The most recent addition to the complete review is my review of a new translation of Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa's The Professor and the Siren, brought out by New York Review Books.
This translation is by Stephen Twilley -- and just last year Alma Classics brought out a volume covering similar territory in the UK, translated by Stephen Parkin, titled Childhood Memories and Other Stories (see their publicity page). The NYRB Classics volume uses quotes from two recent reviews (Joseph Farrell's in the TLS; Nicholas Blincoe's in The Telegraph) of the Alma Classics/Parkin edition/translation as 'blurbs' on the back cover -- which strikes me as a bit ... misleading. Yes, it's sort of clear that they refer to Tomasi di Lampedusa's work as opposed to this specific edition -- in fact, both quotes refer specifically (if not necessarily obviously) to what is the title piece in the NYRB Classics collection -- but .....
On the other hand, the NYRB Classics back cover also has quotes from reviews/commentary by E.M.Forster and Edmund Wilson (unattributed to any periodical), both specifically (i.e. by name) mentioning the story 'The Professor and the Siren', which surely refer to yet another, earlier translation; oddly (or not ?) those don't bother me as much -- it's obvious they don't refer to the translation/edition at hand (or is it ? unlike the two other blurbs, they include the name of the title-piece -- which happens also to be the title of this collection ...).
Obviously, in choosing blurbs for translations, new ones or first ones, publishers will often use quotes that don't refer to the specific translation and edition being published -- historic commentary, foreign-press commentary (of the foreign versions, etc.) all are widely used. How far can/should one go here ? At what point does it seem too much of a stretch ? (These are blurbs we're talking about, so obviously there's a lot of ... elasticity .....)
I know pretty much all reviewers (and publishing professionals) and perhaps most readers are pretty jaded about blurbs; still, this seems to me perhaps pushing the use-in-good-conscience envelope a bit far. Thoughts ?
This translation is by Stephen Twilley -- and just last year Alma Classics brought out a volume covering similar territory in the UK, translated by Stephen Parkin, titled Childhood Memories and Other Stories (see their publicity page). The NYRB Classics volume uses quotes from two recent reviews (Joseph Farrell's in the TLS; Nicholas Blincoe's in The Telegraph) of the Alma Classics/Parkin edition/translation as 'blurbs' on the back cover -- which strikes me as a bit ... misleading. Yes, it's sort of clear that they refer to Tomasi di Lampedusa's work as opposed to this specific edition -- in fact, both quotes refer specifically (if not necessarily obviously) to what is the title piece in the NYRB Classics collection -- but .....
On the other hand, the NYRB Classics back cover also has quotes from reviews/commentary by E.M.Forster and Edmund Wilson (unattributed to any periodical), both specifically (i.e. by name) mentioning the story 'The Professor and the Siren', which surely refer to yet another, earlier translation; oddly (or not ?) those don't bother me as much -- it's obvious they don't refer to the translation/edition at hand (or is it ? unlike the two other blurbs, they include the name of the title-piece -- which happens also to be the title of this collection ...).
Obviously, in choosing blurbs for translations, new ones or first ones, publishers will often use quotes that don't refer to the specific translation and edition being published -- historic commentary, foreign-press commentary (of the foreign versions, etc.) all are widely used. How far can/should one go here ? At what point does it seem too much of a stretch ? (These are blurbs we're talking about, so obviously there's a lot of ... elasticity .....)
I know pretty much all reviewers (and publishing professionals) and perhaps most readers are pretty jaded about blurbs; still, this seems to me perhaps pushing the use-in-good-conscience envelope a bit far. Thoughts ?