Vintage, once a good publisher, is now in the business of launching new, dumbed down translations of classics.
The magic word here is "new": Anything, as long as it is "new", has to be good...It is one of the most common idiocies of our "fast food" , "don't think too much"
society.
This horrible translation could have been done without even consulting the French original. John Doe could make this translation, for example. He would need to know English in depth but
he wouldn't need to know one single word in French...
All he needs to do is to get a more elaborated translation, such as the one by Charles Wilbour, and make it a little shorter, using less and "easier" words.
Then, with the right friends in the media and academic circles, he would get enthusiastic critics and his "new translation" would be a
success. Too bad for the good translations that would loose their space on the shelves of bookshops. But who cares?
If you read "Les Miserables" translated by Charles Wilbour you will have more of a "19th century experience" than if you read this dumbed down translation. You will also have a much richer vocabulary than if you read this translation by Rose something.
Oh, yes. I could have written the full name of the translator but by writing just "something" I believe that I keep in the spirit of this mediocre translation.
PS. I checked Vintage's website and it was an interesting experience because the website does reflect a publisher which is launching dumbed down translations of classics.
The website is inelegant and looks like one of those cheap, collective websites that sell everything, from tooth paste to books...