/lit/ - Literature

>>17104201
I think so but the translator has to be very skilled and needs to have a very intimate relationship with the language to pull it off. Anyone can produce a literal translation. The Golding Ovid translation is a good example. It's not even close to being a literal translation but I think it is successful none the less. I think he does a good job of capturing the otherworldly charm of the original text. I read that translation of the brothers k too and was also frustrated with it, seeing how much more engaging it would be if I weren't reading it through the lens of a choppy and awkward translation.

>>17104339
>I read that translation of the brothers k too and was also frustrated with it, seeing how much more engaging it would be if I weren't reading it through the lens of a choppy and awkward translation.
Was it the same translators? (Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky)
I actually liked their Crime and Punishment translation a lot, which is why I bought the Brothers K from them as well

>>17104399
Yeah it was the same translation. I enjoyed it but found the style awkward at times, though this is inevitable when translating. I know that their translations are controversial within the Russian Lit community but I'm not sure why exactly.

>>17104201
I didn't have a problem with the Pevear and Volokohnsky translation, but I haven't read any other translations. I still felt myself immersed in the read and still felt moved by the characters and the philosophy within the novel. I will never actually know Dostoevsky's "true" intention behind each passage, but I like the idea of one russian and one english author translating it together, reminds me of the Maude translations of Tolstoy.

>>17104201
I think Dostoevsky is one of the easiest writers to translate, his voice is very recognizable, but it's not based on the poetic qualities of language for the most part so you don't lose them in translation.

>>17104201
Learning another language to proficiency is pretty black pilling, because you realize how much of the translation process comes down to personal interpretation, and that "professional" translators very often butcher texts, especially ancient ones, either due to incompetency or some personal agenda, or maybe even a mix of both. Be careful and do your due diligence when choosing a translation: and yes, it's a red flag if it's by a woman.

>>17104478
>know that their translations are controversial within the Russian Lit community but I'm not sure why exactly.
Shiet really? I'd like to hear what the critics say

>>17104892
the common criticism is that they miss out the spirit of the text in striving for accuracy. this is a good read
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>17105210
No it’s actually a retarded read. Morson is in the minority here, which is why people only ever cite his article when criticizing PV. Morson ridicules their translation method of the wife translating first then the husband, but doesn’t say anything about Garnett’s obviously flawed method of rushing out translations and even skipping entire passages (considering Garnett is his favourite translator). He says they miss the spirit of Dostoevsky but doesn’t give any solid arguments for it; you just have to take his word for it. Like when he says “no one who understands Dosto would translate it this way,” um ok? How do you know? Joseph Frank obviously understood Dosto better than anyone else and he endorsed their translations. Morson even admits PV’s translation of Tolstoy is more accurate but still shits on it because it’s not “elevated” enough. Look at this shit:

>Unlike Dunnigan, P&V, like Tolstoy, repeat the word “wept” rather than switch to a synonym. And P&V are correct that Tolstoy’s description of Natasha’s and Marya’s awareness is literally “simple and solemn.” But in its syntax, vocabulary, and tone, Tolstoy’s Russianusage is elevated and poetic.

Are you kidding me? Just a bunch of value judgements and baseless claims. The dude is a plain as day contrarian with a massive ax to grind.

>>17104201
i'm reading this now and i'm enjoying it but smerdyakov reminds me too much of myself and it bothers me.

>>17105309
Should we tell him?

>>17104201
>Do you feel that translations can truly capture the "feel" of the original text?
No, this will be never possible! Every language has its own access to the ideas and matter that make up our universe and thus this access cannot be remade in another language.

>>17104201
no. virgil wrote in latin and no translation into english will ever be like reading him in latin, because it's in english. its grammar is different to english, its sound is different to english, its vocabulary is different, the sentence structure, so variable and yet somehow always correct, is hopelessly squished into english's anal retentive syntax: words have different semantic ranges, most of the time have no true direct translation and are wedded to the cultural context in which virgil wrote them some 2000 years ago, and you're some image board addicted shitposter. or take cicero. when cicerro uses archaisms in his orations to spark up memories of the old republic, how can you even know how that may have struck a roman listener? you can compare the effect KJV english has on modern english speakers but you are getting ahead of yourself even then. even when you read in the original language you are removed. or voltaire: that pompous faggotry could only have been written in french. take shakespeare as another example: he understood that there is a relationship between saxon and latinate vocabulary that exists in the mind of all native english speakers regarding social rank and prestige, if only unconsciously, and how he plays with that relationship makes up in large part the pleasure of reading him. can you imagine henry the iv part 1 translated into any other language? it's why ESLs often shit on shakespare, because the verbal magic is gone in translation. translation is futile. any good translator will tell you that.

>>17105686
henry vi part 1*. i'm drunk

>>17104201
Even if you learn the language you wont understand the texts the same way native spearks understand them so dont even bother

>>17105307
No their translations still read like shit. The dude who wrote that article is clearly shilling against them, but the new yorker article about the "Translation Wars" or whatever is clearly shilling P&V hard. From the standpoint of someone who doesn't know Russian, all you really can do is compare selections of different translations and know which reads the best, then check that with reputation of accuracy (but also be aware of the abundant shilling). Both are important. IMO when P&V is stacked up against other translations the verbiage is unnatural and has no flow, yet often says almost exactly the same thing.