What's the best translation for The Brothers Karamazov?

>>7684802
>translation

>>7684802
Avsey

File: fedora-cape.jpg (41KB, 350x463px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 350x463px

>>7684815
>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

>>7684821
Thanks. Do you know if there are any hardcover editions of an Avsey translation?

>>7684843
you heard it here first: knowing multiple language is for m'ladies

>>7684971
No but making fun of translations is for neckbeards looking to feel superior about something very insignificant.

>>7684920
I'm sure one exists. MacAndrew and McDuff have pretty good translations as well

I liked McDuff's. I've heard good things about Avsey's.

>>7685075
Cool, thanks anon.

Someone want to tell me if Vintage is decent?

>>7685004
>falling for the translation meme

>>7684802

>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

>>7685004
it's a joke man. no one reads russian

>>7684802
Garnett revised by Matlaw, published by Norton

>>7686984
>>7687583
Thanks for the help guys.

P&V’s translation style (one translates from Russian to literal English, the other tidies it up with little Russian of his one) gives me nightmares.

I read the P and V and thought the writing was shit, did I fuck up?

>>7689034

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.

Whole lotta REDDIT in here.

P&V are especially good translators of Dostoevsky and numerous Russian literature professors will confirm this.

>>7684802
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.

>>7689619

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?

>>7689627
Clumsy, repetitious, rambly. A lot of corny expressions like "white as a sheet", etc. it just seemed rough and unpolished

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.

>>7686984
Whats wrong with Constance Garnett Translation?
I'm currently half way through and enjoying it very much.

>>7689995
literally nothing is wrong with it.

>>7689652
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.

>>7690015
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.

for those curious enough to hear them say this, but don't want to watch the entire video...

https://youtu.be/H2ykytca6Y8?t=3836

>>7689995

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.

>>7685341
Who's the translater?

>>7690263
>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

>>7690279

What P&V say about Garnett's work is irrelevant. Also, tell us exactly what part of >>7690263 isn't true.

>>7690360
eh, why bother? you're just copypastaing without having any evidence of any of this yourself, whereas the preeminent russian translators of our time praise her for her quality.

>>7690377
Ha to all of that
Look at your dubs though

Not trying to hijack the thread from OP but I don't think this deserves its own thread; I've heard the Everyman's Library version of Oblomov is the best. Anyone confirm/ deny that?

>>7690743
http://www.amazon.com/Oblomov-Ivan-Aleksandrovich-Goncharov/dp/1933480084
this is the one i gots. it's nice.

>>7690743
http://www.amazon.com/Oblomov-Ivan-Goncharov/dp/1512329959/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455313483&sr=1-2&keywords=oblomov

It literally does not matter. You will never read Dostoevginny in his original language because you are not a dirty Eastern European

>>7684920
College libraries in the states often have hardcover Oxword Classics.