Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Re: Etext renditions of JV translations

From: Norm Wolcott <nwolcott~at~kreative.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 00:25:09 -0500
To: "Jules Verne Forum" <jvf~at~math.technion.ac.il>

I am sure that PG would be glad to add the better xlations if copies can be
found. Although these books may have been reprinted many times, they are
now 150 years old. And since they bring several hundred dollars on the 2nd
hand market now most have disappeared from libraries, as have indeed almost
all pre 1900 books. I have searched the local libraries including Catholic
University, George Washington, Georgetown, and Baltimore Public. Sometimes
an early edition will be placed in a rare books room, where it is not
available to scan. Also these were considered "juvenile books" and not
included in many college libraries. So there are administrative problems. I
was looking for a better printed copy of 5 weeks, and was only able to find
the recent Wordsworth trade paperback printed in England, but it seemed to
be a different translation too, and since its provenance was unknown I
couldn't use it. It may be possible to dig up some copies on ABExchange on
the internet, they often don't list the translator, though. Most of the PG
volunteers pay $2 to $5 for the books they encode. Even $20 or $30 for a
ratty copy doesn't sound like much but adds up if you are doing 5 or 10
books. We now have cooperative projects at PG where the pages are scanned
and then emailed around to share the OCR effort.
     Knowing which are the better xlations, we can be on the lookout for
them.
----------
> From: Arthur B. Evans <aevans2~at~mail.tds.net>
> To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~math.technion.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: Etext renditions of JV translations
> Date: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 5:58 PM
>
> James,
>
> You're right about public-domain difficulties. But there exist much
better
> "old" (pre-1921) translations, if the Gutenberg folks would only bother
to
> seek them out.
>
> For instance, the 1869 Lackland translation of _Five Weeks_ has been
> reprinted zillions of times since its original publication.
> And the Stephen White (Warburton, 1874) and the Malleson (Ward, Lock
1877)
> translations of _Journey_ are not perfect by any means, but they are
> infinitely better than the "Hardwigg" version.
>
> --Art
>
Received on Mon 07 Feb 2000 - 06:00:55 IST

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2009/02/01 22:36:11 $$