"Lost in Translation" !?!?

Borrowing from a movie's title. This is the sense I get when I was discussing some issues on our class's discussion board. I somewhat think that most problems are generated by the way the text is translated. For example, there is a discussion on iambic/trochaic indication within the text. Is it referring the the Greek version or the English version? Remember that the original Greek version has only plain chunk of words. I conclude that they are added as stage directions for actors, and remind them the way of interpreting this specific version of the translation (I don't see any similar things in the MIT version in a quick glance through).

So, the major issue is that different translations present different "educated guesses" from scholars, or I should rather say "sophisticated interpretations based on personal feelings and knowledge". Then, I think we might not be as lost as we are now if we can realize that we are only reading someone's interpretation of the text, but not the original verion.

But on the other hand, reading the original version is just another way of interpreting the text on a more personal level without the translator. So why don't we just stick with what we think when we read a certain version?

Lu Xun

So, we have been reading some "diaries" in our comp. lit. class, and have discussed some aspects in weirdness and strangeness. I have read some of his works before when I was still studying in Hong Kong. I can't believe that I am reading "A Madman's Diary" in English version before reading the original Chinese version. For people who are curious, Lu Xun's name in Chinese is 魯迅 (it is his pen name, his real name is 周樹人 Zhou Shuren)，and the title in Chinese is "狂人日記". Actually I don't really know where I am going with this, I think I'll just go on and write down some of my thoughts about this story.

I remember we talked about the editor's introduction in class, but we didn't really come to a conclusion. Actually I think this editor is trying to diverse the readers' attention and makes us think that the diarist is mad. Focusing on the diary itself (let's put the introduction aside for a moment), I don't quite think the diarist is crazy, except that he has told history in a bit distorted way. Beside that, he seems to write in a sane way. And it seems like those people around him are crazier than he is. So what's going on here?

I think it's because the editor has altered our way of thinking.

First, the editor writes that the diarist is suffering from a certain illness. Since the diarist himself is never present in the story, we won't really know if that's true or not.

Second, the editor writes that the diarist is writing in a "most confused and incoherent" fashion. Despite the fact that the entries are somewhat disconnected from each other, I don't see how his writing within each entry is incoherent and confusing.

Also, if we are to focus on the main body of the diary, we see crazy people eating others, and the diarist is only a victim under the danger of being eaten. So, who's crazy here?

Then, why is the editor trying to alter our thinking?