[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 55 KB, 500x375, aca27220eca00390334f8010.L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3646098 No.3646098 [Reply] [Original]

So /lit/,
Considering buying and reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It's a large novel that spans 4 volumes.

I was wondering if any of you that has read it here can tell me what mindset to go into it with.

>> No.3646129
File: 33 KB, 304x500, three-kingdoms.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3646129

>> No.3646136

Why do you need to go into it with a mindset? It's a good book, just read it.

>> No.3646163
File: 294 KB, 1750x822, 1319910950855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3646163

>>3646136
What version of the book is the best.
I found this image but what are the differences?

>> No.3646181

>>3646163
I think the new Moss Roberts translation is supposed to be the best.

>> No.3646184

It's a fucking awesome series, I read it when I was 14. It's not hard to follow so long as you can keep track of a few main characters. And get the unabridged version. It's like 1,400 pages or some such, but totally worth it.

>> No.3646199

>>3646181
The 2004 version costs $60 dollars on amazon for both volumes. While the 1995 version costs $30 for the whole novel. Is it much different in the newer version?

>> No.3646226

>>3646199
>>3646181
pls respond
I'm a poor Uni student that needs to know if the extra $30 is worth it.

>> No.3646266

>>3646226
guess I'll just go with the cheaper version. I probably won't miss much.

>> No.3646317 [DELETED] 

>>3646163
Since Chinese is such a fucking nigger of a language, any translation is basically a tear-down job, and you have to weigh the pros and cons of each (as they all have cons).

I know I can tell you that the result of my research was that Moss Roberts was the most acceptable, but I can't remember why. I suggest you look into it yourself. Sometimes Amazon reviews will have knowledgeable faggots giving rundowns of the different translations.

>> No.3646330

>>3646317
The problem with Chinese is that its made absolutely zero effort to modernize. It's like a language which, instead of pulling out a fresh sheet of paper and starting over with the essentials, is still on the original page that's been scribbled over until painted totally black. There's 27 meanings for the word "shi", and instead of directly stating what something is as the Japanese have started to, they still use compound words to identify things. So instead of "airplane", it's "sky machine". Etc.

Makes it a fucking asshole to translate anything.

>> No.3646363

>>3646199
Um I think the newer one is a better translation in general and it also has a lot of like footnotes and stuff to explain historical context and everything.

>> No.3646400
File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1362706821039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3646400

>>3646098
>Not reading the original Chinese

>>3646317
>>3646330
>Implying Chinese is the best language around, and you can't read it so you bash it
>Implying that having no grammar structure while still having people understand you is worse than having completely arbitrary grammar rules that mostly make no sense
>Implying

>shiggy diggy

learn Chinese, idiots. It's going to replace English sooner than you think.