Letter to The Times 14 August 2009

Sir, Michael Gove suggests that “reading great literature in translation involves a loss of nuance, a sacrifice of subtlety, which few will admit to” (Opinion, Aug 11).

While acknowledging that reading a book in translation will not be exactly the same experience as reading it in the original language, I believe that the differences may not be as large as Michael Gove fears, and in any case, will probably not matter all that much. It is not unreasonable to believe that a translated work is in some sense a new literary creation which stands in its own right, but this does not in itself devalue the reading experience. Where a skilled translator has brought all his or her skills, experience and artistic ability to the work of translation, the work will not necessarily be less valuable than the original. It is just different.

In some ways, translations could be seen like a different production of the same play. We do not quibble at the different production values but see them as bringing a different light to the work. Sometimes a new translation can reinvigorate a work. It is widely accepted that Edith Grossman’s translation of Don Quixote has effectively relaunched the work and enabled new generations to see its importance as “the first modern novel”. A translation can sometimes achieve transcendence and stand as a major work in its own right. One need only consider the King James Bible, for example.

It would be very sad to miss out on great European literature in order, as he puts it, “to revel in the work of a second division Brit”.

Tom Cunliffe
Seaford, E Sussex