Just how good are translations?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Although I have read several translated works, namely French literature, I always wonder how good translations really are. With reading translations I feel that you probably get the essence of the novel, but the finer, all important details must surely escape you in translation. I am not talking about an individual works merit of translation I am speaking in general terms, how good are they?

I know that Marx learned Russian so that he could “read a few books in Russian” which is fine if you have the intellect and time that he did, but for those of us stuck with English as an only language, translations are the only real option. (Personally I am still trying to improve my English.)

So I would be interested to hear others’ thoughts upon this subject, I am particularly interested to hear from those who are bilingual who may have read the same book in two different languages.

Thanks.

[Nossa]

I agree that translations, no matter how good and accurate they might be, are bound to leave out some slight details that are in the original. I think this happens a lot in books that are translated from Arabic. When I read the original and then the translation, I feel somehow different about the book. But still, translations are better than nothing...lol. I think that as long as you didn't read the original, it's all good. Meaning that, you'll read the work in hand as if it was written in English. That should make you feel better about the translation

[John Goodman]

Well, I'm fluent in reading, writing and speaking in both English and French so it gives me the opportunity to do just what you're asking. The quality of translation can vary trumendously based on the skill of the translator. Some manage to capture the essence of the book, some don't. Some take it further and manage to incorporate the writing style of the author flawlessly from French to English. Don't be stuck feeling like you're missing something while reading a translated text because you will no doubt lose some enjoyment from reading.

The original text will nearly always be better but near-perfect translations do exist, just do your research before diving into whatever your library or bookstore carries. Some reviewers do often read the original text and the translation and can give you further insight.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I am particularly interested to hear from those who are bilingual who may have read the same book in two different languages.

I think there is good reason for the saying "lost in translation":

These days I avoid reading a Swedish translation of something I have previously read in English. Even when the translation is good, a book will lose something on the way. It works better, but not altogether well in the other direction, but that may depend on the fact that the English language holds more than twice the number of words that Swedish does.

I think translation is a sticky business at the best of times.

/Claes

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, I'm fluent in reading, writing and speaking in both English and French so it gives me the opportunity to do just what you're asking. The quality of translation can vary trumendously based on the skill of the translator. Some manage to capture the essence of the book, some don't. Some take it further and manage to incorporate the writing style of the author flawlessly from French to English. Don't be stuck feeling like you're missing something while reading a translated text because you will no doubt lose some enjoyment from reading.

The original text will nearly always be better but near-perfect translations do exist, just do your research before diving into whatever your library or bookstore carries. Some reviewers do often read the original text and the translation and can give you further insight.

Yes I think so, I remember reading a Chekhov short story twice from two different translations and it was almost totally different. I think perhaps that translations are like photocopies from the original. I think though it is better to read translated copies than not to read them at all, for avoiding them altogether would be to remain in ignorance of great works from other cultures.

[Annamariah]

Some translations are really good, some are awful, and most of them are somewhere in between.

But even though translation can never be the same as the original (even when it's really good, even as good as the original one, it will always be a bit different), I don't think you can say that it's always better if you read just the original one.

I think my English is pretty good and I'm going to be a translator when I graduate. Still, English is not my mother tongue and no matter how much I study it, it will never be "my language" the way Finnish is.

So, even though I can read a book in English and understand it very well (and check the words I don't know from dictionary if I feel like it), it's never the same as reading it in Finnish. I admit that most of the time something is lost in translation, but if I really like some book, I usually read both the original and the translation. That way I get what is best in both and together they make a great combination. (Unless the translation is really worthless, as it sometimes is.)

[aabbcc]

I like to use flavour as comparison when asked this question - essentially, little or nothing changes when you read the same piece in a different language, but what does change is a certain flavour the work has. And it is by no means necessarily a bad change. Even though my mother drears when I say that, I still prefer many notable Russian authors (included poetry!) in translations to Croatian, and to those I even more prefer translations to Italian, because I like the 'flavour' of those languages generally better, so anything conveyed to them is more natural and more congenial to me. Despite having been surrounded by those languages from the very birth, somehow I never got a thing for Russian, which extends to reading as well. I can read Dostoevsky in Russian, and have done that multiple times, usually when reading some work for the first time, but I do like him much better in Italian, especially for second reading.

That being said, I always try to read the original first, but if it does not suit me at all and if the weird feeling of weird 'flavour' does not go away after a couple of dozen of pages, I switch the language without remorse.
Translations are excellent, when you get into them more you start to have preferred translators and those who convey the 'flavour' exactly the way you like it. Certainly, some of the charm must be off - but you would be surprised how many times some of the entirely unexpected charm is added, the note of something which original does not even have.

It does not mean that every time I read a book in Russian, I get pulled off, nor that there are no works in Italian which I dislike in Italian - it is simply something that happens rather regularly, so I noted it. Still not sure what precisely it depends on, my mood or something else, but I have grown rather fond of some translations even in cases where I read the original as well.

Usually I like poetry better in originals (except partially for Russian), but I do have rather surprising oscilations with prose.

In school I attended we had to translate a lot of excerpts of classics, and the general rule was: non verbum pro verbo sed sensum pro sensu, i.e. you do not translate word by word, but sense by sense. This is what causes diversity in translations. Translation is nearly an art, and certainly not an easy job; it is basically an art of re-writing a piece of literature in another language, the way that it does retain its original essence and puns, but that it is adapted to the rhytm and ways of another language and culture. Anyone who even remotely dealt with it and compared various translations, such as myself in school, knows that it is incredibly hard thing to do. I bow to people who can do it the way that translation is unique and linguistically and culturally adapted yet that it has that "je ne sais quoi" which does not essentially separate them from the original, because I myself, despite being a polyglot, despite being even taught how to do it, could never do it.

The bottomline is, unless you strictly aim for the body of literature written only in the languages you speak, you will rely on translations. Better to try a few before choosing, differences are sometimes drastic, then go for the one you feel the most comfortable with. With time you grow to realise which translators' styles you like, so it is easier.

[LitNetIsGreat]

That is quite an interesting point about the flavour of the text, I do get what you mean. It is very interesting to think that despite being able to read the original someone would prefer the translation. I can see how Italian would lend itself well to poetry though, it sounds like the language was built for poetry alone.

I just wonder when it comes to really close reading the text, examining the subtle connotations of word choice, the precise adjectives (for whatever reason this may be) is all but redundant from a translation copy.

I known I am just being a little picky and in real terms there is no reason why you can’t enjoy something that has been translated. Maybe this adds a further dimension to the text as there are more “voices” within it, or maybe this is just a little frustration creeping in at only being able to read one language?

[Dori]

My answer: good enough. I sometimes doubt that the investment of time in learning the language is worth what you might lose in reading a translation.

[kiki1982]

Most translations, if not abridged of course, are kind of good. But still, what I do find translators do not tend to take notice of is the time the book was written in. If I see translations of Dumas for example (which I read in French) then I really wouldn't be able to read it.

The 19th century soul of the work is just gone totally! To be honest, you should really look for a translation made at the time the original was written. And ideally approved by the author, the you might maybe get something that actually sounds 19th century and not modern like they tend to do...

I have a culture-thing with French... Something that was originally written in French is for me difficult for example in English. There just seems to be another philosophy, culture etc to it. The same with films in the language... The Three Musketeers in English is just not natural to me. There is something that stings. Les Miserables as well... And that are a few examples...
Jane Eyre in French would also not be very ideal, would it?

A flavour-thing I don't particularly have, although I do read in Dutch (mothertongue), French, English and German, so I would easily be able to switch if I liked. Though I do find French a very nice language, but for it's own stories. German is very very poetic and archaic so everything, even in modern German, sounds kind of distinguished. Enlgish is also for its own stories. I think I just like all thing preferably in their own language, because something originally written in German, would, as I said, be totally archaic in English. Maybe French would be ok. In Dutch it would sound like something from the middle ages, or so, the language being quite direct and not very lyric in its own...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Most translations, if not abridged of course, are kind of good. But still, what I do find translators do not tend to take notice of is the time the book was written in. If I see translations of Dumas for example (which I read in French) then I really wouldn't be able to read it.

The 19th century soul of the work is just gone totally! To be honest, you should really look for a translation made at the time the original was written. And ideally approved by the author, the you might maybe get something that actually sounds 19th century and not modern like they tend to do...

Yes I think this is a very good point and something which I hadn't really thought about. I do consider this whole subject quite fascinating and I thank all the posters for their time in replying.

I must say that it is interesting that you say the German language is very poetic, to me, who is someone who doesn't speak the language, it doesn't come across this way. Italian and French do, but not necessarily German, strong and traditional yes, but poetic is not how I would have placed it.

I suppose like everything else it is all just a question of perspective and as you say a French Jane Eyre would seem to shatter the story completely from my point of view. All in all I think you just have to go by instinct of what seems right to the individual reader, and maybe it is all about what you as a reader bring to the text, rather than what language the text is written in.

[Annamariah]

Most translations, if not abridged of course, are kind of good. But still, what I do find translators do not tend to take notice of is the time the book was written in. If I see translations of Dumas for example (which I read in French) then I really wouldn't be able to read it.

The 19th century soul of the work is just gone totally! To be honest, you should really look for a translation made at the time the original was written. And ideally approved by the author, the you might maybe get something that actually sounds 19th century and not modern like they tend to do...

I have to disagree about this one. I'd say that when you read a book that was written a long ago in its original language, it's usually just fine. You notice that the language is different than it would be if it was written now, but it doesn't matter. It's still fluent and understandable.

But when you read a translation which was made a long time ago, it often is hopelessly old to the point where it's difficult to understand and just doesn't feel right.

I don't know why translations get "outdated" much faster than original texts, and whether this is something that is characteristic only to Finnish or whether the same phenomenon occurs in other languages as well. Has anyone else ever noticed anything like this?

So I'm all for re-translating classics every now and then instead of just sticking with the old translations. Of course it is very important for the translator to keep in mind when the original text was written and avoid too modern vocabulary and all that. My point is that when the work is done well, re-translating is actually a very good thing.

[curlyqlink]

On Proust in translation:

I have seen the view expressed that C.K. Scott Moncrieff's translation into English is so much better and lucid than the original, that it should be translated back into French. Even if it is obvious that such an eccentric opinion merely expresses its author's taste for outrageous paradox, it still remains the stament of a view which, in a more moderate form, is apparently shared by other readers.

Proust has been described as having a style which, in its extremely intricate involvements and convolutions, is reminiscent of the obscurity attending certain German philosophers rather than that classic purity which is the hallmark of the genius of French prose.

--Milton Hindus, The Proustian Vision

[Jozanny]

I am not so well versed in the issue of translation to add much to this discussion, but my problem is nearly the inverse of Anastasija's. I feel something is lost of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and other 19th century Russian authors in English--and I have no affinity for Russian itself to be able to judge--it is an instinct, really, that something is *off*, and I don't know what to look for to correct for that; the exception to this is Tatyana Tolstaya, but she is assimilated into the Western lexicon.

[Drkshadow03]

My answer: good enough. I sometimes doubt that the investment of time in learning the language is worth what you might lose in reading a translation.

Heh. Well aren't there other reasons to learn a language besides literary studies? You know like actually speaking it and being able to talk to other peoples from a foreign country or even be able to do business and perform services for populations who speak a second language other than English in the context of America (say Spanish I imagine might be very useful to learn beyond for the sake of literary studies).