New translations vs. old: Which do you prefer?

[Stevie B]

There have been a number of times where instead of reading an older book I have on my shelf, I will take advantage of my school's inter-library loan service to order the same book in a more recent translation. I do this, in part, because I'm more likely to be familiar with the translator of the newer version. I also tend to have more confidence that the more recent translation will be a better one. I figure someone wouldn't be paid to re-translate a book if the earlier version had been done well, but perhaps a fresh translation helps in marketing? I'm curious, when having the option of more than one translation, which one would you be more likely to choose? Has anyone felt that the original or older translations have been superior to the newer translations they've read?

[Flint]

I suspect that as a rule we tend to prefer older translations, and I think that is because we like to associate the 'classics' with a faintly archaic quaintness of language. This of course can be self-deceiving: the language used in the 'older' translation we like so much may not actually correspond to the language spoken/written at the time the original work was written, but we like the archaic sound of it nevertheless. I guess that's why Smollett's translation of Don Quixote is still so many people's favourite.

Which are usually better - the older or the newer? I've got a big problem here. Usually I only read translations of works written in languages that I don't know well, or that I don't know at all. Therefore I'm in no position to judge.

In Coetzee's Stranger Shores there's a very interesting essay about Kafka translations, which you can read here if you or your employer subscribe to the NYRB.

[Hamlet]

Probably the older by instinct, but I've bought a few new translations of classics recently and have been very happy with them.

[Heteronym]

I always prefer to read recent translations. After all, the language the books were written in was modern at the time. After trying to read some Constance Garnett translations of Dostoevsky, I decided that I'd only read recent translations. The language flows better.

[Hamlet]

You know: thinking about it now, I'd prefer to read a range of translations, given that time and availability was not an issue. Each translator's trying for something slightly different. I'm not quite so bothered about being current and up-to-date, but the latest translators have the benefit I guess of seeing what went before, and the critical reception of the same, mistakes, so they have an advantage over their earlier compatriots in translationland - but it's quite exciting to get something new, read a new take...

[Stevie B]

You know: thinking about it now, I'd prefer to read a range of translations, given that time and availability was not an issue. Each translator's trying for something slightly different. I'm not quite so bothered about being current and up-to-date, but the latest translators have the benefit i guess of seeing what went before, and the critical reception of the same, mistakes, so they have an advantage over their earlier compatriots in translationland - but it's quite exciting to get something new, read a new take...

I suppose in some ways it's like an actor recreating a role they've seen performed on stage or the big screen. Some might be tempted (consciously or unconsciously) to co-opt/borrow certain gestures, inflections, or mannerisms. Other actors, however, might purposely avoid the other performances to ensure they're creating something that is completely fresh - the "new take" you mentioned. If I were a translator, however, I think it would be awful tough to go it alone and not have a peek at how certain passages had been expressed by others in the past.

[Hamlet]

It's intersting StevieB as the translation of Don Quixote I bought last year makes much use of the colloquial or vernacular, especially working class English expressions, used here to convey Sancho's muddled use of the proverb, mixed-proverb, and to illustrate how at times he's like an old washerwoman, muddling on through his theories and Quixote, in his tempoarary bouts of madness is still able to think clearly enough bizarrely enough and as an educated gentleman corrects him, this blend of high and low styles, and the earthy English banter generally convey very well the humour, I suspect, or at least "the approximate humour and sense" of the original to the 21st century reader.

We've found a way back into a 400 year old text, so the translator here has used various 'tools' to portray the tones of the original, hopefully without disrupting the flow and content of that original and managing to still be faithful, whether/no the older translations are more turgid, or if they are simply an attempt at accuracy, I wouldn't know, but this lightening of the spirit of the translation worked well for me, and I know, unless I learn Spanish and then can understand much old - fallen out of usage - Spanish vocabulary, that would be a difficult read, I've had Spanish speakers confirm as much to me.

[Flint]

It's intersting StevieB as the translation of Don Quixote I bought last year makes much use of the colloquial or vernacular, especially working class English expressions, used here to convey Sancho's muddled use of the proverb, mixed-proverb, and to illustrate how at times he's like an old washerwoman, muddling on through his theories and Quixote, in his tempoarary bouts of madness is still able to think clearly enough bizarrely enough and as an educated gentleman corrects him, this blend of high and low styles, and the earthy English banter generally convey very well the humour, I suspect, or at least "the approximate humour and sense" of the original to the 21st century reader.

We've found a way back into a 400 year old text, so the translator here has used various 'tools' to portray the tones of the original, hopefully without disrupting the flow and content of that original and managing to still be faithful, whether/no the older translations are more turgid, or if they are simply an attempt at accuracy, I wouldn't know, but this lightening of the spirit of the translation worked well for me, and I know, unless I learn Spanish and then can understand much old - fallen out of usage - Spanish vocabulary, that would be a difficult read, I've had Spanish speakers confirm as much to me.

Whose translation was that? Edith Grossman's?

[Hamlet]

John Rutherford's, published by Penguin. 2000. repub. 2003.

[Eric]

If a novel is. let's say, 150 years old like maybe a Dostoevsky novel, you have two major factors to take into consideration:

a) The Russian language, like the English one, have both moved forward since 1850. When you read something in your mother-tongue, you can sometimes cope with the old language - but look how many pages of notes you have for novels by Dickens, George Eliot, etc! The question is then: is the old translation (perhaps one done in 1890) still comprehensible to a modern readership? Some words and phrases date quickly, others do not. But then we come onto b):

b) Is the translation accurate. Even allowing for age, some translators a hundred years ago took astonishing liberties with abridgement and slurring over difficult passages of the text. If the modern translation is more accurate than the old one, then it is to be preferred. But neither old translations (period flavour) nor modern ones (up-to-date vocabulary) are in themselves better.

[Stevie B]

If a novel is. let's say, 150 years old like maybe a Dostoevsky novel, you have two major factors to take into consideration:

a) The Russian language, like the English one, have both moved forward since 1850. When you read something in your mother-tongue, you can sometimes cope with the old language - but look how many pages of notes you have for novels by Dickens, George Eliot, etc! The question is then: is the old translation (perhaps one done in 1890) still comprehensible to a modern readership? Some words and phrases date quickly, others do not. But then we come onto b):

b) Is the translation accurate. Even allowing for age, some translators a hundred years ago took astonishing liberties with abridgement and slurring over difficult passages of the text. If the modern translation is more accurate than the old one, then it is to be preferred. But neither old translations (period flavour) nor modern ones (up-to-date vocabulary) are in themselves better.

Thanks for the insightful response, Eric. Good stuff to mull over when there are translation options. The next time I'm in the mood for a Russian classic, though, I look forward to reading one of David McDuff's translations. It's too bad he hasn't been around for a long time. I used to enjoy his posts.