ddickinson: You are right about his usage of the language being clever, beautiful and indeed epic. I think he was one of the better authors to deal with old texts and poems such as these as he was one of the few men who could actually understand the language and structures they were written in.
The thing I have always loved about Tolkien, even from a young age, is that with his books, such as The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, he never dumbs them down. Too many translators and writers end up either dumbing the text down for the general reader (which I understand, they want to sell to as many people as possible after all) or they break the flow of the verse/poem.
Take Beowulf for example, many authors seem to change the structure of the story, use translations that don't match what the original text intended, and some even add new content and characters. But with Tolkien, he never seemed to have intentionally betrayed the original text in order to dumb it down - The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun can be quite a hard read for many people just because he kept it as intact as possible and did not dumb it down.
Well said, especially about the dramatic changes to the text and characters that Professor Tolkien never seemed to feel were necessary.Obviously part of the issue is that many of them are trying to make the translations more palatable to a modern audience but he respects the work enough on its own to avoid this.
In fact I'm meeting with frustration in trying to find a copy of the Jeremiah Curtain translation of Henryk Sienkiewicz's With Fire and Sword, which is the only translation authorized by the Polish author. My library system only carries the most recent 1991 translation which apparently changes the entire tone of the novel, and the used bookstores I frequent(I try to avoid the chains whenever possible, for both ethica
l and financial reasons) only have the translations by Samuel Binion. Although he wrote it at the same time as Curtain, I'd rather wait until the Curtain version is available to me, much as I want to read the book.
Spinorial: Once you become discerning enough, you might realise that Kevin J. Anderson is a terrible writer, period. Personally, I'd advise you simply not to bother with him at all - heed the wisdom of those who've come before, etc. Luckily, there's good alternatives for every licensed IP he's written for, so there's no real loss.
Sanderson is very good, though as I pointed out to trenton just yesterday, I've yet to see anything as good as The Final Empire out of him. Still, if it's a decent yarn with solid worldbuilding you're after, Sanderson is golden, enjoy!
Ah Anderson. As a 'beardling' I read his Jedi Academy trilogy because I could not get enough Star Wars:Expanded Universe stuff. I tried rereading it about 7 yrs ago and it was just awful. I attempted his Dune novel written with Brian Herbert and again could not finish it, and thought it was a travesty to the original.
Spinorial: I suppose I ought to share my current readings, too. At the moment, I'm introducing myself to Guy Gavriel Kay with
Ysabel. Enjoyable enough, with interesting historical tidbits. Sadly, I was somewhat let down after the lovely prose in the Prologue. The book's quite fun, no question, but the style favours a broader appeal.
Just prior, I finished
Speaker for the Dead, O.S.Card's sequel to
Ender's Game. The change in focus, the emphasis on tough questions of understanding and coexistence with others, both alien and human, was very welcome and definitely relieved my worries of a mere cash-in. Ender's character took on an annoying Messianic tinge though, which kept the book from being truly great in my view. Still, I'm definitely interested in seeing the quadrilogy through.
Unfortunately the only Guy Gavriel Kay novel I've read has been The Lions of Al-Rassan. Fortunately, I found it a wonderful work of "historical fantasy" and highly recommend it, especially if you know much about the real-world Reconquista era of Spain.
