What's the best translation for The Brothers Karamazov? If I was fine with the Crime and Punishment translation by P&V will this one be fine too?
If I were to get the P&V translation, should I spend the extra $14.63 to get the Everyman's Library version over the Vintage one?
What about Demons, is the the P&V translation for that good too? And should I get the Everyman's Library over the other edition?
>In addition to speaking my native English, I've also acquired the linguistic skills of Deustch, Le Français, pýccкий язы́к, العَرَبِية, Latīna, Ἑλληνιkή Hellēnikḗ, 官話, 日本語, Españoland Italiano
>What's the best translation for The Brothers Karamazov?
* David Magarshack: older-style, but better quality than Constance Garnett
* Ralph Matlaw's revision of Constance Garnett: ditto
* Andrew MacAndrew: a fairly loose translation, but still good quality
* David McDuff: well-respected modern translation
* Ignat Avsey (titled The Karamazov Brothers): ditto (and the one I would give the edge to, as it reflects a greater effort to break from what was established in earlier translations)
>What about Demons?
* Magarshack (titled The Devils)
* Maguire: more modern
Right? People believe the hype partly I guess because there are two and they think that leads to twice the insight. I think the Maudes were a good team with Tolstoy, but with these two, and their individual flaws and their problematic method, the result is actually twice as much opportunity for error.
read Constance Garnett.
seriously though, just compare excerpts and go with the one you like. it's all down to preference. if you're really concerned you're not getting enough from it, it's not unrealistic to tell you just to read it in the original.
It's not a total disaster since you still got the story etc. in its essence. P&V aren't everything they're made out to be though, for sure. Out of curiosity, from your experience what would you say was bad about the writing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ykytca6Y8 you just listen to volokhonsky talk and tell me that she's fluent enough in english to translate russian into it with the help of a cuck editor husband.
dostoevsky isn't known as the greatest stylist. his prose is clumsy, repetitious and rambly. P&V are the translators that keep that. constance garnett, mcduff and co smooth it out and make it nicer. but you're not reading dostoevsky.
have you read dostoevsky in the original, or are you just repeating that age old meme? you know, P&V themselves commend garnett greatly for her amazing work, and specifically say that for the most part, she is absolutely accurate.
There are good things about Garnett's translations. For one, I appreciate how they clearly come from a time much closer to the original works. Plus the fact that it was she who brought so much Russian lit to the English-speaking world. That's a double-edged sword though: she translated so much volume that she didn't spend much time on the quality of the work. If she didn't understand something, she would often just skip it. She would also make changes that suited her sensibilities, omitting additional content for this reason. She would even make her own editorial additions to the original, for example something of note in The Brothers Karamazov.
>is still suffering the eternal meme of constance garnett's quality, while exactly one post before that, there's pevear and volokhonsky praising the constancy of constance garnett.
can't make this shit up, folks