/lit/ - Literature

I read McDuff for The Idiot, C&P and Brothers K, and while I very much liked his pronunciation for the first two, I imagine there are other translations I’d prefer for Brothers K. McDuff leaves a lot more in Russian than the other translators do, and in that book I found it got in the way of the writing more than it helped naturalise things. Also, he doesn’t translate the most famous lines by Ivan / The Grand Inquisitor as they’re typically quoted by other writers, which is disappointing.

>>11942291
revised Garnett imo

>>11942318
Thanks m8

>>11942318
P&V sounds like a literal meme. A hot "spell"? He rents a "closet"? C'mon.

>>11942342
Everyone hates P&V for a reason.

>>11942291
We don't have charts for Dostoevsky, Tolstoy or other Russian writers but they would be really useful to stop those frequent questions about translations and places to start.

The problem is that even if we were to start a rolling thread aimed at producing those charts, it would momentarily become a festival of opinions, like that of one anon here some days ago that I argued with about the trivial matter of the right way to translate the title "Бecы".

I spent considerable time comparing different translations of different works, I read Russian although I'm not very proficient, and I speak another slavic language that renders Russian well in translation, and my opinion is that you should stay away from P&V who can be decent at times, but mostly are absolutely comical. For instance, I found their Idiot dry and soulless, and preferred the one by Myers. With Brothers Karamazov it looked better for P&V, but the translation by Avsey was a fine piece of work too. For C&P, I'd probably stick with McDuff, but I think the slightly less popular translation by Jesse Coulson is also worth considering. I think there's also a new hardback translation by Pasternak Slater that should be good, and also by Katz. Notes from Underground is yet another topic and so are Devils.

As for Garnett, they're greatest strength is that they're in the public domain, but her English doesn't fit Dostoyevsky in my opinion. She also has the disadvantage of being the first reference point and as such contains mistakes that were subsequently fixed by other translators (who on the other hand make mistakes of their own).

If I were to give you border conditions: P&V are risky, Garnett is old, and you'd be safer getting the versions from publishers other than Penguin and its imprints. There is and never will be a perfect English translation for any of these works, so just pick from a reliable publisher and you'll be fine.

>>11942291
Garnett is the standard translation against which all other are compared and always will be. I wouldn't bother with a different translator unless you have some particularly compelling reason.

You know, it's kind of bizarre now I think of it, but I just accepted whatever version I read - maybe because Dostoevsky is so ubiquitous in our culture that I don't really think about him being Russian.

For example, I read the free Kindle version of Notes from Underground. Maybe that's why I disliked it so much.

>>11942342
There's nothing wrong with either of those phrases. You've never heard a small room described as a closet for the purpose of hyperbole?
>>11942397
Only psueds hate P&V and only because of a shity meme campaign centred around a bunch of blog posts.

>>11942419
Garnett is the public domain translation. That's the only reason it's popular.

>>11942401
This is a good post.

>>11942444
You're right, no one read or cared about Garnett at all before the internet era. Are you retarded?

>>11942444
>lauded by countless intellectuals and credited with bringing Dostoyevski to the west
>long before it ever entered the public domain

>>11942448
I'm talking about mass-market publishers retard.
>>11942452
And hated by just as many intellectuals for butchering the tone of Dostoyevsky.

>>11942291
If you could have another Dostoevsky novel set in WW1, the October Revolution or WW2, what era would you pick and why?

>>11942442
There's no hyperbole in the original:
"B нaчaлe июля, в чpeзвычaйнo жapкoe вpeмя, пoд вeчep, oдин мoлoдoй чeлoвeк вышeл из cвoeй кaмopки, кoтopyю нaнимaл oт жильцoв в C — м пepeyлкe, нa yлицy и мeдлeннo, кaк бы в нepeшимocти, oтпpaвилcя к К — нy мocтy."
'кaмopкa' is neutral, just a small, narrow, contained place. It has the same root as English 'chamber', German 'Kammer', Polish 'komórka' and Italian 'camera'. It doesn't, I emphasize, doesn't have the questionable connotations of 'closet'.

>>11942442
>There's nothing wrong with either of those phrases. You've never heard a small room described as a closet for the purpose of hyperbole?
It comes off as weird. The other translations do it better. "His closet of a room."

>>11942476
October Revolution - hands down, he'd probably have a seizure and die though.

>>11942479

It may not be accurate but it adds something to the story. Translations shouldn't be too literal and if a translator can add, take away or change the meaning to make it better, then they should.

>>11942495
t. P&V

Your translations suck, pals.

>>11942479
I'm only speaking to the fact that the two statements were not ridiculous as the poster I was responding to made them out to be. I made no claims to the accuracy of the translation.

>>11942318
No, the revised Garnett also "updated" certain expressions and passage in order to curb Dostoevsky's "misogyny".
Go with McDuff

>>11942527
The McDuff sounds ridiculous and prolix.

>>11942291
>McDuff
I can't find this on the usual sites for Crime & Punishment, could find McDuffs The Idiot though

>>11942495
This has got to be a bait.
>>11942518
I have a hard time agreeing with this. Sure, The strength of 'closet' is that it keeps it word-for-word and maybe even brings attention to the state of Raskolnikov's poverty (he rents a literal closet, a storage place), but ultimately the outcome is that it says something that isn't in the text there, even if it is the case as we later learn. And to my ears it has a rather americanized ring, that I find rather unfitting.

>>11942318
for reference:

B(in) нaчaлe(beginning) июля(of-july), в(in) чpeзвычaйнo(very) жapкoe(hot) вpeмя(weather), пoд(under- read:before) вeчep(evening), oдин(one) мoлoдoй(young) чeлoвeк(man) вышeл(came out) из(of) cвoeй(his) кaмopки(little-room, garret), кoтopyю(which) нaнимaл(he rented) oт(from) жильцoв(tenants) в(in) C — м(s--m) пepeyлкe(place), нa(into) yлицy(street) и(and) мeдлeннo(slowly), кaк(as) бы(if) в(in) нepeшимocти(hesitation, 'undecidedness'), oтпpaвилcя(set himself) к(to) К — нy(k) мocтy(bridge).

>>11942627
К — нy means 'K'? How?

>>11942863
It's a name that start's with K and presumably end's with a N. Hence K---N. It takes a y in Russian at the end because it's in the dative case.

>>11942880
>start's
I can't believe I've done this. I need to stop drinking

>>11942880
>end's
hoyl shit another one, am i having a seizure

>>11942880
Why does every translation leave out the 'N' bit?

The correct answer is that lack of different forms of (you) means that Russian doesn't translate very well into English.

Monas?

>>11942970
Spanish has two forms of you (formal usted and informal tú or vos), how many does Russian have?

>>11942981
same thing in Russian, though with cases of course

>>11942562
The problem with the word closet is that there are several moments when there are 3 or 4 people in his room at the same time. I have never been in a closet with a bed and table that can also fit 4 people. It's a weird choice. Garret is also better than 'tiny room', if just for being more evocative.
>garret
>noun
>a top-floor or attic room, especially a small dismal one.

>>11942401
Thank you anon

>>11943001
Do you think Dostoyevsky's Russian translates well into Spanish?

>>11942527
but the prose and syntax is superior, having gone through so many hands throughout the years.
either bring your own misogyny or read something else

>>11943091
>either bring your own misogyny
What does that even mean?

>>11943082
I don't speak Spanish so I can't say. There are decent French translations though, which I do speak, and is somewhat similar to Spanish.

All three languages share the tu-vous thing. English had this too in case you didnt know thou-you. We got rid of the intimate form because Anglos are autistic.

I personally believe the meme about translations losing all the power of the original is completely false.

>>11943091
>but the prose and syntax is superior, having gone through so many hands throughout the years
the exact opposite. the more it goes through subsequent translations further past the initial date of publication, the further it strays from the source material. do you think that you reading an english translation done in the 20th century of a latin translation of the Odyssey done in the sixteenth century is anything close to what Homer actually wrote?
>>11943091
>either bring your own misogyny or read something else
oh you're actually braindead. the point is that Dostoevsky ISN'T misogynistic, you daft cunt, but they changed the passages anyways because their ideology demands everything be bent to their metric. and I don't give a shit even if he was. if Dostoevsky wrote "fuck the niggers who tongue the kikes' assholes." I want to read "fuck the niggers who tongue the kikes' assholes." and not some censored version of it.
you fucking cretin. people like you are a blight on literature.

>>11943139
based

>>11943139
Amerifag censors btfo

>>11942863
Dostoevsky simply masks the real locations around his own home at the time. It's just “Kokushkin bridge” and “Stolyarny lane”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokushkin_Bridge
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA_(%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82-%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3)
Raskolnikov's house (that had an attic at the time):
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0
Dostoevsky lived in the opposite house.

>>11943519
Cool info. Thanks!

>>11942442
> centred around a bunch of blog posts
Those posts explain the issue to laymen like you.

How about the opinion of the whole Russian translator community that considers P&V's broken English as “professional” as a form as thick accents of enemies in Hollywood movies are?

On the other hand, if burgers are taught from their childhood that's how foreigners speak, that choice is quite straightforward.

Also, Constance Garnett single-handedly created a possibility for you to discuss Russian literature (and even argue about translations) instead of just a couple of Russian books.

>>11942979
Monas is great for Crime and Punishment. very underrated

>>11943139
>the exact opposite. the more it goes through subsequent translations further past the initial date of publication, the further it strays from the source material. do you think that you reading an english translation done in the 20th century of a latin translation of the Odyssey done in the sixteenth century is anything close to what Homer actually wrote?
the revisions are based on the source material. if you knew what you were talking about you would know that the editor had at first attempted his own translation, but upon noticing that Garnett's was superior, he edited her preexisting translation to read better to a contemporary audience

show me the "anti-misogynistic" revisions or fuck off, anyone that uses the word cretin doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about but insists on peacocking nonexistent intellectualism

Get the one that has the coolest cover art which is P&V

>>11942897
>hoyl
i hope you're feeling ok anon

>>11943736
I like this one, apparently translated by Oliver Ready. Too bad it has these autistic deckle edges. P&V suck either way. Avoid like the plague.

>>11943670
>the revisions are based on the source material.
once again, the point is that the further from the original date of publication, the more marred the translation will become due to the differences in culture and society that exist between the two points in history. If you think that a 21st century translator can understand 19th century Russian culture and context better than someone born in the 19th century, once again, you are a literal retard. Making something "contemporary" for a 21st century audience = / = a good rendition of Dostoevsky. Once again you prove to be the pedestrian piece of shit that is millstone around the neck of literature as an art.

>show me the "anti-misogynistic" revisions or fuck off
>accuses others of not knowing what they're talking about
>is shilling for a version that he doesn't even realized has been revised
kek is this just bait or what?

>>11942401
What's so bad about Penguin? I heard the new Oliver Ready translation is pretty good.

>>11943813
you're only advertising your ignorance about Constance Garnett's translation methodology; you're entire premise is "the book is old so old translations are better" while turning a blind eye to the fact that Dostoevsky is one of the most widely studied novelists, the book was not written that long ago(using Homer as a point of comparison solidifies this) and Russian culture 120 years ago is not unfamiliar to the contemporary audience to such a degree that translation cannot be improved by any academic efforts, which they have been by translators like Katz and Ready, not to mention lauded translations of older works such as Lattimore's Homeric works or the NRSV bible. I shouldn't have to tell you that years of study can improve overall understanding of old things.


I have the Garnett translation of Bros K that has been edited and revised. I have the P&V translation, as well as the Macandrew translation. Unedited Garnett is not better than unedited Garnett.
if you knew anything about Garnett, she would rush through things she didn't understand, to the point of omitting a line from C&P. editors revised that. She would round out the tones of character's dialogue and use old english. editors revised that.

you're whole premise of "well it was written closer to that time period so it must be better" is coming from a place of very apparent ignorance on the subject. In fact, it is a common sentiment of Russian speakers that P&V is the better translation because it's truer to the original russian; english speakers dislike the translation because it is stilted and awkward and does not send the message effectively. P&V is probably the most recent translation and it is being upheld by Russian academics. but go ahead and insult me more to compensate for your lack of knowledge.

>show me the "anti-misogynistic" revisions or fuck off
>accuses others of not knowing what they're talking about
>is shilling for a version that he doesn't even realized has been revised
kek is this just bait or what?

like i said, i have all of the translations mentioned.

>>11944065
>Unedited Garnett is not better than unedited Garnett
unedited < edited
my bad

>>11944065
> P&V is probably the most recent translation and it is being upheld by Russian academics

The shill blows up, a comedy in three acts. 4chan, 2018.

Would you mind giving a name of 1 (one) Russian specialist that approves them?

>>11944130
1 (one) Russian specialist: Orlando Figes

not a quote from him, but worth mentioning:
>Pevear and Volokhonsky have won the pen Translation Prize twice, for The Brothers Karamazov and Anna Karenina. Pevear, who has also translated French and Italian works, is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature at the American University of Paris. In addition to translating Russian contemporary poets, Volokhonsky, who attended Yale Divinity School, has translated theological texts into Russian.

for this entire discussion I've advocated revised/edited Garnett, so what exactly am i shilling?

>>11943829
It has a very British tone which, while being better than the American tone of P&V, still comes off to sound unnatural.
>>11944130
I bet he means Russian studies academics in the US.

>>11944065
>you're whole premise of "well it was written closer to that time period so it must be better" is coming from a place of very apparent ignorance on the subject. In fact, it is a common sentiment of Russian speakers that P&V is the better translation because it's truer to the original russian; english speakers dislike the translation because it is stilted and awkward and does not send the message effectively.

I agree with >>11942342 P&V sounds autistic and as >>11942479 said, that bit in particular took way too many liberties and it's not even closer to the original Russian.

>>11942479
>C — м
>К — нy
why did he do this

>>11943774
>P&V suck either way. Avoid like the plague.
Why does it have to suck? Why can't it be decent? Everyone said it was fucking amazing a few years ago, I don't like being lied to anon.

>>11944208

>>11942880
>>11943519

>>11944226
Those are and explanations of "what," not "why"

>>11944202
i wasn't endorsing P&V as the better translation, my point was that contemporary translators can flip Dosto's novels successfully and effectively

>>11944221
>Everyone said it was fucking amazing a few years ago, I don't like being lied to anon.
"Everyone" is not me. A decent translation would get closer to the Russian text without coming up with silly things of its own.

>>11944230
I suppose he did not want to share the real location of a place near his house, would you?

>>11944208
One cloudy but luminous day, towards four in the afternoon on April the first, 192— (a foreign critic once remarked that while many novels, most German ones for example, begin with a date, it is only Russian authors who, in keeping with the honesty peculiar to our literature, omit the final digit) a moving van, very long and very yellow, hitched to a tractor that was also yellow, with hypertrophied rear wheels and a shamelessly exposed anatomy, pulled up in front of Number Seven Tannenberg Street, in the west part of Berlin. The van’s forehead bore a star-shaped ventilator. Running along its entire side was the name of the moving company in yard-high blue letters, each of which (including a square dot) was shaded laterally with black paint: a dishonest attempt to climb into the next dimension. On the sidewalk, before the house (in which I too shall dwell), stood two people who had obviously come out to meet their furniture (in my suitcase there are more manuscripts than shirts). The man, arrayed in a rough greenish-brown overcoat to which the wind imparted a ripple of life, was tall, beetle-browed and old, with the gray of his whiskers turning to russet in the area of the mouth, in which he insensitively held a cold, half-defoliated cigar butt. The woman, thickset and no longer young, with bowlegs and a rather attractive pseudo-Chinese face, wore an astrakhan jacket; the wind, having rounded her, brought a whiff of rather good but slightly stale perfume. They both stood motionless and watched fixedly, with such attentiveness that one might think they were about to be shortchanged, as three red-necked husky fellows in blue aprons wrestled with their furniture.

Some day, he thought, I must use such a scene to start a good, thick old-fashioned novel. The fleeting thought was touched with a careless irony; an irony, however, that was quite unnecessary, because somebody within him, on his behalf, independently from him, had absorbed all this, recorded it, and filed it away. He himself had only moved in today, and now, for the first time, in the still unaccustomed state of local resident, he had run out to buy a few things. He knew the street and indeed the whole neighborhood: the boardinghouse from which he had moved was not far; until now, however, the street had revolved and glided this way and that, without any connection with him; today it had suddenly stopped; henceforth it would settle down as an extension of his new domicile.

>>11944280
whats this from

>>11944253
Not his own house, obviously, as he rented apartments through all his life. Moreover, anyone could find out where you live in the 19th century: the registries of home owners were public.

The exact streets and houses were not important, as that area of the city was full of dirty basement pubs, poverty, prostitution, poor visitors of the capital who had some business in the city or Sennaya square market, etc. Despite all the changes of last 150 years, it still has some of that atmosphere remaining, a true case of genius loci.

>>11944370
That one author that had a lot more in common with Dostoevsky than he was ready to admit.

>>11944370
The Gift by Nabokov

>>11943091
>either bring your own misogyny or read something else
I want to bring as little of myself into the equation as possible and grasp the meanings the original author intended. Ideologically motivated translation is one of the slimiest and most academically dishonest crimes against art you can commit.