[ 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: 1.45 MB, 312x346, 1388784215088.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4820993 No.4820993[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How do we know that foreign writers are good writers. What if they're bad writers, but their translations are just well-written?

>> No.4820997

>translations

>> No.4821003

>>4820997
I don't understand why you're green-texting me.

>> No.4821012

>>4821003
>green-texting me.

>> No.4821013

>>4821003
Give me your cel number so we can start sex-texting instead.

>> No.4821014

>>4821003
because you're a fucking pleb

he's implying you learn the language the book's originally written in, instead of relying on some shitty translation

>> No.4821033

>>4821013
Patricians spend years to become fluent in a language just to read a few books? Okay.

>> No.4821039 [SPOILER] 
File: 239 KB, 681x1024, 1398566507221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4821039

>>4821013

>> No.4821048

>>4821014
Don't read a shitty translation. Read a good translation. There are people who know a fuck of a lot more about the original language than you will ever learn from Rosetta Stone and spending a semester in France to fully immerse yourself in the language that write good translations.

>> No.4821059

>>4821033
>just to read a few books?
>just

>> No.4821061

>>4820993
translators don't elevate the works they translate, they struggle to maintain the status quo

>> No.4821066

>2014
>not reading for plot

>> No.4821067

>>4821048
I agree with you, but translations are still derivative no matter how you slice them. You really can't judge the quality of the original author's writing (mechanics, style, structure, or whatever word you want to use) through a translation. You can however judge content, which can be argued as more important.
That being said, there is little to no point in learning a language (both contemporary and archaic forms if applicable) just to judge the quality of an author's writing.
Might as well glean what you can from reputable sources that have read the author in their native language.

>> No.4821069

>>4821067
If you start to learn a language at this point in your life, your reading of any text in that language will really just amount to a subvocalization of A Really Shitty Translation by Anon.

>> No.4821075

>>4821069
Pretty much this.

>> No.4821076

>>4821069
So you're saying it's always pointless to start a new language?

>> No.4821083

>>4821076
Of course not
I'm saying that if your aim is to learn a new language to experience the PURE ORIGINAL TEXT JUST AS THE AUTHOR INTENDED, it is hopeless. There's a window for this shit, and yours has passed. You can still learn a new language and be fluent and communicate well, but never as well as your native tongue, and never as well as your French/Spanish/Russian/German counterpart in a parallel universe.

In other words, a professional (hopefully a native speaker of the language the text is in) is going to do a better job translating the book than you will.

>> No.4821085

>>4821076
No they're saying it's pointless to start a new language to read a text(s).

>> No.4821100

>>4820993
The French love Edgar Allan Poe's poetry because his translator was amazing. Or, considering they blow a fucking load over Jerry Lewis, the French are shit-tier.

Also: yeah, maybe it's a really shitty translation that you hear in your head, but it opens a new world of connotations and anger. You see the dimensionality of a word differently. And, when you read side-by-side, you flip shits at translators' decisions. Just go to any classics library to see this in action.

Start learning!

>> No.4821117

>>4821085
so then what's the point of learning dead languages?

>> No.4821121

>>4821100
>And, when you read side-by-side

>>4821048
>>4821069
>>4821083
here, I totally agree. There ARE things that get Lost in Translation, it's just that you're gonna lose a fuck of a lot more reading the original text yourself. Reading them side by side is a really good idea.

>> No.4821147

>>4821083
You mean... a professional whom its window of learning whatever language they are translating to has passed, and as such, their translation won't be better than yours? Why not cut the middle man? This is all by following your logic, of course.

>> No.4821155

>>4821147
>a professional whom its window of learning

como?

>> No.4821160

>>4821117
There isn't one? You learn them because they've piqued your interest.

>> No.4821161

>>4821147
see
>>4821083

>(hopefully a native speaker of the language the text is in)

but let's be real virtually any translator is going to be better than you

>> No.4821492

>>4820993

A lot of people have said 100 Years of Solitude is better in English translation, but the original is still good. I'd answer your speculation as false since every writer I can think of who is considered good in English is also considered good in their native language.

I can think of one author, David Gordon, who isn't that well known in English but his Japanese translation was really well received.

>> No.4821525

>>4821492
you can chalk that up to a cultural difference

>> No.4821612

>>4821492
>A lot of people have said 100 Years of Solitude is better in English translation

Who?

>> No.4821635

>>4821492
>David Gordon

I loved reading his NYT article, you can really feel how bewildered by the whole experience he is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/magazine/big-in-japan.html

>> No.4821642

>>4821492
Faulkner is supposedly excellent in French T
translation; Baudelaire's translation of Poe is purported to transcend the original.

>> No.4823594

>>4821642
>translation; Baudelaire's translation of Poe is purported to transcend the original.

it doesn't. baudelaire is baudelaire but his english was pretty bad

>> No.4823772

>2014
>don't know all languages on earth

>> No.4823848

>reading fiction