Discussion Q: 10/24

Venuti gives the example of a retranslation that the New York times deemed good, mainly based on a perceived need to update the outdated language in the original translation.

Does a similar need exist for older work that were originally published in English? Does it make sense to translate Shakespeare into more modern language, not in the Cliff-notes No Fear Shakespeare kind of way, but in a way that attempts to mirror the complexity of nuance of the original? After all, Shakespeare is intelligible to a modern reader but is hard to argue that there is something lost in the linguistic difference that makes it difficult for a contemporary reader to fully appreciate the text as one could have in Elizabethan England.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.