/lit/ - Literature

>>15815625
gutenberg

>>15815636
Care to elaborate? ive been hearing good things about Volokhonsky.

none he is pseudbait

>>15815625
It's massively overrated, should probably just skip altogether. Tolstoy is far superior so if you haven't read him yet I highly recommend

Пpecтyплeниe и Haкaзaниe

>>15815625
I've read P&V and Garnett. Preferred Garnett.

>>15816222
second this, P&V translations are bad. I read their versions of War & Peace and The Possessed (I'm not calling it "Demons"), found both to be often unreadable and occassionally unintelligible.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down

>>15815625
>translation

>>15815625

I read the Garnette translation. I enjoyed it. Rich P and Volhokonsky do a great job with The Brothers Karamazov, in my view. I liked their translation. Sometimes Constances prose can be a bit dull, and boring. The P&V do a great job of turning Dostoyevsky's stories into a vibrant read. I feel like they bring out his characters neurosis very well, whereas Constance doesn't manage it nearly as often.

>>15816390
Didn't Nabokov hate Garnett translations?

Jesus fucking Christ don't you people ever get tired of this thread

>>15816411
He hated Dosto in general

>>15816471
But loved Gogol

>>15816411

I don't know why you asked me that considering I didn't mention Nabokov anywhere in this thread, but I think I recall reading somewhere that he didn't like Dostoyevsky all that much. He thought he was overrated. But he references him at times in some of his work.

As for hating Garnettes' work herself on Dostoyevsky's translations, I'm not sure. Google could give you a better answer probably.

>>15815625
P&V
don't waste your time with any other translation

>>15816501
I mentioned it because he's obviously an authority on literature. I also recall reading that.

>>15816199
>>15816173
I just bought a bunch of dostoyevsky. Did I waste money

>>15816541
No, but his detractors in this thread wasted time.

>>15816541
Yes
Just go to rutracker

>>15816541
Depends how much you spent, but otherwise no, he's definitely worth reading

going with P&V, thanks for the help.

>>15816315
> The Possessed (I'm not calling it "Demons")
Which is strange, because they are “devils” of Luke 8:33 right in the epigraph, and the secondary meaning is derived by transfer of qualities of evil spirit onto a person. The characters of the book are quite like swine of the parable, and it helps to see that Dostoevsky meant to target the substance that possessed them.

>>15816574
Begone, shill!

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
http://www.thinkaloud.ru/feature/berdy-lan-PandV-e.html
https://www.librarything.com/topic/260074
https://readingroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/the-art-of-translation/#comment-206
http://languagehat.com/the-translation-wars/
http://languagehat.com/more-translation-wars/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/23/socks-translating-anna-karenina/
http://languagehat.com/janet-malcolm-vs-pv/
https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/why-i-dont-read-pevear-and-volokhonsky-vtranslations/
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down/

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

>>15816541
Well, no doubt you will read some of them and find out for yourself, but you definitely could have spent your money better