Have tried a few of the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations (Dostoevsky & Tolstoy), and maybe they are more accurate, but I have to say I find Garnett and others more readable; Morson probably has a point. For me the same goes when putting Andrew Hurley's translations of Borges up against the earlier work of Norman Thomas di Giovanni.
If memory serves, one of Simenon's early translators (Saintsbury, I think) presumably played fast and loose not only with the translation from French to English, but with some of the stories themselves and Simenon broke with him when he found out about it.
There's an essay by Samuel Delany (think it's in his book The Jewel-Hinged Jaw) where he talks about assigning a book in one of his classes; the students tell him it's dull and unreadable. The book is The Romance of Leonardo Da Vinci by Dmitri Merezhkovsky, which Delany had read years ago and found wonderful; the translation available for purchase at the time he taught his class made all the difference -- when he compared copies of the two, he agreed with his students.
It reminded me of how my excellent Russian literature professor in university, who was Latvian, was always very particular about the translations we used.
The Dracula story is really interesting, I recently bought that to reread.
My one experience of reading two different translations of the same book is Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.
The first edition I read was translated by Gregory Hays.
Then I read the edition by Robin Waterfield after hearing him on a podcast and I preferred it. His annotations are very good as well.
That Dracula bit was new to me and fascinating. Concerns over the quality of translation are certainly valid, but I think the common reader only cares if the translation is readable and true to the spirit of the original. A lot of times, specialist arguments are only interesting to other specialists. Enjoyed this essay very much.
George Steiner summarizes pages of his own writing about the impossibility if translation (in Real Presences) by saying that Bottom the Weaver being turned into an ass by the fairy Puck in Midsummernight's Dream is as good as translation ever gets. And that translation is from English into English.
My Burmese is even worse than my Russian, but probably better than my Icelandic 😉, nonetheless, I forgot to mention Tim Parks’ excellent translation work when you asked previously. Everyone seems to be reading The Prince again and his translation is particularly good imho. All the best, John.
Well, I'm just glad Jesus spoke in King James English.
Have tried a few of the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations (Dostoevsky & Tolstoy), and maybe they are more accurate, but I have to say I find Garnett and others more readable; Morson probably has a point. For me the same goes when putting Andrew Hurley's translations of Borges up against the earlier work of Norman Thomas di Giovanni.
If memory serves, one of Simenon's early translators (Saintsbury, I think) presumably played fast and loose not only with the translation from French to English, but with some of the stories themselves and Simenon broke with him when he found out about it.
There's an essay by Samuel Delany (think it's in his book The Jewel-Hinged Jaw) where he talks about assigning a book in one of his classes; the students tell him it's dull and unreadable. The book is The Romance of Leonardo Da Vinci by Dmitri Merezhkovsky, which Delany had read years ago and found wonderful; the translation available for purchase at the time he taught his class made all the difference -- when he compared copies of the two, he agreed with his students.
Great piece.
It reminded me of how my excellent Russian literature professor in university, who was Latvian, was always very particular about the translations we used.
The Dracula story is really interesting, I recently bought that to reread.
My one experience of reading two different translations of the same book is Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.
The first edition I read was translated by Gregory Hays.
Then I read the edition by Robin Waterfield after hearing him on a podcast and I preferred it. His annotations are very good as well.
He’s a hero of mine. He often makes me want to read the translation more than the original!
That Dracula bit was new to me and fascinating. Concerns over the quality of translation are certainly valid, but I think the common reader only cares if the translation is readable and true to the spirit of the original. A lot of times, specialist arguments are only interesting to other specialists. Enjoyed this essay very much.
George Steiner summarizes pages of his own writing about the impossibility if translation (in Real Presences) by saying that Bottom the Weaver being turned into an ass by the fairy Puck in Midsummernight's Dream is as good as translation ever gets. And that translation is from English into English.
Fascinating essay, thank you.
My Burmese is even worse than my Russian, but probably better than my Icelandic 😉, nonetheless, I forgot to mention Tim Parks’ excellent translation work when you asked previously. Everyone seems to be reading The Prince again and his translation is particularly good imho. All the best, John.