Classics in translation

[deb]

I read Madame Bovary over Christmas. It was the Penguin translation by Geoffrey Wall, and I enjoyed it very much. But it has left me wondering in what sense can I be said to have read Madame Bovary? I am going around in circles trying to answer that, and would appreciate other people's perspective.

 

Not a single word I read was actually by Flaubert: really, haven't I read a novel by Geoffrey Wall? I can see that the theme, setting, characters, etc. are all Flaubert's. And I assume the translator has tried to make it as close to all that as possible, and so I can be said to have read a novel that captures the spirit or essence of the original. But yet ...

 

Sigh.

 

I am tempted to read some works by Zola, Balzac, Sand, etc. But is there a point if I can only read them in translation?

 

I'm not saying there isn't! I am genuinely perplexed about the whole thing and wondering how to approach this. Am I over thinking this? 

[Hayley]

I think they're definitely still worth reading! There are excellent translations of original texts now. And if you're really worried about missing something in translation, it might be worth trying to buy an annotated edition, these usually point out words or phrases which could possibly be translated differently.

Most people would find it impossible to learn enough languages, in enough detail, to read all the great classic authors in their original languages. And I don't think we should miss out because of that. So read them

[Brian.]

In this regard, the work of the translator is of real importance. If you read through reviews of classics which have been translated there can be a huge variation due to the skill of the translator. Catching the correct tone and feel of the original text must be quite a tricky thing to do but the best translators manage this. I never think that I haven't read a particular author because I have only read their work in translation.

[Athena]

To a minor scale you have this with any translated book, of course for older books like classics doubly so. Personally I always prefer to read the original (either English or Dutch) but for ie. French books I read them in English. I've read the same books in both Dutch and English  and found that in most cases the translation was pretty well done and conveyed the tone and style of the writing. It can really depend on the translator though, sometimes they make the title into something different and you don't quite get why it was done. I haven't read any old classics in both languages though, so I can't comment on that. If given the choice between an original English copy or a Dutch translated version I will go for the original, because I prefer to read in English and because you get the full experience then. But when the original is Dutch, I prefer to read the Dutch version. If the original is any other language I prefer to read it in English. Some of the writing style might be lost then, but I can't understand other languages very well (though I know a bit of French and some German) but I think it's better to have read the classic as a translation than not at all. It's good to read diversely from different kinds of authors from different nationalities and not just English-speaking ones, imo.

[deb]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this. Those were helpful.

 

@ Hayley

I thought more about it and realised how much I enjoyed Madame Bavary. Similarly with Thérèse Raquin last year. So I think you are right: they are worth reading, and I will go with that.

 

@ Athena

That's an important point about reading from different times and cultures. I feel I am too limited in what I have (and can) read and need to experience more diverse books. That's definitely a reason for me to carry on with reading in translation. Thank you.

 

@ Brian

You've hit on one of the things which perplex me. How does someone completely ignorant of, say, French, decide which translation is best?

 

---

 

Thanks again everyone. You have helped me decide.