Often, the idea that there can be a wide range of translations of one text doesn't occur to people - or that a translation could be bad, very bad, and unfaithful to the original.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If a translation doesn't have obvious writing problems, it may seem quite all right at first glance. We readers, after all, quickly adapt to the style of a translator, stop noticing it, and get caught up in the story.
The existence of another, competing translation is a good thing, in general, and only immediately discouraging to one person - the translator who, after one, two, or three years of more or less careful work, sees another, and perhaps superior, version appear as if overnight.
I guess the toughest things in translations are word play, which can never be reproduced exactly.
Translation is not original creation - that is what one must remember. In translation, some loss is inevitable.
Yes, translation is by definition an inadequate substitute for being able to read a masterpiece in the original.
It can bum you out when your intentions aren't, like, translated properly.
The difficulty that many foreign authors face in having their works translated into English has effects far beyond the United States.
As far as modern writing is concerned, it is rarely rewarding to translate it, although it might be easy. Translation is very much like copying paintings.
Of course we may have any number of translations of a given text - the more the better, really.
The best translations are always the ones in the language the author can't read.