"Best Translation for (x)?"

what the fuck is up with her torso b shit is all twisted

>>9314801
>american sees a woman with a proper waist

>>9314822
its clearly shopped. how can you see her other boob past the first boob? why is her nipple on the side of her tit? shit is stupid

>>9314835
>not beingoing able to turn the top part of your body without your fat burger gut swing around behind it
W E W

>>9314791
The best English translation is absolutely by John Ormsby.

Read his Translator's Preface, in which he reviews every translation before his, and tell me it doesn't inspire confidence.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5921/5921-h/5921-h.htm

>>9314854
Agreed. This is the translation I chose after extensive research and reading passages from all relevant English translations.
It was the old Norton critical translation, which is expensive. But it is also the new 400th anniversary edition which is fairly cheap.

File: Sir Quixote.jpg (133KB, 1240x520px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1240x520px

>translation
>untranslated title
Why is this acceptable

Grossman is closest to the spirit of the work.

Ornsby is most accurate.

Take it as you will

>>9314791

i read the rutherford translation only and it was fine.

i never really understood /lit/'s obsession with getting the "right" translation. unless youre doing disseminating work or the exception of an obviously inferior translation, it should be a practically arbitrary decision.

>>9314928
It depends on wether you're a person who takes accuracy seriously. I think it's important for people to care what translator their reading from.

I know Ormsby has a reputation for being very accurate, but I also found his translation more pleasant to read and funnier than the translations I compared it with.

>>9314948
accuracy is not the only thing that is maximized in a translation. the term itself connotes many different things, either in textual expression or artistic intent. the term is further blurred in the example of verse.

take for example the transliterations of P&V and how hard a lot of people like to shit on them. for such an old work like DQ, there of course have been a wide range of translation that either emphasize the comedic or the tragic side of the story and that can definitely affect how the translation handles the text. still, a casual reader's experience will not be especially hindered by their choice in translation. if it really is so important, its safe to assume the reader will be reading multiple translations anyways.

>>9314791
>What is /lit/s recommended translation for Don Quixote?

Edith Grossman's

File: 1490241087760.jpg (59KB, 515x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 515x720px

What is the best translation for Ibsen's plays, and why?

>>9314791
The Putnam translation: preferred by Vladimir Nabokov. Putnam worked on it for 12 years.

>>9314843
Gahahahagahahahahah.

>>9314791
what do you look for in a translation? putnam is supposed to be the smoothest, grossman is supposed to be more literal, but I prefer raffel's because of the inventiveness. more menardian.

>>9314791
I prefer the Grossman translation.

This is now a Pevear and Volokhonsky hate thread