Russian Translators

"Came across an infelicitous translation while reading the C. Garnett version.

When everyone arrives at the monastery early on, someone asks about Dmitry, and the answer (in Garnett) is "Dmitry Fyodorivich does not exist yet".

Thinking this could not possibly be right, I decide to consult the 'definitive' version by Pevear and Volokhonsky, and I found the EXACT SAME WORDING.

Ignat Avsey renders it something like "Dmitry F. is not here yet."

One of the 'revised' Garnett versions has it changed to something similar, but another of the 'revised' Garnett versions retains the 'does not yet exist' wording.

What's most upsetting about this is that P & V could not possibly have ACTUALLY translated it that way.

The only explanation is that they did NOT produce a totally 'new' translation, but simply picked up the Garnett version and 'tweaked' it, and not very carefully: even a sloppy reader of the Garnett version would notice this; which makes me think they did not EVEN read the Garnett version completely before presenting it to the world as THEIR completely NEW one!"

>>9358959

P&V are a marketing machine. Their methods sound good on the surface -- two is better than one, right? -- but the reality is they introduce twice as much error since her English is so poor and (as mentioned) Pevear doesn't know Russian. They form not a whole but something completely split.

For Tolstoy, the Maudes are the married couple of choice and always a good first pick. They knew Tolstoy personally and he approved of their work. There are others for individual titles, such as Ann Dunnigan for W&P. (I will say this in defense of P&V's work on W&P: they preserve Tolstoy's deliberate repetition of words instead of smoothing it over as many other translators do, and it seems like they have a decent solution to the issue of how French is used. Still I would say just be aware of how they treat things while reading someone else's translation.)

For Dostoyevsky, Ralph Matlaw has done some very good work in revising Garnett's work, such as with Karamazov, and others have built on his work; check Norton Critical Editions for this. Another early translator I like is David Magarshack. The recent translator I would recommend most highly is Ignat Avsey, who translated Dostoyevsky only. David McDuff is good also, if a little rigid for how recent his work is. Andrew MacAndrew did a very good (albeit fairly loose) translation of Karamazov. Oliver Ready's C&P is well regarded.

>spending your time sampling, comparing and double-checking translations instead of just learning Russian
Плeбc.

>>9359037
I'm at a crossroads because I've enjoyed the two P+V translations so much that I don't want to mess with a good thing. I'm positive that down the road I'm going to read the Avsey translation of BK, just because I'm going to reread it at some point anyway.
Since Demons is next on my list and Avsey hasn't translated it I will probably stick to P+V, but I may switch for The Idiot.
I also have the P+V translation of War and Peace..

>>9359056

I thought their C&P was fine. Notes is another story. Pevear makes a big deal in the Intro about how important the treatment of the word злoй is in the first sentence, "I am a sick man ... I am a _____ man" (which is very true), but then they completely misunderstand the point of the book by going with 'wicked' (which skews the reader toward a moral/ethical reading of the character) instead of something like 'spiteful' (which keeps a proper sociological/psychological view in mind). Pevear's justification for the choice, including how the word is used in (select) other places, is completely wrong.

File: I-Am-Major.png (542KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 460x460px

>>9359363

Hadn't deleted this yet, so here you go

>>9359450
only a specific few people can understand this picture

jesus

>>9359450
But that's supposed to be Raskolnikov

>>9358961
Reminder that this article was written by someone with no knowledge of Russian whatsoever

>>9358959
>Brothers Karamazov
Andrew MacAndrew
David McDuff
Constance Garnett(revised by McReynolds and Oddo)
>Crime and Punishment
Sidney Monas
Jesse Coulson
>The Idiot
Carlisle
Ignat Avsey
>Demons
David McDuff
>Notes from Underground
Jesse Coulson
Andrew MacAndrew

sick of these threads.

>>9359363
When you say (which is true) are you referring to the fact that (wicked) is accurate based on the original russian?

I just reread his case for "wicked" and it seems...accurate. and he mentions that the beginning "I am a wicked man" pairs with the "They won't let me... I can't be... good!" at the end. Thoughts?

>>9359363
You're hung up on the first fucking paragraph lmao

Read the rest of the book before you try to offer criticism on the translation

>>9359657
Not that anon, but I read P&V's notes from underground and Coulson's translation was definitely better

>>9359613
>Brothers K
missing Avsey
>C&P
missing McDuff. My favorite by far here.
>The Idiot
Missing McDuff, and a really personal one but my first read was with Garnett and I think that victorian English goes really well with Myshkin, my favorite Dosto character by the way. I have to read the revision by Anna Brailovsky
>Notes from Underground
Missing Jane Kentish and the edition (Oxford) comes with The Gambler too

File: 41UpQHaC74L.jpg (27KB, 304x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 304x500px

>>9359626
>(which is true)
I was referring to the significance of that particular translational choice in setting the tone for the rest of the book. 'I can't be ... good!' at the end doesn't require 'I am a wicked man' at the beginning.

>>9359657
see above

>>9359498
see pic

>>9358959
Learn Russian you scummy capitalist pigs

COЮЗ HEPУШИMЫХ PECПУБЛИК CBOБOДHЫХ
CПЛOTИЛA HABEКИ BEЛИКAЯ PУCЬ