First time dipping my toes into Dostoevsky and I'm going

>>8388185
Oliver, Garnet is ""fine"" but it changes a lot of things for being "inappropriate", P&V are a fucking joke.

André Markowicz is the best Dostoyevsky translator.

>>8388185

Hello OP. I've only read the Garnett translation, and I read it at a time when I didn't bother about selecting the "right" translation.

I found the Garnett translation to be a pleasant read, but I think a big complaint that modern audiences (/lit/) have about it is that it is a bit stilted and "too-nineteenth century", ironically, even though the whole point of reading the book is to read a great nineteenth century novel.

I can't speak for the other translations, only give you an idea of what Garnett is like. You just have to be willing to think just a little bit while you're reading, and it'll come to you. If you come to some hard bit or a reference you don't understand, I would recommend just jotting a note, skipping over it, /keep reading/, and maybe come back to the issue you had every chapter or two. don't stop every paragraph and check for annotation. I made that mistake as a kid when reading Joyce's Portrait (I would literally flip to the back for every single annotation) and I destroyed the reading experience for myself. You're smarter than you know, and you can pick up most of the necessary context, especially with a book like C&P.

Personally I've read a little bit of Dickens and I find his native-English prose to be significantly more taxing than Garnett's English translation of C&P, or TBK for that matter (which I've also read).

>>8388185
most translations are perfectly fine.
i'm currently on Part 5, reading the Monas translation, and I'm enjoying it very much. I compared several passages between Monas, P&V, and Garnett. Garnett had the best dialogue and general prose but I didn't like the archaic terms and I think Monas captured Dosto's themes better here and there. P&V is also good but I ended up picking Monas simply because the book was smaller and more comfortable ergonomically.

It's the general consensus that translations aren't terribly important for Dostoyevsky's writing because he's so straightforward and modestly-spoken. I'm almost 400 pages in and I don't think he's made a single flourish in the prose or anything "artsy" for the sake of literary art. He just says what he wants to say and that's it(not to imply that he isn't long-winded).

>>8388185
When it comes to translations newer is generally better, especially with Russian Literature. It's not an easy language to translate, and the science/theory/technique of translation keeps getting better.

I'm reading a brand new translation of Oblomov and enjoying it. I haven't read others, but I'm happy with my choice. I might try Schwartz' Anna Karenina eventually as well and compare it to P&V's translation.

So yeah, go for Oliver Ready

It doesn't matter. The mere act of translation displaces the language to a degree that it's impossible to be "correct", there's so much ambiguity and subjectivity in choosing the words. So anything you pick up, save for abridgements, won't vary too much in quality.
Despite the understandable flak she gets I'm a fan of Garnett. She reads a hell of a lot better than a good majority of the translators of her day and there's also the fact to consider that the great writers of the 20th century read the Garnett version if they read it in english.