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.)
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.
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.
I did a search and couldn’t find the actual quote - but on Amazon, the translator has a book on doing translations and GGM’s statement is referred to…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. I enjoy practically everything more when it’s translated by a hooker. Not surprisingly very few spoken words are necessary in those translations.
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.
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.
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:
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.