>implying you need to read the original work to comment on

Because for some authors, the style is paramount (Flaubert, Joyce, to name but those two). Trying to arbitrarily dissect a book into style and substance may not be useful in all instances.

>>9825732
Yeah I meant the majority of the authors not special cases that are famous for being all prose.

There's always a loss of information when translating. Its very hard to convey indexical elements. I would say, for a broader discussion about the topic, the original text is not needed, but when contemplating the deeper meaning of words and expressions, just kill yourself if you do not read the untranslated version.

>>9825728
the idea that "prose" can be separated out and replaced with some other prose by some other guy in such a way that the the "contents" of the work are unchanged is insane. your fantasy is that "content" is floating out in space somewhere and can be accessed equally well with a translation and the original work, but that's just not true. the prose is the only thing that actually exists and what you call the "content" of a book is an imaginary construct that you build in your head as you take in the prose. different prose, different "content". a translation is a new, if related, work, similar to a movie remake. would a movie buff argue that when you talk about psycho it's irrelevant whether you've seen the 1960 one or the 1998 one? the script is almost the same and they've just "translated" it into new visuals. same movie, right? obviously not.

and of course /lit/ has the wonderful quality of being both aggressively elitist and fairly thick so they'll tell you that this only matters for great works famed for their prose style or whatever, but of course judgements of quality are not actually relevant here. the simplest children's book becomes a new work when translated. you're free not to care but don't delude yourself that you're reading the same thing.

>>9825728
t. translation cuck

>>9825728
Yes you do but you won't get it as a non-native anyway. In addition, you won't get it because you aren't from the same time period and class as the writer.

Language has deep connotations, tied to how a given language was used in a given period by a given group of people. You will never attain the true experience.

>>9825811
>so they'll tell you that this only matters for great works famed for their prose style
No. ">reading translations"... Implying! Top kek! Very funny homosexuals!

File: 1357301295952.jpg (67KB, 640x458px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x458px

>>9825811
Good post.