Constant Reader discussion

Here's the new schedule for the first half of next year, including the nonfiction choice. Please let me know if you have questions or see any errors.

January
Classics: no book

Reading List (15th) – Cloudstreet by Tim Winton, nominated by Ruth (448 p.)

February
Classics (1st) –A Land Remembered by Patrick D. Smith, nominated by Ann M. (403 p.)

Reading List (15th)- Rough Sleepers by Tracy Kidder, nominated by Molly (320 p.)

March
Classics (1st) – Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad, nominated by Barb (419 p.)

Reading List (15th) –The Swan's Nest by Laura McNeal, nominated by Jane (320 p.)

April
Classics (1st) – Palace Walk by Naguib Mahfouz, nominated by spoko (501 p.)

Reading List (15th) – Devil in a Blue Dress by Walter Mosely, nominated by spoko (263 p.)

May
Classics: Fathers and Children by Ivan Turgenev, Nicolas Pasternak Slater, et al, nominated by Barb (225 p.)

Reading List (15th) – The Bee Sting by Paul Murray, nominated by Justin (656 p.)

June
Nonfiction (1st) – Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here: The United States, Central America, and the Making of a Crisis by Jonathan Blitzer, nominated by spoko (544 p.)

Reading List (15th) – I Cheerfully Refuse by Leif Enger, nominated by Lynn I. (336 p.)

Lynn, thank you for your work in compiling the schedule for the first half of next year. What an amusing ordeal that turned out to be! Great spectator sport for me however.

As for Lord Jim in March, one of my own favorites, the schedule should be edited. The link in the schedule is to a paperback edition featured on goodreads.com that is actually 455 pages long. My own beloved, used, Everyman's Library (Knopf), hard cover edition is 419 pages long.

It seems only right to give fair warning to the one Constant Reader, other than Barb Moors and I, who might consider taking on Lord Jim that it is not a short novel. (It is not excessively long either for that matter, but it is considerably longer than 242 pages.)

Thanks, Steve. I just used the number of pages that was listed in the nominations list Gina posted. I'm not sure where she got that, but it was Barb's nomination, so I assumed that she supplied the info. It would have been helpful to know that it was a longer book, though, as I was trying to balance short and long books in the schedule!

As for the book link in the schedule, I just pick the first one that comes up when I search Goodreads. I can update it to show your beloved Everyman's Library version, though, if you'd like to send me the link to that specific edition :-)

Finding the page count for Lord Jim was very confusing. On Amazon, it lists the Franklin Library edition as having 318 pages. The Penguin Classics one was 286 pages. Those were both hardback editions. That seemed strange to me so I looked elsewhere and found it at the 419 pages that I cited. I confess that I can't remember where I found that number. However, I just looked on goodreads and it says that the paperback edition published by Broadview Press is 455 pages. So, I think we might be in the ballpark (hopefully).

I'm going to be at my library on Tuesday. They have a number of editions of the book and I'll look at them. But, online, it says that the Everyman Edition is 396 pages. The Norton Critical Edition (and you probably know how many additional articles are in those) is 561 pages.

I wanted to note that I nominated Fathers and Children by Ivan Turgenev because there is a new translation, which has been praised, by Nicholas Pasternak Slater and Maya Slater. That is the one I bought and will be reading. This will be a reread for me and I think it will be interesting to see if it has a different feel. However, it definitely is not a requirement for participation. If you would like to use a different translation, that will be fine.

Barb,
I got that translation for Christmas. It will be a reread for me too, but I have to admit that I don't remember much about my earlier read.

Barbara wrote: “I wanted to note that I nominated Fathers and Children by Ivan Turgenev because there is a new translation, which has been praised, by Nicholas Pasternak Slater and Maya Slater. Tha...”

This is the second book in translation that I’ve read recently which has me angry before I even start, owing to the mistranslation of the title! Your reference to Fathers and Children sent me looking for the original title, which I honestly expected to be Отци и сыновья (Fathers and Sons) and instead I find exactly what you referenced—Отцы и дети (Fathers and Children). Why on earth has this been mis-translated for so long?

As much as I’m tempted to read it in the new translation (not least because they’ve managed to get the title right), I’m reading the audiobook, and the reader of that translation . . . leaves a lot to be desired. I’m listening instead to Anthony Heald’s reading of Constance Garnett’s translation (which manages to get the title both right and wrong—she translated it correctly, and the audiobook publishers incorrected it.)

spoko wrote: "This is the second book in translation that I’ve read recently which has me angry before I even start, owing to the mistranslation of the title!..."

I suspect the title is "Fathers and Sons" because "Fathers and Children" assumes the presence of sons and daughters. But there aren't any daughters in the novel--only fathers and their sons.

Tamara wrote: “spoko wrote: “This is the second book in translation that I’ve read recently which has me angry before I even start, owing to the mistranslation of the title!...”

I suspect the title is “Fathers a...”

I thought of that too, but Turgenev certainly could have named it Fathers and Sons, and he didn’t. So whatever he was implying, why deliberately destroy it in translation? He might have been trying to call out their childishness, he might have been trying to include a broader group than just direct offspring—I haven’t read it, so I can’t say. But it does seem to have been a conscious choice, and there also seems to be a conscious choice to alter it.

I don't mean to suggest there aren't any women in the novel because there are. But there aren't any significant father and daughter relationships.

I don't know why Turgenev chose to call it Fathers and Children. The translators probably should have respected his choice, but having read the novel three times, I think the title Fathers and Sons makes more sense.

On the other hand, I would never presume to change the author's choice of a title for his novel.

Could Russian work something like Spanish? In Spanish sons are hijos , daughters are hijas. But children in general are hijos.

Ruth wrote: “Could Russian work something like Spanish? In Spanish sons are hijos , daughters are hijas. But children in general are hijos.”

No, it doesn’t. “Sons” is сыновья, and that wouldn’t include daughters (дочери). You could use сыновья и дочери, of course—“sons and daughters.” But дети is simply more than one child, regardless of gender, just as “children” is used in English. Turgenev used that in his title.

Just a wild idea, Spoko. Thanks for setting me straight.

Ruth wrote: “Just a wild idea, Spoko. Thanks for setting me straight.”

Yeah, it’s a good guess. Just doesn’t happen to apply to Russian.

I'm going to join y'all for Lord Jim. My copy at home seems to have a 1958 publishing date (was probably my father's) (Houghton Mifflin's Riverside Editions), and it's 300 pages. Can't believe I've never read it.

Sometimes literal translation changes the feel -- even the point or thrust -- of a phrase or passage. I have no particular views on the translation on Turgenev's title (and it's been eons since I studied Russian, anyway), but I do know a few people who have translated literature and poetry professionally, and I now understand it to be so much more nuanced and complex (and intimate?) than I previously thought.

I'm glad to see that you will be joining us for Lord Jim, Erika. I just posted the opening note.

You make excellent points about translation. It is truly an art form in itself. That's why I am always eager to read new translations of books that I've read before. Translating poetry must be the hardest. I have no idea how that is done successfully.

I love books that immerse me in another world. Our April CC selection, Palace Walk definitely does that for me. The book is a family saga set in Egypt starting in 1917.

Much as I love books about foreign cultures, I often have a hard time remembering foreign names. I found this list of the book's characters at this site:

https://www.bookcompanion.com/the_pal...

The above list is the names of the characters by chapter. There is also a link for an alphabetical list of names at the top of the page.

Ann D wrote: “I love books that immerse me in another world. Our April CC selection, Palace Walk definitely does that for me. The book is a family saga set in Egypt starting in 1917.

Much as I lov...”

I haven’t been struggling with the characters in Palace Walk as much as I often do with books that feature such an ensemble cast. Speaking of which, it’s interesting that the link you posted so clearly identifies Amina as the protagonist. I suppose she’s as good a candidate as any, but I actually don’t think there is a single—or even a primary—protagonist. This might be something to discuss in the book’s thread next month, I guess!