What are your thoughts on modernizing classic novels?

[spookymulder93]

I saw that The Brothers Karamazov was the pick for the summer reading and it comes at a good time because it's one of the novels I have in my Amazon shopping basket right now, but I was reading the thread and people there were talking about which translation they were going to get and I've never really considered which translation to get before, I just usually go with whichever book is cheapest, but I've been wondering if I went with a more up to date novel that maybe had a more modern feel to the writing and was easier to read, would it be the same as reading something that was a bit harder to read and closer to the original.

A lot of the old literature even though they are good are a bit dry for my taste. It's like when they made the movie "O" which was like a modern day telling of Othello. To be honest most of what I know about the Shakespeare plays comes from The Simpsons.

[blazeofglory]

This is a really good classic and I have read many classics, but unfortunately never completed Proust and Ulysses despite the fact that I always tried to complete it, and remain deferred for eternity, but amongst the one I read the Brothers Karamazov is my favorite, and I find the book psychologically and philosophically leaning. And this is not the only one but one of the books that transformed me. Or to put it differently, I was not the same person after reading the book. I am the same person in the look, in the make, but it matured me and I became an observer, a witness to things, circumstances in and around the world in point of fact. The other book that changed me and my beliefs, my faiths, the outlooks on life, the universe, God, creation is the Prophet and that is one of the books I read tirelessly and anyone who has a spiritual hunger and seek for a meaning beyond all the meanings people annex to life one should read this wonderful book, a book that prophesizes, a book that guides, a book that blazes our path.
Khalil Gibran died early and before his death he saw a vision, and he prophesized. That said he was not a predictor, and he had no interest in that and he was just a spiritually awakened mystic.

Next to the Prophet it is indeed the Brothers Karamazov that transported me to a different dimension of reality. Realities is morphed or layered and his books help me un-layer

[mal4mac]

I saw that The Brothers Karamazov was the pick for the summer reading and it comes at a good time because it's one of the novels I have in my Amazon shopping basket right now, but I was reading the thread and people there were talking about which translation they were going to get and I've never really considered which translation to get before, I just usually go with whichever book is cheapest.


A few dollars can make the difference between torture and a good read. Try reading the first few pages of the 'Wordsworth classics' translation of Dante's Inferno (the cheapest I looked at) and Mandelbaum's Everyman translation. That should reveal that your "buy the cheapest" selection category is pretty useless. (Having said that, Wordsworth do use good translators now and again - like Garnett for Dostoevsky!)



but I've been wondering if I went with a more up to date novel that maybe had a more modern feel to the writing and was easier to read, would it be the same as reading something that was a bit harder to read and closer to the original.


Closer to the original in what sense? For instance Garnett and the Maudes are closer to Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in time - and maybe in person! In fact, the Maude's definitely were close to Tolstoy in person. He was a friend of theirs and thought their translation was so good that there was no need for another. That of course is, only his opinion (although , surely,that should count for a lot!)

Anyway, the Maudes didn't translate Dostoevsky, so that leaves Garnett. She's acknowledged by many as a great translator (D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, Middleton Murray... and on... and on...) I find her easier to read than most modern translators, especially the ones who try and "write English as Russian".

Try reading the first few pages of several translations using Amazon "Look Inside" - definitely include Garnett on that list - Wordsworth use her translation so it even fits your "cheapest" category! I did this with "The Idiot" and it's a revelation! (I much preferred Garnett). I also did it with C&P and much preferred Coulson's trabnslation in Oxford Classics - she's a translator from the 1950s, when they seemed to achieve a nice balance between accuracy and readability.

P.S. I count the Maudes translation of Tolstoy's War&Peace (Wordsworth) as the biggest bargain I ever bought in my life.

[applepie]

I typically go for older translations, but that is just me. I tried reading a more modern writing of The Canterbury Tales, and I've even tried to read more modern rewriting of Shakespeare. Something is lost when they try to modernize the language. Older translations, or in the case of the two I mentioned the original language, are more difficult to read, but I'm typically much more satisfied with them.

[JBI]

One of the better Dante translations, the Longfellow, is in the public domain anyway.

Anyway, it matters, but Penguin generally uses good translators, and university presses usually even better ones. Garnett's Dostoevsky isn't bad, but then again, I can't really judge, as I only have read a few Dostoevsky novels, and none in the original, and none comparing translations.

Most books you will find one translator far more readily available, unless it is a commonly translated book, such as Dante or Homer.

Generally I look around a little - the translator on Borges' collected fictions, for instance, was far less capable than the translators on the individual volumes.

[kiki1982]

The cheapest is not always the best. Only originals in my opinion can be bought like that, provided that one does one's own research. I.e Penguin's cheapest paper backs of English classics. They can hardly do much against the text itself, though they have no footnotes.

But not all popular translations are good, it's just easier for publishers and costs less money.

Mal4mac and I have had a long discussion about Garnett in another thread and out of that I conclude that Garnett is only appreciated because she is revered by publishers, she was the first and no-one knows what the hell the Russian actually says. For the rest, she edits stuff out that she deems too controversial (very Victorian), mistranslates or doesn't think what the word means before interpreting, skips things when she hasn't comprehended them and foremost, made Dostoevski sound like Tolstoy and vice versa. If we can believe Russians, their styles are not even recognisable in her translations.

The only thing I can say is that there seems to be enough argument there to loathe Garnett forever and to look for another translation, or otherwise learn the language.

[Mr.lucifer]

What is the quality of Andrew R. Macandrew's translation of The Brothers Karamazov?

[dfloyd]

They were the standard translation for Dostoevsky for years. As a book collector, I have read most of the Dostoevsky novels published by the Limited Editions Club. These all use the Garnett translations and are mostly superbly illustrated by Fritz Eichenberg woodcuts. Reading Dostoevsky unillustrated is worse than reading any Garnett translation. Only an illustrator of the caliber of Eichenberg can capture the mood of the Dostoevsky novels

[Thom Holliday]

I feel shamed for never finishing The Brothers Karamazov. I got around 200 pages into it, and then just stopped reading it. Not because I was bored or anything - quite the contrary - I just became lazy, due to having so much to read for college. I really need to give it another go in the future. I did finish Crime & Punishment however, and that currently stands as my favourite novel of all time!

I am all for using 'modern' translations, as long as you are given a choice between modern ones, and earlier ones. Anything which makes literature more accessible is definitely a good thing in my books. I suppose you could start with a modern translation, and then move up to an earlier translation if you wanted to get a stronger feel for the novel.


I tried reading a more modern writing of The Canterbury Tales, and I've even tried to read more modern rewriting of Shakespeare.

I can understand a modern revitalisation of The Canterbury Tales, but why would anyone feel the need to modernise Shakespeare!? It's already perfect, and easily understandable. Although saying that, I could see modernised Shakespeare appealing to schools.

[JBI]

Penguins aren't even close to the cheapest; they rip people off in Canada at least, though the US gets 6-8 books - we get 14-16$ books or more, for the exact same copy. The cheapest are worthless usually for translation, and the best generally are pricey, and are cloth-bound.

[spookymulder93]

I see the Garnett translation for the Dostoevsky novels are the cheapest though.

[dicer]

Everyman editions practically always use great translations, in my experience. I was reading the Oxford edition of 'Madame Bovary', and I found it so boring despite having looked forward to reading the novel for quite some time. I then switched over to Everyman and it became instantly more enjoyable. I've never really thought about 'modernised' translations, though. I just get the translation that seems to flow the best - maybe those would be modernised.

For Dostoevsky, I really recommend the Pevear and Volokhonsky translations. I did a lot of research prior to buying any of Dostoevsky's work, and I found a large majority praising the pair for their translations. I had prior attempted to read a Constance Garnett translation of 'Anna Karenina' and it was actually painful. I haven't yet managed to get a hold of the Pevear alternative, but using the 'look inside' feature, I prefer it already. I have read both 'Crime and Punishment' and 'Notes from the Underground' under P & V translations and both reads have been immensely enjoyable - among my favourites. I've recently got a hold of their translation of 'The Brothers Karamazov' and 'The Idiot' so I'm looking forward to that. I think most people recommend these translations, or so I found under Amazon reviews, and I think on this forum as well, on earlier boards.

[Mr.lucifer]

What about bantam classic translation?

[spookymulder93]

I'm actually enjoying this translation the best- http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553212168/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_hist_1

[Mr.lucifer]

thats the one i brought.

[spookymulder93]

It seems to be the most modern. I like the flow of it. Seems like the other two would be good if trying to increase your vocabulary or if your vocabulary is already pretty good.

[dfloyd]

As a book collector, the illustrations, printing and binding are of utmost importance to me. I realize this is not of importance to college students, and I am not trying to be pedantic or patronizing, but there are some beautiful hard cover editions of Dostoevsky, fully illustrated with magnicient woodcuts, which can be had for around $20. Those issued by The Heritage Press or the Easton Press can be a lifetime investment. All of my Dostoevsky volumes ran about $300 each. Really a small price to pay for a book which will last a lifetime. The beauty of these books transcends the translation.

[kiki1982]

Call me strange, but I always thought that the most important aspect of a book was its text. As it stands, I would not want to read a Constance Garnett. Maybe I would consider, just for investing purposes, an original first edition, but then not for reading.

Pevear and Volkhonsky I respect very much. They take great care and do not even use words that were not in use in English before the book in question was written in Russian. Thus, they create a very very close reproduction of what that book would have sounded like in English, and yes, maybe their vocab is very varied, but I expect that adds to the versatile nature of the Russian language transposed into English. Though some sentences are a little strange, I would still say that they at least take care. Something that Garnett did not at all, I expect partly due to the times she was working in (without Internet). However, one cannot by any means mae a proper translation without checking over the text again. Garnett never did.

[Pecksie]

Pevear and Volkhonsky I respect very much. They take great care and do not even use words that were not in use in English before the book in question was written in Russian. Thus, they create a very very close reproduction of what that book would have sounded like in English, and yes, maybe their vocab is very varied, but I expect that adds to the versatile nature of the Russian language transposed into English. Though some sentences are a little strange, I would still say that they at least take care.

I'll second you on that one. I read Anna Karenina in their translation and thoroughly enjoyed it (though I haven't read any other one for comparison). On the other hand, I read Tolstoy's 'Happy Ever After' translated by Garnett (a Penguin edition which also included 'The Death of Ivan Ilyich' and other stories) and I was extremely annoyed by the fact that she transliterated the name of the same characters differently in different parts of the story (e.g. Marya and Maria and things like that). The translation itself seemed OK, but those signs of sloppiness that I detected made me extremely wary about other potential mistakes that I wouldn't be noticing, and sort of spoiled the fun.

[mal4mac]

I typically go for older translations, but that is just me. I tried reading a more modern writing of The Canterbury Tales, and I've even tried to read more modern rewriting of Shakespeare. Something is lost when they try to modernize the language. Older translations, or in the case of the two I mentioned the original language, are more difficult to read, but I'm typically much more satisfied with them.

Just because Shakespeare was great, and old, doesn't mean that older translations are always great.

I liked Peter Ackroyd's radical rewriting of The Canterbury Tales. I never managed to pluck up enough motivation to read all the way through the original, or Coghill's scholarly rewrite. I draw the line at Shakespeare though!

I think you're right that something is lost on rewriting. So you need to balance difficulty against loss. Shakespeare isn't that difficult, given good notes and bit of effort. But the loss from modern rewritings is great - anyone who would do such a thing probably has zero taste anyway, and even the greatest rewriter is likely to fall short.

Just for fun, I'd like to see Ackroyd take a crack at rewriting a Shakespeare play, but I doubt he would wants to chance the flak... With Chaucer Ackroyd is on safer ground, the original is *very* difficult so there is a good case for rewriting it for the general reader.


One of the better Dante translations, the Longfellow, is in the public domain anyway.


Yes, I'm surprised Wordsworth didn't plump for that one. But I still prefer Mandelbaum - just as poetic and more understandable (for me, for the few cantos I compared...)

You can judge your experience of reading Garnett/Dostoevsky against that of reading other translations & original novels in English. On that score Garnett/Dostoevsky scores higher than most English novelists, for me.


I'll second you on that one. I read Anna Karenina in their translation and thoroughly enjoyed it (though I haven't read any other one for comparison). On the other hand, I read Tolstoy's 'Happy Ever After' translated by Garnett (a Penguin edition which also included 'The Death of Ivan Ilyich' and other stories) and I was extremely annoyed by the fact that she transliterated the name of the same characters differently in different parts of the story (e.g. Marya and Maria and things like that). The translation itself seemed OK, but those signs of sloppiness that I detected made me extremely wary about other potential mistakes that I wouldn't be noticing, and sort of spoiled the fun.

What's wrong with transliterating names? Using several different names for the same person is confusing for the average English reader. Why not help out, unless the context absolutely demands (say) a pet name?

I made a direct comparison between the Maudes' translations of Tolstoy's shorter novels with P&V's translations and much preferred the Maudes'. (Fortunately I borrowed the expensive P&V from the library....) Tolstoy praised the Maudes' translations to the heights, you can't say that for P&V...

[kiki1982]

I liked Peter Ackroyd's radical rewriting of The Canterbury Tales. I never managed to pluck up enough motivation to read all the way through the original, or Coghill's scholarly rewrite. I draw the line at Shakespeare though!

Whereas you make a good point about loss in re-writing, I cannot comprehend why it would be impossible for native speakers to read Chaucer in the original version. I as a foreigner can do it, so surely it cannot be too difficult.

That said, in German schools they do old German, say 900 AD? Now, that is difficult, think old Saxon in English terms. Chaucer is a piece of cake in that respect. With a few good footnotes to explain some of his hilarious gags because they are based on some funy medieval thought, there should be no problem in doing him at all. No-one says one has to read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in one go either. Story by story is good enough.


What's wrong with transliterating names? Using several different names for the same person is confusing for the average English reader. Why not help out, unless the context absolutely demands (say) a pet name?

I made a direct comparison between the Maudes' translations of Tolstoy's shorter novels with P&V's translations and much preferred the Maudes'. (Fortunately I borrowed the expensive P&V from the library....) Tolstoy praised the Maudes' translations to the heights, you can't say that for P&V...

Of course names should be transcribed, but it is a first sign of carelessness if the translator himself does not seem to agree on a version, whether it be Marya or Maria. If she cannot do that satisfactorily, what is the rest of the text going to be like? Fortunately she didn't do Kafka with his 'love for the one word', now that demands consequence up to even lists of what word should be translated by what other one. Garnett wasn't even consequent in names, so what else is lost in her translations then? That is sloppy and should not be called quality.

Why not educate the reader and supply him with a list of possible names for possible characters and explaining that system? After some time the reader is going to get the hang of it and then he doesn't need to read it anymore in another novel. In English, a minor form exists as well, for example, in the novels of Austen. Why does Jane in P&P get addressed firstly as 'Jane' by her mother, sisters, father and other acquaintances while she is called 'Miss Bennet' by the rest that doesn't know her like Mr Bingley? Elizabeth is never addressed as 'Miss Bennet', but mily as 'Miss Elizabeth Bennet)', apart from when Jane isn't there, but is called both 'Lizzie' and 'Elizabeth' by people. Darcy never calls her 'Elizabeth' until they are formally engaged. I see no-one complaining about this possibly also confusing system for forneigners and English alike (explanations are on the Internet, if they weren't needed they would not be there), but people complain about the Russian form. Why not just learn to get to know another culture and be done with it? It is entirely impossible to transpose a book to another culture at any rate, so why not leave as much of the other culture in it so it at least stays something with substance and doesn't start to float around referencelessly?

[Pecksie]

What's wrong with transliterating names? Using several different names for the same person is confusing for the average English reader. Why not help out, unless the context absolutely demands (say) a pet name?



I'm afraid you didn't understand what I meant. Anyone translating from Russian into English has to transliterate, i.e. write the names in the Latin alphabet (unless he or she chooses to translate them into their English equivalents, i.e. Katherine for Ekaterina, Eugene for Yevgeny, and so on). There's nothing wrong with that, of course --- it's part of the deal when you are working with two languages that employ different alphabets. But a translator has to be consistent. If you transliterate a certain name as, say, 'Maria', you can't go and write 'Marya' in the next sentence. You can't write both 'Ilich' and 'Ilyich'. It's a translation, and consistency is part of what makes it believable, sound and pleasurable.


Why not just learn to get to know another culture and be done with it? It is entirely impossible to transpose a book to another culture at any rate, so why not leave as much of the other culture in it so it at least stays something with substance and doesn't start to float around referencelessly?

I agree with that. I'm extremely irritated every time people complain about the Russian naming conventions. I've never heard complaints about, for instance, Roman or Icelandic names.

[kiki1982]

To be fair, it is a little confusing at first, but then you just need to know the short forms of certain names, don't you. But, I supose it is the same with Elizabeth and Lizzie and address conventions in Austen. No-one complains.

Scandinavian is not that much of a problem, I haven't found. They don't use entirely 'different' forms (as far as know at least), but anyway, one need to be prepared to adapt and otherwise not read foreign lit.

But I suppose that English, mainly the American market, is very much spoilt and oesn't want to have anything remotely strange anymore.

In other languages they keep forms of address as they are. Only English considers even at all to change them (domesticate).

[_Shannon_]

I used to be firmly in the camp of preferring a more literal translation over a more poetic one, and tending towards the older the better. However my whole way of thinking has recently been rocked by the Buss translation of The Count of Monte Cristo. I mean the book is 1200 pages long--and I've got 6 kids. The newer translation with more modern sounding prose made all the difference in my ability to read the book in a reasonable amount of time. I have to deal with what actually is, and not what ideally is, you know??

It really has made me interested in giving Fagles another try re: The Iliad and The Odyssey (Although TE Lawrence's translation of The Odyssey is my next one.) When I first tried Fagles the modern prose and idiom just seemed annoyingly incongruous with the subject matter. Although I did also read Fathers and Sons this past year and chose the more "classic" sounding translation over the newer one. So I dunno...It's interesting and exciting though to maybe having my thinking be challenged. For now I am going on a book by book basis. It's one of the benefits of having a spouse who works at a book store--I can take my time deciding. :)

As far as Shakespeare goes--I'd recommend grabbing one of the great children's books out there that has sort of summary retellings--and then read the original. If you get the general story line down first, then maybe you can enjoy the language a little more??

[spookymulder93]

The Brothers Karamazov translation by Andrew Mcandrew was great. I read the entire novel in a 2 week span.

I just started Crime and Punishment with the translation from Garnett. I made it to page 17 then had to put it down from pure boredom.

The problem I have with the kind of language used is they take so many words to explain a simple thought or action.

[grotto]

As stated above, try the Pevear and Volkhonsky translation. Head to a good books store and read a few pages from each translator and you may find what you're looking for.

[mal4mac]

...my whole way of thinking has recently been rocked by the Buss translation of The Count of Monte Cristo. I mean the book is 1200 pages long--and I've got 6 kids. The newer translation with more modern sounding prose made all the difference in my ability to read the book...

It really has made me interested in giving Fagles another try re: The Iliad and The Odyssey (Although TE Lawrence's translation of The Odyssey is my next one.) When I first tried Fagles the modern prose and idiom just seemed annoyingly incongruous with the subject matter.


That doesn't mean *all* modern translations will not work for a modern reader (at least this modern reader.) I didn't like Fagles' translations, so I gave and tried Rieu instead. Success! Not much pain, maybe 'cause it's plain prose and not ropey poetry...

I'm reading Murdoch's "The Sea, The Sea" at the moment, and the lead character bemoans the fact that there are no good translations of any Greek works, certainly no writing that even begins to compare to Shakespeare (Murdoch might be right!)



Although I did also read Fathers and Sons this past year and chose the more "classic" sounding translation over the newer one. So I dunno...


I read a modern Penguin and found it very bland, I blamed Turgenev, but I might be wrong! Who was the classic translator you liked?



As far as Shakespeare goes--I'd recommend grabbing one of the great children's books out there that has sort of summary retellings--and then read the original. If you get the general story line down first, then maybe you can enjoy the language a little more??

Careful, there's a lot of dross to sort through by following that route. Charles Lamb's retellings have a "classic" reputation. But any adult should, surely, just plunge into the original - in a version with good notes. Shakespeare isn't that difficult. Getting the general story line down is probably a good idea - the RSC Complete Shakespeare has an essay before each play, with a great plot summary and anything else you might need to get you started.

Although Shakespeare contains depths of infinite complexity, he's also an easy read. Remember his plays were attended by London's uneducated groundlings when first produced. So just read slowly and don't expect to get *everything* - no one does.

[MaineTim]

A lot of the old literature even though they are good are a bit dry for my taste. It's like when they made the movie "O" which was like a modern day telling of Othello. To be honest most of what I know about the Shakespeare plays comes from The Simpsons.

As far as Shakespeare goes, I have no objection to updating the setting, as long as the dialog is unchanged. His works are produced in all manner of contexts, which is fine, but the real variable is in how much of the original dialog is edited, or worse, rewritten.

[brave new tony]

Are we simply talking about taking literature written in an older or foreign language and translating into more modern prose? Or can we include the transliteration of english novels which have been lost in our ever evolving language into modern english?

[OrphanPip]

Are we simply talking about taking literature written in an older or foreign language and translating into more modern prose? Or can we include the transliteration of english novels which have been lost in our ever evolving language into modern english?

What English novels are no longer accessible to modern readers? I'm confused, there were no novels written in Middle English.

Considering Chaucer, his Middle English easy enough with some glosses, but I think it's easier if you speak a bit of French and German. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight barely even looks like English, and Beowulf is certainly out of the question to modern readers.

[LMK]

Are we simply talking about taking literature written in an older or foreign language and translating into more modern prose? Or can we include the transliteration of english novels which have been lost in our ever evolving language into modern english?

I was wondering the same thing. I most likely would never have made it through The Divine Comedy had it not been translated, or Les Misérables, but I also know that I am at the mercy of the translator and hope that I am reading a good rendering of what the author intended to project.

Translation for modernity; however, is a double edged sword, we find that some words no longer retain certain meanings or are so out of use, their obscurity inhibits a smooth reading of a work, still there is the matter of the interpretation that a translator can put on the modern choices. Foot notes can also interrupt the flow, so I suppose I am on the fence and have not yet made up my mind.

[spookymulder93]

I wasn't so much talking about the language as I was modern situations.

[OrphanPip]

I was wondering the same thing. I most likely would never have made it through The Divine Comedy had it not been translated, or Les Misérables, but I also know that I am at the mercy of the translator and hope that I am reading a good rendering of what the author intended to project.


I also find it difficult to read works in their original language when I don't speak the language ;). I don't think people dispute the merits of translation of foreign language works, even if things are often loss in the process.

[LMK]

I wasn't so much talking about the language as I was modern situations.

But how different are the two?

If a language does not exist in the form in which it was originally written and requires a translation, then is the original language not foreign to its modern usage?

I don't think situations should be changed or characters, unless one is talking about an adaptation rather than a translation. For example the movie 'O Brother Where Art Thou' is a modern (well not ultra modern) adaptation of The Odyssey.

[spookymulder93]

But how different are the two?

If a language does not exist in the form in which it was originally written and requires a translation, then is the original language not foreign to its modern usage?

I don't think situations should be changed or characters, unless one is talking about an adaptation rather than a translation. For example the movie 'O Brother Where Art Thou' is a modern (well not ultra modern) adaptation of The Odyssey.

Yea an adaption is exactly what I'm talking about.

[LMK]

Yea an adaption is exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh, sorry, that's a "horse of a different color" entirely!

I think the sky's the limit as long as the writer doing the adaptation brings with it integrity to the story, the example I gave earlier of The Odyssey retold as "O Brother Where Art Thou" a completely different fresh view of the story's challenges and conflicts without degrading, in my opinion, The Odyssey at all.

Having said that, there is the issues of copy write that should be considered; of course the original writer owns the story, the characters the details. I do NOT endorse plagiarizing or infringement of any kind and in my opinion the example I use does neither, it tells a new story of a classic story and years and years apart.

However, my thoughts are with the express caveat that a sufficient amount of time has passed to either make the original work public domain or there is no harm to the intellectual property (without court action deciding this point).