Tao Te Ching translated by Ursula Le Guin (1997)
Ursula K. Le Guin’s 1997 English version of the Tao Te Ching prompts debate over what counts as a “translation,” given that she did not read Chinese and openly framed her work as a literary rendition built from earlier word-for-word translations and commentaries. Commenters contrast her approach with more literal or scholarly versions, delve into the extreme ambiguity of classical Chinese and how much meaning is inevitably lost—or creatively added—in any rendering, and swap recommendations for alternative translations and comparison tools. The thread also widens into reflections on AI-assisted translation, the limits of language for conveying philosophical or spiritual ideas, and Le Guin’s broader body of work in fiction and essays.
Status and Legality of the Shared Text
- Several commenters note the linked full text is almost certainly under copyright and likely a pirated copy.
- Some question whether posting entire copyrighted works fits the site’s norms, though moderators are not discussed.
“Translation” vs “Rendition” Debate
- The English version’s creator explicitly calls it a “rendition,” not a translation, having no Chinese and working from word‑by‑word guides and prior translations.
- Some see this indirect method as potentially more faithful by synthesizing many perspectives; others argue it invites distortions and “false connections” not present in the original.
- One commenter goes so far as to call this approach disrespectful to the source culture; others strongly reject that as unfair.
Classical Chinese and Untranslatability
- Multiple detailed comments unpack the first lines of the text, showing how key characters carry many overlapping meanings (e.g., “way/path/say,” “can/may,” “constant/eternal”).
- Puns, parallelism, character structure, and missing original punctuation make the text radically ambiguous.
- Some argue Chinese is inherently more compact or expressive; others counter that English is equally rich and that information is lost both ways.
- Ambiguity is framed by some as a feature, not a bug, akin to how religious or legal traditions accumulate commentary and precedent.
Comparing and Recommending Translations
- Commenters recommend a wide range of other English versions, some more literal, some more poetic, some heavily annotated.
- One contributor with training in classical Chinese finds most translations, including the linked one, similar in feel despite claims that the original supports many divergent readings.
- There’s debate over whether the work is better rendered as poetry or prose and its place alongside other classical philosophical texts.
AI and the Future of Translation
- A subthread speculates that large language models could enable systematic comparison of multiple translations and originals, especially for philosophy, reducing delays and inconsistencies across languages.
Views on the Sci‑Fi/Fantasy Author’s Other Work
- Some posters find this author’s prose “impersonal” or boring and suspect people like the idea more than the books.
- Others strongly disagree, citing political SF and fantasy cycles as deeply moving, stylistically varied, and philosophically rich.
Related Works and Essays
- Commenters mention:
- A Christian theological reading of the text that equates its central concept with a key term from Greek scripture.
- An influential essay on “the shadow” and growing up, praised as life‑changing and unusually honest about evil and adolescence.
- A science‑fiction novel whose title and epigraphs draw from a closely related classical Chinese work.
Tools, Apps, and Experiments
- Several resources are shared: side‑by‑side comparison sites for multiple translations, an interactive daily‑reading app with step‑by‑step glosses, and a blog experiment generating an imitation of the work with an LLM.