The Count of Monte Cristo discussion

I often pick up famous books, and their translations turn out to be so dry that I just cannot go through them. It feels like their beauty has been destroyed. I just picked up a penguin translation of Homer's Odyssey, and it was just terrible.
So for those who've read it, what translation of The Count of Monte Cristo should I pick?

just stay away from the scholastic version. It is heavily abridged. I liked the free kindle version.

The Robin Buss trans is very good and flows well. Penguin publish it. Good notes too.

I have read the Project Gutenberg public domain translation and the Robin Buss translation. I cannot comment of the accuracy of either translation from the original, but I found Buss's translation flowed easier and was much easier to read.

For my part, I highly recommend it.

My only advice I would insist upon by anyone who wants to read this book is to stay away from abridgments. Abridgments of this particular book seem to cut complete chapters, without any consideration of subsequent references in retained chapters of characters and events the reader was intended to be made aware of in chapters that were cut.

Imagine reading an abridgement of a book where we were introduced to the character "Fred" in chapter 5 of the unabridged version. The abridgment cut chapter 5, so the reader has no idea Fred even exists until Fred comes waltzing into the scene in chapter 20, talking about you know not what, and is acting as if you should know who he is.

Do not read an abridged version! Yuk!

I had a choice between picking up the Robin Buss translation, and an edition which used a public domain translation, and I picked the latter because it cost less money. I'm kicking myself for not picking the Robin Buss translation because the public domain translation was SO dry and clunky. It was still a wonderful story, but I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if I had been reading the Robin Buss translation, which I hear is much more smooth and fluid.

I read the wordsworth classic version. I found it's hard to understand, but I love how worsdworth use another notes by Keith Wren that explained more about the translation, sometimes point out the misconception of the translator. But, i haven't read another version so i cant compare them.

Anyway, eventhough it's hard to read (maybe part of it because english is not my native language) I pretty much fond of this version. Anyone has comment about this version?

by the way, what is abridged version? I found on google it's something that's been cut off, but i cant imagine someone edited people's work to that extent.

I like the Random House version, his translation to spanish is very good!

Dewinda wrote: "by the way, what is abridged version? I found on google it's something that's been cut off, but i cant imagine someone edited people's work to that extent."

You are right, that is exactly what it is. I LOVED the Robin Buss translation, I can't imagine there's a better one. And, of course, not abridged!

I really, really enjoyed the Wordsworth edition.
I know this has been said so many times, but do not buy an abridged version!

In spanish versión, the best in my opinion is Random House Mondadori.

Nienor the problem with any edition other than the Penguin Classics Buss translation is that they were done so long ago that the language is a lot more archaic, and they deleted certain sections which they deemed too "scandalous." If you read the reviews anywhere of people who have read the various translations, every single person unanimously says the Buss version is incomparable.

Sandra wrote: "Nienor the problem with any edition other than the Penguin Classics Buss translation is that they were done so long ago that the language is a lot more archaic, and they deleted certain sections wh..."

I apologise for taking so long to get back to you.
Personally, I prefer the more archaic language, as it makes it feel more authentic. And, the translation is actually closer to the original text because of it. But, that's just my preference.

The Wordsworth edition uses the Chapman and Hall translation.
This does actually include the deleted scenes regarding 'scandalous' homosexuality. Are there any others I am not aware of?

Robin Buss seems to be the most popular and respected modern translator of this work. Most reviews comment that his translation is the most lively, and reads as though the work had been originally written in English rather than French. Also, the Chapman and Hall translation is from 1846. According to Wikipedia, "In 1996 Penguin Classics published a new translation by Robin Buss. Buss's translation updated the language, making the text more accessible to modern readers, and restored content that was modified in the 1846 translation because of Victorian English social restrictions (for example, references to Eugénie's lesbian traits and behaviour) to reflect Dumas' original version." Also, according to Quora, "Robin Buss’s lively English translation is complete and unabridged, and remains faithful to the style of Dumas’s original. This edition includes an introduction, explanatory notes and suggestions for further reading." There are many more such testimonials as to the supremacy of the Penguin Classics translation. If I were you, I'd err on the side of Buss anytime.

Perhaps I might try it then, you certainly make a good argument. As long as it's in British English though...

One benefit of the Wordsworth edition is the footnotes though. They're very amusing, and lighten up some of the less marvellous parts in Rome. When there is a translation error or inconsistency whoever wrote the footnotes just has a go at the author or translator, and it's hilarious!

Because the book is such a huge investment of time, I made sure to do my research before I chose the edition to read, and was fervently glad that I did. Of course it's in Brit English, it is Penguin Classics after all! As it turned out, that instantly became my very favorite book of all time, and I've read it a couple of times since that first time. It will most likely become yours too, because it has for every person I've shared it with. Thus, you'll have the opportunity, should you choose, to read the Wordsworth edition as well. And yes I can see where entertaining footnotes would be a bonus...though not enough to entice me from Buss!

In defense of abridged versions, I first read Count of Monte Cristo in an abridged version and really liked it. I was 9 years old. A few years later, probably around 13/14, I tracked down the complete and unabridged version (Oxford Classic - I don't remember who the translator was, but publisher was the Oxford University Press), and it became my all-time favorite book. I would probably have not liked the book as much if I had directly read the unabridged version.

I have similar experience with most of Dickens and Shakespeare.

GOOD abridged versions are written for kids. They don't randomly cut out chapters, but rewrite them extensively to simplify the plot and language. And they're a wonderful way to get children to read the classics.

I've continuously gone back to the Modern Library hardcover print version on Amazon - it hooked me in when I realized that the translators had left certain phrasings in French and Italian when they were cumbersome to translate, opting to note in the header/footer at those times. I felt they really did a marvelous job of retaining the character of the cultures and times being written about without losing me as an educated reader. I recommend it.

https://spjg.com/2018/12/11/which-eng...

Has anyone read the Oxford World's Classics version?

Bernie wrote: "Has anyone read the Oxford World's Classics version?"

I just finished the Oxford World's Classics version tonight! I was blissfully unaware of the other translations since I had picked it up on a whim at a thrift store. I could not put the book down but I have no other translations to compare it to either.

Dewinda wrote: "I read the wordsworth classic version. I found it's hard to understand, but I love how worsdworth use another notes by Keith Wren that explained more about the translation, sometimes point out the ..."

Abridged version‘s are when editors cut or remove text or chapters due to content or if they’re trying to edit to shorten length. Dumas was paid by the word, therefore his work was very long.

https://welovetranslations.com/2018/1...

Natalia wrote: "In spanish versión, the best in my opinion is Random House Mondadori."
I know this was 5 years ago but was the translation good? have you compared it by chance to the english version? I speak both English and Spanish and I want to read the best version of the two. Thanks.

I was puzzling over the meaning of this passage: "It will be remembered that the count was an abstemious guest. Albert made the observation, while expressing a fear that, from the start, Parisian life might not displease the traveller with respect to its least spiritual yet, at the same time, most necessary side. (Robin Buss translation)" until I read the old translation which cleared things up for me. The old translation "The count was, it may be remembered, a most temperate guest. Albert remarked this, expressing his fears lest, at the outset, the Parisian mode of life should displease the traveller in the most essential point."

Why do people say Robin Buss's translation provides better clarity?

I don't know about clarity, but the Buss translation is supposed to be complete and unabridged. Some of the older translations left out passages that might have offended potential readers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Both the quoted passages are clunky, simply because they are so long and have so many commas. That, however, is the fault of the author and not the translator. It's just one of those things when you read old novels. The authors would much rather use commas and run-on sentences instead of full stops.

Elentarri wrote: "I don't know about clarity, but the Buss translation is supposed to be complete and unabridged. Some of the older translations left out passages that might have offended potential readers. ¯\_(ツ)_/..."I'm reading the Buss translation and from time to time when I don't understand, I consult the free translation. So far I have not seen any parts that are abridged out from the old translation, but I do find for those parts that I had to consult the old translation, the old version makes more sense, as in this case. To me, the two translation contradicts each other in meaning and Buss translation doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Another ambiguity:

Robin Buss translation:"he tried to arrest me, but I turned the tables on him and captured him myself with a dozen of his men."

This translation left me puzzled regarding whether 'a dozen of his men' were captured by 'me', or they assisted me in capturing 'him'. Then I read the old free translation and it was clear to me now:

"he sought to take me, but, on the contrary, it was I who captured him and a dozen of his band."

I expect to find more examples as I continue to read. Admitted this is not a fair way to compare the quality of translations because I only had to consult the old translation when I come to a passage in Robin Buss' translation that puzzles me, and I do not doubt that if I were reading from the old translation, the same thing would happen: that I would from time to time need to consult Buss translation to clear things up. But it does proves to me that it's not a clear-cut case that one translation is superior to another in every way. I've experienced the same with the much touted modern translation of Anna Karenina, and from these experiences, I think next time when I read a book through translation, I will just read from the old translation that had been read for years without readers being worried about those issues pointed out by their modern translators.

since this thread is quite old, i will just put my 2 cents in briefly. JIC someone becomes interested in this novel due to the 'new' mini-series version directed by Bille August (2024), I thought I'd write about it. i bought the paperback edition of Robin Buss' TL from Penguin Classics at my college's bookstore in the late 90s to early 2000s. i guess it might have been sold-back to the bookstore by a student taking a literature course instead of keeping it. as far as i know, my book should be the original/first print paperback edition published in England from 1996. the three open sides are quite yellowed and the covers are just barely worn and soft along those same three edges. so not even approaching 'mint condition' or even 'fine', probably 'good' if a collector was examining it. Buss' notes bring the pagecount to 1103. frankly, i've never read much translated literature (other than Billy S. in college). but Buss' prose was perfectly spot-on. the previously quoted section about the 12 men and 1 and the fight and capture? somebody just... shrug... didn't get it as i got that reading in one go. now, i've only read this one book/version twice. as... the heft and thickness and pagecount for a paperback IS quite intimidating. it isn't easy to transport or store, but it has remained in my permanent collection through multiple US Army moves from duty-station to station. i am quite used to the 300-500 page counts for US fiction/science fiction/fantasy novels in hard and paperback from Tor and Penguin and Random House etc. so the intimidation wasn't exactly the size of the book. but the effort i would need to 'distance' myself from reality for long enough stretches to fully immerse myself in the novel. Buss' work for me was perfect. i loved every minute. my Italian is barely in existence after being stationed there for some time. my French is not even 12 words. my Spanish is disgustingly petrified from lack of use even after 3 tours in Central America. my Middle and Old English are just passable as a reader only. and my Japanese... i can listen to it and understand a tiny bit after watching subtitled anime for 30 years... but i know i'm nowhere fluent. so when i read Buss' TL of The Count? i read it just like it was a 'period written piece' modernized into today's English. that's how i feel about Buss' work on The Count. give it a shot if you can find it somewhere.