No translation can possibly be perfect. Every production and every performance is a different path up the mountain, and nobody ever makes it all the way to the summit.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Yes, translation is by definition an inadequate substitute for being able to read a masterpiece in the original.
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.
The best translations are always the ones in the language the author can't read.
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.
Translation is the art of failure.
Fantastic writing in English is kind of disreputable, but fantastic writing in translation is the summit.
Even though I believe a superlative translation can achieve timelessness, that doesn't mean I think other translators shouldn't attempt other versions. The more the better, in the end.
Translation is not original creation - that is what one must remember. In translation, some loss is inevitable.
Every language is a world. Without translation, we would inhabit parishes bordering on silence.
The problem is that it is difficult to translate.
No opposing quotes found.