/lit/ - Literature

>>16686586
Maude, of course.

>>16686586
Garnett

Bartlett is meant to be more accurate no?

>>16687668
Accuracy’s overrated.Readability is more important for novels.Only autists would rather have a clunky word-for-word translation.Its best to find a balance.If you loved a translated work, and afterwards you found out it wasn’t accurate, would you stop liking the book?

>>16687750
rather I meant it's been called a more accurate and readable Maude without going the P&V route. In any case, I've decided to put down Anna and pick up War and Peace (Oxford), I'll read both Maude and Bartlett when I go back to Anna. Might pick up Brothers Karamazov before Anna Karenina.

>>16687808
I look at translations as if they are covers of songs.Artistic merit goes to the original author ofcourse but that doesn’t mean the translations aren’t enjoyable.Poetry and philosophy are the big no-no’s for me in translation.A translator can usually capture themes, symbolism, characterizations, plots and generally the tone of novels.I don’t know Russian but I’ve found P&V to be very readable and entertaining so I won’t trash them.I think often people get too autistic with translations if they’re just reading as a hobby

>>16686586
I have the Oxford War & Peace and Anna Karenina, so it's Maude for me. Very kino, desu.

>>16687808
P&V is better than Bartlett in terms of both accuracy and readability. Read the academic reviews of the translations: P&V is considered the best.

That said, of all the writers to nitpick over translation, Tolstoy is the stupidest one to choose.

Always go for the one that has the best looking cover. Always.

>>16688076
>P&V
They're marketing and nothing more.

>>16688105
I doubt you read Russian so I'm not going to waste my time with this but you can search archives for my posts explaining the differences and comparing passages.

>>16688129
They're the always the most awkward and dullest. One of my most disgusting experiences recently was then I got one of their translations of Chekhov and in the back literally all the blurbs were cock-sucking their translation rather than talking about fucking Chekhov's work or himself. Sad!

>>16688129
>>16688076
I've only read P&V for translations of major russian works because that's what my russian lit professor recommended and had us read (I think I read one book translated by McAndrew but it was a post soviet novel, still good though)

I've heard both online and anecdotally that P&V aren't that great. My friend read a translation of some story by Gogol for a class at a different uni, his professor was a polish woman while mine was an american, I think Nevsky Prospekt, Anyway, my friend told me that in Nevsky Prospekt the protagonist's name has something to do with a pastry, and there's a key scene in the story where he eats the pastry he's named after and overcomes himself something like that, I can't say for sure since I haven't read it. But my friend said that P&V's translation doesn't indicate that the protag and the pastry have the same name, unlike the translation that he read. Is this a real issue? And what about the article "The Pevearsion of Russian Literature" by Morson? Does the author of that article have serious criticisms? I'm only asking because I don't know anyone aside from my professor who reads in russian, so I'm curious to see what the deal is

>>16686586
Toлcтoй

>>16688151
>One of my most disgusting experiences recently was then I got one of their translations of Chekhov and in the back literally all the blurbs were cock-sucking their translation rather than talking about fucking Chekhov's work or himself.
That's not uncommon for books that are so well-known and highly regarded that you don't need to be convinced that it's good.

>>16688600
Like the old /lit/ saying goes, Avoid P&V like the plague.