Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Re: new 20K

From: Brian Taves <btav~at~loc.gov>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>

Ah, Tom, would that I had your faith. I fear that Mercier has become
cemented permanently in the pantheon thanks to publishers who are either
simply lazy--or prefer to market the simpler JV. Mercier is, I think, a
sort of literary vampire who refuses to remain where he should, in his
grave, but constantly returns from the dead--in new book covers. Cf. my
previous posting on the latest B&N edition.


Brian Taves
email: <btav~at~loc.gov>


On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, thomas mccormick wrote:

> Of course, we must bear in mind that this sort of discussion about
> 20,000Leagues-in-English will be otiose in a few years. By that time we will
> have a new cohort of students and Vernophiles, whose impressions of 20,000
> Leagues will be gathered from good translations (such as Miller's or
> Butcher's), and when they want more of Captain Nemo they'll have Kravitz or
> Stump or whatever. A debate about the merits and demerits of Lewis will be
> regarded as a quaint period piece, of interest only to philologists. Most of
> Verne's readers will be too busy being entertained and moved by his works to
> care about the fate of flawed translations, which they will jump over or
> blow up.
>
> Tom McCormick
>
>
> >From: Walter J Miller <wjm2~at~nyu.edu>
> >Reply-To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
> >To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
> >Subject: Re: new 20K
> >Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:20:53 -0400
> >
> >
> >
> >Ron and all: A little background on this Mercier Lewis-Annotated 20K
> >discussion.  When I felt that my 1965 essay "Jules Verne in America: A
> >Translator's Preface" had failed to rouse publishers/readers to strive to
> >rehabilitate Verne in the anglophone world, my editor at Crowell---the
> >great Hugh Rawson---suggested that we do an annotated edition of the
> >"standard" [Lewis] edition and (1) annotate all his errors and (2) fill in
> >the gaps with my translation of the 23% Lewis had omitted---and annotate
> >the reasons maybe for the omissions!  I think that this Crowell edition
> >('76) did more than the Washington Square Press edition ('65) to get things
> >moving.  And you are right, Ron, to wonder why we did not take the other
> >route: Many readers asked why did you not just correct and fulfill the ML
> >version.  Rawson thought the other route would be more dramatic, and I
> >think that on the one hand he was right for THE TIME, but that actually
> >the!
> > other route should also be tried.  Of course, one would have to feel, as
> >Ron does, that ML has intrinsic values, which I don't, obviously.  I think
> >his only value to us THEN was that he typified the whole Verne-translation
> >scandal and  had to be exposed as such in great detail. So now, with your
> >Unicorn edition, we have both routes traveled, but clearly better
> >treatments were called for, and I think that the Miller-Walter USNIP and
> >the Butcher Oxford versions were inevitable----one on the big hardcover
> >level, the other on the mass paperback level.  I will still order the
> >Unicorn (amazon.com?) just to see how the "other route" that Rawson and I
> >considered has worked out.  And incidentally, it was not the word
> >"bullshit" that I regarded as a critique but the words "non sequiturs."
> >"Bullshit" alone would be "intellectual bullying," but "non sequiturs" are
> >a serious intellectual concern.Cheers!  Walter James Miller----- Origina!
> > l Message -----
> >
> >From: spaceart~at~att.net
> >
> >Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:09 pm
> >
> >Subject: Re: new 20K
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'm glad you realize that I meant no insult to you or your own
> > > work (or anyone else's for that matter). Perhaps I took your word
> > > "bullshit" a little too seriously---though I have to admit it is
> > > not quite what I am used to hearing refered to as a "critique".
> > >
> > > In any event, I hope that through my subsequent comments I have
> > > managed to make myself clearer. And that everyone will enjoy the
> > > coming reissue of the (much improved) Unicorn edition. Many people
> > > have asked me about doing this sort of thing over the past several
> > > years and I'm very glad to have finally found a way to gratify
> > > these requests.
> > >
> > > I hope, too, to be seeing everyone in Norfolk...though it seems
> > > that there may be a conflict with a book deadline. I hope not!
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > --
> > > Black Cat Studios
> > > http://www.black-cat-studios.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron et al.--- I am glad that my one-sentence critique of your
> > > third paragraph produced so much interesting reaction by Tom
> > > McCormick & Ralf Tauchmann. I had not taken your announcement as
> > > directed at my (and Frederick PAUL Walter's) editions, not at all.
> > > I was not insulted. I think your edition (which you and I once
> > > discussed as you drove me to your house) is one of many valuable
> > > ways of approaching the problem of making Verne available in
> > > English. Yesterday I was just protesting the non-sequiturs in
> > > said graf, and it seems others have had similar reactions. Thanks
> > > for quoting from my various editions and thereby reminding us all
> > > that the typos were my sole complaint about the original Unicorn
> > > edition. I assume I'll see you in Norfolfk? Cheers! Walter
> > > James Miller---- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > -------------- Original message ------------------!
> > ----
> > > From: Walter J Miller <wjm2~at~nyu.edu>
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> >From: Walter J Miller <wjm2~at~nyu.edu>
> >To: Jules Verne Forum <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
> >Subject: Re: new 20K
> >Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:04:28 +0000
> >
> >
> >Ron et al.--- I am glad that my one-sentence critique of your third
> >paragraph produced so much interesting reaction by Tom McCormick & Ralf
> >Tauchmann.  I had not taken your announcement as directed at my (and
> >Frederick PAUL Walter's) editions, not at all. I was not insulted. I think
> >your edition (which you and I once discussed as you drove me to your house)
> >is one of many valuable ways of approaching the problem of making Verne
> >available in English.  Yesterday I was just protesting the non-sequiturs in
> >said graf, and it seems others have had similar reactions.  Thanks for
> >quoting from my various editions and thereby reminding us all that the
> >typos were my  sole complaint about the original Unicorn edition.  I assume
> >I'll see you in Norfolfk?  Cheers!  Walter James Miller---- Original
> >Message -----
> >
> >From: spaceart~at~att.net
> >
> >Date: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:47 pm
> >
> >Subject: Re: new 20K
> >
> >
> >
> > > I take it you took offense at what I said, which I certainly did
> > > not intend. I recognize that there have been several much better
> > > researched and scholarly translations of 20K since the 1987
> > > Unicorn Press edition, which I thought I had clearly acknowledged.
> > > But I don't think anyone can deny that many of these modernized
> > > much of the language, or recast Verne's phrasing into that of the
> > > translator. That is, they were 20K retold. This makes the books
> > > more accessible to late 20th century readers, and I readily
> > > acknowledge the rationale behind that, too. But I have always felt
> > > that something of the character of reading a Victorian novel was
> > > lost in the process. This opinion is not meant to cast any
> > > negative aspersions on any other versions of the book. If you took
> > > it that way, I am sorry.
> > >
> > > At the time the Unicorn Press edition, which was publishe!
> > d in
> > > 1987, there had not been many new 20th century translations of
> > > 20K. There had been Anthony Bonner's 1960 edition, Mendor
> > > Brunetti's 1969 effort and your 1965 work. The faults of the
> > > former two books are neatly outlined in your introduction to the
> > > Naval Institute Press edition. In the preface to the 1965 20K, you
> > > say that "where a literal translation would be unfair to Verne"
> > > you "recast a passage to communicate its spirit" and that you felt
> > > free to "gloss over" things you felt would not be of interest to a
> > > 20th century reader. I find no fault with this: at the time the
> > > book was instrumental in rekindling my interest in Jules Verne.
> > >
> > > So I stand by my statement that when the Unicorn Press edition was
> > > published, it was the most complete version of the book published
> > > up to that time. It was a position that was, of course, superceded
> > > by later!
> > editions---yours and Paul's especially. But I also stand
> > > by
> >my statement that I took great care to retain the character and
> > > style of the language and deliberately made no attempt to
> > > modernize it.
> > >
> > > Since 1987 there have been at least three superb new translations
> > > that have, at least for scholarly reasons if no other, superceded
> > > my own version of 20K, including the one that you and Paul did---
> > > which in my opinion is the best of the lot.
> > >
> > > In your introduction to the Naval Institute Press edition, you
> > > described your 1965 translation as being a revised and restored
> > > version of the Mercier 20K. Following your lead, and the
> > > possibilities broadly hinted at in your Annotated 20K, I only
> > > carried that process further. In fact, it was wondering why you
> > > didn't merely fix the Mercier translation outright rather than
> > > employ the method you chose to use in the Annotated 20K that got
> > > me thinking about doing that !
> > very thing myself: that is,
> > > correcting and completing the Mercier version. As I said, this
> > > required more than 3000 individual corrections above and beyond
> > > the missing text that was replaced. The only complaint you made in
> > > the introduction to the NIP edition about the resulting Unicorn
> > > Press book was that it had been "sabotaged by careless
> > > typesetting"...a fault I admit to and which I have taken some
> > > pains to correct.
> > >
> > > RM

Brian Taves
Motion Picture/Broadcasting/Recorded Sound Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20540-4692
Telephone: 202-707-9930; 202-707-2371 (fax)
Email: btav~at~loc.gov


Disclaimer--All opinions expressed are my own.
Received on Thu 20 Oct 2005 - 01:29:20 IST

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