>there are people on /lit/ who actually read translations
Why would you do that? It's like watching a film upside down.
It's nothing like that.
>>7362377
its like watching a translated film
>>7362377
I don't have time to waste learning other languages when I have so many books to read and I'm already native in the language best suited to reading the widest range of literature on the planet.
the best and worst cant be lost in translation
I have no choice. I don't have the time nor the energy to learn another language. I'm very selective in choosing which translation to read though, I always strive for top quality.
>>7362377
It's not.
It's like watching a film through a glass window. The worst the translator, the dirtier and opaque the window.
I'm genuinely surprised that there aren't many threads about translation in /lit/
A lot of translated titles are better than the original book. Translation is itself an art and I think we should systematically mark the translator as a co-author.
>plebs on here ramble on about the genius of dostoevsky and tolstoy and checkhov
>ask them if they know russian
>hear nothing but crickets
LOL, pseudo intellectuals in ruins!
>>7362377
Because it's still fun. I don't care what the original author said or meant, if I'm finding meaning and enjoyment in the translated work, I'll read it.
>>7362377
No, it's not. It's like watching a film that's remake of a film. Sometimes the remakes are better than the original. Reminder that the writers you think of as patricians read translations.
