/lit/ - Literature

>>22331480
>The other most popular version of the novel is by the American-Russian team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, published over twenty years ago, the first of their long series of translations of the Russian classics. Their translation is characterized by a too close adherence to the Russian text that results in a word-for-word and syntax-for-syntax style that sacrifices tone and frequently misconstrues a passage’s overall sense.
I don't think a word-to-word translation would be the most accurate.
As this article also states: https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>22318209
there are many cases where the english reader has to stop and reread sentences, or stumbles over awkward phrasing which is distracting and takes the reader out of the book. it might be more literal, but it reads like total shit in english. that's why a translation like avsey or the matlaw which updated and fixed garnetts find a good middle ground. or maybe this new katz one but i haven't read it myself.
>>22318215
yes this is correct
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
taken from this. it's worth reading if you are considering reading some russian lit.

>>22306362
Based. P&V are lacking, here’s a good article that dives into why:
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>21888318
Garnett may be shoddy but her familiarity with western literature (particularly Dickens) helped to bring out the stylistics of Dostoevsky in a way that P&V don't accomplish, specifically regarding scandal and polyphony, which are both central to Dostoevsky. P&V comes off rather wooden at points, and doesn't accurately render the variance between humor and tragedy in a way that's as recognizable as with other translations. Not to mention their translation of "злoй" as "wicked" in Notes and "cтpacть" as "strain" in BK can be entirely misleading. "Wicked" is more accurately "spiteful", which Garnett and Katz use, and "strain" accurately connects "cтpacть" with "cтpaдaниe" (suffering), sure, but it's unidiomatic, and completely muddles the reference to the Christian idea of Passion. Their editions of C&P and maybe The Idiot are passable, but Katz or a revised Garnett edition are going to be on the whole much more accurate, even if certain passages for Garnett don't match exactly. At the very least avoid P&V for Notes and Demons, since those two are probably the ones they butcher the most.
Gary Saul Morson (prominent scholar for Tolstoy and Bakhtin) has a good article that goes into more depth about the issues with the P&V methodology as well.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221220095107/https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>21888433
Untrue but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some essays by Ivanov / Bakhtin to accompany.

>>21456252
>I'd recommend the worst translation
How come it's always p/v haters vs lovers? Where are the diehard defenders of one particular translator that isn't p/v? I see people recommend against them and recommend for them but I don't see anyone who's apparently read the numerous translations and has a strong preference for anyone in particular. You yourself jump to recommending p/v. It's always p/v.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
The excerpts here show they're really not very good translations, especially of Gogol

Also Op if you care to learn why to select or avoid the translations consider that they're done by a pair of translators, one of which doesn't speak or write in Russian and the other is barely fluent in English.

Some of the finest and most readable classics in all of world literature belong to the Russians. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky have an unprecedented monopoly on modern tralsnation efforts despite producing the worst, by far, translations of Russian literature. Most likely this has been done (((intentionally))) in order to denigrate Russian literature and turn people off reading greats such as Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol, Pushkin, Chekhov, Lermontov, Turgenev, and others.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

This article with example comparisons from multiple translations proves that if you get a P/V translation (and they are VERY hard to avoid, especially if you shop at a bookstore rather than online) you are cheating yourself out of the entire style and meaning of the book.

If you enjoy this genre please make sure you tell everyone else who might ever read a Russian book to never ever read one translated by these unbelievable hacks. Before I knew anything about translations I purchased a number of books by these clowns and robbed myself of sufficient enjoyment and understanding.

Discuss why they've been (((promoted))) so heavily and why anyone should respect critics who apparently have no discernment and probably didn't even read the translations they were reviewing.

>>20558173
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>20095061
https://web.archive.org/web/20210807190919/https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>20094055
P&V Are fucking awful. This article compares them to other translations.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
>>20094867

>>20067642
Don't read P&V, stick to Garnett
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
http://www.thinkaloud.ru/feature/berdy-lan-PandV-e.html
https://www.librarything.com/topic/260074
https://readingroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/the-art-of-translation/#comment-206
http://languagehat.com/the-translation-wars/
http://languagehat.com/more-translation-wars/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/23/socks-translating-anna-karenina/
http://languagehat.com/janet-malcolm-vs-pv/
https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/why-i-dont-read-pevear-and-volokhonsky-vtranslations/
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down/
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

The people who hail Dosto and Tolstoy as relevant all read the Garnett editions from 1920-2000. Now people who read the P&V versions insist that because their version is more modern, it is therefore superior.

>Pevear and Volokhonsky, who are married, work in an unusual fashion. She, a native Russian speaker, renders each book into entirely literal English. He, who knows insufficient Russian, then works on the rendering with the intention of keeping the language as close to the original as possible. What results from this attempt at unprecedented fidelity is a word-for-word and syntax-for-syntax version that sacrifices tone and misconstrues overall sense.

>Students once encountered the great Russian writers as rendered by the magnificent Constance Garnett, a Victorian who taught herself the language and then proceeded to introduce almost the entire corpus of Russian literature to the English language over the space of 40 years, from the 1890s to the 1930s. Her greatest virtues were her profound and sympathetic understanding of the works themselves and a literary artist’s feel for the English language.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>19207545
P&V are a meme.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
http://www.thinkaloud.ru/feature/berdy-lan-PandV-e.html
https://www.librarything.com/topic/260074
https://readingroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/the-art-of-translation/#comment-206
http://languagehat.com/the-translation-wars/
http://languagehat.com/more-translation-wars/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/23/socks-translating-anna-karenina/
http://languagehat.com/janet-malcolm-vs-pv/
https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/why-i-dont-read-pevear-and-volokhonsky-vtranslations/
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down/
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

>>19207636

..cont...

>A more systemic example is their consistent use of “here” where the original text is saying “then”. E.g. “Here the second oddity occurred, touching Berlioz alone”. Russian has two words for “here”, “здecь” (zdes’) and “тyт” (toot); they are entirely synonymous in that role, but “тyт” can also be used to link sentences describing events occurring one right after the other, that is, a sentence that starts with “тyт” is analogous to an English sentence that starts with “then” in a similar role - and there’s nothing spatial about this use of “тyт”. When P&V consistently translate “тyт” in the meaning of “then” as “here”, it’s a gaffe that produces sentences that seem a bit weird or jarring (especially after many repetitions of this “here"), while there was nothing weird or jarring in the original syntax.

>These are just two random examples out of a dozen that one could find on any given page. It’s the principle of the thing rather than an exception. P&V seem to start with a completely literal word-by-word translation by Volokhonsky, one that doesn’t even preserve common idioms; it is then perhaps edited into shape by going after some clunkiness here and some inventiveness there, in total ignorance of what’s interesting or unique about the original author’s style or idiom. The examples from their more recent translations cited in the discussion on Tanenhaus’ blog confirm that things haven’t changed.

See also:

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

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

P&V is garbage
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
Literally any other translator is better, including Garnett.

>>19203797

...cont...

>A more systemic example is their consistent use of “here” where the original text is saying “then”. E.g. “Here the second oddity occurred, touching Berlioz alone”. Russian has two words for “here”, “здecь” (zdes’) and “тyт” (toot); they are entirely synonymous in that role, but “тyт” can also be used to link sentences describing events occurring one right after the other, that is, a sentence that starts with “тyт” is analogous to an English sentence that starts with “then” in a similar role - and there’s nothing spatial about this use of “тyт”. When P&V consistently translate “тyт” in the meaning of “then” as “here”, it’s a gaffe that produces sentences that seem a bit weird or jarring (especially after many repetitions of this “here"), while there was nothing weird or jarring in the original syntax.

>These are just two random examples out of a dozen that one could find on any given page. It’s the principle of the thing rather than an exception. P&V seem to start with a completely literal word-by-word translation by Volokhonsky, one that doesn’t even preserve common idioms; it is then perhaps edited into shape by going after some clunkiness here and some inventiveness there, in total ignorance of what’s interesting or unique about the original author’s style or idiom. The examples from their more recent translations cited in the discussion on Tanenhaus’ blog confirm that things haven’t changed.

See also:

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

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

>>19099708
>>19099749
Try again.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
http://www.thinkaloud.ru/feature/berdy-lan-PandV-e.html
https://www.librarything.com/topic/260074
https://readingroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/the-art-of-translation/#comment-206
http://languagehat.com/the-translation-wars/
http://languagehat.com/more-translation-wars/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/23/socks-translating-anna-karenina/
http://languagehat.com/janet-malcolm-vs-pv/
https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/why-i-dont-read-pevear-and-volokhonsky-vtranslations/
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down/
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed
>>19099693
>>19099809
Read Constance Garnett.

>>18914475
As much as I disagree with your professor, I'd suggest you defer to him over me. I am an anonymous poster on 4chan. And he's grading your papers. That said, I'd suggest checking out those translations I mentioned above when writing about the P&V short stories. (If there's a part in the P&V translation that you strongly like/dislike, contrasting it with other translations could be one way of digging deeper into it. I imagine your professor, P&V inclined as he is, might appreciate the depth of research.)

Also worth reading these articles for some perspective on Checkhov-in-translation:

https://russianlife.com/stories/online/dissecting-chekhov/

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

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

>>18902038
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

theres also some other articles regarding this

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

>>18901760
>public domain
so its the garnett translation nice.

>>18901515
dont worry op since anon said its pub domain there's a good chance that its the garnett translation. she does a good job and is sufficient enough. watch out for p&v shills, their going to shit on garnett for no fucking reason. they praise p&v for being accurate word for word but the way they do their translations are fucking retarded.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

I see the shitposters are as active as usual. The false opposition between bad/good Garnett and good/bad P&V was promoted by publishers because it makes idiots think other translations (some of them competing with P&V on the market) don't exist.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
http://www.thinkaloud.ru/feature/berdy-lan-PandV-e.html
https://www.librarything.com/topic/260074
https://readingroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/the-art-of-translation/#comment-206
http://languagehat.com/the-translation-wars/
http://languagehat.com/more-translation-wars/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/23/socks-translating-anna-karenina/
http://languagehat.com/janet-malcolm-vs-pv/
https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/why-i-dont-read-pevear-and-volokhonsky-vtranslations/
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down/
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

>>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=pevearsion

>>18818010
>>18818018
>>18818041

OP, trust your instincts. The prose is garbage. Do you really need us to nod our heads?

The Pevear translation covers the garbage style with the fig leaf of necessity “‘tis a fault to be too accurate, sometimes…”
If only they had that!

Google “The pevearsion of literature”, or some such article. It’s a beautiful, concise illustration of their general incompetence.

I’m being flippant here, but honestly that article is the exact answer to your query.

>>18805272
you have the terrible taste of an arch pseud and your claims have been deboonked
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>18680235
im the anon that asked earlier. People online seem to live P&V, although there are some people who shit on them and say they are only popular due to being pushed by their publisher.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down

>>18535054
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/