Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Re: new 20K

From: N Wolcott <nwolcott~at~dsdial.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:52:50 -0400
To: "Jules Verne Forum" <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>

I don't think Ron needs to make any apology for his version of Mercier's
20K. These Victorian translations were mostly made by inexperienced
youngsters trying to break into the book trade, or penurious clerics facing
debtor's prison. Most were not even native French speakers. They should be
compared against each other of course, and not against modern scholarship.

Nonetheless some do have literary merit, which must include Mercier,
Malleson, Cashel-Hoey, and Metcalfe. Only when one has attempted to
edit/correct one of these translations does the true ability of the
translator become apparent. Malleson, one of the few who translated for
"fun" and not for money, has produced the most literary version of Centre of
the Earth. He replaces Verne's choppy French with an English word which
captures the meaning but not the jarring cadence of a literal translation.
Unfortunately this is his only effort, but it does set a standard by which
others of the period may be judged.

I was disappointed that 20 K was not in the original 8 1/2 x 11 format.
Since Lulu charges by the page, there is no reason not to include full page
illustrations. Also there is no reason not to use a legible 12 point type.
Many of the newer translations appear to be in a specially faint 8 point
type which is trying to those of us in declining years.
----- Original Message -----
From: <spaceart~at~att.net>
To: "Jules Verne Forum" <jvf~at~Gilead.org.il>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: new 20K


> There was never meant to be a discussion, let alone a debate, about the
relative merits of the various editions of 20K. I realize that I triggered
just such a discussion this past week, albeit altogether inadvertantly.
However, the book that I've just made available is not at all about the
merits or demerits of Lewis or even flawed translations in general---in
fact, Lewis' name is not mentioned anywhere in the book, nor is any issue
made regarding the flawed origins of the text and its restoration (other
than a brief mention on the back cover). This 20K is presented as 20K and
nothing else. The end matter---the maps and charts and schematics and
whatnot---are there only to add to the overall enjoyment of the story. In
fact, there are only about a dozen footnotes in the book itself beyond the
ones Verne himself provided. (All of which may make this edition more
peculiarly suited for young adult readers.) This 20K is one that is meant
strictly for people who want to read it for
> entertainment---as a good novel and nothing more---and I think I am
justified in believing that it will not only do that but will also enable
the reader to experience something of the flavor of the era in which the
book was written and takes place. And I *absolutely* insist that all of the
foregoing is merely a descriptive statement about the book that is not meant
in any way to compare it qualitatively with other editions, nor to incite
any argument about the relative values of assorted translations, old or new.
I would like to think that it exists---and is worthwhile---for its own
merits...and I do believe it has some. It is *different* from other
available editions but I make no claim that it is superior to them. The
"students and Vernophiles" that Tom refers to, who want or need something
beyond a good read, have Butcher and Miller, who, with their fine
translations, copious and meticulous footnotes and scholarly supporting
texts, have done far more, and far better, in
> that vein than I could possibly have hoped to. The only possible
advantage I can think of regarding my 20K is that it is interactive. The
nature of the POD process allows me to make changes easily between printings
of individual copies. This means that I can incorporate ideas, suggestions,
corrections and revisions from readers...in much the same way that I was
able to add a map to my Journey to the Center of the Earth because readers
requested it. I think this would be both fun and interesting for everyone
involved.
>
> RM
>
> PS---
> The book is now available online. I will post the address tomorrow as soon
as I make sure everything is as it should be. The book itself is a 6x9 inch
paperback, 352 pages long, printed on a heavy cream book paper. I took some
care to make it a nice-looking volume, with readable type and handsome page
design. There is a full-color cover and about two dozen B&W illustrations
(based on the original illustrations from the Unicorn edition). The back
matter consists of a detailed two-page perspective cutaway of the Nautilus
with 3-view plans and elevations; a map of the world with the course of the
Abraham Lincoln and the Nautilus indicated; maps of Keeling Is. and Vanikoro
(with a section view of the latter based on 19th century surveys); detail
maps of Santorin and the Torres Straits (the latter based on the actual
chart mentioned in the book); a scale cutaway of Nemo's secret island; a
drawing of mid-19th century steam frigate like the Abraham Lincoln; a
schematic drawing of a
> Ruhmkorff coil and lamp; a page comparing the Nautilus to about two dozen
19th century submarines, to scale; a page of text, with a photo, on the
origin of the Nautilus; a page on Verne's source for his description of the
squids, with a contemporary illustration; and a schematic drawing of the
Rouquayrol-Denayrouse diving apparatus and suit.
>
> From: "thomas mccormick" <tom_amity~at~hotmail.com>
> > 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
>
Received on Thu 20 Oct 2005 - 03:26:30 IST

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