sirinrob

The point made by Nabokov and other literary lights bears examination. In my view they are being a to a degree self-righteous. They are making an assumption about the reader of the translation that maybe fallacious. They seem to assume that a given reader other than themselves has not got the linguistic ability to decide if a given rendering is felicitious to the target language. I know from personal experience that certain translations do not ring true and conversely other translations do. I maybe in a small minority here, but im very sensitive to nuances of language.

Firstly your position on reading works in translation accords in my view with my own. The fact you are attempting to translate Shakespeare, into I presume Italian, is not a volte face, since there are a sleuth of issues to take into account in that undertaking. This is by no means an exhaustive list, I'm sure you have thought of more, but the ones that spring to mind immediately are stylistic, semantics, semiotics and lexicogical. An additional point relating to my original post is does the reader of a translation have the necessary language skills to understand the translation? A case in point is the title of Peter Schlink's so-called Holocaust novel. The German title is 'Der Vorleser' which means somebody who reads out aloud or to someone. This is correctly rendered in english as 'The Reader'. However the English title is ambigious. The sense it is meant in is someone who reads out, however it can mean someone who reads directly or understands, in a figurative sense , what someone says. (That little section took diving into one English dictionary and 2 German dictionaries to sort out )

finished reading 'First Love' by Turgenev. This is an author I hadn't read before so had no idea of his style. First impressions were that its accessible and concise. This is one of his novellas so is fairly short. The plot is relatively simple. Much of the book consists of dialogue, so not a lot happens. Having said that it does pick up towards the end. I enjoyed it as a lightish read and will certainly explore his oeuvre further. the edition I read was the Penguin edition. The translation came across as competent.

My approach to reading classics is, if I can read it them in the original language I do. Much of the time that is not possible , so I have to rely on translations. This raises some interesting issues in regard to felicity to the original. In translating from one language to another there is an inevitable loss of nuance. The extent of this loss is dependent on several factors - translator's knowledge of original language, knowledge of target language, errors in original ( how do you deal with those?) and errors in translation. I have recently read in translation M Bulgakov's 'A Dead Man's memoir'. The translation was by A Bromfield. I felt he did a good job. I also have the M Gleeney translation of the same work, which in my opinion doesn't work as well. So it appears you have to be careful when selecting which translation to read. Question - given the difficulties alluded to, do you adhere to works written originally in your language(s) or do you brave the world of translations?

Finished reading 'A Dead Man's Memoir' by Mikhail Bulgakov (Penguin edition) This book relates the trials and tribulations of a young writer in getting his first play staged in post revolutionary Russia. It is based on the author's own experiences. The author carefully avoids political comment, instead making personal comments aimed at prominent literary figures he knew. The author uses parody a great deal to comic effect. Another technique he uses is to give a character's name in the form firstname - patronymic and very soon after firstname-surname. This can be confusing till you get used to it, however it is used to create some memorable comic scenes. He also uses a technique where he develops a theme to a certain point and then in the next chapter starts a new theme which develops to where the first theme ended. It was a thchnique he used to great effect in 'The Master and Margarita'. In this work he only uses it once. It would appear that this work was a dress rehearsal for 'The Master and Margarita'. That would be borne out by the fact he broke off from writing 'The Master and Margarita' to write this work. Overall this work is well written and an enjoyable read.

Yes as I finish reading a book I'll post my thoughts.

List Three Just titles as all these are by Vladimir Nabokov 'Mary' 'The Defense' 'The eye' 'King,Queen Knave' 'Glory' 'Laughter in the Dark' 'Despair' 'Invitation to A Beheading' 'The Gift' 'The Enchanter' 'The Real Life of Sebastian Knight' 'Bend Sinister' 'Lolita' 'Pnin' 'Pale Fire' 'Transparent Things' 'Look at the Harlequins!'

List Two Entries in bold I have read James Joyce ' A Portrait of the Artist as a young man' James Joyce 'Ulysses' Kafka ' The Trial' Albert Camus 'The Outsider' Albert Camus 'The Plague' Albert Camus 'The Fall' Albert Camus 'The Rebel' Sartre 'Nausea' Sartre 'The Age of Reason' Bulgakov 'Fatal Eggs' Bulgakov 'The Master and Margeritha' Bulgakov 'A Dead Man's Memoir' Gunter Grass 'The tin Drum' * in German Barth J 'The Sot-Weed Factor'

List One entries in bold I have read. Flaubert 'Madame Bouvray' Gogol 'Dead Souls' Turgenev 'First Love' Turgenev 'Fathers and Sons' Tolstoy 'Anna Karenina' Dostoyeseky 'The Idiot' Butler 'Erewhon' 'The Good Soldier Svejk' Hasek 'Wives and Daughters' Gaskell 'Heart of Darkness' J Conrad 'The Vendetta' Honor

I tend to read classics, so this isnt so much a challenge more a way of reducing my TBR pile . The first list covers books prior to 1900, the second list 1900 - 1960 and the third is Nabokov.

This runs to 800 pages in German and about 600 in English translation. I personally dialike the transaltion as its wrong in places or misleading in others. The German text is powerful , even if it does get a bit complicated.

After I've finished the Bulgakrov moving on to either Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" or "Madame Bouvray" - cant face anymore Sarte - the most verbose windbag imo in literature.

Decided to take a break from reading V Nabokov - so just launched into Bulgrakov's A Dead Man's Memoir. This is an absolute riot, extremely funny and absurd, but also a little sad.The protaginist stumbles from disaster to disaster - burying his cat, getting questioned (in depth!!) about his grooming habits to entering the world of plays - with a side trip to the delights (?) of Paris. Its a parody of the situation in post revoluntary Russia, with sly allusions to real persons in that era. I'm really enjoying it - in parts it presages his "The Master and Margerita", which he worked on after "finishing" this novel.

Read this thread in its entirety and now decided to throw a spanner in the works I nominate 'The Gift' as a candidate. Why? Simply because it addresses many aspects of love, not just romatic love

yes - sorry didnt make that clear and as an extension the short story 'The Circle' which V N Nabokov wrote as corollary to 'The Gift'.

Interesting someone mentioned Gravity's Rainbow - which I have read and intend rereading. I found it very rewarding, despite its convolutions. I suspect when I get to Ulysses the same will apply. I enjoy books with multiple layers like 'Gravity's Rainbow', 'The Gift' etc.