Tell me what other translation he approved that he got wrong. >Also Nabokov couldn't read Spanish so he's not the best judge.
He put effort into understanding as much as he could about the translations of his work outside of the three languages he was fluent in. The man spent a lot of time on translations, more than most authors.
Rutherford takes poetic licence but gets the feeling across, whereas Grossman translates literally. Read Rutherford's sonnets and Grossman's prose, but either is fine overall.
The correct answer is Tom Lathrop and don't let any of the morons in this thread tell you otherwise. Lathrop was Starkie's student, who himself was a Don Quixote translator. He made his own spanish version before he made his translation. He has made very valid criticism of both Rutherford's and Grossman's translations, and shows a much deeper understanding of Cervantes' language and style than all the other translators.
Learn early modern Spanish and read the original as intended. It's not much more work if you already know late Carolingian Latin.
Oh, well in that case, piece of fuggin' cake bro.
You can learn normal spanish and understand DQ perfectly
you're not a Cervantes scholar; the edith grossman translation is fine
Grossman and Rutherford
although I haven't read it myself I've heard a few people highly recommend the Tobias Smollett translation.
Putnam. He took 20 years and it's Nabokov approved.
>Nabokov approved.
Not a good sign. Also Nabokov couldn't read Spanish so he's not the best judge.
Tell me what other translation he approved that he got wrong.
>Also Nabokov couldn't read Spanish so he's not the best judge.
He put effort into understanding as much as he could about the translations of his work outside of the three languages he was fluent in. The man spent a lot of time on translations, more than most authors.
This was the translation that made Nabokov call DQ a "crude book". He only chose it because it was the most recent translation at the time.
>Nabokov approved
into the trash it goes
Walter Starkie
Burton Raffel and John Ormsby
https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/996
ive been reading the rutherford version and have been enjoying it a lot. how different is the grossman one?
I recently got a copy, whichever affordable paperback I found (Oxford press). English translation by Charles Jarvis.
What am I in for?
Mother language is Greek but I've been reading books in English for 20 years. I do NOT intend to learn Spanish.
cervantes has already been outclassed, you should look for a translation of menard instead.
So what's the verdict? Rutherford, Grossman or Lathrop?
Edburg. Or Wythenshawe, if you're feeling cheeky.
is this a bot post? who? I don't know these people. I couldn't even find anything on them about DQ.
Rutherford takes poetic licence but gets the feeling across, whereas Grossman translates literally. Read Rutherford's sonnets and Grossman's prose, but either is fine overall.
The correct answer is Tom Lathrop and don't let any of the morons in this thread tell you otherwise. Lathrop was Starkie's student, who himself was a Don Quixote translator. He made his own spanish version before he made his translation. He has made very valid criticism of both Rutherford's and Grossman's translations, and shows a much deeper understanding of Cervantes' language and style than all the other translators.
Also Lathrop has gotten recognition by the Spanish king for his work on Cervantes fwiw
> and shows a much deeper understanding of Cervantes' language and style than all the other translators.
How so?