What matters most to you when reading a good book?

Originally Posted by issybird

Dated translations are foolish economies, IMO.

Usually agree with that. Altho, there are exceptions. Anybody who enjoys the Iliad in a modern translation like Fagles, should also try Alexander Pope's 18th century translation. It remains unequaled in its ability to render the Iliad into majestic, poetic English that is worthy of the subject matter and Homer's poetic original. For example, a comment about Pope's translation from a NYT review: "The thing that best distinguishes this from all other translations of Homer is that it alone equals the original in its ceaseless pour of verbal music."

Similarly with the Bible. I normally read a modern translation, ESV. But there is poetic simplicity and power in the 1611 King James translation that is unmatched by any translation in our time. It is still worth reading, and probably my favorite translation of all time, despite a fair number of underlying manuscript and translation mistakes in the original KJV. Robert Alter, a leading Old Testament scholar and translator, has commented frequently in his books on the literary power of the KJV and its lasting influence on American and British writers.

In cases like these where you have a classic, masterful translation on an important work, and good modern ones, it's really worth the effort to read both. But it depends how much you care about the work in question. For me at least, there are only a handful of works like this where I'd bother to read the older translation(s) as well. So I'm agreeing with your general point, just saying there are worthy exceptions .:-)

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by issybird

^^I think it's always worth paying for a good modern translation of any classic dating back to the nineteenth century and earlier, and the more so the longer or more difficult the book. Dated translations are foolish economies, IMO.

This is true if you wish to read a version of the classic translated using current guidelines, where all the words fit the current dictionary definitions, and any superimposed style will better match modern tastes. That said, older translations do have their uses.

I'm currently reading 16th century translation of St. Augustine's Confessions (with modernized spelling). This is a book that I've previously read using a modern translation making it a good method for acquiring a familarity for 16th century English. If I'm confused I still have the modern translation. So far, so good.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by maximus83

Similarly with the Bible. I normally read a modern translation, ESV. But there is poetic simplicity and power in the 1611 King James translation that is unmatched by any translation in our time. It is still worth reading, and probably my favorite translation of all time, despite a fair number of underlying manuscript and translation mistakes in the original KJV. Robert Alter, a leading Old Testament scholar and translator, has commented frequently in his books on the literary power of the KJV and its lasting influence on American and British writers.

That could well be, because William Shakespeare reputedly had a big hand in it.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They really aren't good translations, as I mentioned above. The modern ones are far better.

I totally admit I have no experience in that regard, so cannot say how right or wrong you are.

However, just purely based on logic, I would have to say that someone living closer to the time period in question, might be a better placed translator. Any current translator is well removed in time from that period.

And of course the quality of translators varies for all sorts of reasons, and a tough call in my view to make a generic statement in that regard.

The classics I have read are all over the shop, but having done no comparisons myself, I freely admit to being no expert, so you could well be right.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Timboli

That could well be, because William Shakespeare reputedly had a big hand in it.

Actually that's total speculation. The names of the translators of the King James version were recorded and his wasn't among them. However he had just retired and was one of the noted scholars of the day.

This speculation mostly comes from Psalm 46. If you count 46 words into it you find the word "shake" and 46 words from the end (not counting selah) you find "spear". We all know word games were a big part of Shakespeare's writing and some people think this was his way of signing his work. But, of course, nobody really knows that.

I recently read or heard a story, maybe on PBS or NPR news but I'm not sure of that, explaining that the first printing of the King James Bible was 1000 copies, done by the foremost printer of the time. But he was rushed and a lot of mistakes were made and they were recalled and most were burned. The printer was banished and a new, corrected printing was made. There are 11 copies of that original in various museums. One of the mistakes, probably the most upsetting, was in the 7th commandment "Thou shalt commit adultery".

And in Mark Jesus says "Let the children first be killed". The correct last word was "filled".

Barry

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Timboli

That could well be, because William Shakespeare reputedly had a big hand in it.

The King James version borrowed heavily on the earlier William Tyndale translation. Many of the more poetic verses are from Tyndale. The unfortunate thing is that I do not believe a complete copy of the Tyndale translation still exists.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by barryem

I recently read or heard a story, maybe on PBS or NPR news but I'm not sure of that, explaining that the first printing of the King James Bible was 1000 copies, done by the foremost printer of the time. But he was rushed and a lot of mistakes were made and they were recalled and most were burned. The printer was banished and a new, corrected printing was made. There are 11 copies of that original in various museums. One of the mistakes, probably the most upsetting, was in the 7th commandment "Thou shalt commit adultery".

For some reason, I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett/Neil Gaiman's Good Omens. One of the bibles in Aziraphale's collection was the 'Wicked Bible, printed by Barker and Lucas in 1632, in which the word not was omitted from the seventh commandment:, making it “Thou shalt commit Adultery.”'

[Timboli]

Thanks for the info guys. Been so long since I saw any of it in detail.

Terry Pratchett, what a legend, what a genius, what a superb thinker and story teller.
Neil Gaiman ain't too bad either, but I know him far less.

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

The King James version borrowed heavily on the earlier William Tyndale translation.

Yes, and this raises some interesting detail worth noting about translation process. The original introductory essay to the KJV explicitly acknowledges their debt to translations that went before: "...we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."

They indicate in this essay their goal was not to do something entirely new, but to improve on available good translations, as well as to be heavily informed by the original Greek and Hebrew languages in the translation process.

Most quality translations on important works that I have seen, tend to borrow from good ones that came before, to a greater or lesser degree. As science stands on the shoulders of those who came before, so does the art and science of translation. The modern ESV, one of the leading and best informed translations of the original languages, similarly acknowledges its debt. The following words from their article "Translation Legacy" in the ESV Study Bible are worth quoting at length, as you see the same type of "borrow and improve" methodology used by the KJV translators, bold emphasis added:

The English Standard Version ( ESV ) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 ( KJV ), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century. To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text. The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale–King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work. Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.

Finally, none of that changes the simple fact that Alter has noted: the KJV is a lovely complete translation that had a massive, enduring impact on the development of the English language and upon many influential writers. And still worth reading in its own right, along with modern improved translations.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by maximus83

Finally, none of that changes the simple fact that Alter has noted: the KJV is a lovely complete translation that had a massive, enduring impact on the development of the English language and upon many influential writers. And still worth reading in its own right, along with modern improved translations.

It's a great work of literature, but it is not (by current standards) a good translation at all. Not only is current knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek far advanced over the state of the art 400 years ago, but the KJV translators were working from very poor quality source material.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Timboli

And of course the quality of translators varies for all sorts of reasons, and a tough call in my view to make a generic statement in that regard.

It's actually perfectly possible to make a general statement about Victorian translations, for one very simple reason.

Victorian Britain was a society in which cultural norms severely curtailed what could be published. Not only in terms of material of a sexual nature, but in all sorts of other ways too. That state of affairs did not prevail elsewhere in Europe, so novels translated in Victorian times are almost invariably heavily "censored" to remove material not suitable for a British audience. That doesn't mean that such translations are without literary merit, but you are not reading what the author actually wrote.

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a great work of literature, but it is not (by current standards) a good translation at all. Not only is current knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek far advanced over the state of the art 400 years ago, but the KJV translators were working from very poor quality source material.

No disagreement on this at all. Altho, I could've sworn I already said something like "As science stands on the shoulders of those who came before, so does the art and science of translation." Did you somehow get the feeling I was denying that translation quality had advanced in modern times?

Alter's point, and mine, was about the beauty and the impact of the translation, not its claim to absolute fidelity or use of the latest manuscripts. My original post already acknowledges the KJV has numerous mistakes.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by maximus83

No disagreement on this at all. Altho, I could've sworn I already said something like "As science stands on the shoulders of those who came before, so does the art and science of translation." Did you somehow get the feeling I was denying that translation quality had advanced in modern times?

Alter's point, and mine, was about the beauty and the impact of the translation, not its claim to absolute fidelity or use of the latest manuscripts. My original post already acknowledges the KJV has numerous mistakes.

I completely accept what you're saying; I just wanted to make a distinction between the KJV's unquestioned merit as a cornerstone of English literature (few literary works have been more influential) and its rather questionable value today as a useful translation. If someone wants to know what the original text(s) actually say, I honestly can't recommend using the KJV as a way of ascertaining that, beautiful though its prose is.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If someone wants to know what the original text(s) actually say, I honestly can't recommend using the KJV as a way of ascertaining that, beautiful though its prose is.

Fair enough. But if the goal is "ascertaining what the original text(s) actually say", I'd suggest not using English at all, but rather use an accurate Greek version of the NT (such as the Nestle Aland 28th ed), or Hebrew version of the OT (such as the BHS). And software tools, a very powerful one I like is Logos. Both of these texts include apparatus for manuscripts and variants, as well as separate textual commentaries by the scholars who produced them. Logos has all these texts, and more, in digital form, morphologically tagged and cross-referenced to lexical and other translation tools.

If studying in English for "accuracy" and trying to get the best sense of the original--from English--right on. Picture a minister or anyone else, trying to support this or that interpretation and wanting to base it on a sound translation of the original. Particularly if they (as most ministers do these days) lack familiarity in the original languages. They are best served with accurate modern translations for example ESV, NASB, NRSV, etc., and a quality modern commentary, as well as quality software tools. Could not agree more.

If reading literature mainly for pleasure--which I took to be an unstated premise of this thread's discussion--literary beauty that has been proven through time, is a worthy consideration. I think the same would apply to the other example I gave, Pope's Homer. It too, in some ways is inferior to the modern text, due to Pope being one guy with no computers and limited translation tools, and even more limited manuscripts, being at his disposal in the 18th century. But the text despite mistakes, usually in minor details, is substantially correct. More than sufficient to give any reader the sense of what is going on. And more importantly, its translation style is unequaled for its musical poetic rendering, and comes closest to matching Homer's intent; this was the point in the NYT article. I feel the same about the KJV. This was kind of the point Alter was making, it was really about translation "style" and impact, and how that style aligned to the original style, not about the absolute textual precision of the text they were basing it on, how accurately they translated every single word, or whether their end result contained translation mistakes. It clearly did, but was accurate enough to convey the sense, even though few would recommend it as a basis for modern analytical study.

[ZodWallop]

Regarding Les Miserables:

Originally Posted by Timboli

@ZodWallop - Have you checked out The Gutenberg Project, they have a few English translations for free?

Originally Posted by HarryT

They really aren't good translations, as I mentioned above. The modern ones are far better.

I found this thread on Goodreads regarding different translations to be helpful: Les Misérables question: Which translation?

The free Gutenberg translation is the Hapgood version.

I've decided to go with the Signet Classics Fahnestock/MacAfee translation based on this comment:

My wife and I have been reading Les Miserables aloud together; she on her Kindle and me from an old paperback copy I've had for years. At first we just downloaded one of the cheapest unabridged kindle editions we could find... which turned out to be the Hapgood translation, while my paperback copy was the Fahnestock/MacAfee translation. For a little while we tried to make it work, but ultimately decided to spend some extra money to have the same translation.

We decided on the Fahnestock/MacAfee version. From our experience of reading the two side by side, Fahnestock/MacAfee was more understandable. There were certainly times when we preferred the wording of the Hapgood translation, buy typically it was the other way around.

Considering the length of the book and that it is translated from another language, I don't mind spending the money to get a better reading experience.

My one concern is how the book will survive the conversion process. In the book, songs and poems were left in French with translations available via footnotes. Hopefully buying an .AZW version from Amazon, using Calibre to convert it to ePub and then convert that to kepub doesn't wreck things.

I could just buy the kepub from Kobo, but odds are I won't.