[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

No question, none whatsoever. And I do not in any wise advocate dumbing-down LOTR to the lowest common denominator -- to do so would be like setting a Shakespeare play in New York City...oh, wait, they did that -- wife and kids were watching Romeo and Juliet, with all the original Elizabethan Englishe, but costumed and set in NYC. I can't imagine something similar done to LOTR, but a different English setting was not my point.

How can I, as an American (i.e. one-who-speaks-only-one-language), have any assurance that the Russian who has read LOTR in only his native tongue knows the subtleties of the English version? I have to trust that the translator has made a good faith effort to become familiar enough with the work so as to render a sound and faithful translation. But to render near-verbatim English-to-(insert favorite language here) translations would mean that nothing short of an annotated version in each language, explaining the context in terms understandable to each varied culture, would suffice to convey the meanings as Tolkien intended.

I hate to keep using Shakespeare as an example, but how many moderately educated people have started to read Hamlet or Richard III, and given up after the first few scenes because the language is so archaic? Unless you annotate the text to bring the meaning up-to-date, so to speak, the brilliance of the Bard will be lost to the masses.

What am I saying by all this? That cultural trappings are not the substance. Yes, they are important, even critical, to emulating the style of an author, and even more so playing in his sandbox. But I submit that I have read stories (the aforementioned "The Hobbits" is well worth a read, though I doubt that purists will find it anything other than rubbish) that, for me, were an extension of that world that JRRT first opened for me. Do I confuse them with the originals? Not at all. But they are enjoyable reads for me, and the authors have worked hard and done their best, and I like them. (aside: I've also read much fan trash to find the few treasures...that makes them all the more special.)

Now a few things spring to mind...

First off, I know full well that a lot of kids feel 'alienated' by being presented with Shaespeare to read, but that is not their problem, nor is it Shakespeare's. It is the teacher's problem, and given the right teaching, ALL readers can come to enjoy Shakespeare! I really, really hate dumbed down curricula which, with the best intentions usually, only deny certain sectors of society from access to quality literature and quality learning. For example, this trend to kids studying excerpts instead of works. A 'sexed-up' modern version (e.g. a film, comic book etc) can stand alongside an original as a fab teaching aid (or as fun - I personally love 'graphic versions' of books), but it can never be a replacement.

Now onto language...a comparison between an British English speaker and any other English speaker might also be found in a modern English speaker and a speaker of Middle English. When I read Chaucer I pretty much understand what he wrote, but inevitably over time nuances have been lost - someone needs to tell me what these are! I am not upset nor is my intelligence insulted that someone steps in (usually a teacher or whoever writes the footnotes) to tell me what that word means, what it meant back then. Let's bring up Shakespeare again (you did so I can :P) - there are many words in his work I didn't understand until I was told what they meant - swive for example, and sneap - this latter I only discovered from talking to a modern day person from Nuneaton who uses the word in her everyday slang. I am really pleased I can find out what these words meant, it gives me greater understanding!

So, I'm not sure why folk get so indignant when say davem brings up examples of language use that are specifically English (as in culturally not linguistically), but I think this could be down to the influence of Political Correctness. It's an uncomfortable, yet inevitable fact to me that when I pick up some Goethe to read (and I do like Faust, it's ace) I will inevitably, as a non-native German speaker (actually a pretty poor speaker of German at all) not understand the full meaning of some of the words therein unless someone tells me about them. However I'm not going to get in a hissyfit over it - it's life.

As for other variations of English, yeah, I struggle with those too, and it causes much hilarity when I get American biscuits confused with English ones (along the lines of: Eyuw! Gravy? On Chocolate Hobnobs? You savages!) for example. but I'm not going to come over all insulted when a kindly American explains the difference! It's actually both funny and interesting to me. Same with a lot of songs - I just do not 'get' the references in the lyrics. Fact of life.

So we have choices:
we accept that sometimes some readers will not 'get' everything.
we accept that annotated versions are actually useful.
we don't get the hump when someone explains something from the culture of the writer.
we carry on as we are, having hissy fits because we have a chip* about thinking the other person considers us a 'colonial' or a 'foreigner' - errr, no we don't, we just want to explain what it means because it's useful and informative. Otherwise it really is Political correctness gone mad...

*it can be one from a sealed foil bag or one out of a dep fat fryer, I don't care either way...

Originally Posted by Raynor

It is better in a discussion to present actual arguments, rather than send people on a wild goose chase - esspecially if it was you in such a thread that mentioned the Shire a case of anarchism.

Hmmm, but there is a search function, and you shall find many inteersting discussions that way. Alas I aint got time to cross-reference with abandon