Jules Verne

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

I find this rather an odd comment on several levels and it ultimately comes across as false modesty. For one thing, I don’t think a taste for 19th century novels is necessarily something that has to be worked at, and it seems you didn’t, although you claim it’s an acquired taste. Lots of bookish kids sail into them and never look back, although certainly people can fall into them later, also. The Victorians are both plotty and character-driven, so what’s not to like? As you note, they were popular in their time, so why not now? The “too popular to be worthy of reading” honestly gets an eyeroll from me; it’s a paradox that makes no deeper sense and bespeaks snobbery, as if attesting to a superior discernment.

To the extent that people find the 19th century inaccessible now, I suspect it has to do with unfamiliar worlds and language and, frankly, length - although even there, people who plow through current doorstop fantasies should have no issue. Ultimately, people like what they like, but the flip side of that is that it’s possible to make an objective assessment also. Verne is no Zola. However, that’s meant neither to criticize nor to belittle his achievements or his towering contributions to the genre.

Going back to your grade school comment, I’ve always said I might have loved Verne if I’d read him as an 10-year old boy. And here’s the issue, for someone who came to the Victorians early when you read at least in part to discover yourself, a Verne had nothing to offer. Where were the women? There was nothing there for this former 10-year old girl. And my inner 10-year old still found it quite tedious decades later.

That's ok, I think your post comes across as snobbish. Different strokes to different folks. Fortunately, I'm talking about Jules Verne who tends to write rather short books that fit into the serialization method of publishing and were quite popular for the time. He belonged to the genre of adventure writers in a time period where large parts of the world were unexplored by Europeans. The whole genre of adventure writers was quite popular and really has remained popular up to today.

To a certain extent, I can see an echo of Jules Verne's writing style in some of the 20's pulps. I don't remember the same thing from the versions I read as a child. It could simply be that the children's version were edited and really re-written to match the audience while the version I'm reading makes more of an effort to stay true to the original. Or it could simply be that if I read them today, I would notice it more than I did back then.

[JSWolf]

The complete version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is not a short book my any means.

[Dr. Drib]

^ I agree that the book you mention is not considered a short book, but he didn't say that book was short. He was mentioning Verne in a general sense, and that Verne "...tends to write rather short books that fit into the serialization method of publishing."

The quoted comment can certainly be argued.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

^ I agree that the book you mention is not considered a short book, but he didn't say that book was short. He was mentioning Verne in a general sense, and that Verne "...tends to write rather short books that fit into the serialization method of publishing."

The quoted comment can certainly be argued.

20,000 leagues was some 500 pages, definitely not short. On the other hand, from the Earth to the Moon was 126 pages, Five weeks in a Balloon was 286 pages, Journey to the Center of the Earth was 247, Around the World in 80 days was 201 pages. (the number of pages for these books is going to vary depending on the translation used)

One can normally find exceptions to any general statement. That's why the word exceptions exists. If there were no exceptions, we wouldn't need the word.

When dealing with works originally serialized, a lot depends on the magazine where it appeared. If I recall correctly, 20,000 leagues was serialized over the period of a year. Not every magazine/paper could afford such a long running serialization, nor were all magazines/papers that stable. Back when I first started reading SF, there were several SF&F magazines that I use to read. I first read several of Roger Zelazny's Amber books in serialized form They tended to be in the 130 to 150 page range.

[Pulpmeister]

Earth to the Moon: 51,000 words or so. But it was only half the tale, as "Around the Moon" was Part 2. At the end of "Earth to.." the crew hadn't even left Earth. The second half, Around the Moon, runs to about 55,000 words. So 105,000 words in all.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Earth to the Moon: 51,000 words or so. But it was only half the tale, as "Around the Moon" was Part 2. At the end of "Earth to.." the crew hadn't even left Earth. The second half, Around the Moon, runs to about 55,000 words. So 105,000 words in all.

And it seems longer. Actually, I rather liked the first half (shows off Verne's humour to good effect), but got bogged down in the detail of the second.

[pwalker8]

As I've been reading through these books, it's been rather eye opening. There is apparently a whole group of Verne scholars, much like one sees for Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. The back story of the various translations and abridgements is quite interesting as is the back and forth between Verne and his publisher.

I'm on the Mysterious Island now. I didn't realize there was a sub-genre called Robinsons as in The Swiss Family Robinson.

[MarjaE]

Thanks for mentioning the unabridged version of 20,000 Leagues. I may well pick it up.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

20,000 leagues was some 500 pages, definitely not short. On the other hand, from the Earth to the Moon was 126 pages, Five weeks in a Balloon was 286 pages, Journey to the Center of the Earth was 247, Around the World in 80 days was 201 pages. (the number of pages for these books is going to vary depending on the translation used)

The complete 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is about 147280 words.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Thanks for mentioning the unabridged version of 20,000 Leagues. I may well pick it up.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is already abridged unless you get the complete version from Baen. So why do you want to cut even more out of it?

[Dr. Drib]

You should also look at the William Butcher translation, which is a scholarly edition with an introduction and notes by the translator. This edition is published by Oxford University Press.

As William Butcher notes, "This translation is an entirely original one, benefiting from the most recent scholarship on Verne and closely following the French text."

The Baen edition, rather, appears to be an older translation with updated notes to include some text.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

You should also look at the William Butcher translation, which is a scholarly edition with an introduction and notes by the translator. This edition is published by Oxford University Press.

Is that a complete version will all the originally removed stuff added back in and all the errors corrected?

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Is that a complete version will all the originally removed stuff added back in and all the errors corrected?

Let me check my copy again and I"ll post here tomorrow.

By the way, here's some additional information on the Baen Edition:

https://www.amazon.com/000-Leagues-U.../dp/B00DYXWGA2

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is already abridged unless you get the complete version from Baen. So why do you want to cut even more out of it?

No, I read an abridged version when I was younger. I was happy to hear about an unabridged version-- or two.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

No, I read an abridged version when I was younger. I was happy to hear about an unabridged version-- or two.

Good choice. I cannot say which version is better. But the Baen version does say it's added back a lot of what was removed and fixes a lot of translation errors.