translating literature raises so many interesting questions and problems (just as writing does), one of the main ones being: is it wise to translate in a more visceral way, i.e. more spontaneously, in the style of, for example, A Concise Chinese-English Dictionary for Lovers by Xizolu Guo, which actually wasn't translated, but was written in English utilizing non-English syntax. does the more spontaneous translation provide more insight into the "other" culture than does a more glossy, more "worked over" (albeit more readable) translation? and then, which is closer to the truth? because in the final analysis, isn't it truth we're after; isn't it shedding light on something heretofor unknown, something foreign? doesn't presenting a translated work within the Anglo syntax (or context or culture) subtract a significant chunk of something unique, something untranslatable of the native language/culture? or is making a literary text "accessible" the primary objective/focus of translating, ignoring the challenges inherent in trying to understand something foreign by presenting it in its foreigness?