/lit/ - Literature

>>11346412
You already found it and it's in your OP.

>>11346419
No!

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

>>11346419
I know you’re just memeing but honestly if you tricking someone into reading P&V is pure evil

I’m reading the revised Garnett translator right now and I’m really enjoying. I read Garnett’s Notes from the Understand and it was great as well. The reason I picked the revised Garnett was because someone on here posted a pic of all the translations side by side and that one seemed the best to me. I think I’m just going to stick to her for Dostoevsky unless someone recommends someone better

>>11346684
Funny, I really dislike the Garnett but maybe I'm just a misogynist. I don't think she has a particularly strong grasp of the Russian language (neither do I to be fair) and I find the "Victorianization" of the text to be a little tedious at times.

As far as translators go, I'd recommend Michael Katz. I studied under him back in college and he was pretty cool. He really thinks a lot about the process of translation.

I was made to read the P&V of Brothers Karamazov when I took a senior seminar on Russian lit. I think you're being a bit harsh; sure it's not a super "academic" translation but it gets the job done.

>>11346684
i'm not memeing and Garnett is absolute shit. Feel free to post your copy-cated blogposts from 2015 but just know that I think you have no taste and your opinion is worthless.

>>11346412

read p&v years ago, a worthless experience, would never go back to them

>>11346766
> 2015 is ANCIENT TIMES, man!

Hello, Facebook kid, don't forget to like the edible pieces in the endless stream of shit. Some people even remember that Oprah made them famous in 2004.

>>11346880
The point is that this discussion has been had on this board hundreds of times, brainlet. Back in 2015 a bunch of blogs all copied the same article and ever since then people who don't actually read but like appear intellectual have been talking about the unrivaled purity of the Garnett translation and the evil post-modern degeneration of the P&V translation.
It's a pathetic conversation that's only had by people who don't actually read Dostoyevsky.

>>11346684
>durr I like le garnett becuz werds r purddy
>ignoring that Dostoevsky wrote in incredibly abrupt common Russian

>pic related is P&V

This is Garnett:

>I am a sick man . . . I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don’t consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I can’t explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot “pay out” the doctors by not consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don’t consult a doctor it is from spite. My liver is bad, well—let it get worse!

>>11346911
> people who don't actually read
But that's you. If you actually read anything on topic, you would know that the criticism is quite numerous and much older than “one article from 2015”, that translations to compare are not limited to Garnett one, and that P&V wrongs are not just a matter of taste.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

>>11346684
Gatnett is by far the worst Dostoevsky translator, shame on you

The one in your pic is the one they read in university Russian courses

>>11346412
The only one without a trashy cover

>>11347495
>Russian futurism that's derivative of Mayakovsky is trashy
You are trash

>>11347506
Maybe they should have included red in their color schemes for superior patrician taste? The black and white thing clearly isn’t working

>>11347506
Mayakovsky was a poet, not a painter. He belonged to just one of the avant-garde circles, and most of them wouldn't agree to be called “futurists” (some directly opposed them in the first place). The cover feels decorative anyway.

David Magarshack

>>11347566
Mayakovsky made a lot of artwork.

>>11347579
True, but the style was developed by the artists with whom he worked.

>>11346975
thats literally not P&V though

>>11347949
yeah my bad. I think this one is actually P&V:

>I am a sick man… I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. However, I don't know a fig about my sickness, and am not sure what it is that hurts me. I am not being treated and never have been, though I respect medicine and doctors. What's more, I am also superstitious in the extreme, well, at least enough to respect medicine. (I'm sufficiently educated not to be superstitious, but I am.) No, sir, I refuse to treat it out of wickedness. Now, you will certainly not be so good as to understand this. Well, sir, but I understand it. I will not, of course, be able to explain to you precisely who is going to suffer in this case from my wickedness. I know perfectly well that I will in no way "muck things up" for the doctors by not taking their treatment; I know better than anyone that by all this I am harming only myself and no one else. My liver hurts; well, then let it hurt even worse!

>>11347585
McDuff's is actually really good here

>>11347515
what's that sweaty?

>>11347585
i like the word garret and it's a shame none of the others use it