|
In light of our little forum book club and its first novel of discussion, "Dead Souls" by Gogol, I wonder, what are some general thoughts on novels in translation?
I see the merits of reading translated novels for plot or 'entertainment' purposes, but as far as literary criticism/deconstruction/dissection, I consider the aforementioned activities pointless in regards to a novel not being read in its original linguistic context.
In my humble opinion, so much of a novel is comprised of its syntactical nuances, its vernacular, its sentence construction, its character dialogue, that its translation is more of a bastardization. While it's presumptuous to think that every writer takes advantage of the aforementioned tools for the purposes of conveyance, it's an affront to disregard such pains, and a majority of the value of the work is lost.
What of Hardy's romanticism would remain after translation? Rushdie's cynical verbosity? Salinger's dejected minimalism? Not to mention the influence each's geographical roots have had upon their word choice and expression.
To me, translation is a tool of convenience and accessibility. If I don't speak the language a book is written in, it is my loss, and to digest it in any other form in hopes of dissecting it is an insult to myself and the author.
Thoughts? Comments? Dissenting opinions?
Sidenote: Pompous, high-browed, obscure, anally retentive literary references are wonderful, when they are relevant to discussion. They are not so wonderful when put forth to engorge one's perceived intellectual resume.
|