ProZ.com Translation Forums

Shakespeare & Company a “socialist utopia masquerading as a bookstore” | Books in Paris.

Michele Fauble — Sat, 29 Aug 2026 15:35:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Shakespeare & Company a “socialist utopia masquerading as a bookstore”
Poster: Michele Fauble
Post title: Books in Paris.

I don’t think I’ve been there more than once. When I’m in Paris, I’m not looking for books in English.

Shakespeare & Company a “socialist utopia masquerading as a bookstore”

Maria Teresa Borges de Almeida — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 16:42:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Shakespeare & Company a “socialist utopia masquerading as a bookstore”
Poster: Maria Teresa Borges de Almeida

An article in ‘The Economist’ about the famous bookshop in Paris turning 75…

"What the world’s most famous bookshop reveals about culture

Shakespeare and Company in Paris is turning 75. Is its success replicable?

The summer afternoon was hot, but no one in the queue seemed bothered. Dozens were patiently waiting to enter Shakespeare and Company, a storied bookshop perched on the left bank of the Seine opposite Notre Dame cathedral. “That’s where Shakespeare wrote for a while,” a passerby informed her friends. No one corrected her—discretion being the better part of valour and all.

“The myth-telling is fascinating,” says Sylvia Whitman, who runs the English-language bookshop with her partner. “It adds to the house of stories that a bookshop can be.” She has heard it all: that Shakespeare, who never left England, resided here, or that Sylvia Plath, another poet, founded it.

In fact, Shakespeare and Company was launched by Ms Whitman’s father, George, 75 years ago this month (first under the name Le Mistral). It is probably the most famous bookshop in the world, enjoying a halo from its proximity to some of literature’s patron saints. Around 2,000-3,000 people visit each day—nearly 1m a year—spurred by the shop’s hundreds of thousands of social-media followers. It claims more impressive screen credits than many actors, having appeared in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris”, Richard Linklater’s “Before Sunset” and a French film, “Jane Austen Wrecked My Life”. A hit TV series, “Emily in Paris”, asked to feature it, but Ms Whitman declined. The bookshop already contends with so many selfie-snappers.

How does a books-and-mortar shop withstand three-quarters of a century and still get people to queue to enter? One answer is a clever approach to social media. Photos and videos are prohibited inside. This enhances the shop’s mystique among those who while away hours on Instagram and TikTok. “You can’t see what it looks like online, so that’s kind of cool,” says Hannah, a literature student from England who had come to take in “the older, nostalgic vibe” for herself.

This strategy differs from that of other pilgrimage sites for bibliophiles, such as El Ateneo Grand Splendid, housed in a grand former theatre in Buenos Aires, and Livraria Lello in Porto, which looks like a cross between a cathedral and a robber baron’s mansion. (The latter claims to be the “most beautiful bookshop” in the world, and you have to buy a ticket to go in.) But it fits with a broader trend of people’s curiosity being piqued by some restaurants, stores and concerts starting to ban smartphones. No-photo policies offer a feeling of authencity and unique experience.

Ms Whitman also understands that buyers are not only seeking an entertaining tale, but a story about how and where they bought that book. Customers are offered a stamp of the Shakespeare and Company logo on the inside cover to certify their copy’s origin. The shop stocks loads of luxurious hardbacks, which have the look of yesteryear. (Top sellers include classics such as Victor Hugo’s “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s “The Little Prince”.) Far from killing print, e-books have made some consumers keener to splurge on special editions.

But probably the biggest explanation for the shop’s success is how it has embraced the myths surrounding it. Shakespeare and Company is like a Russian doll, containing several brands inside. First, its name evokes the most famous writer in the English language. Second, there is the shop that preceded it, which had the same name. That one was founded by Sylvia Beach, an American, in 1919. She was courageous enough to publish James Joyce’s “Ulysses” when everyone thought it was obscene, and likeable enough to count superstars, including Ernest Hemingway and T.S. Eliot, as friends. Beach’s bookstore closed during the second world war, and legend has it that she later gave Whitman permission to adopt her shop’s name.

Though Whitman was not always a reliable narrator. He was, said Lawrence Ferlinghetti, a poet and friend, “the most eccentric person I’ve ever met in my life”. (That is saying quite a lot, considering Ferlinghetti marched to the beat of the Beatniks.) Whitman claimed he was the grandson of Walt Whitman—his father was a university professor named Walter, unrelated to the famous poet. He also named his daughter Sylvia, which linked his life and shop to Beach’s. This still spawns confusion. When Mr Allen wrote a note to the team at Shakespeare and Company after filming there, he addressed it to Sylvia Beach, who had died in 1962.

Whitman described his store as a “socialist utopia masquerading as a bookstore”. More than 30,000 people have stayed there and in the flats above—many of them writers—in exchange for working, reading and writing a one-page autobiography. The shop is decidedly more commercial these days, with a coffee shop next door. Higher-margin merchandise, including tote bags and notebooks, accounts for around 30% of total sales, says Ms Whitman. It also hosts writers’ talks and an annual celebration of “Ulysses”, which are partly supported by the shop’s foundation.

How replicable is its formula? Many other bookstores peddle merchandise and host author events. Having signed copies by authors can triple book sales, notes Andrew Pettegree, who has written a forthcoming history of bookshops.

Yet Shakespeare and Company’s is an impossible playbook to copy. Its history and location in central Paris are unbeatable. “Very few booksellers own their real estate” as Shakespeare and Company does, notes James Daunt, the boss of Barnes & Noble, a chain. He points out that a bookshop that also happened to be called Shakespeare & Co (no relation) closed last year in New York, citing rising rents among other challenges.
Yet “good” bookshops are thriving, says Mr Daunt. In America there has been a proliferation of independent ones, with about 400 launching physical stores last year, 62% more than a year earlier. They have become community gathering spaces. More owners understand, as Whitman did, that it is “not only about selling books. It’s about being a cultural market,” says Ewelina Oksiuta, director of the European and International Booksellers Federation, a trade group. “People in the age of smartphones and digitalisation are looking for presence and human touch.”

In its own way, Shakespeare and Company also contends with the boon and challenge of tourism. “We’ve always been trying to get a balance between being a popular visit site for people passing through the city and yet trying to keep our connections more local,” says Ms Whitman. Some expats feel the shop caters more to passersby than Parisians. An access card, a flash of which lets you skip the line, is doled out to only the most loyal and prominent patrons, who are sure to be able to tell their Sylvias apart and distinguish between the shop’s chapters."

I’ve only been there once, many years ago, and found myself facing a queue almost as long as the one at the Louvre. It has a very eclectic, almost bohemian vibe, but I much prefer ‘Lello’ in Porto…

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Don't offer universal recipes

kd42 — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:33:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: kd42
Post title: Don't offer universal recipes

[quote]Marijke Singer wrote:
I like this Spanish saying. Literally, It is in the fifth pine tree.
It means to be far away or in an inhospitable remote place. I would translate it as being in the back of beyond. [/quote]
OK, but what if the text plays upon the concept of "pine tree" later on?
What if it is interpreting, not written translation?

I know many stories about real situations with the translation of proverbs and sayings.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Está en el quinto pino

Marijke Singer — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 09:22:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Marijke Singer
Post title: Está en el quinto pino

I like this Spanish saying. Literally, It is in the fifth pine tree.
It means to be far away or in an inhospitable remote place. I would translate it as being in the back of beyond.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | You need both!

Daryo — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 11:36:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Daryo
Post title: You need both!

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
No, but you know what you think, and what you think affects your translation choices. You are the reader, and when you ask "what is the author trying to say?", you are asking "what is the author trying to say to me?"[/quote]

I agree, Philip. I was merely responding to Samuel's claim that I don't agree with. If you as a translator feel that "slave" is a proper translation, then you aren't responsible for readers confusing the concept of slavery between eras. That's all I'm trying to say.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
This is dodging the issue. A translator is not responsible for a reader's knowledge, or lack thereof, but translators are responsible for their own knowledge, and for how that knowledge affects their work.[/quote]

Again, I agree. I'm not sure why you are trying to use this against me. My response to Samuel had nothing to do with my earlier replies to your posts. I simply don't agree with the statement that we should consider what "our readers" (who might be a very diverse bunch of people) think about our translation if we think it's a proper one.

EDIT: let me put it this way, and perhaps we very much disagree on this: in my view a translator should try to get into the head of the author, not into the head of the reader. It's not our job to clarify things on behalf of the author, but "merely" to convey what they are trying to say, and how they are saying it.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 07:51 GMT] [/quote]

You surely do need to 'get into the head' of the author (and understand the whole 'context' at the time and place of writing) but that's only the first step.

Once you are reasonably sure that you have yourself understood the ST, you have next to 'get into the head' of the intended readership otherwise you've done only half of the job, quit halfway.

Limiting yourself to"merely" convey what authors are trying to say, and how they are saying it is fine, but has to be done in a way that the intended audience understands what's really in the Source Text. In doing that, there is a not so small difference between 'pandering to what readers like or don’t like to hear' [so that they can keep believing that their own time-and-space-limited bubble is all that ever existed anywhere at any time] and ‘adapting to the intended audience by using 'their language' in a way that the intended readers understand what the ST really says'.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Ask your professor

kd42 — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 20:06:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: kd42
Post title: Ask your professor

[quote]Tasneem Burqan wrote:

Hello everyone,
I am a student at Palestine Polytechnic University, taking a course in translation. I am currently working on a small project about translating proverbs from English to Arabic.

I would really appreciate hearing from professional translators and experienced language users:

• What strategies do you use when translating proverbs that don’t have a direct equivalent in another language?
• Do you prefer to find a cultural equivalent, explain the meaning, or translate literally with a note?
• Can you share an example of a proverb you translated and how you handled it?

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
[/quote] This is a topic in Practical Translation, there is no single recipe, your professor should explain you the theory, provide examples, and conduct a workshop.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | @Agneta

Samuel Murray — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:37:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Agneta

[quote]Agneta Pallinder wrote:
Swedish "Den som gapar efter mycket mister ofta hela stycket"
Literal translation: "He who opens his mouth for a big bite often loses the whole piece" [/quote]
How about, "He who tries to carry all the groceries all at once ends up dropping it all" (-:

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Their crime

Samuel Murray — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:31:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: Their crime

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
Their crime was not so much the sexual aspect of their behaviour, but the fact that they "mingled" with outsiders, thus showing disloyalty to the household. [/quote]
I think what the slave girls were guilty of and why Telemachus felt that he was doing justice to them is similar to what happened to some women at the end of the Second World War in countries that were occupied by German forces.

After the war, when "order was restored", women who had relations with soldiers of the occupying force were treated very poorly (publicly humiliated, raped, etc.), and the people who did these things to them felt a strong sense of justice doing it. Even today, in the Netherlands, when these events are recounted in history lessons, the narrator is often extremely objective and does not have any criticism of the local population or exhibit sympathy for the women to whom these things have happened.

It is a similar situation where in modern times local people work as professional interpreters for foreign, enemy, occupying forces. And it is amazing how perspective plays a role. Most people in the Netherlands take sides with the local people who worked as interpreters in US-run Afghanistan even though they were collaborators with an occupying force. Those same people feel justified in continuing to use slurs for people who collaborated with the occupying German forces 75 years ago.

In a modern retelling of Odyssey, I suppose Telemachus would simply fire the maids. For even though maids are not slaves, even maids have a disadvantaged power position in modern society which limits their ability to "say no" to their superiors. I would be fine with a "translation" that does that.

[Edited at 2026-01-18 10:33 GMT]

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | @Tasneem

Samuel Murray — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:09:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Tasneem

Do you mean "proverb" (i.e. a wise saying) or do you mean "idiomatic expression" or "metaphor"? Can you give some examples of what you're referring to? Do you mean "Strike while the iron is hot" or "It's a piece of cake"?

[quote]Tasneem Burqan wrote:
• What strategies do you use when translating proverbs that don’t have a direct equivalent in another language? [/quote]

I first ask whether a target language reader would recognize that the text is not meant to be interpreted literally, but as a proverb. Then I ask whether a source language reader would likely know what the proverb means, and/or if it is just a fixed expression in the language. E.g. "strike while the iron is hot" has nothing to do with domestic abuse, but how many English speakers will know that it refers to an activity in a foundry?

Other questions include whether a source text reader who has never encountered the proverb will know what the proverb mean. Or how important it is to the translation that (a) the translation contain a proverb and (b) the proverb reference the specific literal elements of the original.

Translators in my bubble are all about speed. We can't spend too much time trying to come up with the ideal translations. So we try to find a translation that is "good enough", and quickly.

If you can't think of a translation immediately, you can ask ChatGPT for 10 other proverbs that mean the same thing, and see if you can quickly find the translation of any of the other proverbs. Or, you can try to replace variable elements and see if a literal translation still sounds odd in your language. E.g. "the early bird catches the worm" > the early angler catches the fish.

With longer proverbs, like "if your dog starts biting your hand, someone else is feeding it", I would be inclined to translate it literally (if the same cultural elements also appear in the target language) and trust that the reader will be able to figure it out.

[quote]• Do you prefer to find a cultural equivalent, explain the meaning, or translate literally with a note? [/quote]
No translator uses footnotes, uUnless you're translating a text where the reader is aware that he is reading a translation *and* the reader is the type of reader who would like to be exposed to curated elements of the original culture in a safe environment.

Sure, you can use internal notes. E.g. you can replace a Russian proverb "AAA" with "as the Russian proverb goes, 'BBB', which means CCC". (and BBB being a literal translation of AAA).

[Edited at 2026-01-18 10:12 GMT]

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Excuse me

Philip Lees — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 06:13:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Excuse me

[quote]Agneta Pallinder wrote:

An example:
Swedish "Den som gapar efter mycket mister ofta hela stycket"
Literal translation: "He who opens his mouth for a big bite often loses the whole piece"
English equivalent: "Grasp all - lose all". [/quote]
Never heard that one.

How about: Don't bite off more than you can chew?

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | first things first

Gregor Trebec — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 01:26:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Gregor Trebec
Post title: first things first

First things first! Inform yourself about the meaning of the proverb in original language. Than try to find it translated. If worse comes to worse, translate it literally.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | A side note, hopefully relevant

kd42 — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 20:37:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: kd42
Post title: A side note, hopefully relevant

A passage from “Escape Attempt” — a novel by the Strugatski brothers, and a linguistic explanation by the patient janitor. The events are in the distant future, Saul is from XX century, he was accidentally catapulted into the future.

The novel:
[quote]— W-well… if it’s the coast, then the coast, — Saul said uncertainly. He looked at Anton. — For my purposes, — he cleared his throat, — the choice of location is not essential.
— Splendid! — said Vadim. He briskly dropped into the chair beside Anton. — That’s enough! — he announced. — The captain has been struck with paralysis and, in a deplorable state, carried off to his cabin. The broad-shouldered, well-built second pilot has taken command. — He placed his fingers on the bio-control contacts, and the Ship immediately plunged into an abyss. The continent on the screen began to rotate nauseatingly. Vadim declaimed:

All with terror weep and wail
Trambling like a bathhouse leaf!
For the Ship is now commanded
By the most structural linguist.

Saul dropped his briefcase with a clatter and clutched Anton’s shoulder.
— Dimka, at least tell us where you’re aiming, — Anton asked.
— There, — Vadim replied vaguely. — Where blue waves caress the sand.
The Ship lurched heavily to starboard.
— Easy, easy, — said Anton. — Less emotion. You won’t hit the continent.
— Maybe I will.

— We’ve landed, — said Anton. — Welcome to Saul’s planet.
— Nevertheless, you are a daring pilot, — Saul said to Vadim.
— Extremely daring, — Anton agreed. — Do you know how far off you have made it, Dimka? About two hundred kilometers. But you managed to switch off the screen in time — well done.
— Habit, — Vadim said carelessly.
Anton stood up.
— By the way, what is a “bathhouse leaf”? — he asked.
Vadim stood up as well.
— That, Toshka, is a murky question. There’s an archaic idiom: “to tremble like a bathhouse leaf.” A bathhouse leaf is a kind of brazier, — he began gesturing with his hands. — It was installed in the floors of smoke-filled bathhouses, and when “steam was thrown” on — that is, when water was splashed onto the brazier — the red-hot sheet would begin to vibrate.

Saul suddenly burst out laughing. He laughed deeply and with relish, wiping tears with his palm and stamping his boots. No one understood anything, and within a minute everyone was laughing.
— A funny custom, isn’t it? — Vadim said, coughing with laughter.
— Really, Saul, why are you laughing? — Anton asked.
— Oh! — said Saul. — I’m just so glad I’ve arrived on my own planet…
Vadim stopped laughing.
— In the end, I’m not a Slavist, — he said with dignity. — My specialty is structural analysis.
[/quote]

The explanations:
[quote] 1. What the idiom actually means (from Saul’s point of view)
The Russian expression «дрожать как банный лист» is an old colloquial simile meaning to tremble violently with fear.
In Saul’s 20th-century cultural frame, a банный лист (“bathhouse leaf”) is not a technical object at all. It refers to:
• either a birch leaf (or a bunch of leaves) used in a traditional Russian steam bath,
• or more loosely, a thin leaf stuck to a sweating body, trembling and fluttering.
The phrase survives as a fossilized idiom; its imagery is vague but culturally familiar, and no literal explanation is normally expected or needed.

2. Vadim’s explanation — plausible, technical, and wrong
Vadim, living in the future and trained in structural analysis, does not actually know the idiom’s origin. Instead of admitting ignorance, he:
• invents a rationalized, quasi-technical explanation,
• reinterprets “leaf” literally as a metal sheet,
• situates it in an imagined archaic technology (a brazier in a smoke bath),
• and explains the trembling as thermal vibration.
The explanation sounds:
• learned,
• confident,
• internally consistent,
• and completely fabricated.
This is characteristic of Vadim: he replaces cultural knowledge with structural plausibility.

3. Why Saul laughs
Saul’s laughter is delayed and uncontrollable because several realizations hit him at once:
1. He instantly recognizes the explanation as utter nonsense.
2. He realizes that:
• a future intellectual,
• a “structural linguist,”
is confidently explaining his own native idiom to him — and explaining it wrong.
3. The idiom, something utterly mundane in Saul’s time, has:
• become obscure,
• lost its living cultural context,
• and turned into a subject of speculative pseudo-scholarship.
For Saul, this is not just funny — it is existentially comic.

4. The deeper, science-fictional layer
The joke works on a classic sci-fi theme:
• Cultural entropy over time: everyday expressions degrade into misunderstood artifacts.
• The future misunderstands the past, even while believing it understands it better.
• Scientific confidence replaces lived knowledge.

5. Why Vadim’s final line matters
Vadim’s closing remark:
“I’m not a Slavist. My specialty is structural analysis.”
is both a defense and a punchline.
It admits, without quite admitting, that:
• formal analysis without cultural grounding leads to absurdity, and
• expertise in systems does not equal understanding of human meaning.
In short, the misunderstanding is funny because it is perfectly logical, entirely wrong, and historically inevitable. [/quote]

Vadim is actually mixing two ancient idioms:
- to tremble like an aspen leaf;
- to stick like a bathroom leaf.

So much for understanding what Homer wanted to say.

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators | Look for an equivalent

Agneta Pallinder — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 12:00:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Agneta Pallinder
Post title: Look for an equivalent

If you are translating a text that happens to include a proverb I would try to find an equivalent in the target language/ target culture.

So much of the power of proverbs comes from the fact that they are familiar and instantly bring up a whole lot of associations. If you just translate the text of the proverb you lose all of that. Much better to spend some time and imagination on working out what the associations are that the source text proverb carries with it and look for a proverb or saying in the target language that carries similar associations. Mind you, you might still lose some of the expressive power of the original.

An example:
Swedish "Den som gapar efter mycket mister ofta hela stycket"
Literal translation: "He who opens his mouth for a big bite often loses the whole piece"
English equivalent: "Grasp all - lose all".

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Still not possible

Philip Lees — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 07:38:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Still not possible

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:

While I acknowledge everything you said about how difficult it is to escape from own time's and culture's viewpoints when translating an ancient text, I think what Wilson has tried to do is exactly not that: she wanted her translation to reflect the original viewpoints and social values.[/quote]
I'm not questioning her intention, but I still think it's not possible to do that. At least, not in this manner.

[quote]She feels that if the source text says "slave women", then we should not translate it as e.g. "domestic servants", even if those women happen to have been domestic servants also, or as "whores", even if those women were guilty of whoring.[/quote]
The original Greek word was not included in the quoted text, so I asked ChatGPT to look it up, and it's δμῷή (dmōē), meaning female slave or female household servant. Further research reveals that these slaves would have probably been captured in battle, and thus became the victor's property, as was the rule at that time.

So there's no question but that these women were indeed slaves. Their crime was not so much the sexual aspect of their behaviour, but the fact that they "mingled" with outsiders, thus showing disloyalty to the household.

[quote]Put differently, she wants her translation to reflect Homer's point of view, not Telemachus' or Eurycleia's point of view. What Telemachus and Eurycleia might have thought of the slave women is not relevant to Wilson: only what Homer thought is relevant.[/quote]
But even accepting that "slave" is a better translation of δμῷή than other alternatives, does that tell us what Homer thought about it, i.e. how he perceived the word δμῷή? I don't think so.

Would Homer's emotional response to δμῷή match that of a modern reader to the word "slave". We can't possibly know for sure, but personally, I would doubt it.

Although educated Greeks in those ancient times did have moral questions about the whole idea of slavery, and the concept of "owning" another person, it was nevertheless standard practice among the civilisations of that time, and Homer would have considered these women's status to be a component of a normal aristocratic household.

You can't "reflect the original viewpoints and social values" of a far-off age and a different culture without understanding that culture in depth. It isn't just a matter of how you translate individual words, because those words may have had a completely different emotional resonance for the people of that era than they do for the typical reader today (whoever that is). I think you made this point yourself, Samuel, in an earlier post.

Summing up, whether "slave" is a better translation of δμῷή than "maidservant" or other alternatives, whether it is "closer" to the original, depends on what was upmost in Homer's mind when he came up with the description. Nobody knows that for sure, except Homer himself.

And finally, since Homer didn't write his epics down, it's possible that his stories were "edited" by subsequent artists before being put to paper and reaching the form we have available today.

So who knows what Homer thought about it?

Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators

Tasneem Burqan — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 01:15:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: Translating proverbs: advice from professional translators
Poster: Tasneem Burqan

Hello everyone,
I am a student at Palestine Polytechnic University, taking a course in translation. I am currently working on a small project about translating proverbs from English to Arabic.

I would really appreciate hearing from professional translators and experienced language users:

• What strategies do you use when translating proverbs that don’t have a direct equivalent in another language?
• Do you prefer to find a cultural equivalent, explain the meaning, or translate literally with a note?
• Can you share an example of a proverb you translated and how you handled it?

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | @Daryo, @Philip

Samuel Murray — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:59:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Daryo, @Philip

[quote]Daryo wrote:
What I'm most sceptical about are any claims about 'the authentic meaning' of something written about 27 centuries ago. [/quote]
On the one hand, I think we need to realize that the Facebook article was written with a particular audience in mind. We should take such wild statements with a pinch of salt. The publisher is trying to convince potential purchasers (who are not translators or classicists) that this book is somehow different from all the other translations.

On the other hand, whitewashing (or sanitizing, or whatever we call it) is a frequent criticism of translations of classical literature, so if a translator chose to translate as close to the actual meaning as she can possibly get -- within the limits of her knowledge and expertise -- then I kind of understand what she is trying to say. Her publisher wants to assure us that they did not give her restrictions (e.g. ask her to soften the language, so that it offends fewer readers), but allowed her to be as explicit as she believes was necessary to convey the original meaning.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
Is it a good thing for someone to produce a new translation of Homer that reflects 21st century western viewpoints and social values? [/quote]
While I acknowledge everything you said about how difficult it is to escape from own time's and culture's viewpoints when translating an ancient text, I think what Wilson has tried to do is exactly not that: she wanted her translation to reflect the original viewpoints and social values.

She feels that if the source text says "slave women", then we should not translate it as e.g. "domestic servants", even if those women happen to have been domestic servants also, or as "whores", even if those women were guilty of whoring.

Put differently, she wants her translation to reflect Homer's point of view, not Telemachus' or Eurycleia's point of view. What Telemachus and Eurycleia might have thought of the slave women is not relevant to Wilson: only what Homer thought is relevant.

[Edited at 2026-01-15 20:11 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | @Lieven

Samuel Murray — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:50:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: @Lieven

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:
[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:
We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".[/quote]
We ask "what is the author trying to say" and try to convey exactly that. [/quote]
Yes, obviously, and then we choose words that our readers will understand correctly (as opposed to words that a dictionary says is the correct word, or words that an etymologist thinks is correct, etc.). And in the case of the translation of a story, we are usually not flying blind w.r.t. our readers -- we know what kind of reader will read our translation.

Is the reader an academic classicist or is the reader a member of the public with a fleeting interest in something classical? I get the impression that Wilson's translation is not meant for students of Greek, but for the public, and specifically (if I may speculate) a US public.

[quote]For the example you are giving I would say a translator is most definitely not responsible for readers' presumed lack of knowledge about the difference between slaves in the classical antiquity and African slaves in the US. [/quote]
No, but the translator can take it into account when choosing the most appropriate word.

It is possible that translators who had a classical education are are fully aware of the difference between modern life and classical life, but I had no such education, and I can assure you that the average person of my level and type of education would not know that when Homer says "slave", he might actually mean a perpetual indentured servant.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Selling

Maria Laura Curzi — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:24:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Maria Laura Curzi
Post title: Selling

[quote]Evgeny Sidorenko wrote:

I wonder why anyone would like to translate something again. Only because it would be more 'readable' for the modern user or gender-biased or something? There's lots of untranslated books. Not all of them are Homer of course, but I have never understood the concept of 'new translations' often promoted by the publishers. So much resourse has been spent on retranslating of books, some of which are not worth this double effort, while there are so many more that would never be translated at all. There may be cases of very bad quality translations of supposedly 'very good books' that have at some point actually justified a new translation, but on the whole I think it's a great waste of translators' time and energy. [/quote]

AFAIK, publishers' ultimate goal is to sell as many books as possible.
An "old translation" - I would consider "old" a translation done more than 30 years ago - is harder to market to new readers than a new translation.
So, even if they spend resources on new translations, their ROI is always bigger, especially if we consider the rates the literary market offers.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Agree

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:04:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Agree

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

EDIT: let me put it this way, and perhaps we very much disagree on this: in my view a translator should try to get into the head of the author, not into the head of the reader. It's not our job to clarify things on behalf of the author, but "merely" to convey what they are trying to say, and how they are saying it.[/quote]
I just noticed this addition, so let me say that I completely agree with you, Lieven, and in fact I've expressed the same view in another discussion here.

"The words are mine, but the voice the reader hears - if I've done my job properly - is not mine: it's the author's voice, just speaking a different language."

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | None taken

Lieven Malaise — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:18:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: None taken

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
I wasn't trying to do anything "against" you, and I'm sorry if it came over that way. It appears I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, given the varying context. I respect your opinions, even if I may not agree with all of them.[/quote]

No offense taken. It just seemed you were trying to say that I contradicted myself in some way and I was struggling to see how.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
But don't all writers, including translators, have some kind of mental picture of their reader (or, ideally, readers), and how they are likely to respond to what they read. We don't just write for ourselves - or do we? [/quote]

Well, as you already sort of said: we are translator and reader at the same time, so of course it's important to ask oneself if what we write makes sense from a reader's point of view. As a translator, though, I feel more like we write for the writer/author and less for the reader. It's the author that has a mental picture of their readers. As a translator we will probably/hopefully identify those readers through the source text (or because we are simply told for whom the text is meant) and take that into account, but I strongly believe we should be more like modest "servants" (mind you, not "slaves", to stay a little closer to the topic :-)) at the service of the rock stars (the writers) than trying to be a bit of a rock star ourselves.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 08:19 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Deleted

Lieven Malaise — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:17:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: Deleted

Double post

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 08:18 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | No offence

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:55:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: No offence

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

Again, I agree. I'm not sure why you are trying to use this against me. My response to Samuel had nothing to do with my earlier replies to your posts. I simply don't agree with the statement that we should consider what "our readers" (who might be a very diverse bunch of people) think about our translation if we think it's a proper one. [/quote]
I wasn't trying to do anything "against" you, and I'm sorry if it came over that way. It appears I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, given the varying context. I respect your opinions, even if I may not agree with all of them.

But don't all writers, including translators, have some kind of mental picture of their reader (or, ideally, readers), and how they are likely to respond to what they read. We don't just write for ourselves - or do we?

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Clarification

Lieven Malaise — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:35:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: Clarification

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
No, but you know what you think, and what you think affects your translation choices. You are the reader, and when you ask "what is the author trying to say?", you are asking "what is the author trying to say to me?"[/quote]

I agree, Philip. I was merely responding to Samuel's claim that I don't agree with. If you as a translator feel that "slave" is a proper translation, then you aren't responsible for readers confusing the concept of slavery between eras. That's all I'm trying to say.

[quote]Philip Lees wrote:
This is dodging the issue. A translator is not responsible for a reader's knowledge, or lack thereof, but translators are responsible for their own knowledge, and for how that knowledge affects their work.[/quote]

Again, I agree. I'm not sure why you are trying to use this against me. My response to Samuel had nothing to do with my earlier replies to your posts. I simply don't agree with the statement that we should consider what "our readers" (who might be a very diverse bunch of people) think about our translation if we think it's a proper one.

EDIT: let me put it this way, and perhaps we very much disagree on this: in my view a translator should try to get into the head of the author, not into the head of the reader. It's not our job to clarify things on behalf of the author, but "merely" to convey what they are trying to say, and how they are saying it.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-15 07:51 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Dodging issues

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:18:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Dodging issues

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:
We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".[/quote]
We ask "what is the author trying to say" and try to convey exactly that. In my opinion that has got nothing to do with what readers might think. We mostly don't know those readers, apart from the "market" they belong to, let alone what they might think.[/quote]
No, but you know what you think, and what you think affects your translation choices. You are the reader, and when you ask "what is the author trying to say?", you are asking "what is the author trying to say to me?"

[quote]For the example you are giving I would say a translator is most definitely not responsible for readers' presumed lack of knowledge about the difference between slaves in the classical antiquity and African slaves in the US. [/quote]
This is dodging the issue. A translator is not responsible for a reader's knowledge, or lack thereof, but translators are responsible for their own knowledge, and for how that knowledge affects their work.

And when we are trying to figure out what a writer meant when using a particular word there is no "exactly" (apart from trivial cases): there is only our best guess, and different people may guess differently. That doesn't mean that one is right and the other wrong.

(Unless you are able to ask the author: [url removed] )

Is it a good thing for someone to produce a new translation of Homer that reflects 21st century western viewpoints and social values? I would answer, "Yes!" Apart from anything else, it has prompted one of the more interesting discussions on these forums.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Getting real

Philip Lees — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:56:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Getting real

[quote]Daryo wrote:

What I'm most sceptical about are any claims about 'the authentic meaning' of something written about 27 centuries ago. Getting right the meaning of words (their denotations and connotations) as they were used barely a century or two ago can already be a tricky business enough - anyone claiming that they can fully immerse themselves in the language, ways of thinking and living from about 2700 to 2800 years ago based on nothing more than not that many surviving documents leaves me highly unconvinced.

I still think the book is worth reading, as no translation of such an old text could be 'the definitive one'.
[/quote]
These are the same points I wanted to make. I suppose there might be a "definitive" translation of the Odyssey for the 17th century English reader, but the "definitive" translation for the 20th or 21st century reader might be quite different.

The point about different perceptions of slavery in different eras and societies is a good one. Let's do a thought experiment.

Assume that human society is still around 2000 years from now, and in that future society, people look back on our current era and, given the disastrous environmental and economic consequences that their ancestors (i.e. our descendants) had to survive, they view the massive and universal use of oil-burning vehicles for individual transportation with the same kind of repugnance that we now view the massive and universal practice of slavery 2000 years ago.

Now imagine that you are a translator in that future society, and you are translating a work of 20th century fiction, when you come across a scene in which a single character gets into a car and drives to the supermarket to do some shopping.

How are you going to deal with that behaviour in your translation? Will you present it with the same insouciance as it would be viewed by the character involved - and the people around them - in their own era? Or would you feel you had to put on your fifth millennium spectacles and recast the activity in a way that reflects the views of the people of your time?

There are arguments to support both approaches. But which would produce a target text that was "closer" to the source?

I maintain that there is no correct answer to this question. As I wrote in an earlier post, it is entirely subjective, and purely a matter of perspective.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | You sure could call that 'a status' ...

Daryo — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:11:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Daryo
Post title: You sure could call that 'a status' ...

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:

[quote]The Facebook post:
Earlier translators described these women using various English words: "maids," "servants," "disloyal women." ... Wilson looked at the Greek. The word Homer uses, she explains, has a root meaning "to overpower, to tame, to subdue." These were not servants with wages and choices. They were enslaved women with no power to refuse powerful men. Wilson translated the word as "slaves." [/quote]
That is true, but in Odyssian times, slaves had status. By contrast, when US readers read "slaves", they will invariably think of something similar to the African slaves that were brought to the US. US slaves were generally treated very poorly, and did not practice trades but did the most manual work possible. Odyssian slaves were slaves in the sense that they were not free, but they were otherwise ordinary members of society. There were nothing like the US slaves. By choosing to translate the word as "female slave", Wilson risks that her readers will misunderstand what Homer meant by the word. Yes, they were slaves, but not *those* kind of slaves. This is why we as professional translators generally do not look at the root meaning of a word when we translate it. We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".

By the way, I asked ChatGPT how other authors translated this word. ChatGPT then gave me a very useful list, but... it claimed that Wilson had used the term "the enslaved women", which is not true. It is plausible (and we know that ChatGPT excels at telling us plausible things), but it is not true. Wilson used "female slaves". [/quote]

They sure did have a 'status' - the one of being 'things', most literally the personal property of their owners. Plenty resources available about what Aristotle had to say about 'living tools' that can talk (you can look it up for yourself - WITHOUT wasting time on CheatGPT preferably)

'otherwise ordinary members of society'? - Ordinary?? Maybe in the sense that everyone ***at that time*** considered slavery as 'an ordinary thing' but certainly not ordinary enough that their opinion would count for anything, as they were counted as legal objects not as legal subjects! Are you going to say next that democracy was for them also?

The founders of democracy seeing nothing wrong in being slave owners, and even had their own elaborate justification for it? Not the first nor the last 'inconvenient fact' being conveniently forgotten … until some affreux Jojo has the temerity to remind you of them.

What I'm most sceptical about are any claims about 'the authentic meaning' of something written about 27 centuries ago. Getting right the meaning of words (their denotations and connotations) as they were used barely a century or two ago can already be a tricky business enough - anyone claiming that they can fully immerse themselves in the language, ways of thinking and living from about 2700 to 2800 years ago based on nothing more than not that many surviving documents leaves me highly unconvinced.

I still think the book is worth reading, as no translation of such an old text could be 'the definitive one'.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | I disagree

Lieven Malaise — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:15:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Lieven Malaise
Post title: I disagree

[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:
We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".[/quote]

We ask "what is the author trying to say" and try to convey exactly that. In my opinion that has got nothing to do with what readers might think. We mostly don't know those readers, apart from the "market" they belong to, let alone what they might think.

For the example you are giving I would say a translator is most definitely not responsible for readers' presumed lack of knowledge about the difference between slaves in the classical antiquity and African slaves in the US.

[Bijgewerkt op 2026-01-14 18:18 GMT]

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Slaves

Samuel Murray — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:30:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Samuel Murray
Post title: Slaves

[quote]The Facebook post:
Earlier translators described these women using various English words: "maids," "servants," "disloyal women." ... Wilson looked at the Greek. The word Homer uses, she explains, has a root meaning "to overpower, to tame, to subdue." These were not servants with wages and choices. They were enslaved women with no power to refuse powerful men. Wilson translated the word as "slaves." [/quote]
That is true, but in Odyssian times, slaves had status. By contrast, when US readers read "slaves", they will invariably think of something similar to the African slaves that were brought to the US. US slaves were generally treated very poorly, and did not practice trades but did the most manual work possible. Odyssian slaves were slaves in the sense that they were not free, but they were otherwise ordinary members of society. There were nothing like the US slaves. By choosing to translate the word as "female slave", Wilson risks that her readers will misunderstand what Homer meant by the word. Yes, they were slaves, but not *those* kind of slaves. This is why we as professional translators generally do not look at the root meaning of a word when we translate it. We ask "what would our readers think when they read our translation of this word".

By the way, I asked ChatGPT how other authors translated this word. ChatGPT then gave me a very useful list, but... it claimed that Wilson had used the term "the enslaved women", which is not true. It is plausible (and we know that ChatGPT excels at telling us plausible things), but it is not true. Wilson used "female slaves".

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Why

Evgeny Sidorenko — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:45:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Evgeny Sidorenko
Post title: Why

I wonder why anyone would like to translate something again. Only because it would be more 'readable' for the modern user or gender-biased or something? There's lots of untranslated books. Not all of them are Homer of course, but I have never understood the concept of 'new translations' often promoted by the publishers. So much resourse has been spent on retranslating of books, some of which are not worth this double effort, while there are so many more that would never be translated at all. There may be cases of very bad quality translations of supposedly 'very good books' that have at some point actually justified a new translation, but on the whole I think it's a great waste of translators' time and energy.

In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey | Subjectivity

Philip Lees — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:28:00 +0000

Forum: Literature / Poetry
Topic: In 2017 Emily Wilson translated Homer's Odyssey
Poster: Philip Lees
Post title: Subjectivity

[quote]Lieven Malaise wrote:
By saying this you question her claim that her translation is more accurate, closer to the source. I think that's the most important element here, although this obviously doesn't mean there can't be any bias from her side.

Is there any indication that her translation is not closer to the source (= counterarguments from peer experts in ancient Greek)? [/quote]
I'm sure she is entirely sincere when she says that her translation is closer to the original in some ways. But she also points out that it differs in other ways - in the metric rhythm, for example.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the concept of being "closer to the source" does not withstand scrutiny. Or at least, it is an entirely subjective judgement. I'll give an example.

When I was learning Greek, I read some children's books. As it happens, one was the story of Odysseus. Among his other characteristics, he is described - in a book for Greek children - as being πονηρός (poniros). If you look up πονηρός in a Greek-English dictionary, you will find a number of alternative words. For example, Google translate gives cunning, sly, tricky, canny and foxy. Deepl gives only cunning, which is what I found when I looked it up all those years ago, and I thought it didn't sound like a particularly heroic quality. Nor do the other alternatives, except possibly "canny", which is mainly a Scottish idiom.

The go-to dictionary for modern Greek, by Babiniotis, defines it as (my loose translation of the definition, so watch out for bias) a person who is able to achieve his goals through trickery, often not honest, which may involve deceit, fraudulence, misdirection, and so on. Again, this doesn't sound especially heroic.

However, if you wanted to make Odysseus sound less disreputable, you could also translate πονηρός as "artful", or "shrewd", words that mean the same, but - for me at least - do not have a negative connotation. I would claim that this is "closer" to the source, because in Greek culture the quality of being πονηρός is often viewed as a positive attribute, not a negative one. I know that because I've spent most of my life here. But will a translator three thousand years from now know that? Languages change over time.

So my interpretation of the word πονηρός as a description of Odysseus is coloured, both by my British upbringing, which instilled me with values such as honesty and fair play, and my subsequent life in Greece, which has led me to accept that a bit of trickery is no bad thing.

This interpretation, i.e. my preference for "artful", is entirely subjective and culture-dependent. So is any similar decision, made by any translator, at any time, in any place. If another translator, with a different cultural background, decides on a different alternative, there will be no argument from me.

So the question as to which translation of a word in Homer is "closer to the source" is a meaningless one, in my opinion, because there is no single answer. It's purely a matter of perspective.