I think I finally 'get' the
>he reads translations
meme. For years I just assumed it was pseudointellectual wankery but I've come to realize the credence behind it after reading novels by Saramago, Boris Vian, Houllebecque and a few others.
When I was younger I enjoyed the shit out of P&V Russian translations and never saw a problem in the slightest but now I'm beginning to see how absolutely pointless it is to even read translated works by a lot of authors. The fire of their prose is completely extinguished.
My question, are there any authors worth reading in translation? So far I've enjoyed Proust and the Russian canon but that's it
>he didn't read Odysseus in ancient Greek
what a pleb
>>7515667
Barely relevant, but Douglas Hofstadter wrote an excellent book on literary translation titled 'Le Ton Beau de Marot'.
>>7515704
Odyssey would literally be a perfect example of what I'm referring to. And everything else by Homer, for that matter, fucking trite and boring slog, yet it was literally those works which held together the Greek city-states and connected the Mediterranean culture and civilization.
>>7515753
>trite
Give him a break dude, he's first author of the western canon.
>>7515774
The content of the tale was actually a cool story, which was Homer's purpose, to tell this great tale.
So I'm not faulting him for the story, it's the English translated version that the prose is roundabout, obfuscated and beyond meaningless to me, personally, and I gleaned more joy reading over the Sparknotes summaries than Homer's work itself
>>7515667
I've read translations of the Roman poet Martial done by American and British scholars. It's an interesting comparison; the Brits tend to be stuffy and formal, but the American translations are bawdy and lewd. I think the American translations are far closer to the spirit of Martial.
"If from the bath-house you hear cheers and applause
Maron's giant prick is bound to be the cause"
OP, you are dumb as shit
>>7515667
I realized that after reading spanish translation for a long time, mein gott they are so shitty.
>he isn't fluent in every known language, which can be easily learned in a weekend. yes, every nuance and idiom, every grammatical flourish and flair, learned in a weekend. it's so easy and yet he isn't
honestly fucking kill yourself
>>7516097
>he wasn't born knowing every language
sure is reddit in here
A translation obviously isn't the original work. It's a different work in a different language. That said, it can still have lots to recommend about it. It still has the same source material, and lots of the same ideas. And the prose can still be worthwhile and perhaps capture an aspect of the original.
Just because it isn't "muh original", doesn't mean that it's devoid of value, and if you only read books written in languages you speak, you'll be missing out on a lot of fucking spectacular literature.
I've always thought of Murakami as well translated. Same with most editions of Kafka, Calvino, Bulgakov and a lot of the modernists. I've always thought, probably ignorantly (I'm not as well read as this board says it is), that it's the denser pre-19 century lit that is less readable when translated. If I had to try and explain that further, I suppose because the ideals and criteria for good, entertaining narrative has changed since then. I've always wondered, for example, what people who've read Frankenstein in a foreign language thought of it.
>Tl;Dr I'm a pleb who thinks translations for contemporary work are much more entertaining then the translated classics.
>>7515667
the point is to destroy all language, what are you daft?
>>7516493
Just point to a single spanish or portugese work that isn't fucking abominable in the english language and I'll accept what you're saying
people who read original works in a second/third etc. language don't get any more than they would from a translation anyways
>>7516650
Rutherford translation of Don Quixote
>>7516673
Monoglot detected. Seriously, you couldn't be more wrong.
Professional translators are employed for their writing ability, not their reading ability.
>>7516650
Any of Gregory Rabassa or Margaret Jull Costa's translations.
>>7515667
I do not understand why people read translations.
Say you have french author writing in french.
He is praised because of his french prose and he probably thinks in french so it's, like, THE version to get.
When you get translation you get another language and... what's the reasoning? The fuck you read translation for?
Mind you I understand reading something like school books that are translated.
Reminder if you are reading translation you are reading the work of the translator and not the original author and the original work.
>>7516740
Not everyone has the time/ability to study other languages and not every single author is admired for the quality ("fire") of his prose. Translations can be works of art unto themselves (read some essays on the topic by Umberto Eco).
>>7516770
Everyone has the ability to learn a new language. Even sub-80 IQ Africans can learn new languages. It's motivation that most people lack.
>>7516774
Are you acting dumb on purpose?
>>7516770
But you might as well read English Wikipedia page for the novel if you are going to read translation. There's nothing of the original left except the pleb bait 'muh meaning' which can be just checked from like I said, Wikipedia.
If you aren't reading a non-educational book for prose, then what for? That's like watching a movie for something else than visual storytelling
I guess the translator himherself could be a good writer and make the book come alive, but that's a whole different book at that point, since the language was changed.
>>7516780
Would you base your views on a country by reading its Wikipedia page? Or would you rather listen to a speaker of your native toungue interpret it according to your cultural framework, then maybe watch some documentaries online, plan a visit? There's far more to a book than its prose. You people seem to have an obsession with authenticity, as if reading Hamsun in Norwegian would grant you some supernatural insight and let you feel the suffering of starving families.
I'm not baiting, I'm a translator myself.
>>7516789
Again educational material like explaining logics or biology I understand being translated and read.
but not fiction, any fiction, Dante, Iliad, Pynchon, etc. I just don't.
>There's more to book than prose
Yes the pleb-bait 'the meaning' which we can all read from Wikipedia summary and be wiser from it. The prose is the journey and it is completely gone after translation, the prose of the original author.
and thus I dont understand reading 'translated work of' any fiction writer. It's just. His text isn't there anymore. It's gone.
>>7516798
I'm not asking you to understand anything, since you are fixated on maintaining some kind of self-imposed authenticity and lack the critical apparatus to even consider any stance other than yours.
"Pleb-bait", top fucking kek.
For the record: I'm against translating works of Pynchon or Joyce BECAUSE they're so reliant on their prose to achieve certain effects. But even still, some authors provide excellent material by means of their language alone to allow a robust translated experience, i.e. Céline. I've read Voyage au bout de la nuit three times: in French, in English and in my native tongue and while the original is superior to any of them, the translations came as close to conveying his vocabulary, emotions and spirit as possible.
>>7516507
That's in part because translators who translate classics think that the right way to translate classics is to make them stuffy and unappealing. There's some interesting work on this argument in translation theory.
>>7515810
That's because English translators made it their job to turn a normal adventure story into some fucking obscure bullshit poetry
>>7516815
The 'meaning of book' is definitely a pleb bait. It is the most superficial part, the one that you can easily read from Wiki summary page, but you can never catch the prose in it if you don't understand the language it was originally written on.
I find it hard to believe translations could come close to the original author work, but since you admitted being shill for translators do I really need to even think about that
>>7516815
Whoa, a reasonable person on 4chan
>>7516839
Nice samefag translatorshill.
>>7516824
>meaning is unimportant because wikipedia exists
Is this a joke? Are you actually retarded?
>>7516816
Im quite interested in Linguistics and philosophy of Language in general. Could you point me towards the interesting works you mentioned?
>>7516846
Are you? Meaning is the most superficial part of the book while the prose as author intended is the best and the most meaningful part.
>>7516853
That's what you think, spergling
>>7516824
>The 'meaning of book' is definitely a pleb bait. It is the most superficial part, the one that you can easily read from Wiki summary page
Oh my god.. I almost can't believe what I'm reading. You think every book is just a shell for a preconceived ''message'' posted on Wikipedia? Do you even read? Are you genuinely mentally ill? What the absolute fuck is this, on a /lit/ board of all places. Fuck me..
>>7516857
If you are reading a translation you might as well read the Wikipedia page. The prose as author intended in his/hers own language is gone so you aren't DEFINITELY NOT reading it for the author's use of language and prose.
So you are reading it for the plebfilter, the meaning, which you might as well just read from Wikipedia unless you really think the translator is a great writer and is handy with his own language but again you are not reading the original author.
>>7516839
Now I'm getting accused of samefaggery, comedy gold.
>>7516843
Nice try.
>>7516852
It's been a while, but I'd say The Translation Studies Reader by Lawrence Venuti. It's a collection of essays on translation that spans the whole 20th century. Start from there, it's good (and the pdf is online).
Also, in general, look for Translation Norms in the context of translation studies.
>>7516857
This is the standard for /lit/, FWIW.
>>7516860
there are a couple possibilities:
youre trolling: epic Xd
youre retarded: "you might as well read the wikipedia page" do you not realize this constitutes another (and much more serious) translation? which involves the actual synthesis of ideas and central themes from the text?
youre rationalizing: you only have time to read your homespun books, so you rationalize that those who are better read than you, are actually equal with you (because theyre reading translations). see: you're retarded.
>>7516860
>Translation is like Wikipedia
You are an uncultured swine.
>>7515810
>>7515753
>>7516894
Well, you aren't reading the author as intended anyway, and you are already missing out on his very own prose as the language and the writer both changed.. it's just tad bit faster to the point. As you don't care of the original prose then there is very little left of the book.
>>7516891
And? The meaning again as laid out is the pleb bait which you can just quickly read over at Wikipedia. It's about the least meaningful thing in the book, 'the end'.
I read in 4 languages and I wish I could understand more languages.
>>7516860
>implying all experiencing of art isn't more or less outside of what the artist intended, consciously or subconsciously
i'm sure dante intended some liberated atheist middle-class american post-protestant to read his books between shitposting on the internet
>>7516905
So here you are throwing your hands in the air and claiming that it doesn't matter if the writer and the language both changed, it is all the same.
So
Why aren't you reading Wikipedia pages? You get to the meaning part really fast with them.
>>7516909
you're never experiencing anything authentically as the author intended
who cares about your gay crusade against meaning in this thread
>>7516909
You've still failed to provide any convincing, logical and structured argument other than "muh authenticity".
>>7516916
So why aren't you reading Wiki pages.
>>7516917
How isn't reading the author's own prose argument good enough? You just throw hands in the air and go awoo awoo abloo it was translated from his mind to language it doesn't matter if this random who interprets and translates it even more
So why arent you reading Wikipedia pages? It clearly doesn't matter if its translated and you get to the pleb bait meaning and central themes much faster
>>7516922
>So why aren't you reading Wiki pages.
it's boring
>>7516922
>So why aren't you reading Wiki pages.
The wiki pages are irrelevant. I'm not talking about the wiki pages, I'm talking about your religious belief in authenticity.
>>7516922
I'm not interested in Wikipedia summaries because I'm a translator fluent in English and French, so unless it's a novel outside my field of study I have no need for that.
If you weren't such an asshole I'd provide you with some materials or interviews (such as those concerning the new translation of Potocki's "The Manuscript Found in Saragossa", a very conflicting matter if you look at the story behind it), but you act like a fucking prick, so I'm outta here.
>>7516886
Cool ill start with that then, thanks.
>>7516903
>Well, you aren't reading the author as intended anyway, and you are already missing out on his very own prose as the language and the writer both changed.. it's just tad bit faster to the point. As you don't care of the original prose then there is very little left of the book.
Spoken as someone who knows nothing about what has been going on in the field of translation since, oh, Cicero.
As I said, uncultured swine.
>>7516951
>I just like to read author as the author himself saw fit.
But the author is dead.
>>7516650
Ficciones and cien años de soledad are both better in english.
>>7515667
I troll people fro reading translations but that doesn't mean I think I have no point.
How the fuck can someone read something by DFW or Pynchon or James Ellroy and think that nothing is lost in translation? I definitely don't automatically dismiss translations, I just rteat them as somehting very separate. But don't give me dat lip adn tell me you will EVER read dostoevsky, tolstoy, kafka, proust etc if you don't know their languages
Well, it's doubtful that anyone here knows all the main languages. But it's pretty pleb if you only know one language. Might as well say you're not into literature, but just the one language you knows literature.
>>7517063
I don't think anyone reads translations without thinking that something will be lost. The real question is, is it worth it all the same?
>>7517069
How little you know, poor thing.
