Let's settle this once and for all

>>9715000
THEY'RE FINE
NO MORE THREADS ABOUT THIS

>>9715000
Google could have answered that question, there are articles about how bad they are. They're just heavily marketed and have the best shelf appeal by far. Especially the Everyman's.
That being said they aren't "bad" they're just bad in comparison.
If you want a good contemporary translation try Avsey or MacAndrew. They're extremely readable and capture the message accurately for westerners.
If you want the more archaic tone try Magarshack or revised and edited Garnett. Don't get an unrevised Garnett.
McDuff is also great.
Honestly anything BUT P&V and unrevised/unedited Garnett is fine.

If you don't believe me just go to the bookstore and compare passages

File: IMG_2697.jpg (218KB, 891x1475px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 891x1475px

How is the MacAndrew translation?
>pic related

I know above guy said it was "contemporary" well is it true to what Dost was trying to say?

They're by far the best translation

>>9715198
That's the one I read. It's a good translation, MacAndrew makes it apparent that he puts a lot of love and effort into his translations. and the cover is v pretty.

They're arguably the standard. There are some translations that are subjectively preferred but it's more personal taste. Most book stores will have the P&V version. I have the McAndrew version of Karamazov just because it was the one they had in stock.

>>9715000
Jesus fucking Christ, this thread again.

P&V is fine. Whether they're good or bad is a matter of personal opinion. The only people who shit on them, like this guy >>9715021 are pseuds, plain and simple.

That said, see: >>9715014

bitch