Fans of classic literature may be interested to note that the Everyman’s Library has just released a newly translated version of Alexandre Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo.
Everyman’s always produces lovely, easy-to-hold editions, and this volume is definitely on my must-buy list. However, I’m a little nervous about the company’s claim that this translation “presents Dumas’ work as it was meant to be written.”
I can understand a new translation that presents the work as it was meant to be read; but as it was meant to be written? Can we really go back and second-guess how Dumas meant to write the book and “correct” it accordingly?
Everyman’s publicists also note that this “slightly streamlined version of the original 1846 translation speeds the narrative flow while retaining most of the the rich pictoral descriptions and all the essential details” of the book.
Huh? So, which of the “rich pastoral descriptions” were not included? And exactly what got “streamlined”?
I know that Dumas is no Hemingway, but are we really supposed to go back and do a developmental edit on an author’s work some 160 years after its publication?
This entry was posted on Friday, June 12th, 2009 at 12:43 pm and is filed under Land of Literature. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

“I’ve worked with the staff at Dragonfly for years, and I trust their editing completely. We’ve used them on federal proposals, commercial proposals, IT documentation, marketing collateral … you name it. They are especially helpful on large projects, when we need a team of editors to get a lot done in a short timeframe. They also have great writers who can handle everything from white papers to case studies. Dragonfly is our editorial dream team!".
Latest Comments