If that is Anthony Burgess then Wilde Woman can draw her conclusions. His replaceent of wit for poetry also gives me doubts. The two things are not even remotely the same. Yet license? Sorry... Wit is no poetry. Austen already knew it.
Readability is not an aesthetic value. As far as I know, nor Virginia Woolf, nor DH Lawrence actually knew Russian, so how can they remotely comment on a translation? The Maudes clearly did know Russian and if Tolstoy approved himself, then I can conceide to them having produced good work. However, Garnett seems to have largely taken any contents out of works and it is the question whether she could capture the smallest hint to something if she worked quickly as is attested.
Spîrit-translation is not translating the meaning of the sentence, but the meaning behind the sentence and being aware that there can be a double, triple, four-fold etc. meaning. That needs to be conveyed, not the meaning of the text in its literal wording. I agree that there are sometimes problems, but it is no reason to turn phrases as I can see Garnett has done. If anything, it is taking the spirit away rather than translating it. Tell me, what is a person without spirit? Dead, I'd say. What is a book without its contents? Dead. There is only a story on the same level as Mills and Boon. It is nothing, it is unintresting, it has no base, it has no source, it is alone.
The thing is not that everyone absolutely needs to read a work like it is supposed to be read. Of course one can stay with the wonderful story of Elizabeth Bennet and Darcy or Roxane and Cyrano, but, and there is the great danger for any translation, it needs to stay possible to know or to get to know by dedication (or footnotes, whatever you prefer) what is the contents. As such, nor Anthony Burgess, nor Guillemard/Thomas, nor Hooker give that possibility. Again, they turned the piece itself into 'the finest end' and they did not keep 'the finest end' to be accomplished by 'the finest means' which were the words in the play. Cyrano could be speaking about the whole piece there, and then a translator is going to take the opportunity away. The piece becomes a piece that is no more than nice words and that is just what Rostand was trying to say: 'nice words have become the reason for love, love has turned into nice words, but love is more than nice words and it needs a soul to go with it'.
I'd say the problem is not that people are lazy (although sometimes one wonders considering native English works), but that they do not know any better. They do not have the possibility to learn, because the opportunity is not there.
Tell me, if someone reads Milton, does he also complain about the footnotes or does it need to be translated?