Talk:Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is going to have to be a WP:QUICKFAIL on the grounds of breadth and neutrality.

I will reply here, for two reasons: firstly, to check off my fixes to the issues raised; and secondly, to enable whoever reviews the article next time around to see that the issues, such as they may have been, have already been addressed.

I am accustomed to working with reviewers from the hastiest to the pickiest, and to taking time, sometimes extending over many weeks, to resolve their comments in collaboration, even when they initially find what seem to them to be serious faults. I do not agree with the judgement here, as the article certainly covers "the main points" per the GA criteria: this is not FAC. As for the suggestion of non-neutrality, that is absurd; there is no editorial position here, and all the opinions in the article are attributed and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not that there is an editorial position or that the opinions in the article aren't properly cited. It's a question of what isn't there more than what is there. Balance, in other words. TompaDompa (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course I meant attributed to authorities rather than just "properly cited", i.e. they aren't my opinions. And balance is a completely normal matter for a GAN to resolve. Anyway, I'm working on the matter now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

On breadth: the current version of the article is just shy of 1,000 words, whereas the analysis by Charlotte Strömbom (not cited in the article, though it is in the Translations of The Lord of the Rings article) alone is an order of magnitude lengthier. A rather conspicuous omission that immediately stood out to me was Ohlmarks' translation of the title itself; much has been written about the title Härskarringen not properly reflecting Tolkien's intent, and this should definitely be included in the article. I think the root cause is probably relying mainly on English-language sources to the near-exclusion of Swedish-language ones; Strömbom is as mentioned not cited at all, Jacobsen only once, and a cursory web search brings up a lot of additional sources.

Cited Strömbom, even if it is a Bachelor's Thesis which we don't generally use: but I think we must be selective, as her opinions are a bit wobbly and experimental (one of the reasons we don't generally cite such things). Comparison of a Wikipedia article, which by definition is meant to be a summary-style overview of the literature, with a literary article like Strömbom's, not subject to the same constraints and where indeed length is often a virtue, is inherently inappropriate. That said, it's certainly a useful source and I'm happy to include a summary of its main findings now, whether per the items below or otherwise.

Reliance on English-language sources: I read Swedish and have used Swedish-language sources in well over 30 GAs.

A cursory Google search list does not equate to major change to any article.

Title: Added section.

I'll list some additional things that I would expect a WP:Good article on this topic to include:

• Jacobsen argues (p. 3, also later) that Tolkien wrote for adults, while Ohlmarks translated for children.
  • Added.

• Jacobsen argues (p. 7, also later) that Ohlmarks appears to have attempted to make the text his own and supplant Tolkien, i.e. to make the translator more important for the Swedish text than the original author.
  • Added.

• Strömbom rejects the notion that Ohlmarks less-faithful translation was the result of carelessness or poor grasp of the English language, arguing instead that he was striving for a different impression.
  • Added about the different impression ("desired form"). The article doesn't suggest carelessness as an explanation; Tolkien identified some mistranslations and suggested possible misunderstanding as the cause, so we have that one on good authority.

• Strömbom suggests that Andersson's translation may have overcompensated in avoiding Ohlmarks' tendency to get wordy and intensify, resulting in a text that is at times overly simple and downplays things.
  • Hm, really. Certainly he's briefer (we've said that, and cited it reliably).

• Strömbom outright states that Andersson seems to have intended to be as faithful as possible to the original text, whereas Ohlmarks appears to have wanted to improve upon it.
  • Article already cites and quotes at length (footnote) Ohlmarks' own statement on this, that he had intended to create an interpretation not a translation.

• Strömbom argues that they belong to different schools of thought: Ohlmarks prioritizing the quality of the translated text on its own terms, Andersson prioritizing faithfulness to the original—or in other words: if the original is found to be poor, Ohlmarks' ideal translation would be a good text that is not particularly faithful to the original, whereas Andersson's ideal translation would be faithful and remain a poor text. In Strömbom's opinion, one cannot judge one approach by the standards of the other.
  • Not sure this adds anything to Ohlmarks's own statement, see above.

• Strömbom notes that Andersson's translation was at the time of its release compared by the press much more to Ohlmarks' previous translation than to Tolkien's original.
  • Not clear why we'd want to mention that now, if it doesn't mean anything more than that Swedes had nothing else to go on and were familiar with the old Ohlmarks version.

• Strömbom writes that reviews comparing the translations were to a not-insignificant extent ambivalent in their relationship to Ohlmarks' translation, and suggests that expressing a preference for that version was at the time perceived as not entirely comme il faut.
  • Not sure what that would add to the article either. We've given the BA candidate a lot of space already.

• The task of translating The Lord of the Rings anew was compared to presenting a new translation of the Bible (see e.g. Strömbom).
  • Yeah, right.

• There are many different aspects of Ohlmarks' translation that have been noted/criticised: plain errors, inconsistent translations of names and places, arguably inappropriate translations of names and places, increased wordiness, more emphatic phrasings, perceived pretentiousness, and so on. I would expect these different aspects to each be covered in some level of detail (preferably systematically).
  • Added sections on Titles, Names. Places already covered.

On neutrality: the article describes Ohlmarks' translation almost exclusively in negative terms, apart from noting that the immediate reception was a positive one. This does not particularly well reflect the sources I have come across. Even modern (i.e. post-Andersson) sources have a fair amount of good things to say about Ohlmarks' translation. Jacobsen, writing pre-Andersson and arguing in favour of translating The Lord of the Rings anew on the basis of Ohlmarks' translation being flawed (deeming it an outright necessity), still noted some positives. Strömbom, writing post-Andersson, also gives a much more nuanced perspective than the article does. For instance, Strömbom argues that Ohlmarks' title for the first volume, Sagan om ringen, better conveys the epic scale of the story even though Andersson's Ringens brödraskap is a much more faithful translation of The Fellowship of the Ring.

• • Hm, well, the article already quotes Sven Stolpe and Staffan Björck as praising the translation.
  • Post-Andersson sources: Added Strömbom, Spjut to the two just named. I don't think they change the price of bread but they do lend some nuance as requested.

The article makes it sound like Ohlmarks' translation is nowadays universally maligned, which very much isn't the case. An example that immediately springs to mind is "Strider" being translated as "Vidstige" (a translation Andersson retained), which is commonly cited as something of a stroke of genius, perhaps even an improvement on Tolkien's original (yes, really).

• • Retained: added.
  • Perhaps an improvement: added.

I look forward to this being renominated once it has been expanded. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.