Because a lot of people criticize the translation of Ottavio Fatica de The Fellowship of the Ring without having read it? And why isn't that a good idea?
Now, let's say it again: anything that revolves around JRR Tolkien is an arena of controversy. We have seen it very often.
Tolkien's opinion of the Nazis generates controversy. The animated film about The Lord of the Rings generates controversy. The criticisms of the old Italian translation de The Lord of the Rings generate complaints. Even just the announcement of the new translation of The Lord of the Rings generates controversy.
It is normal for the new translation of The Fellowship of the Ring, Edited by Ottavio Fatica and finally published by Bompiani, genres of controversy. Many names have been retranslated, some getting better and some getting worse (of course it is). The poems have been retranslated and adapted, some remaining as soft as in language, others less so.
It is absolutely normal and lawful that the new translation of Fatigue does not please everyone or in any case does not like it in its entirety. It's fine to discuss the translator's choices, point out errors or inaccuracies, or propose your own alternatives.
However, I also note that in many, many are commenting on the translation of Fatigue by hearsay, for information out of context. Has Samwise been translated into Samplicio? Horror! Does the Poem of the Ring translate "lie" to "conceal themselves"? Very mistaken, bring the noose! In the new translation, is Bilbo's birthday eleven hundred and not eleventh? Are we kidding ?! Sam's father says Bilbo to his son "learned the letters"? Surely it is an error of Fatigue because it is ignorant!
In general, the discussion is permeated by constant general indignation, often not even supported by a direct reading of the translation of Fatica. Or the original text. O of Appendix F of the old editions of The Lord of the Rings.
Let's take a closer look at these controversies, explain why they make little sense and why they should be avoided.
We still know too little about the translation of Fatigue
Among other things, it must also be taken into account that we do not know why Fatica translated The Fellowship of the Ring in this way. We do not know exactly what the logic behind its linguistic choices is. This because Fatigue, de facto, hasn't opened his mouth yet and hasn't released a single interview.
We partially know the logic behind its translation de The Lord of the Rings, or the greater adherence to Tolkien's style. In fact, the previous Alliata-Principe translation, as they also claimed other local scholars, he took many freedoms.
For convenience, we will list just a few here. For example, Vittoria Alliata often translated a single English word with a pair of Italian terms, making the original text much more verbose. Sometimes, he merged Tolkien's short sentences into very long Ciceronian periods, even passing entire phrases from one sentence to another in a completely arbitrary way. Also, Alliata used only the literary standard Italian (if you don't know what that means, take a look at Sociolinguistics of contemporary Italian by G. Berruto, 2012!), thus ignoring all the linguistic peculiarities of hobbit speech, and especially that of the less educated half-men.
In short, the old translation had significant problems and, though it flowed well, some of his choices were at least questionable. So certainly the new translation wanted to distance it as much as possible, ignoring what was written by Alliata and Principe and starting from scratch, based only on Tolkien's text.
However, perhaps we will have the opportunity to better comment on the choices made by Fatica after he explains his reasons. I keep waiting.
From the first conspiracies to the Poetry of the Ring: the translation of Fatigue under attack regardless
In the magical world of the web there has been terrorism on this new translation for months. We kindly draw a merciful veil on the accusations, made by Vittoria Alliata, of Fatica of wanting to distort the meaning of Tolkien's work, according to the dictates of a mysterious LGBT lobby.
We will not even link to the numerous sites that were unleashed at the revelation of the Poetry of the Ring translated by Fatica. As important as these verses may be, in fact, it makes absolutely no sense to judge the translation of a prose book on the basis of the rendering of a poem. Moreover, without even benefiting from a comment from the translator, on whose statements it would then have been possible to build a criticism with knowledge of the facts.
The commentary on the translation of the Poem of the Ring
If someone had the decency and common sense to wait, they could have read at least the commentary on the translation of the Poem of the Ring written by Wu Ming 4 (who has been a reader and consultant for Fatigue in recent months) a this link.
There, in fact, it is emphasized that the translation of the lineIn the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie"In"In the Land of Mordor where Shadows are hidden“, Which has caused so much confusion and outrage, is not a casual whim. Of course, lie could have been translated with to laybut nevertheless conceal it is not wrong, since it takes up another meaning (certainly known to Tolkien!) of lie, that is "to remain in a state of inactivity or concealment"(See Oxford English Dictionary). Therefore, saw that the servants of Sauron are de facto hidden in Mordor for a long time before being revealed, this meaning of lie it makes sense in the context in which it is placed, and therefore also they are hidden it's correct.
Yet, before this examination, the comments of those who condemned the translation of Fatica, comparing it to the obscene work done by Cannarsi with Evangelion, floated! Today we read (perhaps) less just because the public's attention has shifted to other issues, which we will discuss shortly. However, I am not sure how much previous commentators (and commentators) have read this discussion, perhaps to get a clearer idea on the matter.
Samwise translated with Samplicio: the new bogeyman of the web
As I said, the Poetry of the Ring has recently taken a back seat, above all because new issues have been found to be indignant about, often without knowledge of the facts.
Today the main theme is Samwise "Sam" Gamgee translated as "Samplicius". “Oh my God, Samplicio is awful! Are we kidding ?! Tell me that's not true! CANNARSI! "
Now, I have read about people, whom you also know but whose name I will not mention, who accuse Fatigue of having distorted the nature of Sam's name. In fact, according to these people, the name Samwise should give the idea of a wise person, taking up the final "wise". So Samplicio, who reminds us of so much "simpleton", says the exact opposite!
However, things are different. Giampaolo Canzonieri, who was Fatica's main consultant for this translation, explained "Samplicio" on November 30, in this article. Canzonieri traces the history of the name Samwise, motivating the choice of Fatigue:
Anyone who is surprised by the replacement of Samvise with Samplicio should make a leap to "Appendix F" and rediscover that Sam's original hobbit name, Banazîr, means "Half-wise, simple ”, rendered by Tolkien with Samwise referring to the Anglo-Saxon samwis which has a very similar meaning.
Then, de facto Fatigue has correctly translated Sam's name, also keeping the initial syllable in order to create the nickname. Anyway inside The Fellowship of the Ring, Samwise / Samplicio is basically always called Sam, so I don't see how Samplicio can attempt to read the book.
The comments to Samplicio
Still, my bulletin board is jammed with similar comments today:
At this point it is mejo "Semghei" as in Lo Svarione degli Anelli!
How long The Svarione degli Anelli is a spectacular work, we do not think this is the case.
I propose to go to the bookstores to censor these re-editions to Cannarsi, let's get indelible black and go!
Surely censorship and scribbling on books are excellent reactions, not reactionary at all.
In English Samwise, Sam the Wise. Just Samplicio ... quite the opposite: So better Sagacio.
[...] Well then Simplicio, at least he exists
Fortunately, some heroes of our times have expertly replied to this:
Yes, and then you are with Sim Gamgee, the new telephone operator
The danger of the nostalgia effect: let's do a conscience analysis
The comments on the web these days, unfortunately, underline that we Italians have a problem with the critical analysis of the issues.
I understand that The Lord of the Rings is a work dear to all and all of us. Really, I understand. Tolkien has accompanied me all my life and for years I have endured the indignation of every Italian and English teacher to whom I have told that yes, my favorite author is Tolkien. Then in college I just stopped talking about Tolkien, because I had learned my lesson by now.
Anyway, back on the subject, I understand that one can be fond of the translation of the Alliata-Principe, because certain names still worked and the poems remade by Principe were beautiful. And most importantly, it was the first version we read.
The works change
But let's face it clearly: we nerds are very conservative. The first version we read of our favorite works is often the only one that we recognize as valid. If you found out Harry Potter when Hufflepuff was still there, you will never accept the more correct Hufflepuff. If you had read Harry Potter in English, all Italian names will probably make sense to you. If, like me, you read The philosopher's Stone when Black Pecor was still there, you must have felt weird to hear of Ravenclaw.
Yet, we must accept that the works change. The works change hands, are read, reread, interpreted, re-interpreted, translated and retranslated. The vision of the work will change over time, and you too will begin to love your favorite books for ever new reasons. People will write fanfiction on your favorite works, changing the plot, and it will have right to do so. Things change, there is nothing to be done. The only way not to change a work is to not let anyone read it anymore.
Now, it's up to The Lord of the Rings, which will be retranslated. This will not take the Alliata-Principe edition out of business. This will not spoil your childhood, like me hearing R2-D2 did not traumatize me after a childhood with C1-P8. I watched The Clone Wars and I got used to "Artoo".
Nostalgia effect: why don't we like the translation of Fatigue?
The translation of Fatigue will not spoil either The Lord of the Rings same, because the original will always exist. We and the rest of us, on the other hand, should try to don't let the nostalgia effect influence us too much, with a little voice that cries out against anything new that undermines our perfect childhood.
Let's understand, though: I'm not saying that if we suffer from the nostalgia effect we are insane. It is normal and human. For me the Veglio will always remain "the Gaffiere", I will not be able to think of him as "the Veglio", he is stronger than me. But this new Veglio is not killing the Gaffer, and above all he is not killing Tolkien's Gaffer. We can hold onto the memories of our past without being afraid of the new.
The important thing, in my opinion, is to ask ourselves: do we have a rejection for “il Veglio” because we don't like it, technically speaking, as a translation (maybe we would prefer “il Vecio”?), Or because he is not “our” Gaffiere? Don't take my words as an offense, but as an invitation to reflection.
Everyone knows how to do everyone's job: the problem of pre-reading judgments on the translation of Fatica
So let's talk about the sudden wave of translation experts who overwhelmed Facebook. The Cannarsi scandal probably gave everyone and all a few more tools to judge an adaptation, which is why anyone feels safer to talk about this topic. However, Cannarsi's is not a translation, as it was said, but an adaptation. Therefore, Cannarsi has little to do with the translation of Fatica.
Similarly, the opinions and skills of most of the people who comment, for better or for worse, the translation of Fatigue have little to do with it. We may all have some smattering of translation technique (or at least we believe we have it), yet very few of us have actually studied Translation (not Languages, which is different).
Are we sure we really know enough?
When I hear people, as in the comment below, appealing to musicality, I seriously wonder who said that the translation (of prose or poetry?) Must necessarily be musical. What if the author didn't want to be musical? Or did he not want to be musical in the same way that a verse in Italian is musical? After hearing so much about musicality from the most disparate individuals, I now wonder if this is no longer a concept that web critics repeat by imitation.
If we retranslate a poem or a book that has privileged Italian musicality over the original sense, do we want to do exactly the same exercise in style, or do we want to approach it with a different intention? If Fatica had to leave the names and poems of the Alliata-Principe unaltered, because they are now rooted in the Italian imagination and too dear to the fans, what's the point of making a new translation? Does a translator (and an author) really have to work with the feelings of the fans as a point of reference? Or perhaps it is more correct to focus on the legibility and correctness of the work?
I am a person who always thinks he knows nothing, even when I actually know something.
That's why, the few times I know I know I care so much! And I realize that I am a bit in contrast with many Italians, who have the usual attitude according to which everyone knows how to do everyone's job. The problem is that it is not so. This does not mean that opinions cannot be obtained even on matters outside our field of competence.
Opinions are not insults
However, an opinion is not a bray which says that “Fatigue is a dog, because we do know how Tolkien translates! We sure would have done a better job! We are the fans! We read Tolkien at 10! "
The translation of Fatigue can be liked or not liked, can be criticized, can raise doubts. But from the doubts to "a monkey can do the same job as Fatigue" there is a certain difference:
Ok the closest translation to the original, but it's high school reasoning. A translation must be musical first of all. These have done the homework to get it from great translators, but even a monkey with a dictionary in hand does it. The goal is to give the translation the same poem as the original, not to get as close as possible to the language in which it is written.
The importance of making sure you have an overview
But the most important thing is that we cannot guillotine the new translation in its entirety because we did not like the rendering of the Poetry of the Ring. We can't insult Fatica because we don't like Samplicio.
Apart from the fact that no, you could not and should not insult Fatigue regardless, but even if it were, it would not make sense to trash a book of 300 and pass pages for the first two lines. Especially if you don't know why in the second line of The Fellowship of the Ring it says eleventh and not one hundred eleventh, yet you still decide to close the book at that point and go to insult Fatica on Facebook.
You are not forced to read The Fellowship of the Ring translated by Fatigue, you are not obliged to appreciate or buy it. You can also decide not to read it based on the Poetry of the Ring: life is yours and you can spend your time as you see fit.
However, when you state your judgments on the translation of Fatigue as a whole, make sure you really read it. Make sure you have that minimum of intellectual honesty.
And if you want to argue your position by showing off your superior knowledge of Tolkien, make sure you really know Tolkien. Being a fan doesn't mean being an expert on Tolkien.
Don't miss the new content!
Stay up to date on articles and news from the Atlantean Seekers, directly to your inbox
I share practically everything, and I want to emphasize one thing: I consider myself a big fan of Tolkien's work, but I also feel uncomfortable when I compare myself with it, because I realize that I miss so many keys to open many more doors of what I can see.
In short, all this controversy about translation does not excite me and, as my friends have discovered, I am not happy to talk about it, because I see sides of people that make me angry. Although I share some criticisms, I do not appreciate the ways of this criticism.
Finally, a perplexity, which I believe is legitimate, about the work of Fatica and his collaborators remains to me, and it is this: yourself, Gloria, you will remember that this translation was announced with bombastic tones and in open contrast with that of Vittoria Alliata of Villafranca reviewed by Quirino Principe. It almost seems that one of the criteria followed was that of wanting to distance yourself as much as possible from the past translation, even where this did not seem necessary. I don't know if this is true, but if it is true I wonder (rhetorically): is this a criterion that does honor to a taducer?
Thanks for the comment!
As for wanting to distance yourself from the old translation, probably yes, it will have happened. It has not always happened, it must be said, and many lexical choices in the end were the same both for Alliata-Principe and for Fatigue. But I can't tell you how intentional this distancing was. There is a possibility that Fatigue simply re-translated it all over again, putting the old translation aside and behaving as if translating The Lord of the Rings for the first time.
I don't know enough about translation techniques to say if this may have been a good idea.
And, above all, not enough is known about how Fatica worked to be able to say if his distancing from Alliata-Principe was an intentional process (I translate, compare, change to distance myself), or a consequence of having translated without taking into account the version Alliata-Prince.
I think we will have to wait for an interview with Fatica to answer this question.
Gloria, in reality retranslating "all over again, putting aside the old translation and behaving as if it were translating" for the first time is the only right way to approach any translation, in my opinion. And the fact that in some respects Fatigue finds the same or very similar solutions to those of Alliata / Principe and in others it differs a lot from the old version and the proof that it was not consulting the previous translation. So when they accuse him of wanting to distance himself as much as possible from the old translation and change everything it's absurd. Why then did you keep "Baggins" or "Shire"? Why does Gollum continue to call the One his "treasure"? Etc., etc., etc.
Oooh, thank you! I fully agree!
I share everything… but for me C1P8, it remains C1P8 🙂
I was brought here by a person who, a staunch supporter of Fatica's work, indicated it to me as an "excellent article".
In reality, unfortunately, I must say that I do not agree with this opinion, because the article is first of all very paternalistic, because it tends to judge those who consume and not those who create, which is already a contradiction in terms, and at the same time does not make those responsible is judged, who for the article is "in the wrong", because there is a certain social framework: nostalgia, nerds are conservative, bla bla bla. And oh well.
As if that weren't enough, to get stronger he falls into some commonly fallacious rhetorical topics.
For example, he bases his thesis on the supposed impossibility of being able to judge a specific aspect of a product without having enjoyed it as a whole, which is clearly false: if it is true that I can easily define, what do I know, they pack the color of a phone even without ever having it. possessed, because it is a clearly circumscribed judgment, the competence and the capacity for abstraction also allow us to define an “uncomfortable” chair even without ever having sat down, having ascertained that you know enough about ergonomics.
So, excluding those who criticize the overall value for obvious incompetence on the basis of a few excerpts, criticisms of specific lexical and syntactic choices are absolutely sensible even without having read the book in full.
And this brings me to the second fallacy, that is the attempt to strengthen itself by creating a counter-argument towards already senseless criticisms of base, and therefore easy (and obvious) to be overcome with logic.
Among the many criticisms read on the internet in recent times there are obviously notable bestialities, some examples of which are given in the article, but I have also read more or less questionable criticisms but certainly much more sensible, of which only one is made generic and rhetorical mention.
Then there is a third, very serious fallacy, namely the claim to be able to judge a choice only once the author has explained why. This is bordering on the absurd, because, in a factual world, why shouldn't matter to anyone. Fatica has no need to explain anything in any interview, because he was paid to be the professional, he made choices based on his skills and he will take responsibility (or Bompiani for him) from the source to the market. Just as I do not reserve the right to agree or disagree with a doctor on the drug he prescribed after hearing the reasons for his choice, the same applies to any other choice: I can ascertain whether or not it is good, I can criticize it or appreciate it, but motivations must never drive judgment, because what matters is the result.
Coming instead to the work itself, and assuming that I have not read it all so I cannot judge every aspect of Fatica's work, and I do not pretend to do so, I have noticed that different terminological choices, even before being good or bad, are generally violent against the Italian etymology, that is, they favor the attempt, often desperate and botched, to maintain at all costs the semantic connection with the original term, sacrificing respect for the correctness of the target language.
It is a methodological choice that I find decidedly unpleasant, and of which I certainly do not know all the applications, since it was already common in Dante's time that it was acceptable to keep a play on words or an idiomatic expression only if the equivalent exists in the language of destination. Dante talked about it about translating from Latin into his vernacular, but it is a good principle in general.
In this adaptation this approach is constantly ignored, which, admittedly being a personal problem, greatly affects my sensitivity.
I could start explaining several examples, some of which are cited in the article (but criticized for the wrong reasons), but I think I've written long enough.
Thanks for the long comment.
My article is probably patronizing, much as your comment is. But this is the impression we tend to give when we are convinced that we know something and we want to explain it, especially by saying that others are wrong. Personally, I know very well that I am a paternalist, and it doesn't bother me too much.
We then talk about the thesis on the impossibility of judging a product. Certainly those who criticize a specific lexical choice do not need to have read the entire book to be able to make it. However, I think it would be better to make these criticisms with knowledge of the facts, so those who suppose that “Samwise” means “wise” should at least do a quick Google search, to make sure they don't say nonsense; because if you want to attack a translator on the basis of your supposed greater knowledge of Tolkien's English / philological operation, you should at least make sure that this supposed superiority is well founded. Then of course, the heat of the moment and the much more colloquial and informal context of social networks push instead to externalize one's opinion without checking. This is an annoying attitude, especially when performed by figures with a certain following like youtubers (whether we like them or not, we have to deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of people read them). However, it's not an attitude that I can fine anyone for, thankfully, so I'm just complaining about it myself as the patronizing person I am.
As for other criticisms or reports of Fatigue errors, such as the Shire located “in the lands west of Eriador”, there is obviously no problem.
Regarding the second fallacy, I do not see how this is a fallacy, since my article targets precisely this kind of "remarkable bestiality", because certainly there are well-argued and sensible criticisms and observations, and I read those criticisms with interest , in the groups I frequent, especially in the reading group to the new translation, where gradually all the observations (even critical!) of the readers are brought out. But I will be able to compare myself with those observations after much more research, or it is not at all certain that I can only deal with them; others, on the other hand, I will be able to face them only when I have gone on with the reading of the book, because I don't really want to go and “spoil” the song by Galadriel, for example, just to see how it came out.
Regarding the third fallacy, I reread my text to be sure and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really think I said that one can "judge a choice only once the author has explained why". In my text I have never written “we cannot judge Fatica's work before having heard his reasons”, for example. I wrote "maybe we will be able to comment better on Fatigue's choices after he has explained his motivations to us". I know that here it might seem that I am clinging to a single word, but that "best" is important, because in my opinion Fatica's work can be commented on even without a motivation from the latter, but a comment on a choice of translation made after the translator has motivated this choice, in my opinion, has more solid foundations. There has been much talk, for example, of the choice of "Veglio" for "Gaffer" and many reasons have been given both in favor of different choices and in favor of Fatigue, in which suppositions are made about why Fatigue has preferred this version. Here, in these cases (as well as for "foresters"), in my opinion, commenting after Fatica has explained his motivations makes more sense and produces more solid discussions, because in this way one can argue against the real motivations of the translator, not the supposed ones . Then of course, if Fatigue takes a month to make itself heard, it goes without saying that people don't wait. But we must realize that we are objecting to supposed reasons for translation. Then, if you have other translation proposals, those can be presented without having to deal with anyone's motivations.
On the commentary on the work itself, I will not comment, because I too have to finish the book and then I would like to digest it for a while and reread some discussions about it. What I would like to make sure I understand is also and above all why certain Fatica choices sound bad or good to me: is it a nostalgia effect, why does the new version clash too much with the one I've been in my head for 18 years? Or do I like certain other choices because as a linguist I appreciate certain tricks to maintain the semantic connection with the original, but do I sacrifice the aesthetic effect and the final understanding? The fact is that I am aware of the fact that the taste and background of each of us greatly influence us in our reception of the work and we will hardly give a judgment similar to a choice or the same weight to a cacophonous effect made in the name of semantic correctness. . So, as you say, I believe everyone has their own personal problems with this translation, and that's fine. But I also believe that we should be more aware of how personal these issues are and not necessarily universally shared.
I stop here because in a while I go beyond the words of the article itself, and even no. I understand that your comment was not written with pleasure, but it helped me to understand that maybe some of the things I wrote (the target comments of my annoyance and the question of the reasons for Fatigue) should be specified better, so thank you. I think, in general, we are all quite angry these days, which doesn't make us interact quietly. If you feel like continuing to talk with less sandpaper, I put aside the paternalism and general intolerance of Tolkienians this week. 🙂
There are not only social networks as the theater of childish reactions, there is also the Amazon reviews space ...
An avalanche of preventive slits all the same.
I admit I hadn't looked at Amazon! Thank you! 🙂
It seems like an attempt to condition Bompiani by simulating a "revolt" of the readers, but if there was a revolt these twenty-twenty-five "usual unknowns" who intervene everywhere sometimes with the exact same phrases would not need to bombard Amazon with fake reviews. Fortunately, reality is larger than the aquarium where this coven of scoundrels swims ...
Same identical operation on IBS:
Very interesting article, congratulations!
I have not yet been able to read the new translation, but from what I read it seems to me that it is well modeled on the original.
I have only one great curiosity (compared to the criticisms I see around): why did Fatica translate "Ranger" with Forestale "? It seems to me that it has totally lost its original meaning (from a linguistic point of view, not just in context).
I'm not sure I understand: “The translation of Fatigue can like it or not like it” But it cannot but like the translation of the poem, or for the names, or for the musicality - and so on. I therefore look forward to knowing what are the correct reasons why the translation may "not like". If there are any.
The rendering of names may not like it, may not like the musicality of the translation or errors may be noticed.
However, as written in the article, one cannot give general judgments without having read the whole work and one cannot say "the translation of this name is wrong!" if we are the first to know the meaning of that name.
Next time, less sarcasm and more understanding of the text, please.
cit: "If Fatica had had to leave the names and poems of the Alliata-Principe unaltered, because they are now rooted in the Italian imagination and too dear to the fans, what's the point of making a new translation?"
Why does one exclude the other?
Translating is a compromise so why not compromise by treating the text (descriptions and dialogues) differently than names?
The text determines the style of the work. It is fundamental and certainly has its own identity. But it is perceived over the distance and, as you have rightly written, it is evaluated AFTER reading it.
But names are symbols. They immediately identify, with simple sound, a character, a place, a feeling, synthesize them and represent them in a direct way. For this reason, being a RE-translation they could have been maintained (at least the majority) even taking into account the "sentiment of the fans". Underestimating this aspect was in my opinion a big mistake. If only it were not for the negative reaction it has triggered and which is prejudicial to the entire translation. Translation which, on the other hand, according to many, is overall a good job. Unfortunately, the world is full of great products (including cultural ones) that have failed due to small mistakes that could have been avoided.
And reducing everything to the lament of four unconventional nerds or four extremist fans who troll on Amazon is in my opinion dangerously reductive.
First of all because whoever says it looks like the ox who gives a horn to the donkey. In fact, I find more nerdy those who defend the slavish and obstinate modification of a name (therefore a detail) now in common use for EVERYONE, fans and non-fans, with only semantic and philological intent, compared to those who say okay, it was not the perfect name that the author wanted but now we have always called it that ... and let's leave it that way. If someone wanted to retranslate some old original Micky Mouse story from English and propose to call him Topo Michele who would seem more nerdy, he or who would say they keep Mickey Mouse? (and sorry for the unworthy Disney-Tolkien juxtaposition).
Secondly, it's not just about fans. It is clear that my personal experience does not make statistics, but all the people I spoke to about the new translation (normal people who certainly do not know how to quote Frodo's family tree by heart) were stunned by these choices and did not want to read the new version.
Worse for us? Likely. In the meantime, however, negative criticisms (preliminary or otherwise) abound and could be avoided with a small compromise.
Also because what added value does the average reader read Samplicio compared to Samvise, compared to the annoyance it generates?
cit: "You don't have to read Fatica's The Fellowship of the Ring, you don't have to like it or buy it."
This new translation generates aggressive reactions (whose ways I do not share), because it scares. The fear is that all fans (fans or not) of Tolkien's world from now on will speak two different languages: the pre- and post-Fatigue nomenclature. And only a few enthusiasts who equip themselves with English-preF-postF conversion tables will be able to keep up. Normal people, those who have read or will read LotR once in their life, will talk about different things without understanding each other. It's a shame for the whole fan community and fewer fans that revolve around this and other Tolkien works. In my opinion the damage is worse than the advantage obtained and, I repeat, it could have been avoided by making everyone happy.
I conclude by saying that I fully agree with Samuel's answer (where I can't find anything paternalistic at all).
Do we want to bet that over time the positive judgments will prevail? This is a blaze that is entirely internal to a certain circle of fans stirred up by characters who had been preparing for this reaction for more than a year (they held conferences around Italy against this translation when a single line of it was not yet known, saying which would have been an "LGBT" and "transsexual" translation), a flare-up that is already dying out, and the true and motivated judgments are beginning to emerge, those of those who have read the book. Many who do not know the work will know it thanks to the curiosity aroused by this new translation, and they will probably make the difference, more than those who have read the previous translation of the SdR forty times and would not want to see a comma changed.
I agree very much. I would add some food for thought: a true fan would read the text in the original language (it applies to any author and language of course), to try to really enter into a close relationship with the beloved "object" and author, as well as the original language, if anything using the various official translations as a starting point for in-depth analysis in creating one's own staff; a bit like the Jeronimidis did for Lo hobbit (and did all the great Italian writers such as Pascoli, Foscolo, etc. .. with the Latin and Greek classics or La Commedia). By the way: in my opinion many would be amazed to know that Dante's Divine Comedy has also had various rewriting versions and that the one currently used in schools is certainly not a faithful copy of Dante's original ...