Originally written by David Kallans on March 7, 2008 1:22 AM There are of course various approaches to translating literary texts, and the translator is constantly pulled by the at-times inconsistent desires to be faithful to the originial yet be stylistically elegant and appropriate in the target.  Not all older translations are inherently better than new ones; I for one always find it strange when foreign religious texts are translated into King James English so as to seem consistent with the biblical standard.  Different approaches may be appropriate at different times and for different audiences.  To call modern translators "detestable vermin" seems wildy over-the-top and the whole article smacks of elitism.

I absolutely agree. The question about older texts "seeming old" is elitist in itself. After all, did they seem old to their original audience? Is old English the only way to evoke an ancient atmosphere? Were the originally meant as museum pieces? Taking old, popularist literature and translating it in such a way as to remove the popularism from it is a problem in itself.

But then, I am no fan of the KJV so I might just be too "modern."

One last thing though, surely translators will follow the requests of the publishers. After all, unlike the demagogues and translation "experts" translators translate to earn money to do incredibly unacademic things like pay bills and eat. At the end of the day, if the publisher wants USA Today, someone will eventually give them it. Complain to the publishers, not us!