>there are people on /lit/ who actually read translations

It's nothing like that.

>>7362377
its like watching a translated film

File: 4.jpg (87KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 400x600px

>>7362377
I don't have time to waste learning other languages when I have so many books to read and I'm already native in the language best suited to reading the widest range of literature on the planet.

File: tfw started with the greeks.jpg (103KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 400x500px

the best and worst cant be lost in translation

I have no choice. I don't have the time nor the energy to learn another language. I'm very selective in choosing which translation to read though, I always strive for top quality.

>>7362377
It's not.

It's like watching a film through a glass window. The worst the translator, the dirtier and opaque the window.

I'm genuinely surprised that there aren't many threads about translation in /lit/

A lot of translated titles are better than the original book. Translation is itself an art and I think we should systematically mark the translator as a co-author.

>plebs on here ramble on about the genius of dostoevsky and tolstoy and checkhov
>ask them if they know russian
>hear nothing but crickets

LOL, pseudo intellectuals in ruins!

>>7362377
Because it's still fun. I don't care what the original author said or meant, if I'm finding meaning and enjoyment in the translated work, I'll read it.

File: b4.jpg (7KB, 222x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 222x225px

>>7362381

>>7362377
No, it's not. It's like watching a film that's remake of a film. Sometimes the remakes are better than the original. Reminder that the writers you think of as patricians read translations.