/lit/ - Literature

>>11316097
you should learn russian and no you dont need to read anything beforehand it's just a story

tolstoy had an exceptionally good understanding of human psychology but the way War and Peace ends is pretty much a meme, it is how he wishes reality is. if you throw out the end it is a great book

>>11316097
Avoid Penguin

>>11316126
>you should learn russian
and french

>>11316143
i unfortunately already speak french because i live in the gay part of canada. fuck the french

>>11316097

desu it really doesn't matter. Tolstoy isn't really about unique prose that can never be translated. I like Briggs's translation.

>>11316143
You can't really understand French and Russian without understanding Greek first.

The Anthony Briggs penguin deluxe edition

>>11316097
>What is the best edition/translation
Oxford World's Classics, trust me anon it's a great translation.

>>11316097
Well the EL edition would definitely be easier to read since it's split into 3 books. If you want to save some money, then get the Briggs (penguins deluxe) or the Oxford World Classics edition. And no there isn't anything you need to read before you start. It's pretty straight forward. I would just suggest taking notes, because there are a lot of characters, and it's easy to forget who's who.

>>11316187
>learning Greek instead of Lithuanian (the closest language there is to Proto-Indo-European)

>>11317403
It's the Maud translation with revisions and with the French text where it should be. It's bretty good, but rather thick and with poor materials (it's supposed to be and undergrad and layman paperback, after all). I own the Everyman's Library edition, which is also the Maud translation but without revisions or French text, but the quality of the books make up for it.

>>11316126
It’s not at all worth it to learn Russian as an English speaker.

Greek, German, Latin, and then whatever Romance languages you can pick up are the ones worth learning for an English speaker. You’d probably get more out of just reading a couple different translations of the same Russian book over a period of time.

>>11317648
OP here, and I must say I'm interested in the EL version. But what does it do with the french text?

>>11317663
I think the newer version has the French translated.

>>11316097
Get the recent rerelease of the Maudes with the French. Avoid PV. Anyone who translates the French in the main text (footnotes are fine) or abridged versions are onions.

>>11317717
A re-release? What version are you talking about? EL? And what year did it come out?

How much French is there in it?

How many pages of French would you say it contains?

I can read French, so it's a very positive point for me, since I'll be reading Tolstoy in the original.

>>11316097
I don't have anything to contribute to this thread really besides pic related. Stay mirin

>>11317750
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198800541/?coliid=I1TO8KTO341JOD&colid=M4XLEN9NUFM1&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

For the longest time I didn't think there was an ideal translation. I still don't, but this is the best bet at the moment IMO.

I ordered this one. It’s Maude. Oxford World Classics from 2017. I wanted the full tome. Anyone have this? I can’t find an actual picture of it anywhere

>>11317797
Forgot pic

>>11317771
Damn that looks nice.

>>11317648
>Prince Andrew

>>11317797
That's a shitty hardcover, should have gone for the EL edition. What happened with the French text in Maude's translation is that they translated it into English, and also anglicised the names.

>>11319367
Fuck

>>11317761
>I can read French, so it's a very positive point for me, since I'll be reading Tolstoy in the original.

>>11319367
>What happened with the French text in Maude's translation is that they translated it into English
You make that sound like a bad thing

>>11321777
Didn't imply that, tho, since the translation is accurate. I personally don't mind, but there are people who do. That's why in the revision for OWC they left the original French but translated the Russian, and also didn't anglicise the names (this I do care about, but it's very minor in comparison to a mistranslation)

Found a long article about different translation, these were my notes about it. Still haven't read any of them yet though.

>Louie & Aylmer Mauds
-1922, worked with Tolstoy himself
>Briggs
-standard (?)
>Bromsfield
-disney version, avoid
>Garnett
-accused of being too lyrical and poetic, not good for academic use, good for personal use
>Dunnigan
-Hollywood, American, straight through and boring
>Pevear & Volokonsky
-academia, literal, footnotes for French parts
>Dole
-very russian, most contemporary
>Komroff
-heavily abridged, American
Kropotkin
-heavily abridged, good for teens(?)

>>11321963
>>11321963
I read this article a while back and went with Maude's, it was good. French is left as is but translated in footnotes, materials were ok if you were just reading casually, prose never got too boring and it has Tolstoy's backing if that's your thing. Didn't really seem like a novel where the literal prose was fundamental desu.

>>11317403

>>11316097
That box is super cool i like it

>>11316097
I wonder what do they do to the French pieces when translating War and Peace to French? Do they just leave it as is, or annotate it somehow?