I really dislike 2. It feels too modern and maybe not the author's true voice for the time period. I really wish i knew how to read japanese so i could tell.
1, 4, 3, 2, 5. I like the way 3 and 4 convey the story, but it feels more like her voice in translation 1, but i am totally ignorant on what that would sound like since i cannot read the original. I do appreciate the tone and storytelling of 2 more than 5.
BUT, I'm not sure that's the right metric. I strongly suspect that of all these translations, #1 is the most faithful to the original. Vox's background puts him in in a far better position to judge - and if that is so, I would disregard "vox populi, vox dei" and turn to Translation #1 for Castalia.
I agree that 2 seems very "modern" and missing something of a soul behind it. By "modern" I mean watered down.
Take the opening line of #2, "In the reign of a certain Emperor—I forget which one—". Compare this to #1, "At the Court of an Emperor (he lived it matters not when)". "I forget which one" to me means that she could probably find out but doesn't care to spend however long it would take to tell you, vs. "he lived it matters not when" gives the meaning that she could tell us but it's beside the point.
Written prose of #2, "Even the senior nobles averted their eyes." Compared to the elegance of #1, "and even his own barons and courtiers began to look askance at an attachment so ill-advised."
#2 references "China", compared to "the Land Beyond the Sea" in #1. Doesn't take a genius to know the reference here is China, just takes an extra precious delightful second of thinking for it to click in your brain. The original Japanese text references the Tang Dynasty in China. I can see how using "China" gets you closer to the true text, but why not say "Tang Dynasty China" at that point. Waley captures how foreign and distant this land (which we know is China) is to these people. Waley takes poetic license here. It's subtle yet so much more effective at capturing the mystery that is China than simply saying the word "China".
#2 adds "modern" metaphors not found in the Japanese text like "drawing resentment the way wounds draw flies." Or again, "wrapped herself in it like armor, though the metal was soft and the blows kept coming." How can I trust that what I'm reading is the story the original author wanted to relay? I'm not saying adding flare is bad, but for a thousand year old book I'd rather read what the thousand year old person had to say, how they said it, when they said it. I'm sure Waley has some faults in this department as well, however I will venture to say they are not as "modern" as #2.
Perhaps #1 is too difficult or tedious for some, like with the abrupt sentence, "But to return to the daughter: In due time she bore him a little Prince". It takes an extra half second to connect that "him" is the Emperor, whereas the writing in #2 takes all the work (fun) out of the story.
For authentic narration and a closer match in tone to the time period, I would really like to have translation 1. For ease of reading, 2 is an obvious choice but I think the loss of the courtly, observational voice takes too much away from what I imagine the author's style was. I think this particular tome requires a more traditional translation, given what it is. To go with the easier to read option 2, is a disservice.
1 and 5 are by far the best, in my opinion. I wish I remember which translation I read back in college... The other three were either too wordy, too clever by half, or too modern in prose to suspend disbelief or lend an air of exoticism.
I was wrong about that, only the version I read was incomplete; and the other comments here have almost convinced me that #1 might be the best after all.
I understand why many wish for the 'ye olde' vibe of the language used in 01, but when I'm actually intent on reading something cover to cover I usually end up appreciating a modernized tongue, provided that no meanings are lost or hidden thereby. Someone else commented on it giving YA vibes and that's valid, but I'm assuming that none of the options provided are dumbed down; no way Vox'd risk having an inferior version of the story in the running, let alone win.
If all versions more or less equally tell the story, then reader comfort dominates my reasoning as the secondary concern.
I took this poll seriously. In reading The Swiss Family Robinson I was struck by how much better it was than the "unabridged" version I read as a child. I really appreciate your focus on accuracy and preservation. I would prefer a translation that focuses on accurately translating the intent of the original Japanese, but also with an eye towards the artistry of the original. I don't care as much about a modern-readable version, I could get that at Barnes and Noble. I voted for 4 on the poll, but I trust your judgement. Thanks for the opportunity to provide some input.
I think these five translations are pretty much it. The only other two translations of which I'm aware are both partial, and one is the first 1882 one.
1 then 5. 1 sounds like it was written by a woman and has a nice poetic rhythm to it. 5 is similar in that it has a poetic rhythm and sounds like it was written by a woman. This sounds like an odd argument, but the Tales of the Genji was written by a woman, and there are certain stylistic qualities that we all share. 3 and 4 were okay. While 2 was the most modern and easiest to read version, it lost something in translation. Translations that try to be modern but lose the tone and style of the original don’t seem to hold up well.
Translation 1 is probably the winner and was the nicest to read, while being the most challenging to follow. I had to re-read a numberof times to follow some of the cultural stuff I don't understand. That's a problem of my own comprehension though.
Translation 2, then 5, were the easiest to read and know what was happening. From my perspective with no Chinese culture knowledge, the circumstances and motivations were much easier to understand.
I dislike 3. It felt stilted. More of a recap as Christopher said below, instead of the story itself.
4 was not as nice as 1, but all the footnotes in the small example here could help clarify things quite a bit.
concur that option 1 is the most lyrical. it would probably be useful to have footnotes for some of the idioms and references. as for instance, many are likely to be ignorant that the "Land beyond the sea" is China.
#2 - seems to be the best balance between readability and the poetic language of the original.
#1 - I appreciate it as likely being the one closest to the original; although harder to read, it's definitely rewarding. I would have to read it with my phone nearby to confirm the things I don't understand due to my general ignorance of Japanese history. It wasn't hard to guess what "gentlewomen of the Wardrobe and Chamber" might be, but it's not a title or position I'm familiar with.
#4 - No strong feelings; the approach seems quite similar to #2, but I found the result a little less pleasant to read.
#5 - Reads like Jane Austen did the translation. It's too old-fashioned to feel modern, and not old-fashioned enough to feel like I'm reading a 1400 year old novel. Comes across as stuffy.
#3 - This one gave the impression that it was summarizing the novel instead of translating it. It was the only one that I found boring.
I really dislike 2. It feels too modern and maybe not the author's true voice for the time period. I really wish i knew how to read japanese so i could tell.
Which one did you prefer? How would you rank them?
1, 4, 3, 2, 5. I like the way 3 and 4 convey the story, but it feels more like her voice in translation 1, but i am totally ignorant on what that would sound like since i cannot read the original. I do appreciate the tone and storytelling of 2 more than 5.
I liked 2 the most, so I voted for it.
BUT, I'm not sure that's the right metric. I strongly suspect that of all these translations, #1 is the most faithful to the original. Vox's background puts him in in a far better position to judge - and if that is so, I would disregard "vox populi, vox dei" and turn to Translation #1 for Castalia.
I agree that 2 seems very "modern" and missing something of a soul behind it. By "modern" I mean watered down.
Take the opening line of #2, "In the reign of a certain Emperor—I forget which one—". Compare this to #1, "At the Court of an Emperor (he lived it matters not when)". "I forget which one" to me means that she could probably find out but doesn't care to spend however long it would take to tell you, vs. "he lived it matters not when" gives the meaning that she could tell us but it's beside the point.
Written prose of #2, "Even the senior nobles averted their eyes." Compared to the elegance of #1, "and even his own barons and courtiers began to look askance at an attachment so ill-advised."
#2 references "China", compared to "the Land Beyond the Sea" in #1. Doesn't take a genius to know the reference here is China, just takes an extra precious delightful second of thinking for it to click in your brain. The original Japanese text references the Tang Dynasty in China. I can see how using "China" gets you closer to the true text, but why not say "Tang Dynasty China" at that point. Waley captures how foreign and distant this land (which we know is China) is to these people. Waley takes poetic license here. It's subtle yet so much more effective at capturing the mystery that is China than simply saying the word "China".
#2 adds "modern" metaphors not found in the Japanese text like "drawing resentment the way wounds draw flies." Or again, "wrapped herself in it like armor, though the metal was soft and the blows kept coming." How can I trust that what I'm reading is the story the original author wanted to relay? I'm not saying adding flare is bad, but for a thousand year old book I'd rather read what the thousand year old person had to say, how they said it, when they said it. I'm sure Waley has some faults in this department as well, however I will venture to say they are not as "modern" as #2.
Perhaps #1 is too difficult or tedious for some, like with the abrupt sentence, "But to return to the daughter: In due time she bore him a little Prince". It takes an extra half second to connect that "him" is the Emperor, whereas the writing in #2 takes all the work (fun) out of the story.
Vox, after the voting is done, I'm curious to hear which translation you think best preserves the flavor of the original.
You'll get a comprehensive and objective report on all five. And then I'll share my opinions on them.
For authentic narration and a closer match in tone to the time period, I would really like to have translation 1. For ease of reading, 2 is an obvious choice but I think the loss of the courtly, observational voice takes too much away from what I imagine the author's style was. I think this particular tome requires a more traditional translation, given what it is. To go with the easier to read option 2, is a disservice.
1 and 5 are by far the best, in my opinion. I wish I remember which translation I read back in college... The other three were either too wordy, too clever by half, or too modern in prose to suspend disbelief or lend an air of exoticism.
You almost certainly read 1. That's the one we read.
Order of preference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
I think 1 is the best by far. 2 is almost a different category, with nice prose but adding embellishments.
I would rank them 2,3,5,1,4.
Number 1 is available on Gutenberg, it is so short it can be read in a week.
It is not a bad translation, but because it is so incomplete I wouldn't recommend it, it also has a very impersonal and distant feel to it.
Number 5 is the one I am familiar with and I really liked it when I read it.
Although I know nothing about translations 2 and 3, they feel easier to read, so I voted for 2.
Edit: I was wrong about #1 being an incomplete version. Only the version available on Gutenberg is incomplete.
You sure? Is #1 not the Waley translation that is 1200 pages long?
It is the Arthur Waley translation. On Gutemberg it is 127 pages long which is about 320 pages printed.
However, I checked Amazon for Arthur Waley and the version there is 1782 pages!
So, no. I am not sure anymore.
I just asked AI and it said "Arthur Waley's is considered the first near-complete English translation of the work".
Gutemberg tricked me into reading an incomplete work.
Thank you. With that in mind, i would change my rankings to put 1 last.
That's great insight. I had no idea that 1 was incomplete or somehow abridged.
I was wrong about that, only the version I read was incomplete; and the other comments here have almost convinced me that #1 might be the best after all.
02.
I understand why many wish for the 'ye olde' vibe of the language used in 01, but when I'm actually intent on reading something cover to cover I usually end up appreciating a modernized tongue, provided that no meanings are lost or hidden thereby. Someone else commented on it giving YA vibes and that's valid, but I'm assuming that none of the options provided are dumbed down; no way Vox'd risk having an inferior version of the story in the running, let alone win.
If all versions more or less equally tell the story, then reader comfort dominates my reasoning as the secondary concern.
02, 01, 04, 05, 03.
Preference Ranking: 1, 4, 5, 3, 2
Looks like I missed the vote. I'd have said #1, followed by #2.
I took this poll seriously. In reading The Swiss Family Robinson I was struck by how much better it was than the "unabridged" version I read as a child. I really appreciate your focus on accuracy and preservation. I would prefer a translation that focuses on accurately translating the intent of the original Japanese, but also with an eye towards the artistry of the original. I don't care as much about a modern-readable version, I could get that at Barnes and Noble. I voted for 4 on the poll, but I trust your judgement. Thanks for the opportunity to provide some input.
I think these five translations are pretty much it. The only other two translations of which I'm aware are both partial, and one is the first 1882 one.
1 then 5. 1 sounds like it was written by a woman and has a nice poetic rhythm to it. 5 is similar in that it has a poetic rhythm and sounds like it was written by a woman. This sounds like an odd argument, but the Tales of the Genji was written by a woman, and there are certain stylistic qualities that we all share. 3 and 4 were okay. While 2 was the most modern and easiest to read version, it lost something in translation. Translations that try to be modern but lose the tone and style of the original don’t seem to hold up well.
Translation 1 is probably the winner and was the nicest to read, while being the most challenging to follow. I had to re-read a numberof times to follow some of the cultural stuff I don't understand. That's a problem of my own comprehension though.
Translation 2, then 5, were the easiest to read and know what was happening. From my perspective with no Chinese culture knowledge, the circumstances and motivations were much easier to understand.
I dislike 3. It felt stilted. More of a recap as Christopher said below, instead of the story itself.
4 was not as nice as 1, but all the footnotes in the small example here could help clarify things quite a bit.
concur that option 1 is the most lyrical. it would probably be useful to have footnotes for some of the idioms and references. as for instance, many are likely to be ignorant that the "Land beyond the sea" is China.
In Order:
#2 - seems to be the best balance between readability and the poetic language of the original.
#1 - I appreciate it as likely being the one closest to the original; although harder to read, it's definitely rewarding. I would have to read it with my phone nearby to confirm the things I don't understand due to my general ignorance of Japanese history. It wasn't hard to guess what "gentlewomen of the Wardrobe and Chamber" might be, but it's not a title or position I'm familiar with.
#4 - No strong feelings; the approach seems quite similar to #2, but I found the result a little less pleasant to read.
#5 - Reads like Jane Austen did the translation. It's too old-fashioned to feel modern, and not old-fashioned enough to feel like I'm reading a 1400 year old novel. Comes across as stuffy.
#3 - This one gave the impression that it was summarizing the novel instead of translating it. It was the only one that I found boring.