Prose in Translations

>>8839861
Short answer no.

Prose is a tremendously wide concept that incorporates virtually every facet of language, some things always translate, some things don't. Some things translate into some languages, somethings don't translate into others.

In the case of French and English especially there are so many commonalities and overlapping vocabulary that it leaves a lot of space for prose to remain intact or reasonably translated.

It's all about translator's skills. If a translator sucks, of course it's better to read the original. If a translator is able to reproduce the beauty and the main features of an author's prose, just go with it. (Also be aware there are some countries with better skilled translators, because that really depends on specialized schools and universities; some countries actually prove to have something like a natural talent towards translations). Between reading an original with a 60-70% of comprehension and reading a translation with a 95% of comprehension, I choose the second.

>>8839901
Its more like the original for 60% comprehension
Read a translation for 85% comprehension
Read the original alongside a translation for 95% comprehension

>>8839911
True

When I read a translation I always make sure my faculties for detecting verbal beauty are turned off so that I'm not accidentally delighted by a beautiful phrase that wasn't the author's.

>>8839875
>>8839901
>>8839911
>>8839919
That all being said if I just finished A Portrait of The Artist as a Young Man, which is the first real book I read for the prose (and it's an absolutely amazing experience), would I still get a beautiful experience with the Montcrieff ISOLT translation? And thanks so much for responding to the initial post

>>8839934
What's the problem if you get delighted by a beautiful phrase that's not by the author? Translators do a creative process too

>>8839945
Because its giving someone credit for basic plagiarizing someone

If I'm reading for the prose then should I just stick with authors in my native language? Or is translated Proust prose still better than most English natives' prose?

>>8839861
Sometimes translators can create more-than-serviceable prose. William Weaver is a great translator. I read Calvino and Eco in Weaver translations, and never guessed it was the same translator until someone told me.

>>8839911
marry me

>>8839967
>William Weaver

you owe it the world to become a writer with such a name

>>8839960
Plagiarizing someone? You don't know the quality, the difficulty, the creativity the translation process involves. A translation can be a work of art, especially in poetry. Working on someone else's work doesn't mean you're not working on yourself at the same time and expressing your own sensibility

>>8839967
>>8839901
>>8839875
How close is Montcrieff's ISOLT translation? Is it basically pointless to read it for the prose or is it still beautiful?

>>8840019
Sorry mate, I've never read Montcrieff so I don't know

>>8839975
If you're interested in Weaver, this is a great interview: http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/421/william-weaver-the-art-of-translation-no-3-william-weaver

>>8840019
Bumping for interest.

This is why I'll probably never read Proust.

A shame but French isn't that high on my list of desired languages.

>>8839861

The acronym is ISoLT.

>>8840019
Literally better