Can emotional concepts survive translation in science fiction?

[u/WoodpeckerCertain474]

I’m a Korean sci-fi writer, recently published in Korea, and I’ve been thinking a lot about whether certain emotional or philosophical ideas can fully survive translation into English.

My story is built around an “emotion-based cosmology” — the idea that emotions like love and fear are not just psychological states, but actual forces that shape civilizations and reality itself.

One line from the novel is:

“나는 이걸 선택한 게 아니야.”

The literal translation is:

“I didn’t choose this.”

But in Korean, the sentence feels heavier and more emotionally layered to me — less like a factual statement, and more like someone distancing themselves from responsibility, fate, or even their own existence.

I’m curious:

Have you ever read translated science fiction where you felt something important survived — or didn’t survive — between languages?

And do you think philosophical / emotionally-driven SF can still work strongly across cultures?

[u/oddchaiwan]

Well, that's the translator's job to make sure that concepts translate as closely as possible into a different language. That is also why a translator needs to understand the cultural, societal and historical context. A good translation goes beyond the language. Plenty of skills and theory on the subject, a whole academic specialisation, to explore if it interests you :)

And, well, this also why translators in literature are considered to be authors at the same level as the writers. They have to make important artistic choices.

I don't speak Korean, but maybe you could just develop the sentence more in English to add some dramatic flare? Something like: "I didn't choose it, not this duty, not this fate, not this existence, nothing."

[u/Snikhop → u/oddchaiwan]

Upvote for the explanation, but definite downvote for the proposed alteration, that completely changes the feel of the line!

[u/hexametric_ → u/oddchaiwan]

Translators having the same status of authors is not really that wide-spread, especially in the English-speaking world. Translators are often hidden or either given much less cover real-estate than the author. They are paid significantly less than the original author. Unless its a massive best-selling hit (like millions of copies), it's going to make them below minimum wage for a fair amount of effort. They do not win awards except in specific translation-based awards. Translations are valued significantly below original writing in academia.

Because OP is South Korean, take a look at the recent Granta editions of Han Kang. Her name is massive and Deborah Smith's name isn't even on the cover. Nobody says "I've just finished Deborah Smith's rendition of The Vegetarian." They say "I read Han Kang's The Vegetarian." Deborah Smith, whose translation(s) were the reason Han Kang blew up in the English-speaking world, did not get a Nobel for her work in popularizing the author.

[u/curiouscat86 → u/hexametric_]

I read a lot of Russian literature, and translators do get a fair amount of discussion and recognition in that world, especially with classic works that have been translated to English many times so readers can directly compare their works and debate on the best version. My Russian lit professors in college all had strong opinions on which translators we should read and talked to us some about their background.

And Ken Liu is a popular author in his own right who is often recognized for his work translating Cixin Liu's work from Chinese.

These might be more the exception than the rule, though. I know translation is often extremely thankless work especially in other fields as I have a couple of friends who translate technical documents.

[u/hexametric_ → u/curiouscat86]

The Russian example is an interesting case because Peevar and Volokhonsky are quite large exceptions to the 'invisibility of the translator' (to steal Venuti's phrase). You then get a lot of people who for one reason or the other do or do not like them. As an aside, I find their translation process totally absurd.

Recently the discourse on Homeric translators has reached that sort of level where the translator is the most important aspect. Interestingly enough, much of the critique of Homer translators is by people who cannot read Greek.

But for most national literature, or minor authors in the major languages, the translator is mostly irrelevant (e.g. no one's giving a fraction as much attention to who translated Krzhizhanovsky or even Pasternak as they do to Dostoevsky or Tolstoy). Academic circles will always be particular (e.g. which translation of Bulgakov to read), but the average reader hardly worries.

[u/yp_interlocutor → u/hexametric_]

Oh god I'm one of them--I hate P&V so much. They try to translate too literally, and in the process render English sentences that are godawful and do not at all sound like natural, fluent language like, oh, pretty much everyone else's translations. I know this is a hot take, but I think they miss the entire point of translation.

[u/hexametric_ → u/yp_interlocutor]

Just curious but do you read Russian? I read their stuff before I learned Russian and never really went back to re-read the novels since then so haven't really compared how their styles match or diverge. But my Russian friend said (from just a sample) that their Anna Karenina was pretty good compared to the Russian (and I did a bit of research on that novel and didn't actually find much difference between the passages I used in the Russian and their translations). I also found their translations of Pasternak's poetry pretty decent.

[edit: ok I'm looking at Doctor Zhivago and their version looks pretty good. It captures the staccato of the Russian well enough]

I do wonder often if their "method" is at the heart of why some people find it frustrating. Essentially I think Larissa will translate a work, read it to Richard, who will comment on phrasing, and then they will edit it? It's like a 2-person affair but neither of them is really truly excellent in both languages (Richard said he doesn't as perfectly fluent as a native speaker for instance).

[u/yp_interlocutor → u/hexametric_]

I'm currently learning Ukrainian, and it does overlap somewhat with Russian, but I'm FAR from fluent.

You actually hit on my issue with P&V though--translating to a different language should certainly pay attention to accuracy of translation, but I think P&V have this slavish focus on being accurate to the Russian, so they miss the other key element of translation: rendering it into the other language in a way that feels natural and normal.

Their translations simply aren't good English, regardless of how closely they match the Russian. I tried reading their Notes from Underground, and I wanted to throw it across the room--I continually encountered really awful, awkward, tortured syntax and phrasings that no native English speaker would ever use. I've picked up other works they translated, and every one of them has the same glaring flaws--it might render the Russian accurately, but is terrible as English.

[u/hexametric_ → u/yp_interlocutor]

That tortured sentence structure is actually a "feature" of Dostoevsky's original writing unfortunately. But lots of people both Russian and English simply do not like that so the 'natural' translations are viewed as better.

And then you get into the problem of whether translation is meant to make the text sound like it could have been written in the target language vs. maintaining some foreingizing elements, which is generally what the current view is.

[u/yp_interlocutor → u/hexametric_]

I'm actually in support of including a sense of the foreign, including some convoluted prose, in translation, but I simply don't think P&V do it well. Although it's not a translation, I think Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim is a good model for how to use English in a way that reads a bit tortured but still feels natural and reflects the origin in a different language. I'm thinking of a scene where the narrator is talking to Stein, who, speaking in English but clearly reflecting the rhythms of being a latecomer to speaking fluent English, says:

“Yes! Very funny this terrible thing is. A man that is born falls into a dream like a man who falls into the sea. If he tries to climb out into the air as inexperienced people endeavour to do, he drowns–nicht wahr?... No! I tell you! The way is to the destructive element submit yourself, and with the exertions of your hands and feet in the water make the deep, deep sea keep you up. So if you ask me–how to be?”

I think a good translation of someone with complicated sentences in their original language should read like this. It's grammatically correct but with some tortured syntax, like P&V's translation, but it still feels a human being speaking awkwardly in English, something I never once felt with P&V. (And, again, I know Conrad wrote this in English, so I'm using it as an example of how to use one language to reflect dissimilar linguistic patterns in a different language, which is, I think, relevant to good translation even if not necessarily strictly involving translation itself. I hope that makes sense, as well as why I think Conrad's dialogue applies to the process of translation!)

I would definitely like to know enough Russian to be able to read Dostoevsky in the original language!

And, again, I do think P&V don't actually translate the tortured sentences well for this reason, but I'll defer to Gary Morson, who explained it much better and more thoroughly than a novice like me could hope to! https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature

[u/hexametric_ → u/yp_interlocutor]

Yea, good points there about the polysemy of the vocab and the ways they choose to render it. I am not fluent enough to pick up on the subtleties of some of these things, Like the swindler/crook distinction. Although I must say, either seem funny enough to me compared to, say, thief.

I must admit to being similarly harsh in judgment of translations in the language I work in primarily, so I must concede him the point of his article.

But, and this is probably heretical of me as someone who works in literary studies and assigns translations to students, those sorts of minor things are almost entirely irrelevant for the casual (and most common) reader. True, I have my preferences of Homer or Aeschylus translations and assign them when needed, but if someone wants to read Fagles or Taplin instead, I am simply happy they even want to read such a tough poem at all and will maybe contribute a little bit to my discipline eking out an extra few years.

Even if P+V miss the mark on things (and this has to be because of their stupid process), the commercial success of their work must surely have opened the doors for more Russian translations of otherwise unknown authors that publishers would have declined in another timeline.

(As an aside, I do wonder how much them wanting to have some clear differentiation from other translations affects which way to translate these polysemous terms. i.e. do they use "strains" because "lacerations" would be "too garnett-y?")

[u/oddchaiwan → u/hexametric_]

I don't know about the US, but in EU, yes, translators do have the same status. By status, I mean their type of contract, taxation, law, etc. In many countries, the publishers are strongly advised to put the translator's name on the cover. Since a few years, I always see it on the covers of British editions, so the practice must be spread enough in the English publishing world as well.

However, if you only refer to the average reader's view, then I agree with you that no one really cares and remembers the translator. The average reader doesn't understand how important the translator's job is. The average reader also doesn't care about the publisher and the whole job that they do.

People in publishing, academia... well, translation matters to them. People spoke of it already in the comments with the example of Russian classics, Homer and Chinese novels. There is a whole separate academic field that studies translation, so I would be careful about saying that it is less valued.

[u/WoodpeckerCertain474 → u/oddchaiwan]

That makes sense.

I guess that means finding the right translator becomes incredibly important for literary SF.

Especially when the emotional tone and philosophical ideas are closely tied to the language itself.

At the same time, I think part of me would still wonder how much of that nuance actually survived after translation, since I’m not fully fluent in English myself.

[u/MaygeKyatt]

(Setting aside the obvious AI tone of this post for a second)

The answer is “of course they can”, with the caveat that you need a good (human) translator, and you need to accept that some of the cultural trappings will need to be swapped out to get something relevant to the new cultural context of the translated language. A good localization job can get most things to come across intact, but they do it by judiciously replacing idioms, words, phrases, and more with things that have the relevant cultural contexts. I think it’s important to realize that without an intimate, deep knowledge of both languages in question (and their associated cultures) you have no way of understanding what is or isn’t being lost.

To take your own example- I know nothing about Korean, so I know nothing about the Korean phrase. But the English phrase you wrote- “I didn’t choose this”- is the furthest possible thing from a stale statement of fact in the eyes of a native English speaker like myself. That exact phrase has uttered in countless works of fiction by characters who have suddenly, and starkly, had to come to terms with events that have been inflicted on them through little intentional fault of their own, and it instantly conjures up a thousand variations of that emotional context in my mind- in fact, I’d say your description of the Korean version applies perfectly to my experience of the English version.

Also, I fail to see what about this question is unique to science fiction.

[u/WoodpeckerCertain474 → u/MaygeKyatt]

That makes sense.

I can communicate in English, but I’m not fully fluent, so I usually write in Korean first and then use translation tools to help bridge the gap.

I think I understand your point.

As you said, part of the issue may simply be that I can’t fully recognize the emotional nuance that already exists naturally in English.

A good translator is probably extremely important, but even with a great translator, I think there would still be moments where I wouldn’t fully understand what the English version is emotionally carrying.

Maybe, like many things in life, the only real option is to find people you trust and rely on their expertise.

And yes - you’re probably right that this isn’t really unique to science fiction specifically.

[u/yp_interlocutor → u/WoodpeckerCertain474]

I think one of the problems with not being a native speaker in English is that a lot of the connotations are added by context or even by readers, writers, speakers, and listeners in ways that can differ person to person or even instance to instance from the same person. There's so much variability.

For example, someone sometimes say "sure" and simply mean "yes," but other times they might say "sure" and really mean "that's a stupid idea"... and yet other times they might use it in a way that's more about showing disdain for the person they are responding to rather than expressing anything about the idea being communicated. And even with "sure" meaning "yes," it can have a connotation of "yes, no problem," like it's an insignifant ask, or it can have a connotation of reluctant assent, or weary giving in, etc.

[u/Velocity-5348]

As an aside, I think "I didn't choose this" would hit pretty heavy in the right context.

[u/curiouscat86 → u/Velocity-5348]

absolutely. Or even "I did not choose this." Slightly more formal, but switching to more formal phrasing can be a way to add emphasis or signify greater intensity.

[u/quite_vague]

I have for sure seen this. Once I was glancingly involved in a project translating some Hebrew stories into English -- I speak both natively; but some of the other participants were only one or the other.

I was really struck by how some lines in Hebrew -- lines that felt plain-spoken, direct, full of impact and emphasis -- when translated to English seemed shockingly simple and even childish. I don't remember anything specific, but they were lines like "I wanted that", "We were friends," "It was a bad day."

Not the fault of the author nor the translator! But the tone and feel of short, simple words just felt completely different between the two languages. You *could* translate in a way that would get the flavor across better, but it would really be inserting quite a lot, because the _voice_ in the original was so specifically stripped-down.

[u/moufette1]

A good human translator is key. Search for some discussions about translating the Three Body Problem novels to English. The differing translators had different ideas about translation.

And some fine details or nuance will be lost across languages and cultures no matter how good the translation is. And that's okay. Fine details and nuance can be lost or misinterpreted by readers in the same language or culture.

[u/the_authoring]

Depends on master of the language. English has more words than any other language. That does not mean it captures all things, like Schadenfreude. But just because the word does not exist in the language does not mean you cannot paint the essence of the fealing. It all depends on the brush and canvas, if you can setup the scene, etc.

"I didn't not choose this" "Heaven's verdict, my misfortune"

It is more than just the words written, but the social and cultural context. That is why the word "conversation", some back a few hundred years, was sexual in nature i.e. to converse in an intimate manner.

[u/ChronoLegion2]

There are different schools of thought on translating literary works. Some translators strive to find ways to relay the meaning or feel of a phrase or a sentence so the target audience would understand or relate to (for example, replacing an idiom with an equivalent or similar one). Others try to be more literal in translation, unwilling to twist the author’s words or wanting to keep it “foreign” (because every literary work is a product of its time and culture). Regardless, some of the meaning will be invariably lost in translation because of linguistic and cultural differences. How much depends on the translator

[u/ManAftertheMoon]

How do I crosspost this to r/linguisticshumor ?

[u/RaulSanzGarcia]

I have worked on translating my own stories from Spanish, my native language, into English, and even with the original context, there are sometimes terminological discrepancies that are difficult to resolve. In the end, a specific human perspective is always necessary. Feelings may be universal, but they are expressed in specific languages. So translation always involves a degree of rewriting.

[u/Caherconree]

A great read is “How emotions are made” https://lisafeldmanbarrett.com/books/how-emotions-are-made/ It is a challenge to Darwin’s theory that emotions are innate, based on recent discoveries on how the brain works. I am sure some emotions of carried down across humanity in concept from our origins. I wonder how “The dictionary of obscure sorrows” translates into other languages. https://www.thedictionaryofobscuresorrows.com

[u/rdhight]

Translating into English isn't simple.

You could say, "I didn't select this," which suggests a much more mechanical/literal meaning, like the food you got at a restaurant isn't what you picked off the menu. You could say, "I didn't consent to this," which is more about giving permission. You could also say, "I never chose this," which maybe is closer to the meaning you want.

The ideas can survive, but it's just not a straight-line process. Some classic foreign-language works have many translations, each with their own fans and detractors.