So a few days ago I bought Penguin's paperback edition of Christine Donougher's well-acclaimed translation of Les Miserables.
Those who read it had positive words to say about it, though from what I know it seems that very few have read the translation.
So I have a question here: has anyone here read Christine Donougher's translation, and if so, is it a reliable translation of Hugo's original masterwork? Also, how does it stack up against Julie Rose's 2008 Modern Library translation?
I've never read Les Miserables (or anything else by Hugo), but as the site's cheapskate, I feel compelled to mention that Isabel Florence Hapgood's 1862 translation is available for free at Feedbooks (as is her 1831 Hunchback). They look cheapolicious! :)
After seeing the film version of the musical with my then girlfriend (who loved it) I bought her and I copies of the book for valentines day which we read together. I picked the Modern Library hardcover, translated by Alice Rose, for her because it was the nicest looking volume and I got myself the Penguin edition translated by Norman Denny. When we did compare passages I tended to prefer the translation i was reading by Denny as Rose seems to use language which dips into, what I would consider, excessively modern territory (for example the phrase "what's up" appears at least once), something I tend to dislike as a matter of personal preference. Hugo didn't write in the twenty first century and I don't really want to read twenty first century slang or lingo in my nineteenth century novels.
Alban Krailsheimer translated my Notre Dame De Paris and as I recall it was a pretty good read, no idea if he or she has done Les Miserables though.
I must agree, brother Clopin. Contemporaneous tanslations have linguistic and cultural contexts, and I prefer them to most modern translations. Perhaps it's a prejudice from my days of reading the ancient Classics (where such things didn't exist). But many prefer modern translations, and there is much to be said for them, I'm sure. Still I suspect that many fine old translations are being overlooked. And such prices! (:))Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
I'm usually not too fussed about translations but I've recently gone off the Pevear and Volokhonsky duo for Russian classics because I noticed that my edition of Gogol's collected tales just wasn't funny, or engaging to read for that matter. In my view a translation which makes a very funny Russian story (well okay I've never read the Russian, but I've read other English translations, before and since) into an unfunny English one isn't very accurate even if the words match up quite well. Since then I've been wary. I don't dislike Garnett either.
Also Ajvenigalla I notice the Christine Donougher translation is listed as 'The Wretched' which is quite a turn off for me; the translation is probably fine but I don't think that changing the title like that bodes very well.
I love Constance Garnett. Who says genius can't be affordable? :)
^ constance Garnett did good translations of Chekhov and Turgenev. But when it comes to Dostoevsky, Gogol, and Tolstoy, she is bettered by many other translators (though in all honesty I didn't find her translation of Crime and Punishment all that bad; in fact, it is the translation through which I discovered another favorite novel)
Anyways, as for old vs modern translations, let's just say that both should co-exist. However, many modern translators can sometimes capture the voice of the original author in ways that a "classic" translation cannot. For example, the Pevear/Volokhonsky translations of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Gogol will probably be far more authentic to the original voices of these authors than, say, Constance Garnett, though she was a "classic" translator. And in this way, the modernity of many of the best translations will win out in terms of superiority over the "classic" and "old" translations.
Ah, but one must be very careful of so-called "translations" from this era, as some of them contain a good deal of rewriting. An anecdote will illustrate what I mean:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
When I was teaching a college course in the history of 19thc music at an excellent liberal arts school, one of my students wrote a term paper in which a comparison with respect to plot and characterization of Verdi's opera Rigoletto and Le Roi s'amuse, the Victor Hugo play on which it is based, figured prominently. When I read the paper I was bemused by her most startling discovery: That for no reason she could discern, Verdi had transformed the happy ending of the original play into a horrifying and grim denouement in which the heroine dies in a sack. Now, of course, the Hugo play ends (minus a death aria that strains credibility given the soprano's sucking chest wound) just as disastrously. She had read an early English "translation" from the university's library. After reading an actual translation of the play, and making a revision of her paper which no doubt cut into her Christmas break, she received an A for the course. Since then I have been wary of early translations — particularly, early English translations — of Hugo.
My comments from Goodreads on the Donougher and Rose translations. Posting them here in case it may help someone decide which to read.
Donougher translation:
I love the Christine Donougher translation. The only problem I had was Penguin's decision to use an english title (The Wretched), when the original french title is already so well known. It should be known that this was the publisher's decision, and not Donougher's. She did go along with the decision but, I think this was clearly a case of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you. It appears that Penguin has now realized that this was a mistake. The original french title was restored for the deluxe paperback edition, which came out in February 2015. I cannot recommend this translation highly enough. It's just unfortunate that the initial change of the title may have prevented people from reading it.
My review of the Julie Rose translation:
This is a five star book. Julie Rose's new translation, however, is not. I wanted to love this. I really, really did. There are passages here that really soar and are pitch perfect. The problems arise with Miss Rose's attempts to be too modern with the text. Referring to the Thénardiers' Inn as a "Greasy Spoon" throughout the book and Monsieur Gillenormand calling his nephew a moron are just two glaring examples. Modern language like this has no place in a 19th century novel. That said, I feel that I cannot give this book any less than five stars. It wouldn't be fair to Hugo's masterpiece. This edition has some of the best translated passages yet seen for this great work, just be prepared for the very jarring modernism.
Since I wrote the review for Rose's translation several years before Donougher's was released, I can now say, avoid the Rose translation altogether. Christine Donougher's is the best modern translation currently on the market.
Well that's a relief. I bought the Penguin Donougher translation last September, never having read the book before. I finished it in January. Glad that was the one I had.
"Greasy spoon" is inappropriate not just because it is modern, but because it is deeply unFrench. The French seem to me incapable of the thought that anyone could put up with cheap nasty food.
At the London rail station for Eurostar with trains to Paris, there are a number of shops in the mall including a bakers. It advertised something bilingually. In English it said "Fresh bread". In French it said "Pain". If anyone in France tried selling stale bread there would be riots. What other sort of bread can there be on sale other than fresh?
I'm glad you picked the Penguin. While it is a very modern translation, Donougher avoids all of the modern terms and slang that plagued Julie Rose's translation. Thinking back on it now, I believe I was far too forgiving of her translation. 20th and 21st century American and British slang in a mid 19th century French novel? What was she thinking? Takes you right out of the novel and the era it is set in.