Comment I wrote for a class discussion online. Random indeed.
"I disagree with Nabokov that literal translation is the only "true translation" (385). It is admirable how passionately he defended this view, and - while I can understand his viewpoint - I don't think the only way to acceptably translate a text is to render it literally and word-for-word. It seems to me that Nabokov was obsessed with preserving the original meaning of the source text; he had an intense anxiety and distaste for what he viewed as "fakery" in translation - that is, the translation that maintains the sense of the original while paraphrasing here and there to make it more readable.
I think there are many approaches to take to translation which are valid, and literalism is just one of them; it depends on the goals of the translator, as well as the intended audience. And even my own view of this can be argued over. There are no hard-and-fast "rules" for translation because no matter how hard you try to translate a piece as faithfully as possible while maintaining all its artistic elements, there will inevitably be some sacrifice - some flaw. Nabokov openly sacrificed artistic elements such as form because he viewed a literal interpretation as more valuable than a translation that takes a bit more liberty but maintains some of the original's style. However, such a view discounts the impact of stylistic elements on a piece of writing. Style and form can markedly change the tone and overall feel of the text, and these elements are as important as pure verbal meaning in a piece, because they are intertwined and together deliver the overall product. When it comes to translation, part of this product will inevitably be lost, so it makes sense to me to try to maintain a little of each rather than one or the other."
