The Best CLASSIC novel of ALL TIME!

[Williamlk]

Originally Posted by crich70

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_books
the question of "What is a Classic" has been debated for a very, very long time.

I agree! It may be impossible to come up with a universal definition.

[Boston]

add my vote for:

Pride and Prejudice
Gone with the Wind

[Klim Chugunkin]

Crime and Punishment and it's not even close.

[SameOldStory]

A "classic book" could be written today. Time will be its judge.

Then too, you can have a relatively new book that becomes a classic in its genre. Say, Dracula or Frankenstein for horror.

And that, I think, is a better way to pick "The Best CLASSIC novel of ALL TIME". Choose a category and name a book. Or simply say "THIS" is my favorite book.

It's somewhat like trying to pick the greatest poetry ever. And that will be decided 50 years after we have universal peace and perpetual motion.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by waxwing

Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky
Anna Karenina, Tolstoy

Another vote for these two, though I'd go more for Karenina.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh, I completely agree. Eg, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is one of my favourite novels, and I'd recommend its translation to anyone as a cracking good read.

My point is, though, that much as I enjoy the English translation of "The Count of Monte Cristo", I don't feel able to make any judgement of the merits of Dumas as an author because I have no idea how much of what I'm reading is Dumas' work, and how much is that of the anonymous translator of the 1847 English translation.

You are admitting that Dickens is your number one, just because your self imposed rule does not allow you to consider all the other ones that better him, and this is because instead of studying Russian as you should have done you preferred to play cricket?

You can enjoy Pecking Duck but cannot decide if it is better than the one you had last year in London Town because now you are at a loss reading the menu by yourself?

Why not. Have it your way. As a matter of fact, one lost hundred found. Or as the saying goes, carpe diem. Catch the day and leave the nights alone. How about that bit of translation? Traduttore traditore (translator traitor)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by beppe

You are admitting that Dickens is your number one, just because your self imposed rule does not allow you to consider all the other ones that better him, and this is because instead of studying Russian as you should have done you preferred to play cricket?

You can enjoy Pecking Duck but cannot decide if it is better than the one you had last year in London Town because now you are at a loss reading the menu by yourself?

Why not. Have it your way. As a matter of fact, one lost hundred found. Or as the saying goes, carpe diem. Catch the day and leave the nights alone. How about that bit of translation? Traduttore traditore (translator traitor)

I don't let the fact a book is translated to stop me from enjoying it. (Don Camillo, Beppe?)

[gollu]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd always be wary of regarding a translation as a "classic" myself. How much of the original author are you reading, and how much of the translator? Many of Verne's novels were virtually re-written in English translation, and bear only the most superficial resemblance to the French originals.

That's an absolutely hilarious thought, that only a native English speaker can think of. Imagine, Harry, that one's mother tongue is not English. That same person should automatically conclude all English written books are non-classic.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gollu

That's an absolutely hilarious thought, that only a native English speaker can think of. Imagine, Harry, that one's mother tongue is not English. That same person should automatically conclude all English written books are non-classic.

No, that's not what I said; please read my post more carefully. What I was asking was whether, on the basis of reading a translation, you were in a position to judge whether or not the original (which you have not read) was or was not a classic.

I'll give you a practical example. I can read both Latin and ancient Greek. There is no translation of either Homer's "Iliad" or Virgil's "Aeneid" which can even begin to give you the "feeling" of the original Greek or Latin hexameter verse. It just cannot be translated. No English translation of the Iliad can put you in a position to judge what the Greek original is actually like. You can translate the "story", but the result is not the same at all.

That is why I am casting doubt on whether or not it is possible to form an accurate appreciation of a book by reading a translation of it. All that you can pass judgment on is whether or not the translation is any good, but the translation may be very different to the original.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, that's not what I said; please read my post more carefully. What I was asking was whether, on the basis of reading a translation, you were in a position to judge whether or not the original (which you have not read) was or was not a classic.

I'll give you a practical example. I can read both Latin and ancient Greek. There is no translation of either Homer's "Iliad" or Virgil's "Aeneid" which can even begin to give you the "feeling" of the original Greek or Latin hexameter verse. It just cannot be translated. No English translation of the Iliad can put you in a position to judge what the Greek original is actually like. You can translate the "story", but the result is not the same at all.

That is why I am casting doubt on whether or not it is possible to form an accurate appreciation of a book by reading a translation of it. All that you can pass judgment on is whether or not the translation is any good, but the translation may be very different to the original.

Yes you are right, more so if you have a pretty girl dancing withsome flute and drum playing, while you drink resinous wine with goat cheese grated on it. And Trimalcione is fronting the bill.

Tolstoy's hexameters are slightly indiscernible, though.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I don't let the fact a book is translated to stop me from enjoying it. (Don Camillo, Beppe?)

Love you

[Scott Nielsen]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, that's not what I said; please read my post more carefully. What I was asking was whether, on the basis of reading a translation, you were in a position to judge whether or not the original (which you have not read) was or was not a classic.

I'll give you a practical example. I can read both Latin and ancient Greek. There is no translation of either Homer's "Iliad" or Virgil's "Aeneid" which can even begin to give you the "feeling" of the original Greek or Latin hexameter verse. It just cannot be translated. No English translation of the Iliad can put you in a position to judge what the Greek original is actually like. You can translate the "story", but the result is not the same at all.

I'm impressed. Not many people can read ancient Greek fluently. I also appreciate your argument in regards to the literary merit of translated works. To a varying degree, some things are no doubt lost in translation but I'm not sure the example is a good one.

There's a significant difference between discussing the translation of a 3,000 year-old work in dactylic hexameter ancient Greek (I say this as someone who tried ancient Greek and failed) and a contemporary - I use the term loosely - piece of work; the differences in language and culture are unlikely to be anywhere near as severe as in the example of the Iliad.

I think the art form and skill of translation is taken far more seriously today than was the case historically. It's not merely a technical skill of substituting words from one language to another. I absolutely believe a skilled and experienced translator can do justice to an original work. The crux of the matter, for a non-native speaker, is of course to determine which translation is worthy and which isn't...

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by Scott Nielsen

I think the art form and skill of translation is taken far more seriously today than was the case historically. It's not merely a technical skill of substituting words from one language to another. I absolutely believe a skilled and experienced translator can do justice to an original work. The crux of the matter, for a non-native speaker, is of course to determine which translation is worthy and which isn't...

To paraphrase what I said before - Even if I suddenly could read ancient Greek, I could not truly understand it in the way of an ancient Greek. And history is a minor hobby with me. To TRULY understand it, you would have to be steeped in the times and culture, along with the idioms of the day.

I think that your pedantic insistence on perfect translation in lieu of reading a book in it's original language is condescending in fact. Although I don't think that you intend it to be.

I would rather read an imperfect translation, with an imperfect understanding, than to not read it at all. After reading it the first time, I might decide that I would like to have a deeper understanding and pursue it from there.

[Joe Minton]

I have before me two translations of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich." I have read both. There is a difference.

The first I read was, as I now understand, very badly translated. It does not 'ring true'. It does not carry the emotion and subjective reality of the second translation.

The second was approved by the author and carries much more 'weight'. Let me give you the opening sentence of both so you can judge for yourself:

First version:
"At five o'clock that morning reveille was sounded, as usual, by the blows of a hammer on a length of rail hanging up near the staff quarters."

Second:
"The hammer banged reveille on the rail outside the camp HQ at five o'clock as always."

The first is in passive voice and descriptive. The second is active voice, more involving, and expresses the profundity of the story that is to follow. The words "as always" at the end of that sentence informs the reader of the drudgery, monotony and hoplessness of Ivan's life. "as always" says that things are so bad that Ivan cannot afford to think beyond the banged announcement of "reveille."

We don't care about "in the morning"; of course it was in the morning; who the hell would think otherwise. We don't care about a description of how or even whether the "rail" was hung. What we care about, what Solzhenitsyn cares about, is the plight, the quiet horror, the essential reduction of life to staying warm and getting enough to eat.

I encourage you to read the book, but: read the translation by H.T. Willetts.

I can only imagine the difficulty of 'accurate' translation.

Joe

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Joe Minton

I have before me two translations of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich." I have read both. There is a difference.

The first I read was, as I now understand, very badly translated. It does not 'ring true'. It does not carry the emotion and subjective reality of the second translation.

The second was approved by the author and carries much more 'weight'. Let me give you the opening sentence of both so you can judge for yourself:

First version:
"At five o'clock that morning reveille was sounded, as usual, by the blows of a hammer on a length of rail hanging up near the staff quarters."

Second:
"The hammer banged reveille on the rail outside the camp HQ at five o'clock as always."

The first is in passive voice and descriptive. The second is active voice, more involving, and expresses the profundity of the story that is to follow. The words "as always" at the end of that sentence informs the reader of the drudgery, monotony and hoplessness of Ivan's life. "as always" says that things are so bad that Ivan cannot afford to think beyond the banged announcement of "reveille."

We don't care about "in the morning"; of course it was in the morning; who the hell would think otherwise. We don't care about a description of how or even whether the "rail" was hung. What we care about, what Solzhenitsyn cares about, is the plight, the quiet horror, the essential reduction of life to staying warm and getting enough to eat.

I encourage you to read the book, but: read the translation by H.T. Willetts.

I can only imagine the difficulty of 'accurate' translation.

Joe

Hmmmm I preferred the first one. I didn't see it as being more passive that the other and the image of what happened was clearer in my mind. Methinks we can chalk these differences up to personal tastes. I like to savor what I read; I'm guessing you prefer to just get on with it. Nothing wrong with either preference; they are just personal differences.