/lit/ - Literature

>>15022561
If you are so worried about it get a different translation. A paperback for a popular book like C&P can be found for like $5 on ebay. Or just torrent it if you can't be arsed to buy it

So I read half of crime and punishment and then half of Brothers Karamazov before putting them down. I just didnt have the patience at the time. But I've been doing a lot of reading of ancient philosophy, some modern philosophy, and especially the Bible and Christian related readings. To begin again with Doestevsky, which of the two should I reread first, and what should I have read prior to reading it? I remember The Brothers Karamazov well enough to where I could pick it up from where I left off, but I dont really rememebr Crime and Punishment at all

>>15022561
>Constance Garnett translation of Crime and Punishment. Would you still consider that translation to be "literature"?
It's OK, I tried reading it again and it felt pretty dated and at times stiff. The David McDuff and Jessie Coulson
are both newer and read much better and are pretty faithful to the original, Garnett isn't awful but there really is no good reason to read her over instead of the others I mentioned.

>>15022805
I meant to say the David McDuff and Jessie Coulson translations are what I'd recommend.

>>15022561
It feels like a chore to read. Don't bother with Garnett.

>>15022827
This
I read C&P with Garnett's translation and it felt lifeless.
Later I read Brothers Karamazov translated by Peyear and Volokhonsky and it was much more enjoyable.

I have read 4 translation of Crime & Punishment. Some are far better than others but they all convey the brilliance of Dostoyevsky. Just try reading it and if the prose bothers you find another edition.

>>15022561
I would barely consider the original as "literature", but Constance Garnett's translation raises it up a notch.

>>15022952
P&V translations are abominations.

>>15023015
based nabby

>>15022561

>>15022827
Didn’t feel that way. Described the psychic despair I feel in those dreams after I’ve killed someone and know it is only a matter of time for me.

Personally I have trouble enjoying a book if it doesn't have good prose. One of the things that is essential to me in a translation is that the translator is a skilled prose stylist in English. That is, they are creating something that is aesthetically pleasing *in English* not in psuedo-English-cum-Russian.

>>15023104
Based

>>15023136
Anyway, I've found that for this purpose it's best to choose older translations. If it's at least 50 years old it will probably be good enough.

>>15023157
You're at the mercy of the style from the period still, though. A lot of Victorian translations are shit because talking about anything remotely sexual was still a no-no, even if the original work didn't skirt around it.

>>15023169
>You're at the mercy of the style from the period still, though.
Which I find much more pleasing to read.
>A lot of Victorian translations are shit because talking about anything remotely sexual was still a no-no, even if the original work didn't skirt around it.
My remark about 50 years doesn't necessitate Victorian translations. I'd say most translations I've read were produced in the first half or so of the 20th century. Of course I don't support bowdlerization, but if getting all of these sorts of details requires me to read some bastardized pseudo-English then I'd rather not have them.

Its the translation English speaking people have been reading for nearly a hundred years

>>15022805
McDuff and Coulson is google translate tier

Domestication > foreignization. This is the way.

>>15022561
>>15022952
Is it really possible to butcher it this much is a translation? Can you post a paragraph or two, so I could compare it with original?

>>15023661
Here's an article on the subject:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SWiwhiHTp7UJ:https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Sorry about the weird link, but the article is behind a paywall now, so I had to link to the version cached by Google.

>>15023684
>Legend has it that Grigory Potemkin, the chief minister and lover of Catherine the Great, decided to impress her with the prosperity of lands newly conquered by the Russian Empire. So he had the pasteboard facade of houses constructed along the road just far enough away to look real. Ever since, the phrase “Potemkin village” has indicated something that looks authentic and impressive—until one examines it closely and discovers its falsity.
Aaaaand I'm fucking triggered. When will this meme die, not just this shit never happened, but the whole anecdote is a literal product of some foreign envoy's butthurt.

Constance's translation is a bit dated but it has "soul" compared to like P&V

>>15023706
>Legend has it
It's almost like he's not stating that it literally happened.

>>15023706
Its called folk lore. Diogenes never met Alexander either but its a great story

>>15023684
>P&V opens:
>I am a sick man … I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts.
Awww shit, yeah, I see where this is going.

>>15023733
Explaining how P&V's literalness ends up missing the point of the book?

>>15023715
>>15023717
I see how it's a metaphor to the article, but it still triggers me that the majority of people believe this anecdote literally. Even omitting how Potemkin was the last person to such a falsification, just the general stereotype that it carries around is annoying.

My GF is reading the McDuff. Is she a pleb?

>>15023771
She has great taste

>>15022791
You should read all of his other books first.

>>15022561
>Would you still consider that translation to be "literature"?
lolwut? yeah I would. It's the same translation every English speaker read until the 1950s.

You anglophones have some real trouble with russian translations, don't you - it's these threads over and over agian. I guess I'm lucky in having some absolutely fantastic translators of russian from my country.

>>15023217
McDuff is based because he he gets the best of both worlds for literal and liberal translations

>>15023717
>Diogenes never met Alexander
Then who was standing in his sun?

just finished reading the p&v version of c&p and feel like a retard after reading this thread. should i get the mcduff or garnett version?

>>15023814
It's only because everyone who finds this place wants to read Dosto but knows absolutely nothing about translating or choosing editions in general.

>>15023817
it was an eclipse

>>15023822
Did you enjoy it? If so then don't let a random internet thread convince you to purchase the same book again. If you are still unsure, read excerpts. These exist for most translated works and are the most obvious way to choose one.

>>15023814
The reason is that there are like 20 translations of all of the more well-known Russian works.

>>15023814
>>15023866
That is to say, it's not that our translations are bad, but that there are so many that it makes choosing one difficult.

>>15023866
>20
But the argument is always focused on two or three different translations that anons claim to be shit for this or that reason. It's not like we have only ONE translator for each russian.

>>15023880
I checked on C&P and there are 13 English translations, about 8 of which I've seen mentioned here. McDuff probably gets mentioned a lot because it's published by Penguin Classics and thus common. Pevear is popular due to a strong advertising campaign. Garnett is the classic that most people read in the past. Katz and Ready have been popular recently. Anyway, I imagine most people have only read one of them and just recommend that. I understand why people want to find the "best" one, even there's no objective way of qualifying that.

It's okay to read the book multiple times so you don't have to marry a particular translation.