Interesting question. I haven’t recently completed a translated work, but I have one in progress: Godsong, a new verse translation of the Bhagavad-Gita, by Amit Majmudar.
As it happens, I’ve thought a lot about the question of translations and their relation to the original. One of the basic issues concerns whether to render the text literally or to convey its spirit by finding its equivalent expressions in the target language. The former may be incomprehensible to someone who does not share the cultural context of the original, never mind the nuances of the language, and the latter relies on interpretation that may depart significantly from the original author’s intent. When I’m really serious about a text from another language, I look at several translations side by side and read all the translator’s notes.
When I was studying the Heart Sutra, I laid out about 17 translations side by side with the original. Even though I didn’t know Sanskrit, I was able to wring a lot of information out of the source material. In the end I preferred one each: a very literal translation and a very fluent, poetic one.
But if it’s a pleasure read—a novel, let’s say—then I want something that is, if possible, as well written as the original, as competent and coherent, so that I can enjoy it in its own right. For instance, I enjoyed The Nakano Thrift Shop, translated from Japanese, and thought it worked well in English. True, a little knowledge of Japanese language and culture was helpful, but I didn’t notice the sort of unevenness and awkwardness that often occur in translations.
So—I think translations can be very effective when they’re done with care and sensitivity, but there will always be compromises when the author has to speak to us through an intermediary instead of addressing us directly.
Why do you ask?