"I quit!" -- Books I just can't finish

[Bartleby]

Just thought I'd add a "data point." I've been working my way through Stendhal's Red and the Black. I tried once or twice before but didn't get far. Figuring "it's a classic for a reason," I decided to give it another shot. It's over 500 pages in my edition and I was nearing page 100 thinking, "Why am I bothering?" Stendhal just doesn't speak to me. I don't like the protagonist, I am not overly fond of the translation (Catherine Slater for Oxford World Classics)--it's a bit too "British" for me and some of her syntax seems peculiar (though I suppose it could be Stendhal--and I still have over 400 pages to go. But, I figured, maybe I haven't given it enough of a chance. So I perservered. I am now closing in on page 300. It suddenly picked up or I suddenly "got it" or the story got better or...who knows. My point being, simply, sometimes it takes a while to truly, fairly decide whether to put a book down or not.

what you write rings very true to me. As a reader I've learned to be aware of my own present state of mind when reading something (or watching a film or listening to some music) so I don't 'unfairly' blame the book while the problem, as it were, lies in me; then trying again with a new mindset you oftentimes can see things a bit clearer when it was muddy; sometimes it's all about the perseverance

 

[kpjayan]

Just thought I'd add a "data point." I've been working my way through Stendhal's Red and the Black. I tried once or twice before but didn't get far. Figuring "it's a classic for a reason," I decided to give it another shot. It's over 500 pages in my edition and I was nearing page 100 thinking, "Why am I bothering?" Stendhal just doesn't speak to me. I don't like the protagonist, I am not overly fond of the translation (Catherine Slater for Oxford World Classics)--it's a bit too "British" for me and some of her syntax seems peculiar (though I suppose it could be Stendhal--and I still have over 400 pages to go. But, I figured, maybe I haven't given it enough of a chance. So I perservered. I am now closing in on page 300. It suddenly picked up or I suddenly "got it" or the story got better or...who knows. My point being, simply, sometimes it takes a while to truly, fairly decide whether to put a book down or not.

Personally, I liked 'Charterhouse of Parma' than 'Red and Black'. I also made a similar observation about the translation, which was by CK Scott Moncrieff, who also had Proust translations to his credit. It probably the language and style of Stendhal, that wasn't very appealing in the early part of the book.

Glad that you continued. Looking forward to your impressions..

 

[tiganeasca]

Personally, I liked 'Charterhouse of Parma' than 'Red and Black'. I also made a similar observation about the translation, which was by CK Scott Moncrieff, who also had Proust translations to his credit. It probably the language and style of Stendhal, that wasn't very appealing in the early part of the book.

Glad that you continued. Looking forward to your impressions..

Sadly, the more I read, the worse Slater's translation gets. Here, within the space of two pages:

page 299: did she really think that translating Stendhal to read "In a corner, far from the madding crowd..." was the best choice? (The original, for those interested, reads: "...dans un coin, loin de la foule circulante...")

page 301: "They feared the explosion of some caustic witticism...." No native English speaker that I know would use the word "explosion" in that sentence. Just because the French word is similar (Ils redoutaient l'explosion de quelque mot piquant....) doesn't mean that the apparent English analog is correct. Although I certainly defer to a native French speaker (Adrien, are you reading?), I cannot imagine that "an outburst" would not have been a far better choice.

More than a few times, I have seriously considered getting either the Moncrieff version or the highly-touted Modern Library translation of Burton Raffel.

 

[bacon]

page 299: did she really think that translating Stendhal to read "In a corner, far from the madding crowd..." was the best choice? (The original, for those interested, reads: "...dans un coin, loin de la foule circulante...")

page 301: "They feared the explosion of some caustic witticism...."

To your point, Moncrieff's translation is "...in a corner, aloof from the moving crowd..." so no Hardy in-joke there.

But he does use explosion in the second example: "They feared the explosion of some pointed witticism..." although outburst does sound like a good choice as well.

I wonder to what extent some translators change only a series of adjectives from a famous past translation and pass them off as new translations. Sometimes that's what it seems like. Moncrieff's translation is one of the reasons I think I like those two Stendhal novels so much. And possibly the only reason I was able to get through as much as the first 1000 pages of Proust!

 

[tiganeasca]

To your point, Moncrieff's translation is "...in a corner, aloof from the moving crowd..." so no Hardy in-joke there.

But he does use explosion in the second example: "They feared the explosion of some pointed witticism..." although outburst does sound like a good choice as well.

I wonder to what extent some translators change only a series of adjectives from a famous past translation and pass them off as new translations. Sometimes that's what it seems like. Moncrieff's translation is one of the reasons I think I like those two Stendhal novels so much. And possibly the only reason I was able to get through as much as the first 1000 pages of Proust!

Good to hear what Moncrieff chose. I still find "explosion" a nearly bizarre choice but then again, I'm not at that level of fluency. No matter what, it just reads very oddly to me in Slater's version. And her oddities continue, sadly.... I can only hope that the characters in Moncrieff's (or anyone else's) version don't ask others to "Come off it!" or mock something as "Big deal!"

 

[Leseratte]

Sadly, the more I read, the worse Slater's translation gets. Here, within the space of two pages:

page 299: did she really think that translating Stendhal to read "In a corner, far from the madding crowd..." was the best choice? (The original, for those interested, reads: "...dans un coin, loin de la foule circulante...")

page 301: "They feared the explosion of some caustic witticism...." No native English speaker that I know would use the word "explosion" in that sentence. Just because the French word is similar (Ils redoutaient l'explosion de quelque mot piquant....) doesn't mean that the apparent English analog is correct. Although I certainly defer to a native French speaker (Adrien, are you reading?), I cannot imagine that "an outburst" would not have been a far better choice.

More than a few times, I have seriously considered getting either the Moncrieff version or the highly-touted Modern Library translation of Burton Raffel.

I don't know any of these translations, but you have certainly got a point with "far from the madding crowd...". Even if seemingly correct, the expression is too marked by it´s reference to Hardy`s novel. So, unless the author wants explicitly to point out this reference (and then it had to be in the original, for the translator is not entitled to add meanings to the text of the author) it is not the best choice.

 

[bacon]

Good to hear what Moncrieff chose. I still find "explosion" a nearly bizarre choice but then again, I'm not at that level of fluency. No matter what, it just reads very oddly to me in Slater's version. And her oddities continue, sadly.... I can only hope that the characters in Moncrieff's (or anyone else's) version don't ask others to "Come off it!" or mock something as "Big deal!"

It's like a translator from the 1960s using the word "groovy" in a Stendhal sentence. Kind of jumps out at you...

 

[Liam]

More than a few times, I have seriously considered getting either the Moncrieff version or the highly-touted Modern Library translation of Burton Raffel.

Can't speak to the quality of Raffel's translation of Stendhal, but his stuff is usually excellent; however, I mostly know him as a translator of medieval European literature. His versions of the Nibelungenlied, the Cid, and Lancelot/Yvain are all quite beautiful.

 

[nagisa]

Sadly, the more I read, the worse Slater's translation gets. Here, within the space of two pages:

page 299: did she really think that translating Stendhal to read "In a corner, far from the madding crowd..." was the best choice? (The original, for those interested, reads: "...dans un coin, loin de la foule circulante...")

page 301: "They feared the explosion of some caustic witticism...." No native English speaker that I know would use the word "explosion" in that sentence. Just because the French word is similar (Ils redoutaient l'explosion de quelque mot piquant....) doesn't mean that the apparent English analog is correct. Although I certainly defer to a native French speaker (Adrien, are you reading?), I cannot imagine that "an outburst" would not have been a far better choice.

I'm okay with "explosion", honestly: it sounds like a deliberate stylistic choice in the original. But personally, I can't even look inn Stendhal's direction after having to study him in high school, and I just don't vibe with him. (Though I intend to revisit him: it has been close to two decades after all...)

I wonder to what extent some translators change only a series of adjectives from a famous past translation and pass them off as new translations. Sometimes that's what it seems like. Moncrieff's translation is one of the reasons I think I like those two Stendhal novels so much. And possibly the only reason I was able to get through as much as the first 1000 pages of Proust!

Sometimes the adjectives make all the difference

 

[tiganeasca]

I'm okay with "explosion", honestly...

?

 

[SpaceCadet]

My thoughts.

'Ils redoutaient l'explosion de quelque mot piquant...'

When I read that sentence the first thing that comes to mind is ‘If it had been me, I would not have phrased it that way’ and then ‘but I’m not Stendhal (Henri Beyle) and I was not born in 1783 either’. Therefore I came to the same conclusion as Nagisa; there is a stylistic choice made in that sentence (and I would add) as well as there could be some specific time/period use of language in it.

As for the translation, at first sight it seems to me that ‘outburst’ would be more appropriate than ‘explosion’. But... but if the translator wants to stay close to the original, she/he will have to write ‘They feared the outburst of some caustic....’ and not ‘They feared an outburst of some caustic...’, because Stendhal wrote ‘Ils redoutaient l’explosion... ‘ and not ‘Ils redoutaient une explosion...’ .

Now, I cannot recall having seen ‘the outburst’ used anywhere, but ‘an outburst’, yes, it's common. Perhaps someone can further comment on this extent. But if I am right, 'the outburst 'seeming as strange as 'the explosion', then that could be one of the reason why both translator decided to stick to using 'explosion'.

 

[tiganeasca]

My thoughts.

'Ils redoutaient l'explosion de quelque mot piquant...'

When I read that sentence the first thing that comes to mind is ‘If it had been me, I would not have phrased it that way’ and then ‘but I’m not Stendhal (Henri Beyle) and I was not born in 1783 either’. Therefore I came to the same conclusion as Nagisa; there is a stylistic choice made in that sentence (and I would add) as well as there could be some specific time/period use of language in it.

As for the translation, at first sight it seems to me that ‘outburst’ would be more appropriate than ‘explosion’. But... but if the translator wants to stay close to the original, she/he will have to write ‘They feared the outburst of some caustic....’ and not ‘They feared an outburst of some caustic...’, because Stendhal wrote ‘Ils redoutaient l’explosion... ‘ and not ‘Ils redoutaient une explosion...’ .

Now, I cannot recall having read ‘the outburst’ anywhere, but ‘an outburst’, yes. Perhaps someone can further comment on this extent. But if I am right, then that could be one of the reason why both translator decided to stick to 'explosion'.

Absolutely correct and, believe it or not, after I posted, that very thought occurred to me. But then I figured that I didn't want to get too far into the weeds. I suspect Adrien is completely correct about the choice on Stendhal's part, but I would still argue that the choice to use "explosion" in English, even if completely "correct" in a literal sense, sounds awkward--at the least--in English. But I agree completely that I should have said "the" not "an."

 

[tiganeasca]

高行健 / Gao Xingjian

Two days ago I started Buying A Fishing Rod For My Grandfather.

It is 121 pages long and contains six stories. I have completed five stories and have begun the last one. I made it to page 93. I will not finish this book.

The first five stories were okay, but nothing making me to want to read anything else he's written. He may have won the Nobel Prize. I don't care. I don't care if he is a six-time winner of the Ham-and-Eggs Prize. This is the sentence that made me stop:

"'What' is not to understand and 'what' is to understand or not is not to understand that even when 'what' is understood, it is not understood, for 'what' is to understand and 'what' is not to understand, 'what' is 'what' and 'is not' is 'is not,' and so is not to understand not wanting to understand or simply not understanding why 'what' needs to be understood or whether 'what' can be understood and also it is not understood whether 'what' is really not understood or that it simply hasn't been rendered so that it can be understood or is really understood..." and so on for another six lines.

To be fair, most of his prose is completely comprehensible even if not engaging in the least. This is goobledygook. Or, perhaps more precisely, crap. I have absolutely no doubt there are those out there in the world--and likely even on this board--who will defend the writing, the writer, and the book. If I--a fairly well-read, literate person--cannot even begin to parse his sentence, I am too lazy to bother with this.

Best of all are the blurbs on the back: "For all their elusiveness, these impressionistic sketches have an austere power." "Close observations concisely rendered." "Stands shoulder-to-shoulder with some of the foremost fiction of the moment." "Worth the close attention of any serious reader."

Sorry, but (apologies to Hans Christian Andersen) the emperor has no clothes.

P.S. I wonder, in the end, whether he (and others, of course) is writing for himself, for readers, or for both. That, it seems to be, is a very difficult question: who should a writer be writing for and, of course, what gives readers any right to presume to answer!

 

[Ben Jackson]

Books I didn't finish

Finnegans Wake James Joyce (started this book around 2017, gave up after eight pages)

Gravity's Rainbow Thomas Pynchon (began this around 2019, gave up after nine pages)

1Q84 Haruki Murakami (began the same year I started Gravity's Rainbow, gave up after eight pages. Hated the book)

 

[Leseratte]

Gao Xingjian.

Two days ago I started Buying A Fishing Rod For My Grandfather.

It is 121 pages long and contains six stories. I have completed five stories and have begun the last one. I made it to page 93. I will not finish this book.

The first five stories were okay, but nothing making me to want to read anything else he's written. He may have won the Nobel Prize. I don't care. I don't care if he is a six-time winner of the Ham-and-Eggs Prize. This is the sentence that made me stop:

"'What' is not to understand and 'what' is to understand or not is not to understand that even when 'what' is understood, it is not understood, for 'what' is to understand and 'what' is not to understand, 'what' is 'what' and 'is not' is 'is not,' and so is not to understand not wanting to understand or simply not understanding why 'what' needs to be understood or whether 'what' can be understood and also it is not understood whether 'what' is really not understood or that it simply hasn't been rendered so that it can be understood or is really understood..." and so on for another six lines.

To be fair, most of his prose is completely comprehensible even if not engaging in the least. This is goobledygook. Or, perhaps more precisely, crap. I have absolutely no doubt there are those out there in the world--and likely even on this board--who will defend the writing, the writer, and the book. If I--a fairly well-read, literate person--cannot even begin to parse his sentence, I am too lazy to bother with this.

Best of all are the blurbs on the back: "For all their elusiveness, these impressionistic sketches have an austere power." "Close observations concisely rendered." "Stands shoulder-to-shoulder with some of the foremost fiction of the moment." "Worth the close attention of any serious reader."

Sorry, but (apologies to Hans Christian Andersen) the emperor has no clothes.

P.S. I wonder, in the end, whether he (and others, of course) is writing for himself, for readers, or for both. That, it seems to be, is a very difficult question: who should a writer be writing for and, of course, what gives readers any right to presume to answer!

I can understand you!?

 

[redhead]

I wonder if his slippery meaning has to do with his early life in China? I haven't actually read anything by him so this is just speculation. But I could imagine becoming very shifty about reality after growing up in an authoritarian country.

I’ve read that some Chinese authors use complex, shifting language and narratives as a reaction against authoritarianism and the simplistic Maoist slogans they grew up with, as well as a cover from the authorities. I’m not sure if Gao Xingjian is doing something similar, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he is.

As for books I can’t finish, I haven’t been able to get through Cartarescu’s Nostalgia or Blinding. He can write well and his barrage of phantasmagoric images is appealing, but his descriptions seem to overload any overarching narrative and each time I try one of his books I find myself growing bored.

 

[alik-vit]

高行健 / Gao Xingjian

Two days ago I started Buying A Fishing Rod For My Grandfather.

He may have won the Nobel Prize. I don't care. I don't care if he is a six-time winner of the Ham-and-Eggs Prize.

He won it for two novels and dozen plays. And really "Soul mountain" is extremely good and original novel. On the other hand, I've read this collection in December and was absolutely not impressed too. And it's funny, because when I've read his only one Russian translation back in 2000 (and it was short story) I liked it very much.

 

[tiganeasca]

I’ve read that some Chinese authors use complex, shifting language and narratives as a reaction against authoritarianism and the simplistic Maoist slogans they grew up with, as well as a cover from the authorities. I’m not sure if Xingjian is doing something similar, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was.

It's as plausible as anything. The first five stories were logical, clear, told stories of a sort, and easily follow-able, if boring. But as I posted in the "Recently Begun Books" thread when Bartleby warned me:

"The translator's note following the stories refers to a postscript that the author added to the original collection in which 'he [Gao] warns readers that his fiction does not set out to tell a story. There is no plot, as found in most fiction, and anything of interest to be found in it is inherent in the language itself. Most explicit is his proposal that the linguistic art of fiction is 'the actualization of language and not the imitation of reality in writing,' and that its power to fascinate lies in the fact that, even while employing language, it is able to evoke authentic feelings in the reader."

Oddly enough, as I say--and contrary to his own note--the first five stories were in fact stories with a narrative arc. Plot too. This thing about "actualization of language" is what baffles me. I understand not being interested in having one's writing "imitate reality" but at that point, I go back to my P.S., above: who is he writing for then? and why?

 

[Leemo]

高行健 / Gao Xingjian

Two days ago I started Buying A Fishing Rod For My Grandfather.

It is 121 pages long and contains six stories. I have completed five stories and have begun the last one. I made it to page 93. I will not finish this book.

The first five stories were okay, but nothing making me to want to read anything else he's written. He may have won the Nobel Prize. I don't care. I don't care if he is a six-time winner of the Ham-and-Eggs Prize. This is the sentence that made me stop:

"'What' is not to understand and 'what' is to understand or not is not to understand that even when 'what' is understood, it is not understood, for 'what' is to understand and 'what' is not to understand, 'what' is 'what' and 'is not' is 'is not,' and so is not to understand not wanting to understand or simply not understanding why 'what' needs to be understood or whether 'what' can be understood and also it is not understood whether 'what' is really not understood or that it simply hasn't been rendered so that it can be understood or is really understood..." and so on for another six lines.

To be fair, most of his prose is completely comprehensible even if not engaging in the least. This is goobledygook. Or, perhaps more precisely, crap. I have absolutely no doubt there are those out there in the world--and likely even on this board--who will defend the writing, the writer, and the book. If I--a fairly well-read, literate person--cannot even begin to parse his sentence, I am too lazy to bother with this.

Best of all are the blurbs on the back: "For all their elusiveness, these impressionistic sketches have an austere power." "Close observations concisely rendered." "Stands shoulder-to-shoulder with some of the foremost fiction of the moment." "Worth the close attention of any serious reader."

Sorry, but (apologies to Hans Christian Andersen) the emperor has no clothes.

P.S. I wonder, in the end, whether he (and others, of course) is writing for himself, for readers, or for both. That, it seems to be, is a very difficult question: who should a writer be writing for and, of course, what gives readers any right to presume to answer!

But you didn't even give Soul Mountain a try ?

 

[tiganeasca]

But you didn't even give Soul Mountain a try ?

Don't worry...it's sitting on the shelf, waiting for me. Quietly. Just sitting there. Lying in wait. Patiently biding its time until I pull it down one day and then it will

LEAP OUT and BITE ME!