Why are most translations of classics terrible af?
Translations are fineLearning languages for literature is ridiculous and a huge waste of time
>>23311867Translations in theory are fine.In practice they hire retards who can't write.
>>23311865Only cockrell's translation flows. Others are too stilted.
>>23311876>Only cockrell's translation flows. Others are too stilted.It's a shame, than that everyone who reads it will go blind (from the typeface.)
>>23311865It's an awful thing isn't it op
>>23311865Cult of academic accuracy to the original language, which in practice means making the text sound like something by an ESL. People in the 19th century understood that you can't translate anything 1:1 so you should aim for smoothness in English rather than autistically making the text as literal as possible. This is one of the main reasons why Constance Garnett is still the go-to translator for a lot of works even though she was the first and didn't have a century of academic texts and discussions to rely upon.
>>23311865Cockrell's is easily the best. The rest are slavishly and paraphrastically adhering to the literal syntax and punctuation of Russian which is not at all suitable;-- if you aren't rendering it into what would be for English good prosody, what was the point?Mostly it's a copyright thing. After that, academics with degrees in XYZ language and less than zero actual talent or kindred spiritedness to make them suitable to be adapting these canon authors from abroad to a level that serves both the source and the target audience AS literature. Hiring proper contemporary authors with the knack for it is one more premium they'd rather not outlay. >>23312002>making the text sound like something by an ESLA great translation will be inspired to phonosemantically approximate the source text's own prosody/sound/musicality/lyricism without outright bowdlerization, echo it substantially. That requires being more plastic with with word and even sentence order to achieve the desired effect. These translators aren't even thinking much less SEEING (or hearing) the options the have on the table. >>23311876>Others are too stilted.Because they're literally cribbing off each other and artificially choosing literally anything to distinguish them from each other superficially to skirt lawsuits.
>>23311865>cockrell's translation is not on anna's archiveI ain't buying it. Anyone got a digital copy to share?
>>23311865>>23311867>>23311874>>23311876>>23311908>>23311950>>23312002>>23312027>>23312648Daily reminder that you don’t get good prose in works of translation. Read English. It’s all the same themes and ideas. Do not lose out on good prose because you want to seem clever reading French literature. Good grief
>>23312668I don't need good proseI only ask for readable prose that doesn't read like ESL trash
>>23312670>I only ask for readable proseAsk for more. Reading mediocre writing is bad for the soul. Unless it’s like magazines or newspapers I guess. Always have a work of good prose on the go, cos good prose = good for the soul
Dosto had awful prose himself. Using extracts from translations of awful prose doesn't help you with your point.
>>23312691His prose reads like RSL shit?
>>23312002Slavishly accurate translation is the only form of translation. Anything else is merely a creative writing project that pays loose homage to the original.
>>23311865I dont understand why they censor the name of places
>>23311865because you picked a terrible book
>>23313264Literal accuracy doesn’t mean accuracy in terms of rhythm, flow, evocation, intended meaning
>>23311865I cannot comment on C&P but in my experience it seems to be not only dependent on translator intent but also how much of the work is embedded in the mores of the culture that produced it, especially when it comes to inside humor and turns of phrasing that seemingly only had significance inside the linguistic and geographic area of the piece. Language to language is probably also more of a factor if the languages themselves are less related to each other for what that is worth. Some issues are seemingly not worth the hassle to over-analyze, for instance the first sentence in each of your pic related passages, the order and phrasing is technically different but each sentence is performing the job of letting us know that it is early July, hot, evening, and someone is leaving the abode.
Academic translators are worse than weebshit translators in the west lmao
>>23311865I don't think you have enough experience translating yourself or learning another language to understand how hard it is to translate. But, if you do, then all the power to you. I think in general translation is fine, learning a new language just to read books in that language (and at a pace so poor I barely enjoy myself) isn't the best use of my time.
>>23311865>translate ghastly rigmarole>end up with ghastly rigmarolecolor me surprised
>>23311867pleb opinion, learning languages for literature is the second best reason to learn languages besides going to live in a country where they speark the language. Languages are living beings and learning them will make an enormous difference in how you perceive a culture, a people, a literature. It will also make you behave towards people who don't speak your language as if they were human. Learning a foreign language is the closest you have to develop real life telepathy for a (until then) completely foreign human being. There are few pleasures that go deeper that beginning to understand what people are saying and thinking around you. It makes the world feel alive, and it's one of the most rewarding learning experiences out there. Stop posting here for a while and try learn other languages.
>>23315622I have learnt a language though, to the point that I can read novels somewhat comfortably in itLearning a language is like getting your first hitIt's never enough You're constantly learning the language and then you begin to hunger for another language, another experience, another canon, another world It is stupidIf I could go back and tell myself to just stick with English I would
>>23315622Not everyone is NEET enough to learn all major literary languages, retard. Not to mention how It takes 3 or 4 years of intense reading in the language to gain enough fluently that you don't read at a decent pace.
>>23317095Skill issue. Andrei learned Romanian in like 6 months.
>>23312668Correct unless the translation is itself a work of art, e.g. Chapman's Homer, Fairfax's Tasso
