Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Jack-Campin t1_iycs8g0 wrote

Worth close to zero and will never be more. Collins was one of the biggest publishers of the time and they probably printed 50,000 of those.

They used durable materials and good bindings though. It might be nearly 100 years old but it'll stay usable with no special care for another 100.

35

jefrye t1_iycnaeu wrote

The only translation I would recommend reading is the Robin Buss translation, which is widely acknowledged to be far and away the best unabridged version. The translation you have could be only slightly inferior, or it could be very bad and/or abridged and/or Bowdlerized.

13

Parzzzzival OP t1_iyco1vy wrote

I just checked and there’s no mention about who translated it :(

5

jefrye t1_iycodyn wrote

I can tell you it's definitely not Robin Buss—his translation was first published sometime in the 2000s.

7

Parzzzzival OP t1_iyconub wrote

Well, only thing I could do now is to read it after finishing ‘House of leaves’ (my current read). And I hope this edition of Monte Cristo will sell for a lot after many years, lol

−1

lydiardbell t1_iycpoch wrote

Until Buss, most translations of Monte Cristo were anonymous (and a couple of named translators were actually only editing the first anonymous version).

3

fromorphantohighflye t1_iyd7zqs wrote

I think I speak for many here when I say that picking the 'best' translation of an old/classic book out of the numerous translations that exist can be bloody irritating at times. There always seems to be 2/3 translations that different people recommend for different reasons.

I was in a bookshop last month and they stocked two different translations of the same book. One had over 100 pages more than the other.

5

Of-Lily t1_iyeff92 wrote

I probably speak for many fewer, but I find it worthwhile to do a google-search-worth of due diligence. However the question that I’m trying to answer is not necessarily which translation is ‘best’ but rather whether I will have a preference. There isn’t always a ‘definitive’ translation (where opinion is fairly unanimous, as in this case). At which point an overview of competing opinions allows me to apply my own personal subjective criteria. For example, I tend to prefer the clarity of modern translations. Or, I may lean toward a fresh perspective like this Or, I may just want to confirm that the convenient option isn’t the edition that has universally panned. I admit…I am ‘worst’ adverse. 😉

1

Of-Lily t1_iyczrfv wrote

Fair point. Translators matter. TCoMC is a masterpiece…and a decided time investment. IMHO worth picking up a newer edition for the reading.

2

AuctorLibri t1_iydgwxj wrote

This! I thoroughly enjoyed my re-read of this version.

1

it_mike t1_iycrh6n wrote

Define "old"

When was it published and what edition?

1

Parzzzzival OP t1_iydf82b wrote

It says the edition was first published in 1955 and this one was printed in 1964 (twice)

1

MaimedJester t1_iydlhrh wrote

Here's a fun adage for book keepers evaluation: if the author was dead by the time it was published the edition you have isn't worth much.

I stumbled upon a a copy of The Mint by T. E. Lawrence he signed as Shaw and I recognized the raitity of that at an estate sale and have no fucking idea how someone let that go through but I guess nobody freaking heard of Lawrence of Arabia's other novel and his preferred pen name post war.

But yeah Long story short if the author was dead by the time this edition was published it's not a collectors item..

1

Parzzzzival OP t1_iydlsdx wrote

That’s a really good way to judge it, thank you :). And oh my, did you buy it?

2

MaimedJester t1_iydnaee wrote

Yeah I had to buy a bunch of Robert Graves and Remarque first editions that were included with the set so I overpaid for them to get my hands on that particular copy. There's not even a bluebook value on a signed copy of the Mint because that's far into Lawrence's depression/mental illness days of his life before the motorcycle crash.

0

ZeMastor t1_iydozil wrote

No dust jacket, book has never been out-of-print, 1955 edition by Collins... it's not going to net a lot of money in resale, but the content is timeless.

Since your photo (with the dust jacket) says "1120 pages", it would be unabridged, and taken from the anonymous 1846 Chapman-Hall translation. It might be possible that a few words might vary from other editions, but it's basically all the same.

The only OTHER unabridged translation was by Robin Buss in 1996, only on Penguin Books (and exclusive, and still under copyright).

From an reading enjoyment standpoint, the Robin Buss one is definitely superior. But having ANY copy of Monte Cristo is good.

1

CrazyCatLady108 t1_iye7uem wrote

Hi! The places like /r/BookCollecting or /r/rarebooks are better equipped to help you out. Please make sure to check their rules before posting. Good luck!

1