Once and for all, what the fuck translation of dosto should i

>>8897315
>P&V
surely is reddit here, get garnet you homo mongo

>>8897315
>>8897320
Neither P&V nor Garnett. Not unrevized Garnett, anyway.

>Bros K
Revised Garnett
McDuff
Avsey
McAndrews
Magarshack

>C&P
Coulson
Ready(don't know anything about him, but people seem to be into it)
Monas

>The Idiot
Avsey
McDuff
Revised Garnett

Demons
no idea, haven't read it yet

>Notes
Coulson

>>8897315
As I say every time, anything modern ~1950+ (this includes P&V) is fine. Footnotes/endnotes are helpful.

I'm not just speaking out my ass, I've read many different translations and all are good.

>>8897315
Tbh, all the main translations are pretty good, you won't be losing anything by reading them.
People telling you that you HAVE to read a certain translation are just turbo autists.
Plus it's fiction and a relatively recent novel, meaning that translation isn't that important (when compared to philosophy or classic works).

There's a revised Garnett for Crime and Punishment too. It's the Barnes & Noble edition.

Anyway, I like revised Garnett, Avsey, and Magarshack.

I read P&V for Ana karenina and war and peace. I found both to be very readable

File: spurdo real.jpg (21KB, 255x252px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 255x252px

> P&V

benis and vagina xDDDDD

I'm so sick of these threads. I really wish moderators would start closing translation and recommendation threads and banning these people.

>>8897936
Why?

>>8898129

Because they're kike shills.

>>8897315

Obviously this is subjective, but I'm a big fan of Dostoevsky, have read all his works, many in multiple translations, and thus have a decently well-informed opinion on the matter.

The way I'd rank the most common translators of his work would be as follows, from best to worst:

McDuff
Meyer
Avsey
Wilks
Coulson
Magarshack
Maguire
Ready
McAndrews
Garnett
Pevear and Volokhonsky

>>8898162
What constitutes a good translation in your opinion?

>>8898175
What constitues the best translation*

>>8898189
retard

>>8898175
>>8898189

The translator having a deep and nuanced understanding of the original work, and bridging the difference between the original and translated language as best as possible. I know "best" isn't really a useful answer, but it really is a subjective thing. I find some translations far too literal and concerned about the the 'flow' of the original language (like P&V), which matters a lot less for prose than it does for poetry. Then some translations focus too much on what the translator defines as the key points of the work, and in doing so mask and distort aspects of the original work that the translator didn't identify with, or didn't agree with as being important. So ultimately, my preferring of, say, McDuff's translations, comes down to the fact I generally agree with his implicit understanding of the content of the original works, and the fact he doesn't push a singular understanding through his translation.

>>8897315
It really doesn't fucking matter that much. Dostoevsky's prose in Russian isn't overly styled or complex, for sych a straightforward novelist he must be the best translated author in history. The only reason there are so many different translations of him is because people love buying his novels so the publishers can make $$$ by pushing out a new edition of C&P or whatever. Fuck, go with Garnett if you want to, it's not like the Victorians had a problem with her version

>>8897480
>As I say every time, anything modern ~1950+ (this includes P&V) is fine
Have you read P+V's Master and Margarita? I found it almost unreadable tbph