Dostoyevsky/ Tolstoy Translations

File: lol.jpg (8KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x256px

>"From what Ive gathered"
>he takes opinions from this board seriously
>he thinks P&V hatred is anything more than textbook 4chan contrarianism

>>9060843
I didnt get that from this board you fucking twat. P&V are only liked by publishers and widley regarded as shit

>>9060857
This. I actually went to buy C&P at the local bookstore and the clerk was like "uhh you dont want that translation, lets find you a better one."

>>9060843
No, p and v are objectively shite
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down

Which book are you looking at in particular?

>>9061773
Brothers K and War and Peace. I actually bought them right after making this thread. I got MacAdandrews for BK, and Maude for W&P

>>9061888
So you did not want any input about wich translation would be beter to read, you just wanted to tell people that you are buying those autors?

>>9061940
In the OP I was looking for input I which translation to get, but since no one responded, i just bought those 2. If you have any input, it'd be greatly appreciated

>>9060821
Get the revised Garnetts

she does what P&V do but less insanely and has way better prose

none are perfect. really just choose one and read, if you hate it, switch translation

for W&P remember in my research some autist read all the editions and said Garnett is the one he/she returns to

Garnett is who all the elite writers of the past read. so if Faulkner thought Anna Karenina translated by Constance Garnett was the greatest novel ever written, it is probably suitable for a casual read my man

File: 614W4bt4SXL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (38KB, 231x346px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 231x346px

I hope Oliver Ready does some Tolstoy translations. His translation and footnotes for C&P were fantastic

This is funny it used to be consensus was that p&v were the goto translations.

I mean, my Professor in the Russian department is from St. Petersburg and made us use the P&V translations for A.K. So I'm slightly confused-- Why is a native speaker forcing us to read such a 'poor' translation?

>>9063759
He didn't.

P&V translations are only hated on /lit/ because of the contrarian streak that runs through here

People like to hate on what is popular.

When in doubt, go with P&V.

>>9063759
P&V is like a cleaned up machine translation. It's very "accurate" but the result is poor English.

>>9063778
no, he made them study it because it's a literal translation and thus better for objective study. since /lit/izens are not always inclined to study the works they read for pleasure, sometimes the varying prose in translations give a more pleasurable rendering for casual enjoyment. it's not just contrarianism.

>he spends time looking for best translation instead of learning the language of original
W E W
E
W

>>9063782
I mean, I'm definitely not finding it difficult to read, though. I guess I'm just somewhat skeptical about the pooh-poohing here-- But certainly, I'm sure there are more 'poetic' or concise translations out there if you're reading it purely recreationally.

>>9063796
Just don't go with Garnett

>However, Garnett also has had critics, notably prominent Russian natives and authors Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Brodsky. Nabokov claimed that Garnett's translations were "dry and flat, and always unbearably demure." Nabokov's criticism of Garnett, however, may arguably be viewed in light of his publicly stated ideal that the translator be male.[5][6] Brodsky notably criticized Garnett for blurring the distinctive authorial voices of different Russian authors:[3]

"The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They're reading Constance Garnett."

>>9063798
>implying i can't tell the difference between tolstoy and dostoevsky in the garnett translations i have read
>implying that P&V themselves don't acknowledge that most of the time constance garnett was absolutely correct in her translations

i think the real contrarians have been the ones shitting on Constance all along.

>>9063796
This is their translation method. Make of it what you will.

>Their division of labor was—and remains—nearly absolute: First, Larissa wrote out a kind of hyperaccurate trot of the original, complete with interstitial notes about Dostoyevsky’s diction, syntax, and references. Then, Richard, who has never mastered conversational Russian, wrote a smoother, more Englished text, constantly consulting Larissa about the original and the possibilities that it did and did not allow. They went back and forth like this several times, including a final session in which Richard read his English version aloud while Larissa followed along in the Russian.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars

>>9063799
>some of the greatest literary minds with native grasp of Russian deem a translation bad
>it's just le contrarianism
>implying

>>9063801
Take note of the fact that one of them isn't even fluent in Russian.

P&V translations of Tolstoy and Bulgakov are completely fine. Source: эм Paшн.

>>9061888
>MacAndrew TBK
>Maude W&P

These are fine choices
Magarshack, revised Garnett, McDuff, and Avsey are other good choices for Karamazov, for various reasons
Maude is by default the best choice for Tolstoy. Dunnigan is another good translator for W&P

>>9063805
>implying that nabokov wasn't a base contrarian in every aspect
>implying his analysis of Anna Karenina wasn't the most hilarious satire of literary criticism the world has ever seen
you're embarassing yourself.

>>9063801

That's bizarre, but somewhat oddly satisfying. If Pavear had a better grasp of Russian (one might argue English as well) it would make for a near universally acceptable translation.

>>9063807
So... The same amount of fluent Russian speakers as in any of the other translations?

>>9063815
>implying
>>>/mu/

>>9063807
if you listen to larissa, you suddenly realize that she's not fluent in english. neither is fluent in both languagez. which explains the disjointed nature of their works, and how it feels choppy to the point of disruption at every page.

>>9063778
P&V do a very literal translation of Russian, that doesnt make any fucking sense in English unless you already have an understanding of how the Russian language works.

>>9060821
>Translations

>>9064676
Also it sounds horrifically akward and ugly to read. The only time their translation would be useful is if you are studying Russian but dont care about good prose. "Retaining the essence of the orginal Russian text" is dumb and pointless when Russian is so fundamentally different from english

I have found that generally newer translations are better. P&V is readable, but as >>9063821 clunky enough to be disruptive. I think P&V got popular because native Russian speakers seem to like them, but that is not a good metric for judging an English translation.

Marian Schwartz does an amazing job with Anna Karenina and Oblomov.

Avsey does a great job with Dostoevsky.

>>9060821
I'm not sure. I was sold on the Dostoyevsky meme a month ago and started with The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Andrew R MacAndrew, it was a good read but holy hell, I made the mistake starting with Dostoyevsky's last novel. Currently reading C&P for the first time, translated by Garnett and its thoroughly enjoyable.

>>9062364
shame about the terrible cover desu

>>9063817

And Volokhonsky isn't fluent in English
Between the two of them they introduce (at least) twice the translational error of others, despite their ostensible adherence to the letter of the original

>>9066355
Its a pretty solid cover actually. Dostoyevskys characters are highly animated, I feel like the cartoonish style captures that.