Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tony Nance Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: (Tears) Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:13:09 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:13:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b356cc7a831544e79fc0372a3e6f0129"; logging-data="2536254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+M8Msj2UW+Fkw8dq+DDwLEdkW+wcbe+Gs=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:LnMxd3etEhavn59VCdMo++BGx6s= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3243 On 10/15/24 9:17 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote: > On 14/10/2024 09.03, Tony Nance wrote: >> On 10/13/24 5:03 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote: >>> On 13/10/2024 12.15, Robert Woodward wrote: > >>>> My copy of this is an early 1960s Scholastic Book Library edition >>>> without translator credit or credit for the one interior illustration. >>>> The ISFDB doesn't acknowledge the Scholastic Book edition I have, >>> >>> I can't believe that there were that many early 1960s SBS editions. >>> The ISFDB >>> has mine: >>> >> >> Hm. I had read this as a kid, and I have no idea which version I read. >> Many many years ago, having seen discussions here about poor >> translations, I picked up a more recent copy, but I haven't read it >> yet.[1] >> >> My copy is a Bantam Classic 1981 printing of a 1962 copyrighted >> version translated by Anthony Bonner, with an Introduction by Ray >> Bradbury. The Bradbury intro is 12 pages long, titled "The Ardent >> Blasphemers". >> >> Poking around a little, it seems this is a fine translation, but they >> cleaned it up and improved it in 1985. > > I have the Bantam Pathfinder edition: > > > I pulled it off of the shelf to find out what translation it is, but its > contents start with page 23, so that was less than helpful. I would think > it likely that Bantam might have re-used the translation. Any way to find > out for sure? Where did your research take you? > Seems very likely to be the same translation I have, especially since the date listed under the Contents line on the isfdb page you linked to says "1962". This page http://www.najvs.org/works/V006_VL.shtml seems to have info on many translations, and was the source of my "1985" improvement. However, it appears I misread that - 1985 was not the improvement, it was what a 2003 post was referring to. So the improved Bantam translation may well have been 2003. Tony