On the translation of texts to suit modern sensibilities

[FractiousDay]

Should ancient or foreign texts be translated to appease modern audiences? Like 'Man' in Hobbes or Aristotle to 'Human'.

One one hand they mean 'human', but on the other understanding their patriarchal (particularly in Aristotle's case) assumptions might be important for understanding what the text is saying.

 

[SharkGlue]

I feel like historical translations need to be presented as close to the original as possible. I mean the amount of wtfery that's gone over Bible translations alone tell me doing so with history to fit modern sensibilities will ultimately muddy things up

 

[Tasrill]

Translations are by their nature changing a text. Changing things from one language to another is full of value judgements from the very first step of 'which word is this most like'. The only true text is the original and even that original can have different readings depending on when it is being read and by who. One needs only look at Biblical translations to see how much the fight is over what the original Greek said in that time and place before they even start into changing that into a new language. If you want to start a fight with biblical scholars just throw parthenos into the room and ask them what connotations it had in the first century.

This isn't even going into translating things for the spirit of the text or literally which is an entire other kettle of fish. Translation is hard, complicated, and never perfect.

 

[75% Certain]

Should ancient or foreign texts be translated to appease modern audiences? Like 'Man' in Hobbes or Aristotle to 'Human'.

One one hand they mean 'human', but on the other understanding their patriarchal (particularly in Aristotle's case) assumptions might be important for understanding what the text is saying.

Click to shrink...

It depends. In the realm of the Classics, I imagine you'd have a hard time finding someone who thinks that Homer's Iliad should be stripped the poetic magnificence found in the typical deliberately-archaic rendering. On the other hand, Aristophanes' Lysistrata is a madcap comedy that relies on cultural beats and subtle interplay that simply doesn't resonate as well with an audience 2400 years removed when translated precisely. For that kind of thing, it's better to dispense with the 'exact words' mentality and focus on serving the essential nature in a way that is both accommodating to modern readers and faithful to the author's vision.

Edit: I'm presuming you're asking about translations in general, and not necessarily just those that would cause a reader today to cringe in discomfort. Am I completely off-base?

 

[glass_eye]

The ratchet effect of runaway social signalling ensures that today's newspeak is tomorrow's crimethink. Translation is difficult enough as is without accounting for oldthinkers who unbellyfeel Ingsoc.

 

[Erandil]

Should ancient or foreign texts be translated to appease modern audiences? Like 'Man' in Hobbes or Aristotle to 'Human'.

One one hand they mean 'human', but on the other understanding their patriarchal (particularly in Aristotle's case) assumptions might be important for understanding what the text is saying.

Click to shrink...

I think that the actual word you pick is less important than actually explaining it with a good commentary/footnote which make the assumptions/ideas/ideology behind it clear, especially in political/philosophical texts (and doubly so if you write for a more general audience).

 

[Aldon]

Should ancient or foreign texts be translated to appease modern audiences? Like 'Man' in Hobbes or Aristotle to 'Human'.

One one hand they mean 'human', but on the other understanding their patriarchal (particularly in Aristotle's case) assumptions might be important for understanding what the text is saying.

Click to shrink...

The aim of translation is to make a text understandable to the people who are going to read it. I don't think there is much danger swapping things like Man to human or people when they are speaking in general about people or humans. As long as the meaning of the setence remains as close to the original as reasonable. Languages are rarely 1-1 so there are always little compromises that must be made to get that meaning across.

If on the other hand the translations change the meaning of something then that I feel is wrong. It shouldn't be up to translators to whitewash history and other cultures to make them more socially acceptable. Giving false impressions of other cultures and altering history to suit are both things I feel are bad. Doing so does a disservice to the audience and it's better that those that disagree avoid the translated media than mislead everyone.

I think that the actual word you pick is less important than actually explaining it with a good commentary/footnote which make the assumptions/ideas/ideology behind it clear, especially in political/philosophical texts (and doubly so if you write for a more general audience).

Click to shrink...

I'm on the complete opposite side. Unless it's a technical text extensive footnotes should be avoided. They disrupt the comprehension process flipping backwards and forwards between the footnotes and the current spot of text disrupts the reading flow and prevents imersion. Reading the text then going to the footnotes later disconnects them and again breaks you out of the flow. They also don't work well for non written forms of media. You can get a directors commentary in films but it tends to override the actual film itself so you get the explanation or the product.

Carefully picking the words that are used to get the original point across is by far the most direct means and should be prioritised reserving footnotes for things that simply don't translate well or require further clarification.

 

[FractiousDay]

So good answers, the Ingsocer was funny, but:

Edit: I'm presuming you're asking about translations in general, and not necessarily just those that would cause a reader today to cringe in discomfort. Am I completely off-base?

Click to shrink...

I did really mean more about politically motivated translations, I've been reading various philosophers recently, among them, Aristotle and Hobbes, and I got to thinking about the politics of translation, whether people should have an objective aim, like this:

to make a text understandable to the people who are going to read it.

Click to shrink...

Or, as stated elsewhere, to make it as 'understandable' as possible.

So, if you were making a feminist critique of Hobbes, you might say his ideas of the state of nature and the war of all against all are masculine, therefore, you would definetly translate 'man' into 'man', rather than uptime (is there a newspeaky word for this?) it to 'human'.

It's a question less around what one should objectively do, and more around the idea of safe spaces. Should translators change words (and therefore ideas) to suit what modern tastes?

I'm somewhat on the fence about safe spaces, but I can see some places where I wouldn't mind it. For example, in the Dambusters, there's a dog called 'Nigger', which is a bit cringy when you're watching it and all the airmen keep saying 'hello nigger, come here', and I don't think that removing this would take away anything from the film.

Comparably, Mary Beard has recently railed against PCness because it doesn't let you talk about the Rape of the Sabine Women, so in that instance, where the historical ethics don't match up with ours, I don't think we should change anything

 

[Aldon]

It's a question less around what one should objectively do, and more around the idea of safe spaces. Should translators change words (and therefore ideas) to suit what modern tastes?

Click to shrink...

My answer to that one is no they should pick the words that have the closest modern meaning to what they feel the original text was trying to say. There is certainly an element of what the translator feels something means but a good translator is a neutral as possible. They shouldn't be changing stuff to make things more acceptable since that is basically just making a bad fanfiction of the original work.

I'm somewhat on the fence about safe spaces, but I can see some places where I wouldn't mind it. For example, in the Dambusters, there's a dog called 'Nigger', which is a bit cringy when you're watching it and all the airmen keep saying 'hello nigger, come here', and I don't think that removing this would take away anything from the film.

Click to shrink...

This is our history it's cringe worthy but it's important that people understand it. The very fact that it's cringe worthy indicates how far we've come but that doesn't change our history and history is something we should learn from not hide.

Edit: One exception to that though is you need to pay attention to what you are legally allowed to present. If the content is for younger people and you're not legally allowed to make racial slurs or keep some of the content that was previously acceptable. You've got little choice to cut it if it's not a primary part of the narrative.

 

[FractiousDay]

They shouldn't be changing stuff to make things more acceptable since that is basically just making a bad fanfiction of the original work.

Click to shrink...

but that doesn't change our history and history is something we should learn from not hide.

Click to shrink...

So there's no tolerance for... intellectual gatekeeping I suppose would be the term? Translators have no responsibility to moderate extreme views or offensive language?

As a different example, there was some talk of issuing Mein Kampf again with commentary from historians rebuking the statement inside, would this not change the meaning of the text, even though the actual words were the same.8

 

[FractiousDay]

They shouldn't be changing stuff to make things more acceptable since that is basically just making a bad fanfiction of the original work.

Click to shrink...

that doesn't change our history and history is something we should learn from not hide.

Click to shrink...

So there's no tolerance for... intellectual safeguarding? Translators have no duty to prevent the mental anguish of triggers and all that?

On a side note, the recent republishing of Mein Kampf with historical commentary, does this bit change the essential nature of the work, even if the translation itself is fair

 

[ussnimitz1968]

Should ancient or foreign texts be translated to appease modern audiences? Like 'Man' in Hobbes or Aristotle to 'Human'.

One one hand they mean 'human', but on the other understanding their patriarchal (particularly in Aristotle's case) assumptions might be important for understanding what the text is saying.

Click to shrink...

There's actually two issues going on here - historical context and, well, what is referred to in the modern industry version as "localisation" (I think putting it in that context will help translate the issues more accurately - if you'd pardon the irony). There's also the third issue of originality vs. well, originality.

In regarding historical context, that's a trickier issue than some might think. On the one hand, I think even the most ardent "SJW" (or at least the often parody-like perception of one) will have no problem with retaining "Man" vs. "Humankind" in ancient texts, understanding that the context is still universal. The other problem is that these texts are so old, the cultural context is simply lost to history, and for many modern readers they'd be practically alien. In some cases it's so bad the context is lost to the very scholar-translators themselves - or in the case of Gilgamesh, you simply have huge chunks of missing text and you either have to guess the literally missing context or just leave it blank and accept it as lost.

That's where the issue of "localisation" comes in - trying to translate that lost or no-longer-relevant context to have meaning for modern readers. The problem therein becomes a game of Telephone with a very short line, but with a lot of information lost within that line nonetheless. Localizers play a guessing game in terms of how to best translate it to make the most sense, and sometimes they just guess wrong (see the debate about dubbing/subbing anime, for example).

And there's the question of whether or not "updating" a text translates it so drastically it becomes an original work in of itself, i.e. a retelling.

 

[Aldon]

So there's no tolerance for... intellectual safeguarding? Translators have no duty to prevent the mental anguish of triggers and all that?

On a side note, the recent republishing of Mein Kampf with historical commentary, does this bit change the essential nature of the work, even if the translation itself is fair

Click to shrink...

As far as I'm concerned no, it is up to adults to self censor unless it's a situation they are not capable of choosing. They can provide a summary to allow others to make their own choice but I do not feel it is their role to change works to maybe not offend others. People are welcome to make politically motivated translations but I personally want those marked as such because I want the original as unfiltered as possible.

This is mainly due to bad experiences with translations where they have adjusted content to localise it. In most cases it's greatly reduced the quality and not really increased the legibility.

I think commentary is fine and can be helpful. It is also for the most part opt in. That particular case sounds like something I'd view as a history textbook and extensive notes in textbooks I feel is appropriate since you're there to learn about the content more than to absorb or enjoy the content.

 

[Fernandel]

Keep the original text.

Include glossaries and footnotes to explain terms as used in context and their specific original meaning to a modern audience.

...If they think it's alright for Shakespeare, it should be alright for older texts.

 

[Pidl]

So there's no tolerance for... intellectual safeguarding? Translators have no duty to prevent the mental anguish of triggers and all that?

On a side note, the recent republishing of Mein Kampf with historical commentary, does this bit change the essential nature of the work, even if the translation itself is fair

Click to shrink...

Mhm, I don't think they should try to remove triggers. You know (or at least should know) that when you're reading a 1000-year old book, there will be things at odds with your sensibilities.

 

[FractiousDay]

Mhm, I don't think they should try to remove triggers. You know (or at least should know) that when you're reading a 1000-year old book, there will be things at odds with your sensibilities.

Click to shrink...

I'm not actually certain of the argument here made by safespacers, but I assume knowing what you're reading is irrelevant to them. I think the idea is to protect people, in Mary Beard's case students, from stuff that would upset them, as such this protection might take on the form of editing historical texts

 

[Doomsough]

One of the most important things about ancient texts is that they are a gateway to seeing the world through the eyes of other cultures. The Greeks and Romans were at once civilized and barbaric in many ways.

To see how another person can see good in what is now evil is important to both growing both into an adult and into a better culture. Understanding the cultures of the ancients allows us to look at the good and the bad of a culture and judge them without suffering from the bias of modern politics.

 

[Aldon]

I'm not actually certain of the argument here made by safespacers, but I assume knowing what you're reading is irrelevant to them. I think the idea is to protect people, in Mary Beard's case students, from stuff that would upset them, as such this protection might take on the form of editing historical texts

Click to shrink...

There are two kinds of historical texts and they can be handled differently. Non fiction texts should not be touched. Editing actual history is bullshit.

Historical fiction texts I care less about you can edit that but I'd appreciate it if the text indicates that it's been fucked with because I don't want to read their reintepretation. Multiple translations are fine by me. I only care if they want to supress the original in preference for their interpretation.

 

[ussnimitz1968]

...If they think it's alright for Shakespeare

Click to shrink...

And it's why Shakespeare is often seen as a pain in the ass, although cultural tradition necessitates exact translation/preservation. Not to mention "cultural translations" of Shakespeare are frequent and all over the place.

 

[Fernandel]

And it's why Shakespeare is often seen as a pain in the ass, although cultural tradition necessitates exact translation/preservation.

Click to shrink...

I find Shakespeare a pain in the ass if you have to read him. When reading him aloud and with added appendices and footnotes to explain the meaning of the more obsscure language, he's a helluva lot of fun.

I honestly don't see the problem with doing the same for Hobbes. In fact, I'm a big proponent of "double-language" books: original language on one page, translation on the other, add footnotes and appendices. Slow reading, sure, but you learn so much and you start being able to catch the nuances! It's amazing. Been looking for an issue of Macchiavelli that has that for a while.

Not to mention "cultural translations" of Shakespeare are frequent and all over the place.

Click to shrink...

Och, they can be fun!

...in a really, really goofy way.

 

[ussnimitz1968]

I honestly don't see the problem with doing the same for Hobbes. In fact, I'm a big proponent of "double-language" books: original language on one page, translation on the other, add footnotes and appendices. Slow reading, sure, but you learn so much and you start being able to catch the nuances! It's amazing. Been looking for an issue of Macchiavelli that has that for a while.

Click to shrink...

Hey, I'm all for it too, certainly reasonable.

 

[Leila Hann]

I'm not actually certain of the argument here made by safespacers, but I assume knowing what you're reading is irrelevant to them. I think the idea is to protect people, in Mary Beard's case students, from stuff that would upset them, as such this protection might take on the form of editing historical texts

Click to shrink...

Warning them about the contents of the text ahead of time should be sufficient.

 

[stratigo]

Should ancient or foreign texts be translated to appease modern audiences? Like 'Man' in Hobbes or Aristotle to 'Human'.

One one hand they mean 'human', but on the other understanding their patriarchal (particularly in Aristotle's case) assumptions might be important for understanding what the text is saying.

Click to shrink...

It has to be taken entirely on a case by case basis. There's a strong case to be made for purely literal translation, but that only works in my opinion for people familiar with the topic and thus understand the terms. For example, I've been doing a bit of Islamic history and some translations I read come off as meaningless because I have no clue what the context for the translation is

On the other hand, assuming an dead man's meaning can be very dangerous

And sometimes the translations are just bad. I read some Livy that translated equestrian order as knights and that just pissed me off

 

[galahad]

Historical reviosionism is bad. If you wish to learn about the past read as it was written. Do not twist facts to suit your political viewpoints.

 

[ussnimitz1968]

If you wish to learn about the past read as it was written. Do not twist facts to suit your political viewpoints.

Click to shrink...

I would like to know if you would be able to read the above text "as it was written." That's the Magna Carta, BTW. It's written in what can technically be considered a dead language.