What makes a good translation?

DWM

Reader
The question is asked by Ollie Brock, writing in the New Statesman:

What makes a good translation? How is one produced? Young translators are usually advised to find an undiscovered author they might have a good relationship with and whose work they love. Yet both these roads are potholed. Publishers, who simply want to find the best person to translate a foreign book, are usually wary of an author-translator alliance presented to them as a fait accompli. There’s a whiff of cronyism to it. And as for the second point, a translator’s passion for a particular novel can hinder as much as help: a “kind” translation isn’t a very honest one. Lydia Davis admitted that she “didn’t actually like” Flaubert’s Madame Bovary but this didn’t stop her editor judging her to be the person best qualified to render the new version. “A translator is to be like his author,” Dr Johnson said. “It is not his duty to excel him.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/09/translators-shouldn%E2%80%99t-be-slaves-holy-original%E2%80%9D
 
Last edited:

Stevie B

Current Member
I think a good translation is one that is most faithful to the original text. I imagine, though, that it must be challenging for a translator to stay faithful when the translated text would read better with a little tweaking here and there.
 

DWM

Reader
I think a good translation is one that is most faithful to the original text. I imagine, though, that it must be challenging for a translator to stay faithful when the translated text would read better with a little tweaking here and there.

It’s certainly not an easy subject to be categorical about. “Faithful” is the magic word, I guess, and there can’t be many translators who have started out with anything but an intention to remain faithful, as they see it, to the original text. The vital question is, though, how one defines “faithfulness” – is it literal adherence to the text, is it harmony with the “spirit” of the text, whatever that may be, is it a combination of both, or is it something else, something that can’t be defined in so many words?

In arguments about translation, a musical analogy is often brought up: i.e. literary translators are viewed as being akin to musical performers who interpret a piece of music. Yet the analogy only goes so far, as a musical performer may re-interpret the same piece of music many times, over and over again, in different ways, while translators must usually make their interpretation once, and have it frozen in the medium of print.

I think Ollie Brock does a good job in covering many of the bases in this controversial field, and in taking the musical analogy to a new level:

In music, it is perfectly acceptable to arrange a previously written piece for a new instrument or ensemble. When Franz Liszt transcribed a Beethoven concerto for solo piano, no one was about to complain that they couldn’t hear the violins.

That’s a good point, and it does raise some interesting questions about “faithfulness”.
 

Stevie B

Current Member
It’s certainly not an easy subject to be categorical about. “Faithful” is the magic word, I guess, and there can’t be many translators who have started out with anything but an intention to remain faithful, as they see it, to the original text. The vital question is, though, how one defines “faithfulness” – is it literal adherence to the text, is it harmony with the “spirit” of the text, whatever that may be, is it a combination of both, or is it something else, something that can’t be defined in so many words?

In arguments about translation, a musical analogy is often brought up: i.e. literary translators are viewed as being akin to musical performers who interpret a piece of music. Yet the analogy only goes so far, as a musical performer may re-interpret the same piece of music many times, over and over again, in different ways, while translators must usually make their interpretation once, and have it frozen in the medium of print.

I think Ollie Brock does a good job in covering many of the bases in this controversial field, and in taking the musical analogy to a new level:

In music, it is perfectly acceptable to arrange a previously written piece for a new instrument or ensemble. When Franz Liszt transcribed a Beethoven concerto for solo piano, no one was about to complain that they couldn’t hear the violins.

That’s a good point, and it does raise some interesting questions about “faithfulness”.

You've raised some issues that I hadn't previously considered, David. Being "faithful" to an original text is not as black and white as I had originally thought. You must face some additional challenges when translating older texts for contemporary readers. When translating Dostoevsky, for example, did you avoid using more contemporary expressions? Does your approach differ when translating older classics?

On a different note, when reading book reviews, reviewers will occasionally give a nod to the translator. They'll state, for example, that a book was "beautifully translated". When reviewers do this, I assume they are commenting on things like flow and word choice, not the "faithfulness" in which a book was translated. Would you agree with this?
 

DWM

Reader
You've raised some issues that I hadn't previously considered, David. Being "faithful" to an original text is not as black and white as I had originally thought. You must face some additional challenges when translating older texts for contemporary readers. When translating Dostoevsky, for example, did you avoid using more contemporary expressions? Does your approach differ when translating older classics?

On a different note, when reading book reviews, reviewers will occasionally give a nod to the translator. They'll state, for example, that a book was "beautifully translated". When reviewers do this, I assume they are commenting on things like flow and word choice, not the "faithfulness" in which a book was translated. Would you agree with this?

Stevie, I hope that it won't seem unhelpful if in this discussion I concentrate on the general issues raised in Ollie Brock's article, and don't get waylaid into considering aspects of my own work as a translator!

However, I will say that in my translation of Crime and Punishment I deliberately set out to use "contemporary" (i.e. modern) forms of English speech as being suitable for a Russian-language work that in its own day (the 1860s) was intensely contemporary and topical - it was a public, journalistic and literary sensation, and a translation ought to reflect that. Without changing meanings, I also tried to expand some of Dostoyevsky's "literary shorthand" in the book, a device which as far as anyone can see was mainly caused by his pressing need to work against the clock. In my translation of Brothers Karamazov, on the other hand, I chose to follow the conscious strangeness, quaintness even, of the literary style that's characteristic of the obscure narrator-persona into whose mouth and pen Dostoyevsky places the long, discursive account - the style of that novel is not at all akin to ordinary Russian, and therefore makes the book more difficult for the reader, in Russian too. In my translation of The Idiot I aimed to take account of its rather Frenchified style and language, which set it somewhat apart from the author's other major novels.

Re your other question: I think that, in the U.K., at least, literary reviewers of translations often don't have a proper command of the language in which the original works were written. But in my view that doesn't necessarily disqualify their judgments, or prevent them from having validity - after all, most of the books' readers won't know those languages either. So if a reviewer finds a translation "beautifully written", that is a valid point of appreciation.

And I guess that brings us to the most important point in the discussion: translations aren't and can't be clones of the original. By their very nature and definition, they are translations. I like Brock's analogy:

We invoke the Latin etymology of “translate”, which roughly means to “carry across” – for example, from one riverbank to another. In the absence of a bridge, someone needs to wade in, holding our bundle over their heads. If that’s really the idea, should we be surprised that our treasure is wet and mud-spattered by the time it reaches us?

 

Flint

Reader
I think it is very difficult to judge translations, because if you read a book in translation it's because you don't know the language well enough to read it in the original - therefore, if you are unable to examine the original work you are in no position to judge if the translation is a good rendering of it or not. That is why, in my experience, readers tend to be very uncritical of translations - they tend to take it for granted that what they have read in translation is exactly the same thing (as if that was possible!) that the author wrote in the original. Therefore whatever fault a reader finds will normally be blamed on the author.

To cure his students of the mistaken belief that you can judge a writer's style from a translation of her/his works, a friend of mine who taught in some college used to present his class with two very different translations of the same text (like Garnet vs Pevear/Volokhonsky) to show them how different the 'style' was in each translation. The fact that a majority of students invariably preferred the Garnett versions, because they 'sounded better', only proves in my view that they liked one style better than the other, not that one translator was better than the other.
 

Hamlet

Reader
I think it is very difficult to judge translations, because if you read a book in translation it's because you don't know the language well enough to read it in the original - therefore, if you are unable to examine the original work you are in no position to judge if the translation is a good rendering of it or not. That is why, in my experience, readers tend to be very uncritical of translations - they tend to take it for granted that what they have read in translation is exactly the same thing (as if that was possible!) that the author wrote in the original. Therefore whatever fault a reader finds will normally be blamed on the author.



To cure his students of the mistaken belief that you can judge a writer's style from a translation of her/his works, a friend of mine who taught in some college used to present his class with two very different translations of the same text (like Garnet vs Pevear/Volokhonsky) to show them how different the 'style' was in each translation. The fact that a majority of students invariably preferred the Garnett versions, because they 'sounded better', only proves in my view that they liked one style better than the other, not that one translator was better than the other.

Interesting point sir,

I suspect that one way of going about things might be to try and read a few pages in the original, translate it yourself, and then having picked up on tone, and the writer's style etc, you then slide over to the translation but with the memory of the original ringing in your ears; not ideal perhaps but with translations you do sometimes think: all I'm really reading here is a guide book to the original.

Easier said than done hey, esp. if one picks up something like Dante's 13th century Florentine Italian... :confused:
 
Last edited:

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
Interesting point sir, I believe that one way of going about things (apart from having the pages opposite) is to try and read a few pages in the original, translate it yourself, and then having picked up on tone, and the writer's style etc, you then slide over to the translation but with the memory of the original ringing in your ears; not ideal perhaps (and certainly not lazy or the quickest way...), but with translations you do sometimes think: all I'm really reading here is a guide book to the original.

Easier said than done hey, esp. if one picks up something like Dante's 13th century Florentine Italian... :confused:

Great suggestion, I'll follow your advice in the future.
And by the way, Dante you say...

Describing how the souls in purgatory swarm around him on his way to heaven, how sadly the poor spirits of the dead are left behind, and how they ask for his help, Dante wrote the following perfectly readable and thus translatable verses:
(the only troublesome word was zara, but Spanish came to my help: zara = azar = chance)

Quando si parte il gioco de la zara,
colui che perde si riman dolente,
repetendo le volte, e tristo impara;

con l'altro se ne va tutta la gente;
qual va dinanzi, e qual di dietro il prende,
e qual dallato li si reca a mente;

el non s'arresta, e questo e quello intende;


When the game of dice breaks up,
the one who loses remains in pain,
repeating the throws, sadly wising up;

the whole crowd follows the one who wins:
some go in front, some from behind him reach,
some at his side recall themselves to his mind.

He does not stop, and in turn attends to each.
 

Hamlet

Reader
I studied Italian years ago Cleanthess, but I wouldn't be too happy with attempting any kind of translation. It's not so much the words, but the whole medieval 'feel' to it that would stump me.

I guess that's where professional translators come in?

But if having read it for a few pages, and if I got a feel for it, I can see how jumping over to a translation may carry the idea of it over... something like that, feel/vibe/subconscious aspects... you know, those mysteries of language that nobody can fully explain... but I'm not confident it would work for me even then, perhaps for a native speaker...
 
Last edited:

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
I studied Italian years ago Cleanthess, but I wouldn't be too happy with attempting any kind of translation. It's not so much the words, but the whole medieval 'feel' to it that would stump me.

I guess that's where professional translators come in?

But if having read it for a few pages, and if I got a feel for it, I can see how jumping over to a translation may carry the idea of it over... something like that, feel/vibe/subconscious aspects... you know, those mysteries of language that nobody can fully explain... but I'm not confident it would work for me even then, perhaps for a native speaker...

I understand, going through a long poem in a language we don't know very well is daunting. I remember as a teen, with just one year of high school English under my belt, reading Paradise Lost and loving every minute of it (despite having to use a dictionary a dozen times on each page, sometimes more often) because of Milton's glorious language (I also had a prose translation handy to quickly solve any doubt as to the meaning of the poem). Later in life I had that same experience when reading the Baldus of Teofilo Folengo aka Merlin Cocai, which is written in Macaronic Latin, and having a ball figuring out what the words were supposed to mean (of course I read it with a facing pages translation into English as a guide into Folengo's Forgotten Foreign Forest).
My advice? Get translations of long poems with the original on the facing pages. That way, when you come to a part you specially like, you can put in the little effort needed to try and read those lines in the original language too. Believe me, it is so worth the trouble.

Anyways, just a little taste of the fictional/linguistic wonders of the Baldus, from a page picked at random:

Qui sua, pro specchio, Baldo simulachra palesant.
Horum quisquis adhuc vivit cum corpore vivo
rex hic efficitur, non re sed imagine rei.
Ut puta, quando Hector, seu Theseus, sive Ferandus
Gonziacus vivebar adhuc in carne davera,
ille guereggiabat re vera in corpore vivo,
nec fabat alcunas impresas contra rasonem.
sed sua fra tantum speties, vel imago, sedebar
intra gaiardorum princeps simulachra virorum.

They show to Baldo, as in a mirror, their simulacra.
Whoever among them still lives in his living body
is now made king, not in reality, but as a King's image.
For example, when Hector or Theseus or Ferrante
Gonzaga still really lived in the the true flesh,
he fought as a true king in a live body,
and did not do any enterprise against reason.
Yet all the while his specter or image was seated
as the leader of the images of these chivalrous men.
 

Hamlet

Reader
I am tending to buy dual-language texts these days, if available, the last being a book of short stories in Russian, beginning with Pushkin... at the least, it gives a flavour.
Penguin have published Dante with a dual-text in recent years, so it may be a trend, with people more curious than ever about the originals, even if they don't have the language!

Yes, Latin, silver age or other, as with Greek, Homeric or Attic, or other, if only languages had one phase, but they just keep on evolving don't they...
 
Last edited:

Loki

Reader
Dante wrote the following perfectly readable and thus translatable verses:
(the only troublesome word was zara, but Spanish came to my help: zara = azar = chance)

Quando si parte il gioco de la zara,
colui che perde si riman dolente,
repetendo le volte, e tristo impara;

con l'altro se ne va tutta la gente;
qual va dinanzi, e qual di dietro il prende,
e qual dallato li si reca a mente;

el non s'arresta, e questo e quello intende;


When the game of dice breaks up,
the one who loses remains in pain,
repeating the throws, sadly wising up;

the whole crowd follows the one who wins:
some go in front, some from behind him reach,
some at his side recall themselves to his mind.

He does not stop, and in turn attends to each.

It may well be translatable, and it has been indeed translated numerous times, but none of the translations can render (not even vaguely) Dante's verses. Not just because of the rhymes (terzina dantesca), but because of the language itself: Italians can read Vernacular, while the English cannot read Chaucer (who even comes a bit later than Dante). So if you were to translate it "faithfully" (a swearword in translation studies...) you should translate it in Middle English, that can't be read by most people.
Your translation may be faithful from the point of view of vocabulary, but it hasn't got that feel, as somebody's already said.



Getting back to the title of this thread, apart from the faithfulness (that as has been explained is not at all easy to define, especially when one starts to translate), I think a good translation must also be well-written, meaning without spelling mistakes, punctiation mistakes, ecc., which drive me mad.
 

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
Loki, agreed, but the goal of the original exercise was not to translate for others, but for yourself, so that while reading a translation you can get a better feel for what the author intended.

For example, consider this seemingly clumsy and muddled couple of sentences from the beginning of Madame Bovary. Translated, they are cumbersome to read:

His legs, in blue stockings, looked out from beneath yellow trousers, drawn tight by braces, He wore stout, ill-cleaned, hob-nailed boots.

But in the original, the rhythm and sound of the words reveal Flaubert's masterful phrasing:

Ses jambes, en bas bleus, sortaient d'un pantalon jaunâtre très tiré par les bretelles. Il était chaussé de souliers forts, mal cirés, garnis de clous.

Also notice that the mot juste for jaunatre is not yellow, but yellowish, to convey a certain disdain. In that paragraph Flaubert describes the poor boy's appearance and clothing as almost clownish: bad haircut, green, black, red, blue and yellow colors, ugly shoes, clothing too tight and small.

On the other hand, consider the absolutely awesome ending of the first part of Proust's Cities of the Plain, where the ironic mockery is dripping from every sentence in the original, and how Moncrieff manages to keep most of it in his translation:

For the two angels who were posted at the gates of Sodom to learn whether its inhabitants (according to Genesis) had indeed done all the things the report of which had ascended to the Eternal Throne must have been, and of this one can only be glad, exceedingly ill chosen by the Lord, Who ought not to have entrusted the task to any but a Sodomite. And he would at once have made them retrace their steps to the city which the rain of fire and brimstone was to destroy. On the contrary, they allowed to escape all the shame-faced Sodomites, even if these, on catching sight of a boy, turned their heads, like Lot’s wife, though without being on that account changed like her into pillars of salt. With the result that they engendered a numerous posterity with whom this gesture has continued to be habitual, like that of the dissolute women who, while apparently studying a row of shoes displayed in a shop window, turn their heads to keep track of a passing student. These descendants of the Sodomites, so numerous that we may apply to them that other verse of Genesis: “If a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered,” have established themselves throughout the entire world; they have had access to every profession and pass so easily into the most exclusive clubs that, whenever a Sodomite fails to secure election, the blackballs are, for the most part, cast by other Sodomites, who are anxious to penalize sodomy, having inherited the falsehood that enabled their ancestors to escape from the accursed city. It is possible that they may return there one day. Certainly they form in every land an Oriental colony, cultured, musical, malicious, which has certain charming qualities and intolerable defects. We shall study them with greater thoroughness in the course of the following pages; but I have thought it as well to utter here a provisional warning against the lamentable error of proposing (just as people have encouraged a Zionist movement) to create a Sodomist movement and to rebuild Sodom. For, no sooner had they arrived there than the Sodomites would leave the town so as not to have the appearance of belonging to it, would take wives, keep mistresses in other cities where they would find, incidentally, every diversion that appealed to them. They would repair to Sodom only on days of supreme necessity, when their own town was empty, at those seasons when hunger drives the wolf from the woods; in other words, everything would go on very much as it does to-day in London, Berlin, Rome, Petrograd or Paris.

Anyhow, on the day in question, before paying my call on the Duchess, I did not look so far ahead, and I was distressed to find that I had, by my engrossment in the Jupien-Charlus conjunction, missed perhaps an opportunity of witnessing the fertilization of the blossom by the bee.

Car les deux anges qui avaient été placés aux portes de Sodome pour savoir si ses habitants, dit la Genèse, avaient entièrement fait toutes ces choses dont le cri était monté jusqu’à l’Éternel, avaient été, on ne peut que s’en réjouir, très mal choisis par le Seigneur, lequel n’eût dû confier la tâche qu’à un Sodomiste. Et il leur aurait immédiatement fait rebrousser chemin vers la ville qu’allait détruire la pluie de feu et de soufre.
Au contraire, on laissa s’enfuir tous les Sodomistes honteux, même si, apercevant un jeune garçon, ils détournaient la tête, comme la femme de Loth, sans être pour cela changés comme elle en statues de sel. De sorte qu’ils eurent une nombreuse postérité chez qui ce geste est resté habituel, pareil à celui des femmes débauchées qui, en ayant l’air de regarder un étalage de chaussures placées derrière une vitrine, retournent la tête vers un étudiant. Ces descendants des Sodomistes, si nombreux qu’on peut leur appliquer l’autre verset de la Genèse: «Si quelqu’un peut compter la poussière de la terre, il pourra aussi compter cette postérité», se sont fixés sur toute la terre, ils ont eu accès à toutes les professions, et entrent si bien dans les clubs les plus fermés que, quand un sodomiste n’y est pas admis, les boules noires y sont en majorité celles de sodomistes, mais qui ont soin d’incriminer la sodomie, ayant hérité le mensonge qui permit à leurs ancêtres de quitter la ville maudite. Il est possible qu’ils y retournent un jour. Certes ils forment dans tous les pays une colonie orientale, cultivée, musicienne, médisante, qui a des qualités charmantes et d’insupportables défauts. On les verra d’une façon plus approfondie au cours des pages qui suivront; mais on a voulu provisoirement prévenir l’erreur funeste qui consisterait, de même qu’on a encouragé un mouvement sioniste, à créer un mouvement sodomiste et à rebâtir Sodome. Or, à peine arrivés, les sodomistes quitteraient la ville pour ne pas avoir l’air d’en être, prendraient femme, entretiendraient des maîtresses dans d’autres cités, où ils trouveraient d’ailleurs toutes les distractions convenables. Ils n’iraient à Sodome que les jours de suprême nécessité, quand leur ville serait vide, par ces temps où la faim fait sortir le loup du bois, c’est-à-dire que tout se passerait en somme comme à Londres, à Berlin, à Rome, à Pétrograd ou à Paris.

En tout cas, ce jour-là, avant ma visite à la duchesse, je ne songeais pas si loin et j’étais désolé d’avoir, par attention à la conjonction Jupien–Charlus, manqué peut-être de voir la fécondation de la fleur par le bourdon.

In both cases, good and bad translations, it pays to do some validation of your own. Caveat lector, and all that.
 

Loki

Reader
Loki, agreed, but the goal of the original exercise was not to translate for others, but for yourself, so that while reading a translation you can get a better feel for what the author intended.

For others or for yourself, things do not change: how can you get the feel of (let's stick to this example) Dante's verses without knowing Italian (nay, the Vernacular)? What do you need that translation for? In that way, I think, you can only get what Dante is saying semantically speaking, but nothing more than that...
I am not saying that you're wrong and I'm right, or that your translations are bad, none of that: I am just saying that it's difficult to get as excited of a translation as people are while reading the Comedìa. The translations always seem plain when compared to the source text (and even though some scholars prefer to consider translations of poetry as separate works of art, the comparison is inevitable). This is not because Dante was Italian and I am Italian: the same reasoning would perfectly apply to the Italian translations of Shakespeare, for instance.

Anyway... Am I missing something?
 

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
For others or for yourself, things do not change: how can you get the feel of (let's stick to this example) Dante's verses without knowing Italian (nay, the Vernacular)? What do you need that translation for? In that way, I think, you can only get what Dante is saying semantically speaking, but nothing more than that...

Loki, I understand better your point now. Thanks for making it clearer. Of course no translation is ever going to compare to Dante's original, Dante being the greatest poet of the last 1000 years and all; nonetheless translations are helpful for those of us who are not fully fluent in the original language to better understand what the translated work says, kind of a ladder to reach the author's meaning. Fully understanding 'what Dante is saying semantically speaking' is a necessary but not sufficient step to enjoying the Comedia.

Moving on, your last post brings up another interesting point. As Borges once said: to readers of a work in translation, each new translation of the book is a new avatar of the beloved work. Look at the many versions of the Arabian Nights by Galland, Mardrus, Burton, etc. Each one is different from the others, and each has its own charm and virtues. Or consider the versions of Pu Song Ling's Fantastic Tales of Liao: the complete Italian version from the beginning of the 20th. Century and the complete French version from the beginning of the 21th. or the Victorian English translation from the 19th., and the best of all translations, the partial one done by Chinese scholars in the middle of the last Century, each translation slightly different from each other and revealing new layers of meaning of the original work. For those of us who love a particular book this abundance of versions is a gift; a garden closed to those who only read the book in the original.

And then there are the philosophical elements of translation. Why does Montale translate well into other languages but Ungaretti doesn't? Neruda but not Vallejo? Cavafy but not Sikelianos? Ritsos but not Elytis? Baudelaire but not Leopardi?

On a completely different topic, what is the opinion of the Italian reading public about Aldo Busi? I really used to like his books, but he has made such a fool of himself in the last decade or so…
 

Loki

Reader
But at that point wouldn't it be better to consider all these different versions/translations as works on their own? I won't go as far as saying that it should be, for instance, "The Tempest by Salvatore Quasimodo", but almost: at the end of the day, the translator is indeed an author, and he/she should be considered as such.

I agree with what you say about different versions revealing new layers of meaning, but I don't when you talk about a garden closed to those who only read the book in the original. Of course it's a different experience: while the person who reads different translations of a book may comprehend the full meaning of it gradually, the person who reads the source text (I won't call it the "original text" as I think this belittles the translation) has access to all the layers immediately. (Obviously this may require more than one reading, but that's another story completely.)

As to Aldo Busi I cannot help you, as I've never read him. :(
 

Estrela

New member
Loki said: Anyway... Am I missing something?

I think you missed the misspelling you made in 'punctuation', in your previous post, when saying how much you hate misspellings and
punctuation errors in translations. ;-)
 
Uhm, What makes a good translation? Well, it should be something that is easy to understand and patterned right to the original because if not the logic and idea is usually change which is not okay for me. In other words, it should be I think is near to perfection where you will not notice any flaws or whatsoever.
 

metin

Reader
(the only troublesome word was zara, but Spanish came to my help: zara = azar = chance)

Quando si parte il gioco de la zara,
colui che perde si riman dolente,
repetendo le volte, e tristo impara;


When the game of dice breaks up,
the one who loses remains in pain,
repeating the throws, sadly wising up;

Hi Cleanthess,

"La zara" means "dice" in old Italian or the Mediterranean Lingua Franca, from Arabic "zār" [ زار ], "hasard" in French. According to Guillaume de Tyre (12th century) it was invented during the Crusaders' siege of the city of Hasart.

I came across this thread while searching for an idea to help relieve the predicament I am recently in. I am trying to translate a well-known Turkish author who has a unique style of prose, yet, the flavor of words translated lacks of, in my opinion, the sharpness and authoritative air of his original wording. Maybe this translation should be done by a native English speaker, or someone erudite on the English language.

This writer had an idelological agenda which he did not refrain from resorting to in philosophizing his poetic and aesthetical concerns in his works. Although I personally find the tone of his literary peevishness quite irritating, his prose was incontestable by the standards of 20th century. Now, expecting your harshest criticism, I'd like to share here a piece I did:

"A hierarchy, like a tightly reeled up huge ball of yarn, coiled, imbricated from the first end to the last, with fibres sticking out and gathered inside, occupying an infinite space and having an infinitely unique center, consequently, outlined in knots as a mesh of ideas ordained to capture the grounds for all things and events throughout all times past and future…An integral hierarchy of belief, vision and caliber…It is called “The Greater East”…

The Greater East? Is it a denotation relating to the well known event of nascence? Or is it the indication of the certain Eastern world? It is the latter, with or within the first! This appellation infolds the original Eastern world from all outer lines and inner vignettes such as domes and cypresses, palaces and rotundas, arches and ruins, on a horizon turned pink by the sparkling breathe of the seed which cracks its shell merely intending to come about…

In addition to the concomitant double denotation, and above these all, it is a meaning which captures the whole earth like the sun, claiming to serve as a model for the entire humanity. It is indeed a nascence. It is indeed the East. In very deed, it is the nascence of the East.


I have tried my best to be faithful to the original text. But, the question is, is it readable at all? Would you take up a book with sentences like this? I don't know if I don't like it just because I translated it myself. Maybe I am being over-dyslogistic. If I am commissioned to translate this author's works, well, it will take me years to finish all his books. So this is also a cry to have your opinion which may shape my career as a translator. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Metin
 

tiganeasca

Moderator
A lovely, unending, topic.

I found across this great quote recently: Joseph Conrad to his niece (who translated all of his works from English back into Polish!)

“Don’t trouble to be too scrupulous. I may tell you that in my opinion it is better to interpret than to translate. It is, then, a question of finding the equivalent expressions. And there, my dear, I beg you to let yourself be guided more by your temperament than by a strict conscience.”


[With apologies to BergmanFan]
 
Top