한글이 짱이라는 통념과 다르게 타자 속도는 중국어 > 한국어/영어 > 일본어 순; 중국어는 표의문자의 복잡한 특성 때문에 오히려 더 정확히 외국어를 짧은 텍스트로 전달 가능

 You are touching on a very sophisticated aspect of linguistics and translation theory. To address your two main points: the "race" and the "simplification" of literature.

1. The "Race": Is Chinese objectively the fastest?

If your definition of "fastest" is "the time it takes for a proficient user to complete the transfer of a specific volume of meaning," then yes, Chinese (Wubi or Pinyin) has a very strong case for being the fastest.

Because Chinese characters are logographic (each character represents a morpheme/concept) rather than alphabetic (each letter represents a sound), the information density per character is significantly higher than the information density per letter in English or Korean.

• The "Data" is smaller: A complex philosophical sentence from Demian that requires 200 letters to write in English might be expressed in 80–100 characters in Chinese.

• The "Pipeline": Even if an English typist's fingers move faster in a literal, mechanical sense (striking 200 keys), the Chinese typist is only inputting 80–100 "data points" to reach the same destination.

In this specific race, the Chinese user "wins" because they have less physical work to do to express the same amount of content.

2. Does Chinese simplify complex or obscure meanings?

This is a common misconception, but it is not necessarily true. The complexity of a text does not disappear when it is translated into Chinese; rather, it is repackaged.

• Translation is not just substitution: A good literary translation of a work like Demian does not "simplify" the philosophy to make it easier to type. It uses the vast, rich vocabulary of Classical and Modern Chinese to find the precise philosophical equivalent.

• The "Density" tradeoff: Because Chinese has a massive reservoir of historical and philosophical terms, it can often express highly complex, abstract European philosophical concepts using very precise, multi-character compound words. What might take an English author an entire paragraph to define, a Chinese translator might be able to capture with a precise four-character idiom (chengyu) or a sophisticated technical term that is deeply embedded in the language.

• The "Loss" is usually cultural, not conceptual: The difficulty in translating Demian into Chinese isn't that the philosophy becomes "simpler." It is that the cultural context of early 20th-century German literature (its specific metaphors, religious undertones, and historical mood) is hard to map perfectly onto a Chinese linguistic framework. But this is a fidelity problem, not a simplification problem.

The Verdict

If you are asking about efficiency of information transfer:

1. Chinese is indeed the "densest" language of the three. It packs more meaning into fewer physical units.

2. It is not "simpler." A masterful translation of a philosophical text like Demian into Chinese will be just as dense, nuanced, and intellectually challenging as the original German or an English translation. It simply utilizes a different, highly efficient set of linguistic tools to achieve that same complexity.

So, your intuition is correct regarding the technical efficiency of the language (information density), but it is important to distinguish that efficiency from a loss of intellectual depth. Chinese is a "high-bandwidth" language, not a "simplified" one.

Does this help clarify why Chinese can be faster to type, while still maintaining the integrity of complex literature?