3 ms·

The article praises a new english translation by Flora Thomson-DeVeaux

legerdemain 6y ago
That's because the article is a review of the translation. Published book reviews are of two kinds. Either the publisher of a book gets some magazine to print a review as a promotional tactic, or the book is notorious enough on its own for magazines to review it, so that they can capitalize on its notoriety. In the case of the former, the review is a paid promotion, so it is invariably positive. Regardless of how sincerely Dave Eggers loves Machado in general and this translation in particular, he is still being paid to rhapsodize about them. You can take away the facts that there is a new translation of Bras Cubas and that it is being actively promoted, in the New Yorker, by Dave Eggers. But those are not, on their own, reliable signs that the new translation is good or necessary.
- gen220 6y ago
  This is a good insight. I’m still not sure whether I think the P&V translations of the Russian classics are any better than the old ones, or whether it’s the opportunity to fawn over the classics again that’s given them such good reviews. Who doesn’t want a good excuse to read Dostoevsky again, decades later? It makes it very hard to know which translations are “good” without, well, reading them yourself. I’ll also offer that quality is in the eye of the beholder. Different people want different things, and the popular conception of good is a moving target. Today, people seem to like a translation that borders on transliteration, preserving archaic words and obscure metaphors as they were written. It’s a fashion that’s subject to change.
- azepoi 6y ago
  The novel has been translated several times into many languages https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9moires_posthumes_de_Br%C3%A1s_Cubas#Traductions https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9moires_posthumes_de_Br%... https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem%C3%B3rias_P%C3%B3stumas_de_Br%C3%A1s_Cubas#Em_outras_l%C3%ADnguas https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem%C3%B3rias_P%C3%B3stumas_de...

That's because the article is a review of the translation. Published book reviews are of two kinds. Either the publisher of a book gets some magazine to print a review as a promotional tactic, or the book is notorious enough on its own for magazines to review it, so that they can capitalize on its notoriety. In the case of the former, the review is a paid promotion, so it is invariably positive. Regardless of how sincerely Dave Eggers loves Machado in general and this translation in particular, he is still being paid to rhapsodize about them. You can take away the facts that there is a new translation of Bras Cubas and that it is being actively promoted, in the New Yorker, by Dave Eggers. But those are not, on their own, reliable signs that the new translation is good or necessary.

gen220 6y ago
This is a good insight. I’m still not sure whether I think the P&V translations of the Russian classics are any better than the old ones, or whether it’s the opportunity to fawn over the classics again that’s given them such good reviews. Who doesn’t want a good excuse to read Dostoevsky again, decades later? It makes it very hard to know which translations are “good” without, well, reading them yourself. I’ll also offer that quality is in the eye of the beholder. Different people want different things, and the popular conception of good is a moving target. Today, people seem to like a translation that borders on transliteration, preserving archaic words and obscure metaphors as they were written. It’s a fashion that’s subject to change.
azepoi 6y ago
The novel has been translated several times into many languages https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9moires_posthumes_de_Br%C3%A1s_Cubas#Traductions https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9moires_posthumes_de_Br%... https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem%C3%B3rias_P%C3%B3stumas_de_Br%C3%A1s_Cubas#Em_outras_l%C3%ADnguas https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem%C3%B3rias_P%C3%B3stumas_de...