An idea, perhaps wrong

Any translation of a work differs only in the degree of butchery. The work of an author is not ideas but sentences. The main exception to this seems to be names and currencies (rupees, dinars, etc.). What could be gained if these were translated as well? Naturalness, increased flow, oral and vocal consistency.
It is difficult to remember names that aren't familiar. The choice then is either to ignore it or thumb frantically backwards through the pages. The former result clearly reduces comprehension; the latter breaks the flow and reduces pleasure.
The use of names from the original language creates an illusion that translation is a straightforward process. If one word in a sentence remains in the original langauge then it may seem that it is the only one that can't be translated. Everything else was changing "bibliotechque" to "library".
Written words are a representation of their oral counterpart so in our heads do we anglicize the pronunciation of a French name (e.g. ADÃLAÏDE ) or make it the only word in the sentence with a French pronunciation. To anglicize it is clearly wrong, it is neither how the name is pronounced or a translation. Along with this is the question of what to do with the various pronunciation squiggles.
In short this suggests that Miguel, Maximillian, and Michel become Michael.

What happens to a work that concerns itself with the pronunciation of a word (e.g. Lolita)? Again this assumes that translation is more straightforward than it is. "Lolita" which seems like a natural part of the language in English will stick out badly in (I'm guessing) Swedish or Hindi. Lolita depends not just on the phonetics but the mental associations of the sound.

The case for currencies is much less strong. The narrative flow can continue with only a general understanding of the amount. Also determing a specific sum is difficult due to the fluctuating nature of currencies as well as the price variations on different types of goods due to era or region .