[jgfoot]

But remember that War and Peace was not originally written in English, and the quality of translation matters a great deal. With Russian literature especially, the quality of translation varies widely, and some of the best translations into English are still copyrighted. A bad translation might faithfully reproduce the text's literal meaning but badly mangle the literary elegance that made the book so acclaimed in the first place. I'd rather pay $14 for a good translation than spend 1100 pages regretting being cheap.

[colomon]

Sure, but the 99 cent edition in question almost certainly is the Project Gutenberg edition, mangled by a third-party file conversion.

(On personal note, a few months ago I decided to read Les Miserables. I read a few chapters in one of the modern translations and the same material in the Project Gutenberg version. I concluded that IMO the Gutenberg version was clearly the superior translation.)

[why-el]

I agree, but I think in the case of Tolstoy, or even Dostoevsky, the best translations also have their copyrights expired, since they were written usually few years after the works were published. I read a French version of Anna Karenina (Recommended by the way) once in hard copy, then reread the Gutenberg version, and to me the literary differences were minimal.

[duaneb]

I can't speak for Tolstoy, but the Gutenberg version of Dostoevsky was atrocious compared to the Pevear & Volokhonsky translation. FOr a more modern example, Simone de Beauvoir's first translation was by an unskilled botanist who happened to know french and english. A recent translation came out that is night and day compared to the original, but it will enter public domain some fifty years later.

[opminion]

the quality of translation matters a great deal

Indeed. The English translation of Jules Verne's "The Mysterious Island" in Project Guttenberg is an "old" one which censors certain aspects of Captain Nemo's anti-colonial background.

[javajosh]

Really? "The Mysterious Island" is one of my favorites, and I'd be curious to know what, exactly, is being elided in the Project Guttenberg edition. Is this something you noticed yourself, or something you read about?

[opminion]

I found out in Wikipedia, unfortunately after I read the book... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Island#Publicati...

An excerpt from Kingston's translation: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1268/1268-h/1268-h.htm (this is the one I read)

"Captain Nemo was an Indian, the Prince Dakkar, son of a rajah of the then independent territory of Bundelkund. His father sent him, when ten years of age, to Europe, in order that he might receive an education in all respects complete, and in the hopes that by his talents and knowledge he might one day take a leading part in raising his long degraded and heathen country to a level with the nations of Europe."

The corresponding excerpt from White's translation, which is also in Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8misl10h.htm (closer to the original French)

"In Captain Nemo was an Indian prince, the Prince Dakkar, the son of the rajah of the then independent territory of Bundelkund, and nephew of the hero of India, Tippo Saib. His father sent him, when ten years old, to Europe, where he received a complete education; and it was the secret intention of the rajah to have his son able some day to engage in equal combat with those whom he considered as the oppressors of his country."

And the original French

"Le capitaine Nemo était un indien, le prince Dakkar, fils d’un rajah du territoire alors indépendant du Bundelkund et neveu du héros de l’Inde, Tippo-Saïb. Son père, dès l’âge de dix ans, l’envoya en Europe, afin qu’il y reçût une éducation complète et dans la secrète intention qu’il pût lutter un jour, à armes égales, avec ceux qu’il considérait comme les oppresseurs de son pays."