Translations

[Helga]

Now this has probably been discussed over and over again but I am wondering about the value of translated books depending on who translated them?! Now I only read in Icelandic,English, a bit in Danish and working on my German vocabulary so I can't say I know much about this subject and I have only read a few books in two languages.

I was listening to a show on the radio about Hemingway. His novel 'A Farewell to Arms' was translated by our only Nobel author Halldor Laxness and because of that it hasn't been translated again but other books by Hemingway have been re-published in new translations about every ten or fifteen years. but the fact that it was Laxness makes it in some way 'sacred' and even as the literature professor on that show mentioned it has a translation error that isn't corrected, why? because it was Laxness. also the spelling was Laxness's signature in a way in his books and his translations have it too so it's far from the authors original words.

Another one is I read that Milan Kundera's first books where written in check but published in France. when he then moved to France and read the translations he got so mad he that he re-translated them so they would be more correct and more as he wanted. Now he only writes in French.

Some books I find in bookstores in Icelandic are for example: translated from Spanish to English to Icelandic. This must hurt the value of the book and the meaning the author wanted to portray?

any opinions?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes translation issues have been brought up before, but it is a big issue I suppose.

The thing is there is little alternative, aside from learning every language, but to read via translation. I'm kind of in the dark (in the sense of only being able to manage a small amount of French) but I imagine that a good translation will carry the essence of a work. For me that is all that is required of a translation, I want the best fit available, the best essence of the original. I personally do not care who the translator is, I just want a good job done.

I hope to develop my French skills much more, especially next year when I might have more time. I want to be able to read French works without the need for a translation as at the moment I can only really pick out a minor percent of the work. Then I will be able to see for myself what is and what isn't lost via translation and more importantly read the original.

Have you ever read works both in translation and in the original and what did you think of them?

[Helga]

I have read a few Shakespeare plays and I have to admit I did think the translations where good. the man who translated most of Shakespeare here did a good job...

the Hobbit, it was OK but I did enjoy more the English version because of all the Icelandic references.

a lot of poems and I will never change my mind about them, they are never as good in translations as in the original, I have at least never found a poem that moved me as much in the translation as in the original version.

a few plays too. I have to admit I have never read 'Farewell to Arms' in English but I think I should.

It's just strange that people really get mad when you say something negative about Laxness, his family has sued the few who have!

[kiki1982]

Waw, that's scary. Sueing (spelling?) someone for criticism :eek:. I mean, please, allow the people to critcise. Of course, you know yourself that your translation is the best (otherwise you wouldn't be doing it :D), but otherwise there are other opinions. Apart from some opinions which really don't matter, because they are uninformed, I suppose it is possible to get some criticism that has its arguments, certainly if it comes from people who knows the work in the original language.

But what you said about translations from translations... That I find also scary, as regularly, though you are trying to do it word for word, the target language needs you to change the word order. And that is assuming that the translator of your source did not at all change any expressions and things like that... I just find that dangerous.

I read Les Misérables in Dutch (abbridged because I didn't know better) and once in French, the whole of it. I find Dutch a very very narrow and poor language, because the equivalent of the Académie Française, the Taalunie (language union) prescribes what word is good to use and what not. Thus, you do not have the same situation as you have in English as half of the words and synonyms you have in English are either archaïc, loan-words or expressions from another language where there is one in Dutch already (gallicism from French, anglicism or whatever), a word which is one because the other is deemed wrong by the public (purism), etc etc. So, imagine that in English. A lot of Indian words would not have come into English and the language would have been much poorer, a lot of words Shakespeare invented neither, a lot of words that are really centuries old would not be used anymore. Translation into Dutch is HARD as you sound out of date all the time because you are looking for the right word which is not there in modern Dutch or can be misinterpreted, or it is one from dialect which you are most definitely not allowed to use. So no equivalent of the Scottish 'wee lass' (or however it is written) in properly written Dutch texts...

[mal4mac]

...as the literature professor on that show mentioned it has a translation error that isn't corrected, why? because it was Laxness.

Was it *really* an error or was there a reason for the change? Did you hear Laxloss' reason for the "error"? Why trust some literature professor over an esteemed author? I can see many reasons for not making a literal translation.

For instance, an author might want to get across that a character is boring and might do this by showing him using a lot of cliches. For instance, he might say "as white as pack ice" in a snow-bound country. If an English translator translated this literally than the character would seem very interesting! So, surely, it is better to translate it as "white as chalk".

You might argue that you can add notes to explain these things. But if the book is a novel aimed at the general public then adding a lot of scholarly notes defeats that aspect of the book. The answer is, perhaps, to have scholarly translations *and* translations for the general reader.

[mal4mac]

...I imagine that a good translation will carry the essence of a work. For me that is all that is required of a translation, I want the best fit available, the best essence of the original. I personally do not care who the translator is, I just want a good job done.


What is the "essence" of a work? What is a best fit? Doesn't it depend on the reader?

A schoolkid might just a want a readable, domesticated version of The Count of Monte Cristo, so he gets the feeling that he is reading an adventure story, and not the feeling he is reading a dictionary. A scholar might want a literal translation, backed up by many scholarly notes.



I want to be able to read French works without the need for a translation as at the moment I can only really pick out a minor percent of the work. Then I will be able to see for myself what is and what isn't lost via translation and more importantly read the original.


Difference in translation might not be a case of something being lost via the translation. Imagine you were on a quest for "little Greek" rather than "little French". Some translators translate arete as "excellence", others as "virtue".

Your "Greek for Dummies" book might just give you "virtue" as the translation. So when you come up against a translation using "excellence" you may dismiss that work - but you'd be wrong. So unless you spend many years becoming an expert in the literatry work you are translating you will not get very far.

And, of course, you will never find *the* truth of the work, only your truth... the experts are *still* arguing over the true translation of arete. And that's just one word in one language...

As Screech, the esteemed translator of Montaigne, worked many hours a day for many years you would have to do the same to "see for yourself". Are you prepared to spend three hours a day for ten years translating Montaigne? (I must admit, I'm tempted! But, then again, I think I'll just re-read Screech's Montaigne frequently... I want to read a few other authors as well... translation will have to do...)

.

[LitNetIsGreat]

What is the "essence" of a work? What is a best fit? Doesn't it depend on the reader?

All interpretations of anything depend upon the reader, so it is no different when it comes to translations. What I don't like with translations is if the translator tries to put too much of themselves into the a work; a translator's name of a work should not be more than that of the work they are translating.

All I want from a translation is what anybody surely wants, the "best" fit of the original. The best fit of the work or the essence of the original may well be debateable thing, but not having command of another language I'm happy to go along with a translation which most people say is OK. It is not as if I have much of a choice in the matter anyway.


As Screech, the esteemed translator of Montaigne, worked many hours a day for many years you would have to do the same to "see for yourself". Are you prepared to spend three hours a day for ten years translating Montaigne? (I must admit, I'm tempted! But, then again, I think I'll just re-read Screech's Montaigne frequently... I want to read a few other authors as well... translation will have to do...)

Granted that's true, but I just would like to be at the level where I can read and understand the original in French - I'd be happy with that.

[kiki1982]

The best fit of a translation, I would argue, is probably the one that allows most readers, casual ones and professional ones, interested ones and disintersted ones alike, the most possibility for studying the work. If a work is read in the orginal, then it is read by those people in the same way, if it is read in translation, it should be possible too. Interpretation that goes too far is not translation. And yes, one can argue that every anglophone production of Shakeseare is different depending on how the text is said and which words are emphasised, but a word is a word. A translator, if anything, needs to be aware of the different possibilities. Not very deeply, but just he knows, so that he is able to spot errors in his own work as he knows his translation would not fit with another possible interpretation.

Montaigne is a totally different thing than mere translation, as he is also a philosopher and translating philosophy essentially requires knowing the work and philosophy of that philosopher by heart and inside out in order to be able to produce a satisfactory translation of it, if at all possible. Otherwise it does not make sense. As studies are made about the meaning of mere words in this or that philosopher's work in the original language, I'd say the translator did very well at three hours a day. Still, that is not normal prose, though.

And yes, I think a literature professor has more to say than an esteemed author, certainly if it comes to ideas behind a book. Though it of course depends on the author himself.

Then there are the authors who absolutely abhore interpretation. It passes me how some translators then dare to put in an interpretation. As Kafka, one of those said it, 'Sie deuten, Herr Vorsteher,' sagte K, 'den Brief so gut, dass schliesslich nichts anderes übrigbleibt als die Unterschrift auf einem leeren Blatt Papier.'; 'You explain, Herr Village Council Chairman,' said K, 'the letter so well that finally nothing else remains but the ortograph on an empty sheet of paper.'. So, if the essense is lost, what stays? Nothing as it seems.

[Heteronym]

I think people worry too much about translation. Just read and don't think about it.

I read a lot in translation and never notice anything that distracts me from the reading. If I don't like it, I blame the original work. If I like it, I praise the original work too. I'll never know, I'll never compare it to the original or compare translations between themselves.

You shouldn't worry too much about the fidelity or quality of the translation, if you're reading just for pleasure. If you're reading something for academic reasons, then it's your duty to know the original language anyway. That's something I quickly learned when I was at the university. No teacher took a student seriously who wanted to study Spanish literature without knowing Spanish, for instance.

So if it's just for pleasure, just enjoy it.

[stlukesguild]

People worry about translations because it is not as simple as you suggest. A good translation allows the reader unfamiliar with the language in question to appreciate... enjoy... a work of literature he or she might not otherwise have access to. A bad translation can leave the reader wondering what the big fuss is all about. No translation can fully capture all that is in the original... but a bad translation can be horribly misleading, poorly written, or just plain dead.

[Heteronym]

But it's a meaningless point. If you can compare the translation to the original, then you don't need to read the translation. If you can't read the original, then just read the translation and don't worry anymore.

I understand your point. Of course a bad translation can puts someone off a good book. But it all comes down to an old and simple saying: beggars can't be choosers.

[Helga]

I try to read the original work if I can but when I see or hear about an error in translation and of course the problem I have with Laxness's spelling in translation, I wonder about the work I have no choice but read translated. also when there are many different people translating books by one author, say Kundera, I see a difference in the structure and the sentences between books and when do I know if I am hearing the authors real voice and when the translators.. I know you can't say only one person can do it but there can be to much of a difference and specially when it's translated from another language than the original work.
it seems to me it's almost like the game kids play where they sit in a circle and whisper a word and you see how it has changed when it gets to the end.

[kiki1982]

But it's a meaningless point. If you can compare the translation to the original, then you don't need to read the translation. If you can't read the original, then just read the translation and don't worry anymore.

I understand your point. Of course a bad translation can puts someone off a good book. But it all comes down to an old and simple saying: beggars can't be choosers.

Yes, you see, that is the problem; that is why there are such sh*t translations about. Certain translators are praised into heaven (including the famous Engmish-Russian one whose name I am not going to mention) because... people do not want to know better. The only criterium seems to be if a translation is 'readable'. What if the original was badly written, should I, as a translator, then make a piece of great prose out of it? It doesn't seem so to me. I understand your point too, but I do not agree with it.

The only people who should be able to comment on a translation are indeed, ironically, the people who know the original language, because they know how the work sounded, what ambiguities etc there were in it. How are the others to know what's good and what's not? Because it is 'readable'? Now, that, I find, the most ridiculous argument for a book to be criticised. A translation is essentially getting that work from its original language into another, that means all of it, not a far-going interpretation, not own prose creations, not leaving certain cultural references behind in order to domesticate (for me) etc. And of course one must be able to read it in the target language, your sentence structure should be the target language's, your word-use as well, but one must stay with the times of the work, which is not what most translators do.

@Helga:

Yes, well. What is wrong with his spelling then? Does he spell differently when he translates than when he writes? :confused:
At any rate, yes, then it becomes the game with the word. No translation is absolutely perfect. Although one might think one's own is perfect, there are always things that are forgotten, things that, in hindsight, one realises etc etc. And then we are presuming about the quality of the initial translation: that it didn't change the punctuation, sentence structure, word-use, ambiguities and that kind of particulars too much, only what was necessary.

But is it so difficult to find translators for Icelandic? I could conceive it is as it is a language with such a small amount of speakers. Where one can find a native speaker English who also knows practically any language in the world, Icelandic is probably very limited indeed...

[mal4mac]

Yes, you see, that is the problem; that is why there are such sh*t translations about. Certain translators are praised into heaven (including the famous Engmish-Russian one whose name I am not going to mention) because... people do not want to know better. The only criterium seems to be if a translation is 'readable'. What if the original was badly written, should I, as a translator, then make a piece of great prose out of it? It doesn't seem so to me. I understand your point too, but I do not agree with it.

Not going to mention? Why not? If it is the one I think you are not mentioning, then she is highly praised by people who certainly "know better"! You are basically on one extreme side of the translation debate - "strict literal" - when there is another side ("domesticating".)

For me, novels are entertainment, so I want as easy a read as possible, so I always chose a domesticating translation., But I am happy to see literalists producing translations for the edification of scholars and fellow translators.

When reading some works of Kant or Aristotle I have read several translations, some very literal, and specialised dictionaries. But only when I have felt the need to understand the author's views of a particular philosophical concept in as much detail as possible.

Surely 'type of translation' should be cater to the reader's desires? Why should there be only strictly literal translations? Who made you God to say 'only strict literal translations allowed'?



The only people who should be able to comment on a translation are indeed, ironically, the people who know the original language, because they know how the work sounded, what ambiguities etc there were in it. How are the others to know what's good and what's not? Because it is 'readable'?


They can compare the translated work to original works in their own language. Agreed it is not then Homer they are commenting but, some hybrid like Homer-Pope. But as I'll be reading Homer-Pope that's very useful!

I would quite like to hear Samuel Johnson's views on Homer compared to Shakespeare even though he did not read Greek. Though I would also read Pope's views as well ... it doesn't have to be either-or...



A translation is essentially getting that work from its original language into another, that means all of it


How is that possible? Translators and commentators are forever finding new nuances of translation. To get "all that is known" you would have to read several translations, dozens of books of commentary, hundreds of papers... just for one novel... If the general reader had to take in "all of it" they would never read a translation at all...

[Helga]

@Helga:

Yes, well. What is wrong with his spelling then? Does he spell differently when he translates than when he writes? :confused:


his spelling was his signature in a way, similar to Tolkien. my problem is not with his spelling in his own books just that when I read 'Farewell to Arms' I felt like I was reading Hemingway's story through Laxness's eyes not the author eyes with help from the translator.

I don't know if his spelling is different in his books that have been translated to English but here it's a big part of his work.

to me translations should not just tell us the story in the easiest way but as literal as possible, maybe my problem is that there shouldnt be just one person translating but a few and they should be familiar with more than just the one book they are working with so they can try and capture more the authors style.

like I said before, the man who is most famous for his translations of Shakespeare was wonderful at it, not perfect of course, but very good and he knew Shakespeare in and out. I think Shakespeare is hard to do and I know of only one other who has tried it after the original translation and that man is working on it right now, King Lear for theatre next winter... how I can't wait...

but like I see in all the comments above this is a subject everyone has an opinion on and they are rarely the same :)

[kiki1982]

Not going to mention? Why not? If it is the one I think you are not mentioning, then she is highly praised by people who certainly "know better"! You are basically on one extreme side of the translation debate - "strict literal" - when there is another side ("domesticating".)

Like Woolf who did not speak Russian and consequently had esentially not the faintest notion what she was talking about. I am not on the literal side of the spectrum. There is nothing more stupid than translating an expression of the one language into the other if it does not exist in the other. But do not confuse 'domesticating' with 'making something [(merely)] readable'. It is not because I translate something so it can be read that I domesticate. The anglosaxon world seems to be used to domestication where there is no need for it. In Germany, forms of address are not translated into German. Austen translations say, 'Miss Bennet tanzte mit Mr Darcy,' (Miss Bennet danced with Mr Darcy), not, 'Fräulein Bennet tanzte mit Herrn Darcy.' They find that that sounds ridiculous. There is no reason why 'Herr Gamekeeper' could not work in English. It only is not done because... people are not used to it.
A work is embedded in another culture and wanting to domesticate is at any rate an illusion. One cannot by any means domesticate fully because the way people act is different as they are part of another culture. Sure, one can edit things out because 'readers will not understand them' and then, like I have demonstrated with Cyrano de Bergerac the work falls flat on its tummy, it collapses like a jelly with not enough gelatine. Sadly, of course, no-one has any idea and they dismiss it as 'the quibbles of translation', yet it can be done. Though not with the easy manner of 'let's interpret to make it better.'


For me, novels are entertainment, so I want as easy a read as possible, so I always chose a domesticating translation., But I am happy to see literalists producing translations for the edification of scholars and fellow translators.

I read for enjoyment as well, but I do not associate an 'easy read', which anything, as difficult as the vocabulary may be, can be, with 'referenceless and without cultural base'. There is a great difference. Austen is an easy read. Although one has to think about what the hell she is saying at some points, because her language is so amzingly concise (very French, I thought in the beginning), she has not many references, not many symbols. One can follow the story, even if one knows little about the ways of society back then. Though the stories only become really really funny (as any satire does) when one does know the unwritten rules. This, as an extreme example, is not domesticatable. Nor is Les Misérables for example. Not because of the references which are numerous, but because it does not take place in the slums of London, Manchester or Liverpool. It takes place in Paris and France. You can take the language out of it, but not the cultural content. Dumas even caught that different way of speaking in his musketeer novels. Because, eventhough Cromwell and Mordaunt speak French in the book, they speak it slightly differently to the French French people in that same book, with an exception for Charless II as he was raised in France.
I once read a story of Hoffmann, German Biedermeier writer, the one of The Golden Bowl: Das Fräulein von Scudéry/Mlle de Scudéry. One of the first detective stories in history with a 'who's done it'-type of plot, about Mlle de Scudéry, the famous female writer, I think favorite of Louis XIV. It was an odd combination of a French woman in Paris (French town), talking and acting German... It was clear that the writer had thought of a location and character for his book, but that he modelled Paris, in thought, on a German town and the actions and words of his characters also on German people. He could easily have subsituted Paris with Berlin and Mlle de Scudéry with some Fräulein von Brunswick and it would nt have made any difference. That is my point, domestication contradicts itself.


Surely 'type of translation' should be cater to the reader's desires? Why should there be only strictly literal translations? Who made you God to say 'only strict literal translations allowed'?

I do not see how a translator should cater for the readers' desires. If I read in the original language I have no choice whatsoever. I either read it or I do not. At any rate, the presence of references and things like that does not ruin the ease of a read. If I read without footnotes in the original language, I might miss some if I am not vigilant enough. Does that ruin my ease when I am reading? I don't think so. At least I can choose what to do: to look up or not to look up (that is the question). The point is not that I should be able to read through it without problems, I can do that at any time. Also with Shakespeare. The point is: am I aware of those references, am I allowed to ask myself what that odd sentence, or that strange expression means? If I am not allowed to do that because the translation has been domesticated so much, then I as a reader have been let down. What if I do want to look it up in theory, but I am not aware of it existing? Then I am denied any understadning whatsoever. Do I then first have to do research about certain translations before I can even contemplate reading one? And then, if I am led along by the great crowd who prefers this or that one who turns out to interpret shamelessly so that she even edits for her public, no doubt because the word or idea even was 'improper', have I then chosen well and am I going to read another, with the same plot, again because 'maybe I missed something'?
In most cases an interpretation is not even needed in prose. Yet it is done in some cases with the least taste.


How is that possible? Translators and commentators are forever finding new nuances of translation. To get "all that is known" you would have to read several translations, dozens of books of commentary, hundreds of papers... just for one novel... If the general reader had to take in "all of it" they would never read a translation at all...

I said that no translation is perfect, but at least one can aspire to be perfect. The point I wanted to make was that no-one blatantly edits out ideas because they presume that 'people won't get it' or because they are taught that 'one needs to interpret'. Just reading about the most common interpretations of that novel in the original language should make one aware of the possible ambiguities that one encounters. One should not choose one possible line, but should try to stay aware of all those possibilities when coming to a dense part, and believe me, one can easily feel that.

[Heteronym]

Yes, you see, that is the problem; that is why there are such sh*t translations about (...) because... people do not want to know better.

I read mostly in translation, and I must be very lucky because I never come across those infamous translators. I find most of their work of great quality. But, returning to the crux of the matter, I don't the original text. I can only judge the translation and decide wheher or not it has literary merit. It usually does.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I read mostly in translation, and I must be very lucky because I never come across those infamous translators. I find most of their work of great quality. But, returning to the crux of the matter, I don't the original text. I can only judge the translation and decide wheher or not it has literary merit. It usually does.

But, but, but...if you don't read the original texts, how do you know they are good translations? :confused5:

[Heteronym]

Well, I didn't talk about 'good translations', ie of the quality of the translations as such. I said 'quality' and 'literary merit'. By that I mean, does a translation hold up in comparison with a literary text from the language it's been translated into? If it does, I presume it must be good, otherwise the translator had the amazing ability of, by translation alone, turning something mediocre into something that competes with great literature.

[mal4mac]

Kant read a French translation of David Hume's "Treatise". He said that this was the major influence on his "critical turn". Wasn't this, then, a good translation? Do you need to have read the translation (or the original!) to know this?

[kiki1982]

I think we are confusing two things here. There is fiction and non-fiction. Treatises are non-fiction.
It depends how the man wrote. If he wrote factual and clearly, like students write their essays, essentially just arguing their argument, then, mostly, it is not difficult to translate. Compare it to an opinion piece in a newspaper.

If Kant said that that treatise was of great influence to him, then it must have been, but it is of no consequence to the quality of the translation, as Kant only considered the ideas in that translation. And even if the translator made a bad translation, then still Kant could have found it great and taken some things over, despite the fact that he (might have) missed the greatest part of that treatise. He might have even misinterpreted it or not understood it at all, does that say anything about the text itself? It does not seem so to me.

What I am talking of is fiction, which is much more intricate than non-fiction. In treatises there is either not a lot of ambiguity, otherwise half or the greatest part of the public, would not understand the point at all (this is the simple kind), or it is of a philosophical nature and then it is better to not expect 'an easy read' as philosophy is practically only written to be understood by the writer himself and maybe his students, by no means by the greatest amount of people. It cannot be translated by merely a person who has mastered the language, or even whose mothertongue the language is, because it is simply too deep to be able to understand well enough to translate the ideas deeply burried in it. It essentially needs to be translated by a philosopher in turn.
A normal person understands the general idea, but that is by no means the point of philosphy. Books have been written about single sentences. In uni, I also got the general idea in the philosophy course, but that only gave me an 11 out of 20 for my exam.

I am not aware of the quality of that translation, but a badly translated work can also be of influence.

[mal4mac]

I think we are confusing two things here. There is fiction and non-fiction. Treatises are non-fiction.
It depends how the man wrote. If he wrote factual and clearly, like students write their essays, essentially just arguing their argument, then, mostly, it is not difficult to translate. Compare it to an opinion piece in a newspaper.


Works of philosophy are often classified as literature.

How can Kant, or anyone else, only consider the ideas in a translation? You have to take account of the form, surely. If you read, say, Newton's account of his laws of motion you are likely to have a very different experience to that of reading, say, Feynman on the same subject - even though the ideas presented are the same.



And even if the translator made a bad translation...


How can it be a bad translation if it was the main cause of the greatest revolution in philosophy since Plato (as many say...)?

Your definition of a good translations seems to me to be rather narrow. For me, if the text has a good effect on the reader then it is a good translation. As you are a reader and feel the requirement for a literal translation, then a literal translation is (certainly) a good translation (for you.) But I don't see why you can say that a "looser" translation is a bad translation, it may have many other good qualities than literalness, maybe even qualities that make it a better translation than a literal translation for some readers.

[kiki1982]

Works of philosophy are often classified as literature.

How can Kant, or anyone else, only consider the ideas in a translation? You have to take account of the form, surely. If you read, say, Newton's account of his laws of motion you are likely to have a very different experience to that of reading, say, Feynman on the same subject - even though the ideas presented are the same.

They can be classified as literature, certainly. That does not mean they have to read the same as literature. There is a great difference. If the writer of that philosophical work wrote nice prose, then surely his work will be classed as literature, but it is not merely something fun to read.

If the translator missed some ideas in the philosophical work he/she translated (which I am not alone implying, only considering the possibility), then certainly, the philosopher who read only the translation, only gets the ideas translated and not the ones that stayed behind. Why do you think most philsophers know German? Because German philosophical works are most important to modern philsophy. And why do you think, philosophy is mostly translated by another philosopher who is usually a specialist in the philosopher he is translating?


How can it be a bad translation if it was the main cause of the greatest revolution in philosophy since Plato (as many say...)?

Kant's ideas about that philosopher in translation have no correlation to how good the translation is. Now that is a non-argument.


Your definition of a good translations seems to me to be rather narrow. For me, if the text has a good effect on the reader then it is a good translation. As you are a reader and feel the requirement for a literal translation, then a literal translation is (certainly) a good translation (for you.) But I don't see why you can say that a "looser" translation is a bad translation, it may have many other good qualities than literalness, maybe even qualities that make it a better translation than a literal translation for some readers.

A free translation can also be good. I am not calling for literal, as I have already professed. But the word 'zloy' in Russian is not 'full of hatred', that is not even a free translation, that is Victorian interpretation, because 'malicious' cannot be heard. (we may conclude that Garnett was a prude as well then) It just means bad, malicious.
'Droit' in French does not mean 'laws' as I have encountered in a post of someone who was making a paper about Monte Cristo once. It only ever means something to do with 'law' in the respect of 'studying law' which is called, apart from in English, the equivalent of 'right' in German, French and Dutch which word also incidentally means 'straight'. Thus, it was not 'the laws of vengeance', but 'the rights of vengeance' which put a whole other spin on the the whole book even. One little mistake and a whole possible reading could go.

How is one supposed to know whether the effect on the reader is as good as the original if the reader has no notion of it in the oriiginal? Any translation I have seen of Cyrano de Bergerac into English, which I certainly looked at now, was a very weak reflection of the original. And I am not talking about the poetry merely, which is probably undoable anyway. Just the contents alone was breathtaking. To then reduce the most intense piece of lit to just those 'vain pastimes' which should be avoided... It passes me. That was the essence, that there should be contents in words, unlike the love-poems of the time. Yet, all transations I looked at reduced the whole piece to merely words.

Contents, contents, contents, that is the only thing. Some translations miss it entirely. And contents has nothing to do with literal or not whatsoever.