The Master and Margarita Reprint Now Available

https://www.foliosociety.com/uk/the-master-and-margarita.html

£49.95

Thanks for the information. Waited a long time for it.

Purchased!

Confirmed it’s printed in Wales.

This was a sneaky one, I didn't get an email or anything about it.

>4 RRCBS:

Really?

I feel sorry for the poor chap who purchased it 4 days ago in eBay for £200! Four times the FS price.

I am thrilled about it! Although I still haven't received my previous order, I think I am going to go ahead and place a new one.

Always wanted a nice edition of this. Will add it to my sale order, unless it looks like it'll sell out before June.

ETA: Anyone know if this contains Richard Pevear's own introduction and notes? I understand it contains an introduction by Orlando Figes but am wondering it this is in addition.

>6 adriano77: That would be a first as far as I'm aware. Could this be a new printer?

>6 adriano77: I was told printed by Gomer in Camarthen, Wales.

As far as I can see, the only difference between this reprint and the earlier edition is the FS logo on the spine is the new format instead of just the word "Folio".

>9 RRCBS:

Interesting. As Levin says it seems a first.

I wonder if it's buckram or plain cloth.

>9 RRCBS: >11 adriano77:
Around since 1892!
https://gomerprinting.co.uk/

I think this'll be a popular move by Folio.

>5 L.Bloom: just got the email

>12 Levin40:
Absolutely, I grew up with Gwasg Gomer books (mainly due to attending a Welsh-medium school) and personally would love to see more FS books printed by Gomer, it may sound a bit silly but aside from the postive aspects of supporting a long-standing UK printer etc, it would lend a real sense of nostalgia and personal connection for me. Sadly in the case of this M&M reprinting, I already own a copy of the previous printing, or I'd be all over this one.

Ordered.

Folio said it’s the Pevear translation.

>8 Levin40: ETA: Anyone know if this contains Richard Pevear's own introduction and notes? I understand it contains an introduction by Orlando Figes but am wondering it this is in addition.

Sorry, missed this before my earlier post! The previous printing includes only the Figes introduction, and not the Pevear introduction/notes, so I expect this would be the case with the reprinting too, though others who purchase this version may be able to confirm when their copies arrive. My copy just has a very short note on the text/acknowledgement by Pevear and Volokhonsky following the Figes introduction.

Is there a possibility that this sells out before the summer collection is released? I'd like to combine the order but I don't want to miss this one.

>18 L.Bloom: I would guess not, but it is always possible. I suspect there will be a low stock counter if it gets close, so if it were me I would wait, but depends on what premium you are willing to pay for certainty.

>19 abysswalker: Well said sir. I will let my FOMO subside.

>18 L.Bloom: I am planning to order w summer collection too, but am keeping an eye on it just in case. If it gets too low I will place two orders, but I’m hoping for just one.

>20 L.Bloom:
>21 coffeewithastraw:

I wouldn't expect it to sellout that quickly either, but if you're really worried about missing it, I'd suggest maybe just checking each day/every couple of days how many copies the site will let you add to your basket. That way you'll have a sense of the pace at which it's selling and can decide on when to order based on that.

>22 agitationalporcelain: right- that’s how I keep an eye on it :)

Edit: I have a wishlist stock spreadsheet...this is probably an indication of a problem.

>23 coffeewithastraw: Sounds perfectly sensible to me - but how sensible my idea of sensible is, is another matter ;)

The Summer collection can't be more than a few weeks away - I would imagine you would be safe but you never know

>23 coffeewithastraw:, >24 agitationalporcelain:

It's okay, you're among friends. We understand :-)

This is where the Folio Society should concentrate: a brilliant book which everyone should read, attractively designed and published to very high standards.

I do like to see a full cloth binding on a reasonably expensive book like this one.

>27 English-bookseller:
This is where the Folio Society should concentrate: a brilliant book which everyone should read, attractively designed and published to very high standards.

Totally agree, and fab that they are using a British printer. However, I won't be buying: I sold my previous edition off mainly because I realised I couldn't abide the P&V translation. I much prefer the Glenny version, which I bought in an Everyman edition. Nowhere near as attractive a production admittedly, but do prefer the words!

>28 Willoyd: "I much prefer the Glenny version, which I bought in an Everyman edition."

Sadly, I have to agree. I've kept both copies because I really like the aesthetics of the FS edition but the Glenny translation makes for a much better read.

>28 Willoyd: I will have to try the Glenny version. I read P&V in the 50th anniversary Penguin edition and felt the prose was a bit flat. Not speaking Russian I was not sure if that was translators or original. I actually like P&V for Dostoevsky but want to try a second translation of this one. Now how to handle the Folio edition dilemma ....

>29 kdweber: I third this sentiment and also will stay with the Everyman’s Glenny edition.

>28 Willoyd: I purchased it but it will be interesting for me how I get on with the P & V translation. They seem to be an either love them or hate them translation for Russian titles based on previous discussions had on the forum. The Russian titles I have read to date have been by other translators and I have been happy enough with those translations for Tolstoy, Chekhov and Turgenev. I will give them a go so I have my own conclusion on there translation.

I love P&V for Dostoevsky, but already have and love the M&M Glenny. Love the aesthetics of the FS version though...so might get it anyway.

Curious, what's the main gripe here with P & V translations?

Not read anything they've done but elsewhere I've seen the critique that they do a poor job of capturing character voice, so everyone "sounds" same-y and sterile. Truth to this? Seems to me, if they're doing an accurate and faithful translation, this shouldn't be so much of an issue...

>34 adriano77: The main critique I have seen is that, in trying to stay as close to the original as possible, they sometimes end up with English sentences that don't read well/are awkward. For an author who uses numerous idioms, etc., that can be tough to read in English. I personally like that they try to stay close to the original - one thing that drives me nuts is when translators try to smooth over the language to read easily in contemporary English. Shakespeare translated to current literary styles would lose quite a bit IMO.

>34 adriano77: This article I found might prove useful - https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/master-and-margarita-best-translat....

Here's one sample given of the P&V translation: "Having returned Woland’s gift to Margarita, Azazello said goodbye to her and asked if she was comfortably seated, Hella exchanged smacking kisses with Margarita, the cat kissed her hand, everyone waved to the master, who collapsed lifelessly and motionlessly in the corner of the seat, waved to the rook, and at once melted into air, considering it unnecessary to take the trouble of climbing the stairs."

And here's the same paragraph from Glenny: "Having returned Woland’s present to Margarita, Azazello said goodbye to her, enquiring if she was comfortably seated; Hella gave her a smacking kiss and the cat pressed itself affectionately to her hand. With a wave to the master as he lowered himself awkwardly into his seat and a wave to the crow, the party vanished into thin air, without bothering to return indoors and walk up the staircase."

The writer opines "there’s very little to decide between the Pevear-Volokhonsky and Burgin-O’Connor versions; they say pretty much the same thing in slightly different ways. Glenny’s is the outlier. His translation seems easier to read, but the ease may come at the expense of exactitude."

I just ordered M&M and used the Shakespeare sale to grab one of the last Othello letterpress editions. Should arrive in CA by July. :)

>35 LBShoreBook: >36 AMindForeverVoyaging:

Thanks.

I'm torn on this. On the surface, I'd prefer an accurate translation, as close as possible. On the other, seeing those examples, there's a bit of awkwardness and lack of fluidity (for English) in the P & V translation. However, the Glenny one, while keeping faithful to the message, seems to take a bit of liberty. Tough to find a balance probably. I'd like to have an enjoyable read but still go away feeling as if I read Bulgakov and not some other people, heh.

>17 agitationalporcelain: Thank you. I think it's a shame when they make cuts like this, especially the notes. I could understand it in cases where notes stretch to hundreds of pages and are composed mainly of references. But in this case they run to only about 15 pages and really help in the understanding of the historical context of both Soviet Moscow and Roman-occupied Judea.

>36 AMindForeverVoyaging: I'm always impressed that people have time to read classics in multiple translations. I've only read the P&V and frankly it seemed fine to me. In the sample above I actually prefer the P&V and would say there's more awkwardness in the Glenny (particularly the 'without bothering to return indoors', which seems superfluous, unless it's explicitly like that in the original...and I prefer the imagery of 'collapsed lifelessly and motionlessly in the corner of the seat' to 'lowered himself awkwardly into his seat'). And I agree with >35 LBShoreBook: that it's actually an advantage if there's a slightly foreign feel to the whole thing. Would be interesting to try the full Glenny one day though.

>38 adriano77:
I'm torn on this. On the surface, I'd prefer an accurate translation, as close as possible. On the other, seeing those examples, there's a bit of awkwardness and lack of fluidity (for English) in the P & V translation. However, the Glenny one, while keeping faithful to the message, seems to take a bit of liberty. Tough to find a balance probably. I'd like to have an enjoyable read but still go away feeling as if I read Bulgakov and not some other people, heh.

It's always a problem reading a translation and I so agree about feeling torn. Just looking at those extracts in the article >36 AMindForeverVoyaging: links to underlines the issue: those two 'more accurate' examples, however 'accurate' they might be (and I've no way of judging, not knowing any Russian) are horrible to read in English, at least IMO.

I started reading P&V because everybody seemed to rave about their translations, but I gave up after goes at various texts because I found the English execrable. Comparing Crime and Punishment texts finally did for me with them - the contrast between their work - which I'd tried to start 2 or 3 times - and Oliver Ready's was like day and night. Initially I thought this was just me, but, reading around further, I am relieved to find that I'm not alone in my views on P&V, and have now accepted that I'm prepared to accept a degree less authenticity in exchange for the pleasure of reading decently lucid (even if apparently 'old-fashioned' in one or two instances) English.

Having said all that, and having read around a bit more on translations, the Glenny does get very mixed reviews now. Maybe I should give Burgin-O'Connor, or the more recent Aplin, a go. Would be interesting to compare.

Mine has just arrived along with a few Bonds and Akhmatova.

The gold title and author name on the spine looks to be slightly patchy up close, and there are a few very slight marks to the top and bottom of the book’s pages, as well as a few inside the slipcase. The others are pristine so far.

I have tried to give a fairly realistic description, but it probably still sounds worse than it is. It is definitely not BOTNS bad, but I’d be interested in hearing others’ opinions when their copies arrive.

>40 Willoyd: there is a useful discussion back in 2011 comparing translations. Particularly see this comment:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/115485#2991658

>42 abysswalker: Not speaking Russian, and not being a translator, there are phrases I like in each and phrases I find awkward in each. Can somebody do a mashup please?

Seriously, I think with each translation there will be things to admire and dislike. There is always something lost in the translation. To me the question becomes if this were the only translation available would I still enjoy the read? The answer, for me, is yes. The follow up is would I enjoy it more with the other translation? Maybe, maybe not, but probably for me in this case I would also enjoy that version, just in a different way.

I plan on ordering because I love the illustrations and FS quality.

A recent discussion of P&V's translation approach that I found interesting: https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed.

I've ordered on the strength that I missed out the first time and there's been considerable enablement since then. I'm also keen to support FS's choice of a UK printer & binder family business and that business in turn. But I'm alarmed by the crticisms of P&V, which I have to admit seem well-deserved from the extracts referred to here. Fortunately, I already have the Everyman Glenny translation, but what the hell? M&Ms are addictive and two must be better than one.

>44 JacobHolt: Very interesting. Not trying to derail this discussion from M&M to W&P, but I did find the P&V translations discussed to be quite clumsy.

I compared the P&V and Maude translations covered in the article to my copy, translated by Anthony Briggs. Here's how he rendered those passages:
1. "You see, sir, I've lost my company. I've no idea where I am"
2. "It's terrible!"
3. "struggling and fighting over a boot"
4. "Picked it up, did you? That's a good 'un!"
5. "A bit of fire and heat for the infantry"
6. "with their heavy load"
7. "my friend"
8. "buttoned his coat, straightened his clothes"

I do like it better than the P&V. Getting back to Master and Margarita, I have only read it in the P&V translation and did find it a bit of a slog.

>46 coynedj: I always find arguments regarding translations to be completely subjective and there is not one 'best' translation. People just have to find what translation suits them best. The same argument goes for who is the best performer of Beethoven's piano sonatas. My favorite is Arrau but there are so many others: Barenboim, Kempff, Brendel, Fischer, etc. They all have their own interpretations and are special in their own unique way.

>45 boldface: Jonathan, you will most likely be alarmed at P&V's translation. Their literal renderings frequently result in an unnatural, awkward English prose. Sometimes they translate an idiomatic expression word for word, rather than its underlying meaning. Their translations can be impressively tone deaf. To my mind, the P&V phenomenon shows what a great deal of marketing money can buy, though I accept they could be useful for the language student, for example, who wants a highly literal translation and isn't bothered about loss of natural syntax, tone, register, poetry, and other non-literal meaning. I bought this Folio edition years ago because I loved the binding design and the illustrations, but I have the Everyman's Library edition (Glenny translation) as my reading copy.

>44 JacobHolt: I only have experience with P&V The Master and Margarita (not as good as Glenny to my ear) and some Dostoevsky, a while back; maybe just Notes from Underground. I remember the Dostoevsky being okay, but I’ve read most of his work in the Garnett translations. So I haven’t read the War and Peace translation that McWhorter is critiquing. But wow, that is some rough wording (the P&V). Amazed it got past an editor. And it doesn’t seem like McWhorter is cherry picking the worst instances (even that would be bad enough).

The linked post above is a long read, but worth it for anyone who enjoys the Russian classics in translation.

>48 cronshaw: "I bought this Folio edition ... because I loved the binding design and the illustrations, but I have the Everyman's Library edition (Glenny translation) as my reading copy.

Looks like this will be my mantra also. It beats me how P&V have been so successful. Can it really be down, as you suggest, to aggressive marketing? Perversely, though, I'm still looking forward to getting the FS edition!

I am surprised by the amount of vitriol on this thread for P&V. While I run across the occasional rough sentence and I did not *love* the prose in M&M, I generally like their translations (e.g., Dostoevsky, Gogol). I pasted below a link to an older but, I think, interesting take on the "translation wars." As someone noted above, to each their own.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars

>51 LBShoreBook: I was just going to write this. I really do not understand the intense dislike and even hints that they are successful simply because of marketing. Russian literature is my favorite genre and P&V are among the best, especially with Dostoevsky. They have won and been nominated for multiple translation awards and have many fellow translators who praise their work. Maybe I'm in the minority but the first time I read Bulgavok's classic was by another translator and I am glad Folio is using P&V.

>52 Joshbooks1:

I tend to agree. And while I understand the points people make about the literalness - I want that. A footnote to explain an idiom would be nice, but I don't want English idioms thrown in. And I certainly don't want Garnett's revisions.

>51 LBShoreBook: >52 Joshbooks1: >53 Jason461:
As said more widely, each to their own (thank goodness!). I have nothing against P&V, know nothing about the marketing etc, but, having tried their translations on recommendation, found them pretty unreadable. But then I'm not a believer in 'literal' translations - I know enough French and German to know that languages don't translate literally - and accept that for languages I don't know, I'm having to rely on the translator translating the spirit and the meaning for me too. Sometimes they go too far (for instance, I personally can't abide the Julie Rose translation of Les Miserables), sometimes not far enough - and for me I suspect that's where P&V sit. However, I'm delighted if their work works for others - if it opens up these great authors to a wider range of people to enjoy. Being a translator must, in some ways, be a pretty thankless task!

>41 caesarofcaesars: The gold title and author name on the spine looks to be slightly patchy up close, and there are a few very slight marks to the top and bottom of the book’s pages, as well as a few inside the slipcase.

Anyone else receive a copy in this condition?

>55 NoughtsAndCrosses:

The copy I received this week has no issues whatsoever - no marks, no rubbing, at all. There are a couple of tiny marks inside the further recesses of the slipcase, but there is nothing commensurate with it on the covers of the book, which is pristine. I'm very pleased with the Gomer Press and I hope FS sticks with them for many more future productions.

>51 LBShoreBook: this is the perennial question when translating old works. Should a translator sacrifice accuracy of words for a better sense of the meaning, or vice versa?

Ultimately the only way to read a book without something being lost is to learn the native language, and even then the experience will be slightly different if it’s not the reader’s native tongue.

If you really love a book, multiple translations can help you get a fuller experience.

The only thing which annoys me is when an old book is given a ‘modern’ translation. Books written in the 19th century should sound like they were written in the 19th century, whichever language they are read in. For that reason I tend to enjoy contemporaneous translations which the likes of P&V want to update.

>57 Uppernorwood: “ Books written in the 19th century should sound like they were written in the 19th century.”

The other way to look at is that 19th century authors wrote in a style contemporary with their time, so to maintain the same spirit 21st century translators should write in a style contemporary with our time. 19th century readers felt like they were reading a modern novel, so translators should make us in the 21st century feel like we are reading a modern novel.

>58 jroger1:
But presumably you’re happy reading Dickens, say, rather than a modernized and - for modern tastes - abridged Dickens?

(I’m all in favour of re-imaginings via graphic novels etc. but I’m not altogether convinced by the perspective offered.)

>58 jroger1: So do you think that a modern edition of Dickens should be rewritten using 21st century language so that we feel like we're reading a modern novel? After all, that was Dickens' intention at the time.

Edit - >59 GusLogan: was posting at the same time as me, and also used the example of Dickens!

>60 CLWggg:
Unflatteringly for Dickens, perhaps…

I personally do not believe that the language of classics ought to be modernised. The themes explored in classics are sometimes just as relevant as now, but more often than not, the books were meant to represent their time, not those which were yet to come. Books to me also represent a snapshot of what was and how it influenced what was to come. To try and assign the intention that the author wanted the book to always read as a modern work is a bit...presumptuous maybe?

For me, the attempt to modernise the translation of a classic is akin to modernisation of the themes itself, which would be silly. There are plenty of slightly older books which get edited to be more politically correct (like the Enid Blyton books, etc.), and that is just wrong.

To give the translation of a 19th century classic "a modern twist" is something i do not wish to see, which is why I have stayed aways from P&V translations.

But as someone else pointed out, this particular version might be suitable for those who are learners of the russian language since it is so very literal. I am learning Russian, which is why I decided to go for it.

Did FS use the P&V translation for the previous edition as well?

The book was published in 1966, im not sure how 'modernized' P&V had to be. I'm not really sure if any of this matters, I read solely for my pleasure, and my pleasure alone. Most of the time we dont have the convinence to pick between multiple translations but when we do, if the overall gist is the same, who cares? I was so looking forward to Proust's new Penguin translation for years only to highly prefer Moncrieff's version, even if it is more flawed and not as accurate. Its wonderful when there are multiple options for people to choose from and there certainly isn't one right option.

>58 jroger1: Here’s Headley’s opening line of her translation of Beowulf:

“Bro! Tell me we still know how to talk about kings!”

(I’m half convinced this was designed to get people talking about it on social media. Which, if true, mission accomplished I suppose.)

Happily, multiple translations can coexist.

>58 jroger1: that view invites the question why no one ‘translates’ Dickens or Austen into 21st century English? After all if French and Spanish speakers would prefer a modern version, why wouldn’t English speakers?

The answer is obvious, and it doesn’t take much effort to apply the same logic to translations.

‘Everyone knows that a rich single man must be looking for a wife’

Doesn’t quite have the same gravitas does it?

>64 abysswalker: Reminds me of my flat mate who had a modern ‘street bible’ gifted on the occasion of his baptism.

Part of the divine punishment for Eve’s disobedience was that “women have to put up with men runnin’ the place from now on”.

King James it is not.

>57 Uppernorwood:
I understand the perspective expressed here about older vs. newer translations, but it seems contrary to most other threads I’ve read in this forum. Usually FS has been commended for using recent Penguin translations, e.g., M. A. Screech’s “Gargantua and Pantagruel,” while Easton Press has been criticized for reproducing early out-of-copyright editions. Each approach has its fans.

>67 jroger1:
It's not the actual age of the translation that matters but the age of the language used, or at least the feel of the language, and it's that which I think you'll find people are getting at. I'm with Uppernorwood in generally disliking modern style translations of older works. However, a modern translation can work really well if the translator takes due regard of the language used. Equally, early out-of-copyright editions can be excellent, but quite a lot were abridged or altered in one way or another to lose some of the original book - I think that's the main criticism rather than the actual age of the translation. There are, of course, various shades in between.

Seriously, yes, I wish I had the time to read everything and the various translations.

In the meantime: vin ordinaire = Ford Transit.

If you want more, there's a large Clue archive on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLbO-tCCjdOeEsuwZLgJ17Kqax2bfh0NW

Series 15 is as good a place to start as any (Willie was still in full voice) (none of it makes any sense, after all :-))

>64 abysswalker:

Beowulf is and extremely interesting case in terms of translations. It's written in what now amounts to a dead language, and there's not really way to render it into English that sounds like it's from that time as English as we experience it did not actually exist then.

Given that, it seems there's no reason not to keep modernizing it. What's the difference, really, between a translation that's 1100 years removed versus one that's 1300 years removed?

For my personal preference, I'll take the Heaney every day of the week. But that's just me. Others will prefer this recent thing and if you want the dusty old ones, well, have at it.

>64 abysswalker: >71 Jason461: - That "Bro!" is absurd. While I see valid points on both sides of the "make it sound as if it's of it's time" vs "make it read more smoothly to a modern audience" debate, that example is taking things much too far. I'll take Heaney's translation as well, and not bother looking elsewhere.

>64 abysswalker: “Bro! Tell me we still know how to talk about kings!”

A little late to the party but... DID YOU JUST CALL ME BBBRO?