Modern natural sound isn't really what I like, I guess

[cimorene]

Although I have been intrigued by the recent translations of Chrétien and Robert de Boron, they also lack the charm and archaic language of William Morris's faux romances. So maybe what I need are Victorian translations, although my googling from Morris revealed lots of Middle English words so he perhaps read originals. Or, apparently he was a big fan of Scott's Waverly, so I might try that, although I have previously given up on Ivanhoe.

Comments

Vague natter about translations

[stranger]

I've noticed that recent (after 2000, maybe after 1990) translations of La recherche du temps perdu and Anna Karenina are kind of clunky and off-putting, while the 1930s or 1950s ones have better style in their English. Whether those are better matches for the tone or spirit of their originals, I can't say, but I'm a lot more inclined to keep reading the older translations after a few pages.

And... this may have nothing to do with translations from the 12th century.

Re: Vague natter about translations

[cimorene]

I think that actually may be relevant. I don't necessarily want to say the modern translations I've read recently are less elegant, except inasmuch as they are deliberately reflecting a cadence and style and sound more like modern prose, which includes a very anti-poetic trend. I think the translators are going for a sound, if read aloud, like modern prose, and that's extremely distant from the cadence and rhetorical devices that make something lyrical. You get more of those in modern speech writing than modern fiction!