universally accessible?

[Socrates]

Ah yes, but if one has misconceptions about the writer by virtue of being from the same coulture, think about the misconceptions one may have about wirters of a different coulture - that is, think about Zola and what you really know about him vs what would be known about him by the general French reader.  I can see your point, though - perhaps Salman Rushdie is one example of a writer who was vilified by the muslim world so much so that people outisde of the islamic countries might know more about him than those living inside (beacuse the them he is a villian who should not be read or even mentioned).

Terminus, you are right - but then again that was known right at the outset.  Some of the universal things he's written about are obviously easily understood by the general public, but some non-universal things only by Poles.  The language is particular, and the specific events in Polish history are not shared by other nations - this means that only those who studied those things will undertsnd the references in Lem's works.  The Polish Language is exceptional in that Lem is a user of the language - he uses it to bring about an aim (to amuse or situmalte the reader), and not the other way around (the language uses Lem for some purpose).  Thus, the only reason why all of Lem's stories are not Universal is very simply because the language he uses is not universal - it is exceptional and particular to Poland, hence making the stories themselves exceptional.
Cheers, Socrates

[Terminus]

Terminus, you are right - but then again that was known right at the outset.  

Yes, but what wasn't?

[innate]

However in overcrowded in Britain it doesn't make much sense. Our landscape is very managed, throughout the country you are most likely going to  be near farms/managed forest or unproductive and inhospitable land.

I would have thought that the ability to relate to the idea of getting away from distraction and unnecessary things would be at least as strong for those whose lives are filled with them...

Ah yes, but if one has misconceptions about the writer by  virtue of being from the same culture, think about the misconceptions one may have about writers of a different culture

Sure, I'll agree with that. In your example, though, well...I'm not very cultured, you see. If you offered me some renminbi if I could name who Zola was, I wouldn't have been able to come up with anything more than Zola Budd (an athlete).

[Agent101]

I can relate to wanting to get away, it is the manner of escape that doesn't ring so true.

[innate]

(this is similar enough to the original topic that I didn't want to start a separate thread for it)

Is it possible for a work in translation to be superior to the original?
I could imagine it happening if an author is very inventive but his use of language is inelegant.

[Sternenfisch]

I would say, Lem is more universally than any other author.
But nothing is a universally as it could be understand in any time, on any place (expect maths, physic and chemic, mechanic). But spoken languages are selections, and in so, they aren't universal enough

[Terminus]

Is it possible for a work in translation to be superior to the original?
I could imagine it happening if an author is very inventive but his use of language is inelegant.

You mean a situation where translator corrects author's mistakes?

Hm... for me, this question of Yours is tough, 'cause I'd need to have 'superiority' well defined first

But I think that yes, it is possible. I've read poetry tlanslations, that seemed much more sophisticated than the originals... and so on.

[innate]

I was thinking of a scenario like... let's say that I had a really good idea for some story and I tried to write it. I'm not a writer, so the prose wouldn't be very smooth and the dialogue would not sound authentic. And suppose that you translated it, not changing what happens at all, but simply choosing the right words and making everything sound natural...

If it needed more fixing than that, it'd make more sense for you to write your own story instead.

[Sternenfisch]

Not necessary.
When you don't know, how your figures should act and what to speak, your old, bad story could be a good base for the translated writing.

[Terminus]

Well, that's what she meant, isn't it?

[Socrates]

In my humble opinion, it can - but then it's not a true translation but rather an embellished translator's rendition and interpretation of the original work.  The question is, should wirters do that?  Take the Illiad - dry in its original form (I was told by greeks ), but quite readable in prose format (I've read a few versions, and the most interesting ones were not in verse).  But are translators allowed to do that?  Can they improve on the original?
Cheers, Socrates

[Deckard]

I think translators shouldn't improve the original. Translation should concur with the original as strictly as possible. After all this is the main principle of translating, isnt' it?
Enhanced translation could be called an interpretation.


CU
Deck

[Terminus]

But then again it's not always possible to be strictly accurate when, for example, one translates poetry.  Obviously, rhytm and meaning are clearly separate in verse.   Therefore it could be arranged for poetry translations to include both strict and improved (enchaced) text.  Only second one would rhyme.

[Deckard]

hmmmm...  :-/ I didn't think about poetry. In this case You may be right.

CU
Deck

[innate]

I wanted to read Faust one day, but I was disappointed when the translation that I found still rhymed. Didn't read it. (likes prose better in any case)