Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl
I haven't read the Introduction by Augenbraum yet. I will read it after I finish the book. I was worried it might have spoilers.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
I've been flipping between the Guerrero and Augenbraum translations and Ii prefer Guerrero. It's got a better flow than Augenbraum; I have more of the feeling of total immersion that's a hallmark of nineteenth century novels. In his notes on his translation, Guerroro cites Matthew Arnold's insight that a translation should affect the current reader in the same way the original affected contemporary readers and I think Guerrero is superior in that sense, which makes it a better read for me.
I do like Augenbraum's notes, but I'll add that at times Guerrero incorporates an explanation into his text that Augenbraum doesn't annotate, so there's something of a toss-up between the two in that respect.
Perhaps Lacson-Locsin is a synthesis of the best of both approaches and I look forward to Hamlet53's comments.
|
I'm "all in" for the Augenbraum but it's interesting to hear the differences between the two from someone who has both.
I have to say, though I'm quite enjoying Augenbraum's translation I'm finding the notes rather dry, as you allude to. I was hoping for more contextual notes, especially as this text is so foreign, and instead I find many more definition and reference notes. Back when pbooks were the norm I'd still find this extremely useful, and I still do to an extent, but nowadays when I can easily google a tagalog word I don't understand for a quick definition or even photo, having such a large percentage of the notes being of this sort isn't exactly what I would hope for. Especially as there have been quite a few instances as I read and have a question where I find myself thinking, "This would've been the perfect thing to annotate and explain!" and yet it's left alone.