Joy’s comment > Likes and Comments
5 likes · Like
You also make some good points Mike, which I would like to discuss further, with regards to your last point, the fact is that Les Miserables is classed as an epic drama, and like a lot of them it has many parts that aren’t considered directly related to the main story, or don’t directly drive the main story. But that’s not say they don’t serve a useful purpose, they flesh out the universe/world of Les Miserables. Personally, I think they give the reader a better and more detailed understanding of the dynamics that are operating within the story. And though some people may find those extra parts boring, there are also others that find them fascinating. Whether or not Hugo needed an editor is up to each person to decide, but ultimately Les Miserables is Victor Hugo’s story, one can argue and disagree with the way he chose to tell it, but it’s still his story. Arguably, one can’t really say that they’ve read Les Miserables, until they’ve read it how he chose to tell it. In a perfect world, everyone would understand French and one could read exactly what he said, otherwise the best thing may be, to try to choose a translation that is the most faithful to his words.
Overall, I think people need to examine their reasons for wanting to read Les Miserables. As I said, if someone just wants to know the story, and doesn't feel that they have time to read the whole book, then the abridged version maybe the one for them. But for the people that do want to read the whole story, then they may want an unabridged version that is as true to Hugo's words as possible. There are many people that like and prefer the Denny version, but it’s also good for people to know that it is not actually a faithful translation. Denny edits, he takes some things out, even if it is only a ‘slight abridgement’ it is still an abridgement, i.e. 99% ≠ 100%. Also personally, I think because he does edit Hugo’s words, the Denny isn't as poetic as the Wilbour (who stays very faithful to Hugo’s original words). That’s my opinion, and someone else may have a different opinion to me, at the end of the day that’s all anyone can give, their opinion. The great thing about this book is that there are all these different translations and editions available, so people can chose the version that they have the most homogeneity with, and are happiest to read.
Don't know if you've already got the answer to this question, but yes the Wilbur is unabridged, and Wordsworth published it in 2 (quite large) volumes
Can you please tell me which edition of Wilbour you are quoting here? That's the one I want to read, and my library has a Wilbour, but the passage above is rendered thus, in that edition:
“Look, my dear director, I’ll tell you what. There has obviously been a mistake. There are twenty-six of you in five or six small rooms. There are three of us here and we’ve got enough room for sixty. There’s been a mistake, I’m telling you. You’ve got my place and I’ve got yours. Give me back my house. This is your rightful home, here.”
As you say, it loses the wit and any playfulness.
The Denny translation isn't "abridged" in the way you're suggesting it is. It's scarcely abridged at all. Denny doesn't remove any of those details, he removes (as he states in his translator's note) some sections of Hugo's personal rants (which have little to no bearing on what you've here-described) from the main text and places them in the appendix instead. It's ultimately a wise decision and the book is better off for it.
Having done a lot of comparison work, I have to say I agree with you - it's either the Wilbour or the Lee/Fahnenstock version. The Wilbour does initially feel 'clunky', but that's just like when I first start reading Shakespeare, Dickens or any other older classic. It just takes a bit of time to get one's 'ear' in tune, but once sorted, then the book flows beautifully. For me, other translators just put too much of their own interpretation on to the book, rather than letting Hugo speak. On that theme, I found the Rose version virtually unreadable.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
You also make some good points Mike, which I would like to discuss further, with regards to your last point, the fact is that Les Miserables is classed as an epic drama, and like a lot of them it has many parts that aren’t considered directly related to the main story, or don’t directly drive the main story. But that’s not say they don’t serve a useful purpose, they flesh out the universe/world of Les Miserables. Personally, I think they give the reader a better and more detailed understanding of the dynamics that are operating within the story. And though some people may find those extra parts boring, there are also others that find them fascinating. Whether or not Hugo needed an editor is up to each person to decide, but ultimately Les Miserables is Victor Hugo’s story, one can argue and disagree with the way he chose to tell it, but it’s still his story. Arguably, one can’t really say that they’ve read Les Miserables, until they’ve read it how he chose to tell it. In a perfect world, everyone would understand French and one could read exactly what he said, otherwise the best thing may be, to try to choose a translation that is the most faithful to his words. Overall, I think people need to examine their reasons for wanting to read Les Miserables. As I said, if someone just wants to know the story, and doesn't feel that they have time to read the whole book, then the abridged version maybe the one for them. But for the people that do want to read the whole story, then they may want an unabridged version that is as true to Hugo's words as possible. There are many people that like and prefer the Denny version, but it’s also good for people to know that it is not actually a faithful translation. Denny edits, he takes some things out, even if it is only a ‘slight abridgement’ it is still an abridgement, i.e. 99% ≠ 100%. Also personally, I think because he does edit Hugo’s words, the Denny isn't as poetic as the Wilbour (who stays very faithful to Hugo’s original words). That’s my opinion, and someone else may have a different opinion to me, at the end of the day that’s all anyone can give, their opinion. The great thing about this book is that there are all these different translations and editions available, so people can chose the version that they have the most homogeneity with, and are happiest to read.
Don't know if you've already got the answer to this question, but yes the Wilbur is unabridged, and Wordsworth published it in 2 (quite large) volumes
Can you please tell me which edition of Wilbour you are quoting here? That's the one I want to read, and my library has a Wilbour, but the passage above is rendered thus, in that edition:“Look, my dear director, I’ll tell you what. There has obviously been a mistake. There are twenty-six of you in five or six small rooms. There are three of us here and we’ve got enough room for sixty. There’s been a mistake, I’m telling you. You’ve got my place and I’ve got yours. Give me back my house. This is your rightful home, here.”
As you say, it loses the wit and any playfulness.
The Denny translation isn't "abridged" in the way you're suggesting it is. It's scarcely abridged at all. Denny doesn't remove any of those details, he removes (as he states in his translator's note) some sections of Hugo's personal rants (which have little to no bearing on what you've here-described) from the main text and places them in the appendix instead. It's ultimately a wise decision and the book is better off for it.
Having done a lot of comparison work, I have to say I agree with you - it's either the Wilbour or the Lee/Fahnenstock version. The Wilbour does initially feel 'clunky', but that's just like when I first start reading Shakespeare, Dickens or any other older classic. It just takes a bit of time to get one's 'ear' in tune, but once sorted, then the book flows beautifully. For me, other translators just put too much of their own interpretation on to the book, rather than letting Hugo speak. On that theme, I found the Rose version virtually unreadable.
1) Concerning Denny, his version is only a slight abridgment compared to many others. It's still over 1200 pages.
2) In a perfect world, everybody would read the unabridged. But not everybody has the time. Better to read a shorter version for those who are time-pressed than not to read a novel at all IMO.
3) Large parts of LM aren't directly related to the story at all, like most of the section on Waterloo. Frankly, I found this part as well as many other parts (such as the detailed descriptions of the members of the ABC Society) very boring. I think Hugo needed a good editor. Editors are more objective about what is important to a novel than novelists themselves.