Translations

[sci-fi girl]

I'm French and most of the books I read are translations (well, except for those which are written in French in the first place).
I started to read original books in English 2 years ago for two reasons. First, some of the French translated series I started were out of stock for years and I ran out of patience. (The Valdemar series by Mercedes Lackey for example).
And I wanted to discover some authors well-known in England or in USA but not in France 'cause none/few of their books are translating in French (Patricia McKillip).

I love to read in English. It's a beautiful language but it takes me quite a bit of concentration to get in the mood at first. I have to read slower than when I read in French so that I don't miss anything.
If it's possible, I prefer to read the French translations; most of them are not that bad though French editors have that despicable habit of slicing original English books in two and sometimes even three parts.

 

[Nikitta]

If a book is originally written in Danish, Swedish, Norwegian or English I'll prefer to read it in the original language - Danish, Swedish and Norwegian being so close to each other that we can read each other's languages with little difficulty. Preferring the original version is partly due to availability, but also because I find that a lot is often lost in translation. There are good translations out there, but some books are simply impossible to translate right. For instance, reading the Danish translation of Hitchhiker's, I just thought it was kind of funny, but reading it in English made me a fan. I also find it difficult to imagine how a translator could possibly do justice to, for instance, the prose of Ursula Le Guin - not to mention Tolkien. Besides - reading books in English helps me improve my English.

However, I can make an exception if I find a translated book incredibly cheap, like at a library sale.

If a book is originally written in a language I don't speak I will prefer the Danish translation, if available, since it is my native language and therefore easier for me to read. If there is a loss in the translation, it is bound to be no smaller in an English tranlation than in a Danish one. The books I'm currently reading by Calvino and Camus, I read in their Danish translations.

Danish being such a small language does, however, mean that it's limited how much is translated into Danish and the SFF bookshop in Copenhagen only has books in English. Sadly, this means that Danish SFF-writers are left out there and someone, like me, who came to the genre fairly late will find themselves lacking knowledge about them as there isn't much, if any, focus on them and that's a pity. I expect that deliberately looking for them at the library might be a help if I decide to do something about it. It is still something which would require a conscious effort and where I can't really ask my fellow SFF-fans for help, since they also mainly read books in English - if they don't only read in English, as a lot of them do.

As I'm writing this, I get an urge to make an effort to find out more about this. It will be odd when mixed with my little exploration of certain Italian litterature, with the help of Gollum, but variation is the spice of life and all that, so I'm thinking it's a good idea.

 

[Allegra]

In general I would image that the style of the translator will inevitably creep into the translation no matter how faithful you try to be to the original. I really can't see how any translator could avoid it. There is simply loads of stuff that won't translate literally correctly (that doesn't sound right ). Just think about idioms for a starter - many idioms would be completely incomprehensible in different languages.

I totally agree. Especially when it comes to poetry, humour, satire, etc. How is it possible to translate them to a completely different language without losing the original style, tone, colouration, even the meaning? I guess in many literary work translations the translators often are forced to be, well, creative rather than faithful.

To me if a novel translation reads like a translation, clumsy here and there, then it's not a good translation. One of the most enjoyable translated novels I've read is The Shadow of The Wind by Carlos Zafon - it's not that I know how well it was translated from the original - my Spanish vocabulary is limited to hola and gracias, but the book was so beautifully written (or translated?) it reads like it's originally written in English!

 

[Nikitta]

I totally agree. Especially when it comes to poetry, humour, satire, etc. How is it possible to translate them to a completely different language without losing the original style, tone, colouration, even the meaning? I guess in many literary work translations the translators often are forced to be, well, creative rather than faithful.

Very true and I suppose there's also some cultural difference to consider when translating. However, it also happens that the translator gets too creative and that can ruin it too. This is something people will mostly notice in subtitles, since you have both the original version spoken and the translation written, but there are some cringeworthy translations of books too.

 

[Connavar]

Nikitta i must tell you being swedish and reading Danish is not easy. I can stutter my through Norwegian books because its close to swedish.
Watching Danish tv shows like Anna Phil(sp?) or the films i can maybe understand one word in a 100.

I havent tried reading a danish book though. You make me wonder if i can read it. I doubt since i cant understand when people speak it.

 

[Liese]

Connovar, when I was an exchange student in Sweden we had some Danish books for lectures (they were about bike lanes). I find reading Danish to be much easier than listening. OT Did you read my message to you? It's hidden in the public messages.

Sometimes I prefer the German version, if the English book has too much dialog in slang. And some translators really improve the text. A famous example are Donald Duck comics, the German versions are filled with allusions to literature, alliterations etc. But more often the translators miss something. I think Lord Dunsany would easily be translated into German and keep its beauty.

 

[Nikitta]

Nikitta i must tell you being swedish and reading Danish is not easy. I can stutter my through Norwegian books because its close to swedish.
Watching Danish tv shows like Anna Phil(sp?) or the films i can maybe understand one word in a 100.

I havent tried reading a danish book though. You make me wonder if i can read it. I doubt since i cant understand when people speak it.

There's a lot less difference in writing than in pronounciation. Danish doesn't have an as close relation between spelling and pronounciation as Swedish and Norwegian does and that's, IME, what causes the most problems. We also speak fast, mumble quite a bit and skip pronouncing parts of some words and that doesn't exactly help you understand us.

In Denmark, we're given Norwegian and Swedish texts in school and we're expected to be able to read them. I simply expected it to be in the same way in Norway and Sweden. Am I wrong?

Keep in mind, though, that I've lived in Sweden for 3 years once and in Norway for 6 months, plus I've done customer service on the phone for those three countries, so I'll admit that I'll have a much easier time of it than most people would, but it's my impression that most people can - if they make an effort. A lot of people can't be bothered, but that's a different issue.

Maybe I should be careful not to generalize so much, though.

 

[chrispenycate]

Incidentally, you were right; it's far too much a word for word translation, rather than the adaptation which was needed. All right, I'm no translator, but reading the "Est-ce que les chats mange les chauves souris?" for "Do cats eat bats?" just doesn't leave the same taste in your mouth.

Chris: While I agree with you on the logic, I fear that most (if not all) of the "flavor" of Carroll would not translate well. Another example of French-to-English which applies here, I think, is Gautier's "La morte amoureuse". I've seen various translations and, while no few capture the essence of the plot and even the incidents, they may as well have been written by completely different people. The feel of Gautier's approach (at least what I've gathered of it as a non-French speaker who has tackled the originals in comparison with translations at times) is completely lost in all but that by Lafcadio Hearn....

 

[Connavar]

There's a lot less difference in writing than in pronounciation. Danish doesn't have an as close relation between spelling and pronounciation as Swedish and Norwegian does and that's, IME, what causes the most problems. We also speak fast, mumble quite a bit and skip pronouncing parts of some words and that doesn't exactly help you understand us.

In Denmark, we're given Norwegian and Swedish texts in school and we're expected to be able to read them. I simply expected it to be in the same way in Norway and Sweden. Am I wrong?

Keep in mind, though, that I've lived in Sweden for 3 years once and in Norway for 6 months, plus I've done customer service on the phone for those three countries, so I'll admit that I'll have a much easier time of it than most people would, but it's my impression that most people can - if they make an effort. A lot of people can't be bothered, but that's a different issue.

Maybe I should be careful not to generalize so much, though.

I have gone all my school years in Sweden and never saw norwegian,danish so no its not the same. Maybe because Swedish is easier to Danish people than the other way. Maybe its Swedish arrogance of not caring about other scandinavian languages.
I was in Oslo a few years ago and i barely needed english. Norwegian was like slower,darker voice version of swedish.

Yeah alot of mumbling in Danish, i watch the movies,tv and think calm down so i can understand you without subtitles hehe

 

[j d worthington]

Incidentally, you were right; it's far too much a word for word translation, rather than the adaptation which was needed. All right, I'm no translator, but reading the "Est-ce que les chats mange les chauves souris?" for "Do cats eat bats?" just doesn't leave the same taste in your mouth.

Thanks for getting back to me on that. It has been more than twenty years since I last even looked at a translation of Carroll's work, but I did recall things like that sticking out. This goes, I think, toward what Allegra was mentioning earlier. Yes, you can translate such things, and translate them very well indeed... but it takes a fair amount of genius, a love of both languages, an extensive vocabulary and awareness of cultural idioms, and one heck of a lot of time. You must also be aware that there are times when you simply can't be literal in your translation, as the idiom in the original will simply make no sense or have a completely different meaning or feel to it in whatever language you are translating it to. In a case like that, as I mentioned with Ciardi's translation of Dante (and this goes for Professor Arrowsmith's translation of Petronius' Satyricon as well), you must find something in that language which closely approximates the associations, for the speaker of that second language, as what the original idiom would have had for not only those who read it in the original, but for the contemporaries of the author -- for whom it would often have a quite different set of resonances than it would for a modern reader. (Of course, it also helps in such cases, to have notes for the interested reader to refer to which deal with both the original and the problems of translating that particular phrase, what it meant or means to those reading it in the original, and so forth, so that an extra "bridge" is built allowing the (for example) English reader to get a feel for both....

 

[j d worthington]

Now, here's an odd thing. I'm in the midst of reading Poe's "Marginalia" entry for Graham's Magazine (November 1846), and the opening section deals with Eugene Sue's Mysteries of Paris. At one point, Poe addresses the subject of the translation...

The translation (by C. H. Town) is very imperfect, and, by a too literal rendering of idioms, contrives to destroy the whole tone of the original. Or, perhaps, I should say a too literalrendering of local peculiarities of phrase. There is one point(never yet, I believe, noticed) which, obviously, should be considered in translation. We should so render the original that the version should impress the people for whom it is intended, just as the original impresses the people for whom it (the original) is intended. Now, if we rigorously translate mere local idiosyncrasies of phrase (to say nothing of idioms) we inevitably distort the author's designed impression. We are sure to produce a whimsical, at least, if not always a ludicrous, effect--for novelties, in a case of this kind, are incongruities--oddities. A distinction, of course, should be observed between those peculiarities of phrase which appertain to the nation and those which belong to the author himself--for these latter will have a similar effect upon all nations, and should be literally translated. It is merely the general inattention to the principle here proposed, which has given rise to so much international depreciation, if not positive contempt, as regards literature. The English reviews, for example, have abundant allusions to what they call the "frivolousness" of French letters--an idea chiefly derived from the impression made by the French manner derived merely -- the manner, again, having in it nothing essentially -- frivolous, but affecting all foreigners as such (the English especially) through that oddity of which I have already assigned the origin. The French return the compliment, complaining of the British gaucherie in style. The phraseology of every nation has a taint of drollery about it in the ears of every, other nation speaking a different tongue. Now, to convey the true spirit of an author, this taint should be corrected in translation. We should pride ourselves less upon literality and more upon dexterity at paraphrase. Is it not clear that, by such dexterity, a translation may be made to convey to a foreigner a juster conception of an original than could the original itself ?


The distinction I have made between mere idioms (which, of course, should never be literally rendered) and "local idiosyncrasies of phrase," may be exemplified by a passage at page 291 of Mr. Town's translation:

"Never mind! Go in there! You will take the cloak of Calebasse. You will wrap yourself in it," etc., etc.
These are the words of a lover to his mistress, and are meant kindly, although imperatively. They embody a local peculiarity--a French peculiarity of phrase, and (to French cars) convey nothing dictatorial. To our own, nevertheless, they sound like the command of a military officer to his subordinate, and thus produce an effect quite different from that intended. The translation, in such case, should be a bold paraphrase. For example:--"I must insist upon your wrapping yourself in the cloak of Calebasse."