China and the West

Mao, Dun. Literal translation, smooth translation, and distorted translation [ID D38990].
…Needless to say, when a translation is incomprehensible, it is not 'literal' and the true meaning of the original is lost. The translator should be completely responsible for the incomprehensibility caused, and we should not lay the blame for it on the principle of translating literally… When faithfulness to the original is achieved but comprehensibility is lost, one translates in vain. Therefore it is proposed that 'rather than striving for fidelity at the cost of comprehensibility, one might as well seek after comprehensibility rather than fidelity'… Rather, with regard to 'literal translation' we would like to note that it is not word-for-word translation, which implies 'not a word more, and not one less'. Because of the different way in which Chinese and Western languages are constructed, strict word-for-word translation is impossible…
Literary works also differ from theoretical essays. Some literary works are still comprehensible when translated word for word, though the spirit of the original work might not have been accurately conveyed. Suppose we had two translations of the same original text : one is translated word for word, though the spirit is lost, whereas the other, in not translating word for word, retains much of the original spirit. For me the latter can be called a 'literal translation', and this is the true meaning of the term… New there are certain literary works that are stylistically crude and unadorned. Perhaps readers – some of them, of course – can read with greater ease when the style is embellished, but the original work has actually suffered… For example, a translation may change the style of the original work, so that what is plain becomes polished, and what is awkwardly expressed becomes smooth flowing. When these occur, even if no mistakes appear and everyone read the translation with understanding, the original meaning still gets distorted.