over time as well as nationality. Shakespeare isn't as accessible as he once was, and older writers are even worse off.

[Larry Mudd]

The problem with this adage is that bad literature suffers in translation too.Maybe so, but someone reading a translation of James Patterson's latest is going to get much more of the work's appeal than someone who's read Joyce or Nabokov in translation.

[Skald the Rhymer]

The problem with this adage is that bad literature suffers in translation too.

I don't think that's true, but in any case it's irrelevant. I didn't write

Great literature may be distinguished bad literature in that much of its quality is necessarily lost in translation.

In other words, the adage as stated makes no claim to uniqueness to great literature having this quality.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

I don't think that's true, but in any case it's irrelevant. I didn't write

Great literature may be distinguished bad literature in that much of its quality is necessarily lost in translation.

In other words, the adage as stated makes no claim to uniqueness to great literature having this quality.

Excuse me? Please read the title of this thread again.

[Implicit]

I've read and been awed by translated works, so either they were ubergreat in the original language or greatness doesn't always get lost in translation.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Excuse me? Please read the title of this thread again.

I wrote the thread title. I think you're misunderstanding it.

The adage (which I am not saying I entirely believe, though I'm inclined to) means that no work of great literature retains its greatness when translated from one tongue to another. It is not saying that bad literature does not suffer in translation; it's not commenting on bad literature at all.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I've read and been awed by translated works, so either they were ubergreat in the original language or greatness doesn't always get lost in translation.

Are you fluent in more than one language? Have you read a work which you thought brilliant in its original tongue which seemed equally brilliant in the new language?

[Peremensoe]

I've been told that Stieg Larsson's books improved in translation. :cool:

But to the general thesis: I'm sure it's true.

A true-in-spirit translation must be something of a reinterpretation, but a very uniquely and intangibly constrained one. It's like a builder being given all the stones from a great cathedral and being asked to make a new one in a completely different city--not just the same one anew, but something of equal architectural value and relevance to its new site. And yet, still containing all the essential, elusive qualities of the original! The translator would have to be an absolute master himself, in both languages. I can't imagine that happens very often, if ever.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

I wrote the thread title. I think you're misunderstanding it.

If "It is a mark of..." is not supposed to mean "It is a defining characteristic of..." then I can only presume that you translated your own thread title from the Japanese. If what was intended was "Great literature is inevitably diminished in translation," well, that's what you should have said, as it is a very different statement.

[Jenaroph]

The adage (which I am not saying I entirely believe, though I'm inclined to) means that no work of great literature retains its greatness when translated from one tongue to another. It is not saying that bad literature does not suffer in translation; it's not commenting on bad literature at all.

<nitpickery>"It is a MARK of great literature..." In other words, a distinguishing feature of great literature. Distinguishing great literature from what, exactly, if not from "not great" literature? It may be true that great literature loses greatness in the translation but if you say it's also true that bad literature also suffers from translation, then such loss of quality is not a mark of GREAT literature and the statement is false.

The question of whether all great literature necessarily loses something in translation is a fine debate, but the adage states something slightly different from that.</nitpickery>

ETA:Curse you, Biffy!

[Tarwater]

Firstly, the title of your thread is syntactically confusing. If you're trying to say that it's exclusively a mark of great literature, you should have said so. Biffy the Elephant Shrew's interpretation is perfectly legitimate.

Secondly, it's sometimes, maybe even mostly true. It's a problem of syntax and vocabulary. Kafka's work, for example, suffers in translation because some of the words he uses have no counterpart in English. The most immediate example is the German word Ungeziefer, which he uses to describe Gregor Samsa in the opening of The Metamorphosis . Most English versions of the text use the word insect as a translation for Ungeziefer, and in doing so, they obliterate some of the subtleties of the word, which does mean an insect-like creature, but also means dirty and unclean, two words which go to the heart of Gregor's condition. A German (or somebody articulate in the German language) has a more profound understanding of the text, at least in the beginning, because he or she understands that Ungeziefer connotes more than the English word 'insect'.

Additionally, the impact of Kafka's language is diminished in translation. German verbs will often come at the end of the sentence, and Kafka's writing, on a very basic level, was built around delivering meaning with that in mind. Some of his sentences were very long, and the full impact of their meaning was delayed until the very end of the sentence, where the action verbs made clear what was going on. That's something that's difficult account for in English translations. It's also one of the reasons why poetry can be very difficult to translate.

Thirdly, ....


ETA: Curse you, Jenaroph!

ETAA: Curse you, Biffy!

[Civil Guy]

It is a mark of great literature that much of its greatness is lost in translation." True or false?

I'll say 'false'. The counter example I'll use will be Faust by Goethe.

I learned a little German in high school and college - forgotten most of it, and could never really say that I 'spoke' it. Lots of irony in Faust, but I can't say for sure whether a native German speaker would pick out the same kind of irony that I found by necessarily partly translating it into English. Near the beginning, God is surrounded in heaven by angels chanting high-flown poetry about the beauty of the creation. Mephistopheles shows up and God asks him what he thinks about the new creature, "man". Mephistopheles is unimpressed: "You've given him a little bit of heaven's light. He calls it 'sensibility' and uses it to be more animal than any animal."

Much the same in German as in English.

Theres a lot of other good zingers in that book that work just as well in both languages -- and timeless themes, et cetera -- and Part II has got enough obscure, jumbled references to be just as incomprehensible in both languages. Anyhow, I'd call it all great literature.

[constanze]

I'll say 'false'. The counter example I'll use will be Faust by Goethe.

I learned a little German in high school and college - forgotten most of it, and could never really say that I 'spoke' it. Lots of irony in Faust, but I can't say for sure whether a native German speaker would pick out the same kind of irony that I found by necessarily partly translating it into English. .....

So, you lacked the understanding to read it in the original and compare that to the translated version, but still use Faust, one of the highest works of literature, as counter-example? Ohhh-kay, I call that a "miss".

I've heard the idea expressed in the OP worded differently by a famous Spanish writer, who said (paraphrased) that a great work of literature is like a Gobelin*, and reading a translation is like watching the Gobelin from behind.

* Not to be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobelin)confused with a goblin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin).

And yes, I agree it's true; even in the same language, once a few centuries pass, language and society has changed so much that meanings and nuances are lost.

But on the other hand, without translations it's impossible to read part* of the world's great literature outside your own language. (And it's also impossible to learn a dozen languages to read Shakespeare as well as the Bhagadavita and African works etc.) So it's a necessary compromise.

Additionally, for works of great literature, interpretation aids are available to give context about the author and the culture it was created in, so that can fill some gaps. It's not the same but the best that's possible.

* It's hard to read all of the world's literature if you still need to go to work to eat every day, or have a life with friends and family.

[WordMan]

Let's simplify this discussion:

- Language is a practical-but-inefficient means of communication
- The "accuracy" of the communication connection between writer and reader is tenuous at best - subjective, dynamic, multi-layered
- A translation is just a second-generation of inefficiency
- But with no way to measure what is lost - or gained - in the translation since language is an inefficient medium at best - who can truly say if a work is lost in tranlsation (although I love reading about the power of Kafka in German - thank you).


If someone would never have read the work unless it was translated, which is better: Appreciate the access, or cluck over the relative purity of an inefficient medium?

[Anaamika]

I cannot say for sure if it's guaranteed but I do know that works translated from Urdu or Hindi do lose some of the poetry and sweeping beauty. Personally, I think it's inevitable.

[Nava]

Are you fluent in more than one language? Have you read a work which you thought brilliant in its original tongue which seemed equally brilliant in the new language?

Yes and yes. Of course, your taste in books may vary. I'm in awe of people who can translate GK Chesterton, Wodehouse, GB Shaw or Pterry and make books full of puns and plays on words work and work beautifully in a completely different language. I don't think I've ever read the translation into English of a Spanish literary author, unless you count songs.

Translating poetry is more difficult, partly because languages which have, say, this XXX much distance in prose may be this XXXXXXXX distant when it comes to poetry. For example, English and Spanish have different punctuation rules, but if you use those from a language in the other one it's still understandable; our poetry on the other hand is measured differently and our rhymes work differently. How the Hades do you translate sonetos into sonnets when they aren't even the same form, their verses aren't measured the same way, and the notions of what rhymes and what doesn't are different? 99% of the great works of English language poetry (and yes, that includes some by Shakespeare) would be considered ripios (horrid wants-to-be-poetry and fails by a couple thousand miles material) if those rhyming techniques were used by a Spanish language author.

[RealityChuck]

Are you fluent in more than one language? Have you read a work which you thought brilliant in its original tongue which seemed equally brilliant in the new language?Yes. I've read Cyrano de Bergerac in French and English (with the Hooker translation). Both were equal in both languages. (I know this was about novels, not plays, but I'm talking about the reading, not the performing.)

It depends on the skill of the translator. Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, who reads both English and Spanish, is on record as saying One Hundred Years of Solitude was better in English than in his original Spanish.

Some works are untranslatable, especially if the depend on wordplay. But a good translation can make most great literature work in any language.

[Jas09]

It depends on the skill of the translator. Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, who reads both English and Spanish, is on record as saying One Hundred Years of Solitude was better in English than in his original Spanish.This was going to be my example of a book that I would be surprised if it were superior in the original language simply because the translation was so good.

[Peremensoe]

But with no way to measure what is lost - or gained - in the translation since language is an inefficient medium at best - who can truly say if a work is lost in tranlsation

Well, presumably somebody who is smart and perceptive, very fluent and culturally literate in both languages, can say. Gabriel Garcia-Marquez is the first I've seen who presumably meets this standard and has apparently suggested that nothing was lost. (I'd like to see the actual quote; even acknowledging a superlative translation job, yielding a wonderful work in its own right, is not the same as saying that everything essential about the original is still there.)

If someone would never have read the work unless it was translated, which is better: Appreciate the access, or cluck over the relative purity of an inefficient medium?

Appreciate the access, of course. I don't think there's any debate about that. But I think it's more correct to speak later of having read a translation, than of having read the work, per se. A translation of Kafka is not Kafka, just Kafkaesque.

[WordMan]

Well, presumably somebody who is smart and perceptive, very fluent and culturally literate in both languages, can say.

On one hand, yes, you are right. On the other hand, it is still up to their subjective taste. What if a really smart person and perceptive person who is fluent in both languages prefers the translation? Not a big deal, just pointing out that ultimately, YMMV.

Gabriel Garcia-Marquez is the first I've seen who presumably meets this standard and has apparently suggested that nothing was lost. (I'd like to see the actual quote; even acknowledging a superlative translation job, yielding a wonderful work in its own right, is not the same as saying that everything essential about the original is still there.)

I did a search and couldn't find the actual quote - but on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0811216659), the translator has a book on doing translations and GGM's statement is referred to...

Appreciate the access, of course. I don't think there's any debate about that. But I think it's more correct to speak later of having read a translation, than of having read the work, per se. A translation of Kafka is not Kafka, just Kafkaesque.

Who gets more out of Kafka - an immature/less smart reader in German, or a more mature/smarter reader of a translation? Even if the wiser reader is only reading a Kafkaesque translation, but they grasp more of the essence of Kafka's Existential angst, isn't that a good thing?

[Peremensoe]

Even if the wiser reader is only reading a Kafkaesque translation, but they grasp more of the essence of Kafka's Existential angst, isn't that a good thing?

Yes.

I'm not in any sense against translations of written works. I'm only fluent in English myself. I've read and enjoyed several translated works. Many translations are indeed excellent in their own right. I just don't think it's correct to say that translations are the same book as their originals, or that they can be great in exactly the same ways.

I am more willing to believe that a badly-written book, that nevertheless contains some great ideas, can be improved by translation. I really did hear that about the Stieg Larsson novels.

[Larry Mudd]

Who gets more out of Kafka - an immature/less smart reader in German, or a more mature/smarter reader of a translation? Even if the wiser reader is only reading a Kafkaesque translation, but they grasp more of the essence of Kafka's Existential angst, isn't that a good thing?By "immature/less smart" you mean someone for whom German is a second language they aren't comfortable with? Because a person who is simply thick isn't going to get much out of either.

I don't know - personally, even though I struggle with middle English, I get a lot more out of reading Chaucer in the original, and have never found a "translation" to modern English that isn't disappointing.

[Blaster Master]

I would certainly agree that something is lost, but I'm not sure if it necessarily makes it less great, it really depends. In some cases, particularly in the case of epic poems, it's difficult to remain really close to the original meaning AND maintain the meter. I've read some translated works in different interpretations where different interpretters focus on different aspects and each gives a different feel, each of which is likely not exactly the same as the original. That those feels are different doesn't necessarily mean that they're meaningfully less great than the original.

There's other aspects specific to the original language as well. Sometimes something as simple as the connotation of a particular word or even word ordering doesn't really work as well in a different language. Hell, I know even from my own admittedly far from great works, that I'll struggle to find exactly the right word or struggle to order a sentence in a way that gets the idea across in the way I want to and it's even more difficult if I'm trying to maintain a rhythm or pace. If it's that difficult to find exactly how I want to say something in my native language, it must be even more difficult for someone translating.

However, I do think that a great work is as much great because of the ideas and characters or whatever else that make it. And so while some set of individual parts may not quite make it through, I would tend to believe that, barring a terrible translation, the qualities of a character, his struggles, and the ideas that the author is trying to get across ought to still mostly be there. Sure, an interesting play on words will fail or the rhythm may get messed up or a specific point may slightly miss the mark, but the overall message should remain intact. And so, I think the greatness will still be intact.

[BrainGlutton]

I don't know - personally, even though I struggle with middle English, I get a lot more out of reading Chaucer in the original, and have never found a "translation" to modern English that isn't disappointing.

But would you say that of Beowulf? Even if you knew Old English?

[BigT]

I was going to say it's just a mark of literature in general, but then I realized it's not even that. Anything that uses puns, idioms, larger vocabulary, or even just the connotations of words is going lose a lot in translation. Very little doesn't.

I would actually say that a mark of great literature is that, properly translated, it's still great. Maybe not the same, but great nonetheless.

[Lamia]

The problem with this adage is that bad literature suffers in translation too.I can't cite this, but years ago I took a class in contemporary Chinese literature (in translation; I don't speak/read Chinese at all) and one of the assigned readings was an essay that dealt with the subject of poetry in translation. The author argued that certain contemporary Chinese poets who became fairly well-regarded internationally in the 1990s owed their success largely to the fact that their work was being read in translation. They were writing with a non-Chinese audience in mind and were good at coming up with appealing imagery, but not especially brilliant poets. People reading their poems in translation would assume that much of these poets' skillful/beautiful use of language was lost in translation when in fact it may not have been there to begin with.

[Boyo Jim]

Yes. I've read Cyrano de Bergerac in French and English (with the Hooker translation). ...

Agreed. I enjoy practically everything more when it's translated by a hooker. Not surprisingly very few spoken words are necessary in those translations.

[Jenaroph]

I can't cite this, but years ago I took a class in contemporary Chinese literature (in translation; I don't speak/read Chinese at all) and one of the assigned readings was an essay that dealt with the subject of poetry in translation. The author argued that certain contemporary Chinese poets who became fairly well-regarded internationally in the 1990s owed their success largely to the fact that their work was being read in translation. They were writing with a non-Chinese audience in mind and were good at coming up with appealing imagery, but not especially brilliant poets. People reading their poems in translation would assume that much of these poets' skillful/beautiful use of language was lost in translation when in fact it may not have been there to begin with.
Wouldn't this be an example of "bad literature" not harmed but aided by translation, and thereby not covered by Skald's assertion? Not great to begin with, so it doesn't really or disprove his interpretation of the adage, though it seems to be evidence for the definition provided by a few people here so far.

[China Guy]

All of the Chinese great writers have been poorly translated. Gladys Yang translated many of the classics and her translations were mediocre. Lu Xun, Ba Jin, et al were superlative writers but the translations are lacklustre.

[MrDibble]

Asterix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_Asterix) works very well in translation - and they do say humour is the hardest part to get right.

[Ferret Herder]

All of the Chinese great writers have been poorly translated. Gladys Yang translated many of the classics and her translations were mediocre. Lu Xun, Ba Jin, et al were superlative writers but the translations are lacklustre.
Would you by chance have a recommendation for a version of Dream of the Red Chamber? I read it in translation in college, using the Penguin edition, but that was longer ago than I care to admit and perhaps there's a better one in English these days.

[Lamia]

Wouldn't this be an example of "bad literature" not harmed but aided by translation,Yes, that's exactly what it was.

and thereby not covered by Skald's assertion? Not great to begin with, so it doesn't really or disprove his interpretation of the adage, though it seems to be evidence for the definition provided by a few people here so far.I wasn't replying directly to the OP, I was replying to Biffy the Elephant Shrew. He said "The problem with this adage is that bad literature suffers in translation too", and I was offering an example of how bad literature might be improved rather than harmed by translation.

I thought quoting Biffy the Elephant Shrew's post was enough to make it clear that I was in fact responding to his post, but I guess not. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Excellent]

I think there's probably something to this. I know we're not meant to be discussing plays, but Shakespeare really needs to be read in the original Klingon to be appreciated properly.

/had to be done.

[Jenaroph]

Okey dokey; sorry, it was late last night.