Good translations for Dostoyevsky? I heard Garnett wasn't very good.
>>8600241
you heard wrong.
Garnett, Avsey, McDuff.
P&V is easily the best.
People are going to reply saying they suck, but don't listen - its a meme.
>>8600258
Why is it a meme?
What makes them better than Garnett and MacDuff?
>>8600258
garnett is better. Pevear himself says as much in this video. he's almost apologetic for his wife's poor english, which is funny in and of itself, he knows little russian and she knows just enough english, neither is fluent in both languages. not a whole translator between the two of them. but Pevear near the 40 min mark says that it would be difficult to find a better translator than Garnett.
oh, here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ykytca6Y8
Oh boy, this thread again!
>>8600343
OP here, and I'm new to /lit/
I'm sorry If I just started a marvel/DC shitstorm that ruined /tv/ for me.
>>8600349
Garnett Partisan checking in. P+V is literalist trash.
The essay about Dostoevsky in The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation recommends Alan Myers's version of The Idiot, saying it's the best available.
Ignat Avsey's The Karamazov Brothers also gets a favorable mention; it's also recommended a lot here.
Michael Katz's The Devils is good.
Garnett was a good translator, and lots of scholars have praised her work. She did make some mistakes, though, so keep an eye out for versions of her translations that have been revised by scholars.
Think about this: Every modern English-speaking translator grew up reading Garnett and most likely "fell in love" with Dostoyevsky because of her. Are there betters out there? Sure, but that doesn't mean Garnett is bad.
The Sticky book source is gone. Any link to garnett and P+V.
>>8600335
if your reading comprehension is as bad as your viewing, then i weep for your soul, as you likely lack the capability to read your bible well enough for salvation.
>>8600241
You heard wrong. Garnett is fantastic. Don't fall for the P&V shilling.
Garnett is certainly the most literary, but that is why she's criticized: Dostoevsky's style is not "literary" except where irony is intended. That's because being "literary" back then was an ideal of a lot of youths with their heads in the clouds, as in the story Dostoevsky relates about the woman who killed herself to be like Ophelia from Hamlet. In fact, the conflict between the literary and philosophical, and reality, is a major theme in Dostoevsky. Be it in Notes from Underground, where the narrator is acutely aware of this tension, or Crime and Punishment where the protagonist is so swept up by the power of ideas that he loses touch with reality enough to murder people, something that is totally out of character for who he is deep down, which is a quiet and compassionate, albeit courageous, altruist. Dostoevsky sees atheistic communism as the dangerous and dark, mass-manifestation of this.
Is Ready's translation any good?
>>8600241
You heard wrong, revised Garnett is by far the best. The idea that she's suddenly bad now is a meme perpetuated by people who don't read Russian, probably haven't read Dosto and certainly haven't read one of his books in two translations.
>>8601537
Yes but that cover is so bad I wasn't sure if it was a joke or not until I looked it up.
>>8601125
>implying salvation comes from personal interpretation of the bible and not from strict adherence to the Sacraments as ordained by the Catholic Church
wew lad enjoy your eternal hellfire