Does anyone have this book in hardcover? If so, do me a favor?

In the meantime, feel free to discuss the book.

>>8533687
Everyman's uses the Maude translation so go with that one.

>>8533687
Bartlett's version came out at the same time as Schwartz'. Bartlett refashions Tolstoy much like Garnett, and other translators. They remove his repeated phrases and epithets and replace them with synonyms.

I'd recommend reading Schwartz' because hers was edited in part by the guy who wrote the article about the "peaverization of russian lit" or whatever it was called. If he endorses her translation (he also wrote an introduction for her) then I will go with that one.

Besides, Schwartz' translation of Oblomov was also incredible.

>>8533794
Yeah, I was actually a big proponent of Maude because Tolstoy himself recommended, but after reading Gary Saul Morson's article denouncing P&V, in which he heaps praise on Constance Garnett, I started to sample again those old Garnett translations I thought I should stay away from and they're actually really good. Garnett is a great English stylist, better than the Maudes, and Tolstoy himself is said to be a great Russian stylist, so I think a good style is appropriate. You may say that it's well known that Garnett made mistakes, but that's why I try to find versions of her translations that have been revised by scholars. And if they aren't revised, I say go with her anyway, her translations are the ones that made the reputations of the Russian novelists in America and England.

Why am I going on about Garnett if the translation in the picture is Bartlett's? Well, I decided after reading the Morson article that what I look for in a Russian translation now is good English, so I'm done with the awkward P&V translations. Bartlett writes good prose and she says in her introduction that she tries to stay true to Tolstoy's style at the same time, including his repetitions, for example. In any case, I like the way the translation reads, slightly better than I like the Garnett revised by scholars for the Modern Library edition, which is the version, based on my research and sampling and comparing, that I'd recommend to anyone, and then the Maudes second or third (after revised Garnett, Garnett, and Bartlett) simply because the Maudes are a bit more awkward and have less English mastery. Anyway that's a long way of saying I'm gay.

>>8533814
I think I read the same review of Bartlett's that you did, where the reviewer takes Bartlett to task for deleting some of the reinstances of the word "jealous." But then I went to read the full excerpt and I think Bartlett did preserve the sense that the character was repeating this clichè to himself to try to convince himself of it, even if she did have one fewer repetition or whatever. And Bartlett herself mentions in her Intro that she's aware of Tolstoy's repetitions. So I still like the Bartlett.

Furthermore, it's simply really hard to know what translation to go for. Morson's article makes the case well that Garnett is much superior to P&V. Then you read a review of Bartlett, and it compares her disfavorably with P&V, and it ends by telling you that if you really want to know what Tolstoy said, you need P&V. So it's all confusing.

>>8533842

Bartlett does seem like a great translation. I just wanted to let OP know of the other contemporary translation.

It's just a difference of translation style, and I stated my preference (which is partly based on reading Schwartz' Oblomov), but they both seem like excellent translations.

P&V all day

>>8533687
There's a waifu on the cover. So go with the Oxford one.

Levin is the best char, his love and desires are most pure. Anna is a complete piece of whore trash

>>8533814
You mean this one?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300203942/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1M8QY65MIJPQ2&coliid=I2QGJ0MATVDW1E
Anyone else able to comment?