/lit/ - Literature

Do you really suppose that there is a single scholar of Russian literature on /lit/?

>>12300557
Ive gotten a good feedback on the P&V translation of Brothers K when I posted about it, somewhere around a year ago.

reading translations at all is the real problem

>>12300571
One day I too hope to speak and read russkie, until then, I'd still like to read Gogol in the "closest" form to an untranslated version I can get.

test

I'm not familiar with his Gogol, but in general Magarshack is quite good. In any case as long as it's not unrevised Garnett you should be fine. Don't fall for autism perpetuated by pointless tards in here.

>>12300603
Thanks for your answer anon. I'll take it at face value then and just read it. Seems very readable from what I have skimmed so far

>>12300557
I ve got a bachelor's in Russian.
So yeah most translations of Gogol's work are pretty on point.
Pushkin and Mayakovsky are some of the most based writers fucked by translators.

>>12300820
What’s the best translation of Eugene onegin

>>12300443
This article (by a professor of Russian literature) might be of interest to you:
>https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
>Bernard Guilbert Guerney accomplished the impossible with a translation of Nikolai Gogol’s enormously difficult and complex Dead Souls, conveying the weirdness, linguistic inventiveness, and perfectly timed humor that had eluded everyone else, even Garnett. To be sure, Garnett and Guerney have their flaws, including some errors in meaning, but editing byjudicious scholars has often corrected those mistakes. Ralph Matlaw thoughtfully revised the Garnett version of Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, and Elizabeth Allen did the same with many works in The Essential Turgenev. Susanne Fusso’s recasting of Guerney is the only Dead Souls worth reading.
There's more on Gogol/Dead Souls later too.
>>12300557
This a shitty argument, because there have been plenty of these types threads in the past with anons giving helpful information on good/bad translations. Lot of rubbish too, but better answers than you'd get on places like goodreads or reddit.
>>12300559
That's odd, /lit/ usually (rightfully) shits on P&V

>>12300820
Poetry is a completely different question though. It's not that they're "fucked" by translators - and Gogol certainly sometimes is, see P&V - it's that they're inherently untranslatable. With novels, some of the work gets lost in translation (depending on the work - ie, Dosto lends well to translation, Proust does not). With poetry, only the top layer of what the poet is literally saying gets through, and most of the work is lost. Rhythm, rhyme and all else related to the acoustics of the words cannot be translated.

>>12300828
Learn russian, pleb.