Meme Translations

>>8672907
KJV

>>8672907
>commonly accepted
when?

>>8672921
Lurk more kiddo

NRSV

>>8672926
been here for years.
why is P/V a poor translation?

Reddit loves P/V, so /lit/ hates P/V. I tend to trust /lit/'s opinion more, but a little evidence here would be nice.

>>8672930
>>8672937
Its apparent in their very process of translation, Volokhonsky does not speak fluent English so translates the Russian text word for word and Pevear who does not speak conversational Russian cleans up the syntax to make it readable.
There's something very mechanical and soulless in the text as a result and its terribly apparent in the dialogue

>>8672947
so who's translation is the best?

>>8672949
Ignat Avsey and Monas are both well regarded, both are such an obvious improvement over P&V that the question becomes pedantic

I have the penguin edition of Gravity's Rainbow. Crucify me faggots.

>>8672937
Someone here once posted samples from each translation. I believe there were 3 examples. The Garnett one seemed to put more emphasis on the quality of prose rather than exact accuracy.

P&V are fine. Think about it: they're the most famous translators of Russian literature, and therefore under the most scrutiny, and in the end all that scrutiny has produced nothing more than two or three oft-cited articles panning them.

When you read P&V, though, you have to know what you're getting. Janet Malcolm, for instance, compared passages from P&V to passages from Garnett to highlight that P&V's translations are awkward. But the reason they're more awkward than Garnett's is that they're more literal. Garnett is what's known as a 'domesticating' translator, which means that she was concerned primarily with making the Russians comprehensible to English readers. It's therefore no surprise that her translations read better. She turns Russian sentences into good English sentences.

I actually prefer Garnett to P&V because I prefer a translation that reads well to one that's more literal. It depends on what you're looking for.

If you're going to go Garnett, though, make sure you get a revised Garnett; she's way better revised than not. See: Crime and Punishment (Barnes & Noble Classics), The Idiot (Modern Library), The Brothers Karamazov (Norton Critical Edition).

>>8672926
that's not a fucking argument

When you're choosing a Russian translation, you just have to ask yourself whether you want characters to engage in a "polite conversation" (Garnett) or a "conversation of decency" (P&V). More English, more Russian.

>>8673043
Clumsy English is not "more Russian", its just clumsy English. This is the problem with the autism that more literal is anything but a flaw, you're only debilitating the ability of the text to convey its message

>>8673100
I didn't say more literal was better. In fact, in my previous post I said I preferred less literal.

But if you think P&V were unaware that they could have translated the phrase as "polite conversation," as first Garnett and then numerous others throughout the twentieth century did, and that they went with "conversation of decency" because they just couldn't come up with anything more natural, then you really must think they're retarded.

The goal of literalists like P&V is to translate the Russians into English, but with an accent. The phrase "conversation of decency" achieves this. Some people prefer this. If you prefer your Russians to speak with a British accent, then go (with me) with Garnett or Avsey.

>>8673121
Ah but you see its the very fact that its intentional that makes them absurd

>>8672907
the negative stigma of P&V comes from their literalist translations. That doesn't make them "bad" per se, but none of us are Russian academics. We don't care about the linguistics or etymological aspects of the translation. We want to read Dostoyevsky. There's just no reason for the average reader to pass up Avsey, revised Garnett, and McDuff translations for something that, frankly, is only successful because of the deafening marketing and neato covers that look pretty on the shelf.

I waited a month for my Avsey translation of The Idiot to ship instead of going to the down the street and picking up the PV because this isn't /int/, this is /lit/ and I want to read what Dostoyevsky meant, not what he said

>>8672907
Literally nothing wrong with P&V. I've read Dost in so many different translations and I enjoyed them all. And actually, P&V notes are probably the best around.

>>8673141
I think you just convinced me to not buy PV translations

>>8673139
Whether translations should be more or less literal, or whether a balance should be struck, or what, is a debate that's been happening for a very long time, and we're not going to resolve it here tonight.

>>8673155
You could say that about most any topic discussed here. Don't be scared of having opinions man

File: 1477164915575.jpg (1MB, 1950x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1950x1200px

>>8672907
>he reads translations

>>8673182
I've made numerous posts in this thread in which I gave my opinion. My point was that to dismiss P&V's literal approach to translation as "absurd" is fine, but one should know he's simply on one side of a very old debate.

>>8673133
I think that gives literalists too much credit. Literal translations aren't an accent in a real sense but more an illusion. Neither representing an actual Russian accent in English nor replicating the Russian response to their own language, which by the nature of it being their language lacks the familiarity of such recognized quirks

So what's the best translation of War and Peace?

I was going to buy the P&V translation but you guys think it sucks.

>>8673296
Revised Maude (Norton or Oxford)

>>8673296
The translation your local library carries should be sufficient.

>>8673305
>Implying i'm pleb enough to read library books.

>>8673308
Why don't you just get books from the library? Does owning books give you a sense of pride? It seems like a waste of money.

>>8672949
Revised Garnett is god-tier

>/li/t suddenly likes Garnett
hmmmm

>>8673362
Don't get memed on.

>>8673362
>suddenly
The consensus was established months ago. Were you not there?

>>8672907
Marian Schwartz is a god-tier translator of Russian literature. Her Oblomov and Anna Karenina are absolutely incredible.

With her Anna Karenina, since I had read it before (P&V translation) I have been making comparisons throughout. I also borrowed my gf's Aylmer and Louise Maude translation. The process of reading, taking note, and reading certain passages in all 3 versions has been enlightening to the extreme.

It seems to me that the struggle of translation is not accuracy or meaning, but finding the balance between both while also retaining certain, more poetic, elements of style.

First, in regards to style it should be noted that Anna Karenina was written in an almost awkward manner, especially in Russian which demanded a very formal presentation. Even in Oblomov the book, Oblomov the character jokes about how he keeps lazily repeating words in the same sentence, or paragraph. This wasn't making fun at Oblomov's laziness actually, but at the Russian style of writing. It's important to keep in mind that Oblomov is used to criticism Russia indirectly... So I really despise when people describe it as" /r9k/: The book". In my mind that means you probably haven't read or understood or thought about the book at all. Anyway, Tolstoy took this idea to the extreme because he was basically fedup with Russian writing formalities, and included many repetitions which are NOT kept in translation (except by Marian Schwartz). Other translators opted for synonyms and alternatives to repeating words which they viewed as "mistakes" -- they were brazen enough to edit Tolstoy, someone who was a meticulous re-writer.

In regards to accuracy vs. meaning, the main dilemma is that an accurate translation can fail to deliver the same meaning and gravitas that the author intended. One example off the top of my head is the scene where Anna is leaving Moscow. She is on the train and begins having some sort of delirious episode. P&V and A&MM both say something like "Anna felt as if she was falling through the floor" Well, I have to ask what the hell does that even mean? This is an accurate translation, but I think Marian Schwartz really nails it with "Anna felt herself being swallowed up". This means a hell of a lot more in my opinion. It expresses a sense of being overwhelmed.

An opposite example, is when Levin returns home after being rejected by Kitty. Again P&V and the Maudes have a similar method.

"You've come back so soon, dear" said Agafya Mikhhailovna
"I missed it...There's no place like home"

Would Tolstoy really use such a cliched idiom? I don't think so, though maybe that is what's present in the original russian. Somehow I doubt it. Schwartz has:

"I missed this...It's fine being a guest, but being home is better"

>>8673467
This is a brilliant exposition. Should be saved for when the topic comes up in the future

File: translationrussian.png (118KB, 637x1049px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 637x1049px

>>8673505
I wouldn't have done this if I didn't see how many errors I made in that post. But anyway, here is an edit and expansion of the post.

The only reason you'd need a pedantically literal translation over a more readable literary one is for study purposes, and if you're that interested in reading for study purposes maybe you should learn the language.

>>8673467
Schwarz is definitely more literally accurate in the last example:
>—Cocкyчилcя, Aгaфья Mихaйлoвнa. B гocтях хopoшo, a дoмa лyчшe, — oтвeчaл oн eй и пpoшeл в кaбинeт. (pt 1 ch 24)
But - if you google search Levin's phrase, you'll see that it is a common russian saying, a proverb. Using a cliched english phrase might - in fact - be accurate as well.
Regarding the first example (pt1 ch29), the original seems to be saying that Anna simply felt a falling sensation, no "swallowing". And I have to say that the "falling through the floor" translations convey the meaning as well as Schwarz. "Through the floor" may be somewhat unnecessary, but I don't understand why that phrase would be confusing to anyone.
(I'm not a real russian speaker, so if anyone here is more familiar with the language and I made a mistake here, please correct me.)

>>8673362
>/lit/ likes Garnett

'Revised' is the key word here. Garnett had a fine way with the English language and her translation flows nicely (not to mention the simple fact of how much Russian lit she introduced to the English-speaking world), but there were serious problems with her fidelity to the texts she was translating, like dropping sections she struggled with and adding her own (often Victorian) editorializing. The Norton Critical edition of Karamazov is good for this since it's Ralph Matlaw's revision of Garnett and he goes into some detail about the issue

Anyone own a Oxford Classics copy of W&P? I will give you a (You) if you post a pic of an open page of it.

>>8674037
Amazon has a preview

>>8674358
I want to see the quality/font size.

>>8673000
Just checked out my copy of Bros K (which is three books out on my "to read" list) and it's the Barnes and Noble Classics series, translated by Garnett.

All it says in the book is

>Constance Garnett's translation first appeared in 1912.

Should I then assume that this is an unrevised copy?

It's my brother's copy, I may just buy my own if there's that much of a difference as far as readability.

>>8676002
Yeah, it's unrevised. Not a catastrophe. Even in her unrevised state, she's still the translation upon which Dostoevsky's reputation in English-speaking countries is largely based.

Ralph Matlaw, when he sat down to write his own translation of TBK, decided after a certain amount of time that he just couldn't do better than Garnett and instead devoted himself to revising her translation. That's the Norton Critical Edition, which in its latest edition was revised again by another scholar named Susan McReynolds Oddo. Amazon and The Book Depository, for whatever reason, don't have a new copy right now. But if you want it you can get it from Barnes & Noble or Norton's website.

>>8672959

/lit/ loves penguin, shithead

>>8672930
It's not. P&V do very good translations. Anons just sperg out and circle jerk this meme for fun.

>>8676098
The Norton Critical Edition re-revised by Oddo and the Oxford World's Classics edition translated by Avsey (re-titled The Karamazov Brothers) are the ones to have.
bums me out that there isn't a good hardcover version of either, but those two are the best you're going to get short of knowing Russian, and considering most people read BK more than once you should have both.

>>8672953
>>8672949
>>8672947
>>8672937
GIBIAN YOU MANIACS

>>8672907
Kaufmann's Nietzsche.
>n-no nietzsche didn't think badly of us jews, that's why I need to expurge some lines. wrangle some others to sound better and add half a page of editor notes on why we're good and why his misogyny is on the wrong side of history

>>8676141
if you have the oddo revision, can you post a sample of it?

>>8672907
Sick and tired of this fucking thread. Make a chart for translations already. And then kill yourselves.

>>8676174
Unfortunately Amazon's book sample doesn't work for that edition. I don't have it personally, I've just spent hours and nights reading about Dostoyevsky translations because I'm into that sort of thing.
It is essentially Garnett, however. Just reviewed and polished by two more pairs of eyes.

>>8676183
no

>>8676183
I'll make a chart eventually

Anyone care to post some comparisons between translations?

>>8672907
>Are there any other translations of major authors that are popularly recommended that should be avoided?

Pretty much anything selected for Penguin Classics.

>>8676224
Hi, Penguin is Bad meme guy.

>>8676239

What meme? This is literally the first time I ever posted this.

Penguin Classics genuinely use some of the worst translations, probably because they're public domain and Penguin Classics is considered a thrift series.

>>8676269
That's not really true, I can give you a few examples: Martin Hammond's Meditations is one of the most highly regarded translations of Aurelius, and it's certainly better than Grube's for Hacket. The Penguin edition of Oresteia is by Robert Fagles, now while being a looser translation than others, is still very beautiful and done by a knowledgeable classicist. The penguin edition of Siddhartha is done by Hilda Roesner, the best translator of Hesse.

>>8676224

Apropos Karamazov, the Penguin edition is the McDuff translation. It's gud

>>8673296
P&V is great. It's a little awkward, but I think it really captures Tolstoy's prose style (admittedly I have only taken a couple years of Russian so I'm not totally qualified to claim that) better than other translations, which just put Tolstoy's content in a very English prose style.

>>8676551
>>8673296

I'm generally not a fan of P+V, but I will say that they do faithfully render Tolstoy's deliberate repetitions instead of smoothing them over with synonyms.
They still wouldn't be my first choice for W+P; I would go with the Maudes (Tolstoy's personal choice or Ann Dunnigan

>>8676598
choice)

>>8673963
Good point. But again, the problem of translation is choosing how you translate. idiom for idiom, accuracy, meaning, etc.

>>8676105
He said that because it's a shit edition with misprints

>>8672907
Any translation of Nietzsche that makes him sound like the KJV. Alot of new people will try to skimp and go for the free version on Gutenberg and get turned off.

>>8672947
>Volokhonsky does not speak fluent English so translates the Russian text word for word and Pevear who does not speak conversational Russian cleans up the syntax to make it readable.
That sounds avant-garde as fuck and cool though

File: i_o9VLxmcic.jpg (42KB, 604x554px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 604x554px

Is it true that Dostoevsky is a good writer? I'm Russian but I've never read his books.
Privet.

>>8678179
I don't know, I don't talk russian so I haven't really read Dostoevsky either.

>>8673000
>suddenly realised it is the Brothers Karamazov instead of the brothers Karazmanov

i feel stupid now

File: qwop-o.gif (933KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 320x180px

>>8678168 et al

Here is a visual analogy of the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation method

We really need a sticky for the translations...

Like one in every 10 threads or so about translations about books we've mostly come to a consensus of about which translator is best or most suited toward your needs.

>>8678179
t. шкoльник

>>8678305
You just have to trust in meme magic to spread the truth

>>8672947
so how do they communicate with each other if they are both shit with the other's language?

>>8679181
I assume they have an intermediary language thats neither Russian or English

>>8672907
>Its become commonly accepted on /lit/ that P&V are terrible translation
Just because a couple of you fags keep repeating that P&V are terrible doesn't make it "commonly accepted" fuckface. Thanks for making this board a little worse by the way.

>>8679181
She speaks English. See YouTube.

>>8672907
The P&V meme is a forced meme. It's literally the most celebrated modern translation (though there's a vocal minority championing the Avsey trans)

>>8676098
Whoa wait, are you saying the new Norton edition with Oddo is a revision of Garnett, not an entirely new translation? I'd been holding off because I couldn't find a good edition of Revised Garnett, but now I'll pull the trigger on that if it's true.

>>8679679
Yeah and modern literary journalism is a shitshow so who cares.

Google "The Pevearsion of Russian Literature" for an explanation of why their translations are inferior written by the leading Slavist in North America.

What is the best translation for Dead Souls?

>>8672907
I speak french and english
What's the best translation for The Idiot?