Better late than never, lost in translation

In the midst of all my traveling I forgot to post for last week and don't want to leave my thoughts unspoken! I found Isabel's blog post last week quite interesting specifically the part where she stated: "it is important to note the author's word choice since not only do words physically contribute to the story but they also give shape to the emotions and tones of the tale, which are able to differ slightly from reader to reader." This triggered quite a few thoughts in my mind. First, her mention of our wonderful visitor from the London stage and her lessons in the importance of emphasizing every word and paying attention to what the author means made me think of my LIT class this semester called The Novel: Point of View as Structure. In this class we are reading and discussing a plethora of books with focus of the author's strategic selection of which point of view the story is told in. Many times when reading we don't take into consideration what the story would be like if it was told in a completely different point of view. The omniscient third person point of view of Suite Francaise makes me question why Némirovksy chose this type of narrator for her book.  An example of the omniscient third person narrator knowing the thoughts, actions and feelings of all the characters can be found on page 6, "Madame Péricand finally decided that only a male mind could explain with clarity such strange, serious events". The lack of quotes around this text shows that this is fact not a statement being made by Mme. Péricand. For example, instead of her startling shifts in point of view, what if Némirovksy instead told the story strictly from the perspective of the Péricands' or the Michauds? Secondly, I am curious what it is like to read the book in the original French. The narrative and dialogue of the translation are simple, but as with most translations, I wonder what we as readers may have lost.