Milton’s “Paradise Lost” gets modern translation
Today I found this interesting editorial in the New York Times by Stanley Fish (who, I might add is the dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at my alma mater, University of Illinois at Chicago). In his piece, he writes about a new “translation” of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, which basically turns the poem into everyday-English prose.
The book is written by Dennis Danielson (who is a distinguished Milton academic) and is called Paradise Lost: Parallel Prose Edition (aff link), where the original poem is in the left-hand column and Danielson’s translation is in the right-hand column. Fish notes that Danielson thinks this new edition of the classic poem will pursue more readers to read it:
The value of his edition, he says, is that it “invites more readers than ever before to enjoy the magnificent story — to experience the grandeur, heroism, pathos, beauty and grace of Milton’s inimitable work.”
My reaction to this new book is somewhat split. On one hand, this is really no different than all the other study aides, reader guides, commentaries and so forth that already flood the market for students and casual readers alike. On the other hand, however, I always tend to believe that works like Paradise Lost are best read in their original form. The downside to this, of course, is that the original form turns a lot of people off. But with some careful, close reading and a lot of patience, I’ve found even Paradise Lost can be read in it’s original state without the use of translations.
The one big downside to books like Danielson’s is that you are basically reading one person’s interpretation of the poem. This often limits readers in their own reading and interpretation of a work and, in a sense, places blinders on the reader.
But in reading this editorial, it sounds like Danielson doesn’t want to interject his own interpretation onto the reader, as Fish points out:
It is from this strenuous and often frustrating labor that Danielson wants to free the reader, who, once liberated, will be able to go with the flow and enjoy the pleasures of a powerful narrative.
Sounds like a noble cause, right? The problem is, the reader becomes dependent on such interpretive works, and uses them as a crutch. While Danielson might be freeing the reader to enjoy Milton’s work without actually having to do the “work” of reading, he’s still giving you a one-sided idea of what Paradise Lost is all about. Stanley Fish gives a great example of this. I’m not going to re-hash his argument, I’ll let you, the reader, read it and come to your own conclusion.
What do you think about Danielson’s work? Is he doing the reader a favor, or simply providing just another crutch for the reader to use to avoid actually having to read the original writing? Why or why not? Let us know your opinion below. Don’t be shy, I promise not to bite!
Related Posts
- Lost in translation: America’s deficit of translated books
- Top posts at Brad’s Reader
- What is the new world’s worst poem?
- Is the short story dead?
- The problem with poetry today
Read More: Classic Literature, Literary News
