[ 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: 23 KB, 333x500, 413HGXT0H8L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6367757 No.6367757 [Reply] [Original]

best translation?

>> No.6367762

>translation
it's fucking spanish dude

>> No.6367769

>>6367762
archaic Spanish

>> No.6367776

lolololol

read it in the original language or don't read it at all

cmon son

>> No.6367786

>>6367769
IT'S FUCKING SPANISH DUDE

>> No.6367787

>>6367757
please ignore everyone else who posts and read the edith grossman translation

>> No.6367795

>>6367787
isn't it full of silly changes?

>> No.6367796

Grossman is the best to go with unless you have a very particular reason to read an older translation or you're comfortable enough with their outdated prose that they honestly don't lose any of the ease of reading, because ease of reading is a big part of enjoying Don Quixote. It's not meant to be a cumbersome Victorian mess of a text. For whatever (extremely minor) flaws Grossman has, she makes Cervantes completely accessible to modern readers in a way comparable to his original audience.

>> No.6367815

>>6367796
>accessible to modern readers in a way comparable to his original audience.
This sounds like cause for concern. It's a big book. How many translations of it have you read?

>> No.6367824

>>6367815

>more people reading is a cause for concern

*tips fedora*

>> No.6367827

>>6367796
accuracy is important too though

>> No.6367833

>>6367795
no

>> No.6367838

>>6367815
It's not a cause for concern. Don Quixote uses overly complex and obsfucated language intentionally at points, while normally being very easy to read (for a Spanish speaker at the time of release.) It's best to emulate that.

The Grossman translation is very accurate at translating old Spanish to modern English. Her translation received universal acclaim for a reason.

>> No.6367842

>>6367833
yes it is, they're minor but they're present
http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/cervante/csa/artics-f06/lathrop2sf06.pdf

>> No.6367843

>>6367815
> It's a big book.
PARA TU

>> No.6367844
File: 58 KB, 250x250, book_moby_250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6367844

>>6367824
That's not what I meant.
Take picrelated
It's more accessible, but it certainly loses something, yeah?
All I mean is what's there to really change? Why contemporize it?

>> No.6367849

>>6367838
>Her translation received universal acclaim for a reason
Because it was accessible to the common pleb

>> No.6367858

>>6367838
>Don Quixote uses overly complex and obfuscated language intentionally at points

To a contemporary man reading it, or to its original audience?

>> No.6367862

TOBIAS SMOLLETT

Grossman translation is boring shit. Smollett is funny.

DO NOT READ THE HAROLD BLOOM INTRODUCTION!

>> No.6367863

>>6367815
I sampled a bunch before deciding on Grossman. The only real problem is that most are actually old. Like, old old. Here's Harold Bloom:
>Though there have been many valuable English translations of Don Quixote, I would commend Edith Grossman's new version for the extraordinarily high quality of her prose. The spiritual atmosphere of a Spain already in steep decline can be felt throughout, thanks to the heightened quality of her diction. Grossman might be called the Glenn Gould of translators, because she, too, articulates every note. Reading her amazing mode of finding equivalents in English for Cervantes's darkening vision is an entrance into a further understanding of why this great book contains within itself all the novels that have followed in its sublime wake.

But take him with a grain of salt because he was paid to write the rambling forward. Here are some reviews from experts:
http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics-f06/eisenbergsf06.pdf (has overview of prior translations)
http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/cervante/csa/artics-f06/lathrop2sf06.pdf (more critical, from a fellow translator)
A review of Lathrop's own translation:
http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics08/McGraths08.pdf

>> No.6367867

>>6367858
Its original audience.

Quixote himself tries to emulate the style of his chivalry novels when speaking occasionally, which leads to some incredibly complicated sentences that make little sense. The narration joins in the fun on occasion.

On the whole, though, the book was incredibly accessible. It's a reason why it was insanely popular in Spain when it came out.

>> No.6367889

>>6367863
Grossman also doesn't "helpfully" correct "errors" in the original text. It may toss in a footnote about them, but it keeps them (and the message behind them) intact.

>> No.6367892

>>6367867
>>Don Quixote uses overly complex and obfuscated language intentionally at points
>Its original audience.
Then wouldn't making it (those points specifically) more accessible be a bastardization of his work ?

I'll probably go with the Grossman tbh, but I still feel like there's merit to the question above^.

>> No.6367905

>>6367892
Grossman's translation keeps in those particular instances of obfuscated language. Other translations use Victorian-style English at all times.

Let me find my copy, I'll give you an example.

>> No.6367907

>>6367863
> my friend GROSSMAN is really a genius buy her books everybody give her money
> did I mention Falstaff?

>> No.6367912

Tobias Smollett's translation is the best and recommended by Salman Rushdie.

>> No.6367914

>>6367905
>>6367892
Hm. My copy is no longer on my bookshelf.

I believe I have loaned it to a friend. Forget who and when, though.

Shit.

>> No.6367919

>>6367912
>recommended by someone who can't read in spanish at all
lol ok

>> No.6367924

>>6367914
Well thanks all the same, pal :^ )
Now I know which to get.

>> No.6368004

>>6367786
I don't speak spanish

>> No.6368028

>>6368004
Hola, cómo estas?

>> No.6368073

>>6368028
si

>> No.6368120

John Ormsby is generally considered to be the most true to the original Spanish both as a literal translation and in keeping with the original feel of the work. The language is a little archaic but I found I got used to it quickly.

Pierre Antoine Motteux's is interesting if you don't mind REALLY archaic language but it changes the feeling of the text significantly, giving it more of a humorous tone and sometimes it feels almost mean spirited toward the characters. I still enjoyed it but it might just because it was the one I read first.

Don't know much about more recent translations but if you are worried about getting stuck on old language I hear Grossman is breddy gud, as other people in the thread have said.

>> No.6368153

>>6367919
Grossman is shit.

Don't read her Don Quixote. Boring as fuck.

>> No.6368177

>>6368120
Ormsby inserts Victorian language into Quixote's speech though

>> No.6368186

lol pinches idiotas.

>> No.6368220

>>6368186
me sé de memoria el inicio del libro "En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme..."

>> No.6368226

Ormsby is the best translation.

>> No.6368227

>>6368177
All Don Quixote translations insert language that was contemporary to the translator. Maybe I was wrong to say literal translation, but Ormsby was very concerned with maintaining the tone and "Spanish-ness" of the original text.

>> No.6368238

>>6368227
>All Don Quixote translations insert language that was contemporary to the translator
It's not just that though. Ormsby has Quixote talking using outdated (for his time and ours) English words like "thou" to show how Quixote is long-winded and emulating his chivalry books. Grossman avoids this for a more faithful result.

>> No.6368266

>>6368238
I'll have to take your word for it because I haven't read Grossman, I've heard nothing but good things about it for the most part aside from minor quibbles. I just have no desire to read it a third time otherwise I'd give it a shot.

>> No.6369696

>>6368186
>Not calling people boobies or blockheads
>FROM Spain
You had one job.

>> No.6369933

What about Raffel? I have his translation but haven't started the book yet. He's a spanish person, so I would think that he could understand how to translate the spanish well while keeping flow and rhythm etc.

>> No.6369960

>>6367796
yeah, this.
>>6367827
I would imagine any inaccuracies worth worrying about would be addressed in footnotes

>> No.6370004

That's like reading Shakespeare in Spanish. Just don't

>> No.6370008

>>6369696
No, that idiot is a dirty spic.
OP, man the fuck up and red it in spanish. If I can read your literature in it's original language, you can do the same too.

>> No.6370107

I speak Spanish and read a fragment of Grossman's translation. I thought it was absolute shit. I've no problem with translations, but this one is awful. Sounds dumbed down, boring, simplified. There's a Yale lecturer who recommends Ormsby's, I think. I would give that a try.

>>6370004
This. If you speak Spanish, just read Calderon de la Barca instead.

>> No.6370142

You guys are making me sad I didn;t continue Spanish in school. Why did I take bloody French?

>> No.6370228

>>6370142
Because French is a much better language

>> No.6370236

>>6370228
>Because French is a much better language
You can't backpack around South American bars and brothels easily with French; you're stuck with a few African countries.

>> No.6370257

>>6367796
I need to agree with this.

Also, I don't think it's possible to read it in its original language unless you're a XVI/XVII Castilian who's personally witnessed the Readjustment of the Sibilants. When you read it in Spanish you're already reading a rewritten version in modern RAE Spanish, plus you've got to help yourself with footnotes during the whole book.

Pick a modern translation and go with it, don't get too picky. See >>6369960.

(spic here)

>> No.6371079

>>6370004
>That's like reading Shakespeare in Spanish
For real though even Shakespeare gets translated into English nowadays, virtually every single word gets annotated in modern publications. If you're reading a 400 year old work you really aren't reading it in its original context at all.

>> No.6371109

>>6367757
Is there like a self-taught crash course on the history and language required to grasp this book? I don't want to be constantly checking references, I'd rather have the background before diving in

>> No.6371131

>>6371079
>virtually every single word gets annotated in modern publications

So gross an exaggeration that it is rendered more dumb than emphatic.

>>6371079
>If you're reading a 400 year old work you really aren't reading it in its original context at all.

Even those books that are 10 years old aren't enjoyed in their original contexts. The issue is more fidelity than context.