[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 210 KB, 882x1389, 71DfOob6UiL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11486639 No.11486639 [Reply] [Original]

Is there a 'definitive' translation of AK?

>New Translations of Tolstoy’s ‘Anna Karenina’ - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/books/review/new-translations-of-tolstoys-anna-karenina.html

>Socks | by Janet Malcolm | The New York Review of Books
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/23/socks-translating-anna-karenina/

>The Pevearsion of Russian Literature | commentary
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>Tolstoy vs. Tolstoy : Apostrophe : ameliaatlas.com
http://www.ameliaatlas.com/?p=344

>> No.11486734

>>11486639
It's a complicated mess. For decades Constance Garnett was the standard but Russians commonly shit on her since her prose is drastically different from the authors she translated. Her translations are the most influential since they were the most common ones for several decades but the purists will tell you to stay far away from her. Louise and Aylmer Maude were personally approved by Tolstoy and are far more respected by the purists than Garnett but hardcore purists will probably point you in the direction of a translation from the last 40 years. I don't know what to recommend to you, OP.

>> No.11486835

>>11486734
>Louise and Aylmer Maude
They also wrote a War and Peace translation correct?

>> No.11487013

>>11486835
Yes, and it was later revised and corrected. For AK the translation by Bartlett is worth considering.

>> No.11487607
File: 177 KB, 800x1317, 71ybWCKyJmL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11487607

If you end up reading the Maude translation go with the Norton Critical Edition, it has some very good footnotes and criticism.

>> No.11487616

So should I go with the Maudes?

>> No.11487694

There is literally nothing wrong with Garnett

>> No.11487706
File: 36 KB, 375x472, vladimir-nabokov-boxing-frown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11487706

>>11487694
*blocks your path*

>> No.11487884

>>11487706
Nabokov was a troll

>> No.11487909

>>11487694
Are you arguing her translations are accurate or are you arguing her prose is good?

>> No.11488223

>>11487616
Bumping for an answer to this.

>> No.11488238
File: 33 KB, 640x480, 1407365906550.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11488238

>not reading P&V

>> No.11488357

>>11486734
>>11487909
Have you got any comparisons that prove her unfaithfulness to the original text?

>> No.11488363

>>11488238
I cant read french

>> No.11488429

>>11486639
Reminder that Anna did nothing wrong, Kitty was a roastie and Kostya was a self-insert gary stu.

>> No.11488578

>>11488429
>Kitty was a roastie
>b-but Anna did nothing wrong!
What is this?

>> No.11489637
File: 1023 KB, 1638x2442, 91F9WNEThJL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11489637

>>11488238
The cover makes it look like Twilight-tier shite tho

>> No.11489652

Marian Schwartz or Maude

>> No.11489808

>>11488429
>Anna did nothing wrong
She killed herself out of (totally uncalled for) spite towards Vronsky