/lit/ - Literature

Pushkins prose isn’t that great btw. I wouldn’t get that big chunker. If you must, just get the Oxford papeback Queen of Spades and other Stories

>>17936528
I was eyeing that Oxford edition earlier. I'll just get that one then, thanks!

P&V are the worst translators of Russian lit, and have only gained their reputation by an, admittedly very smart, marketing scam

If you want the most affordable, Constace Garret has translated massive amounts, and is consistently really solid. Otherwise you should start off by reading the first few pages of a book by different translators, and reading your favourite. It will be pretty boring to start off with, but you'll eventually get to know what translators you like or don't like.

bump

>>17936247
Let's just say that their style fits some authors but not others.

>>17936247
Constance Garnett is Tolstoy approved and that’s all I need

>>17938853
Her too? The Maudes are also Tolstoy-approved.

>>17938853
>>17938861
it's not like tolstoy could approve something that came after he died

>>17938887
He could've approved if he read the translation before publication.

>>17937273
I’ve read excerpts of Garnett before, I liked what I read for sure. Maybe I should go back to the Saunders book and check which translators he used for each story, because I found all of them quite readable (notably, while he calls the P&V translation of Alyosha the Pot ‘good’, he never uses a P&V translation for any single story)


>>17938851
Which authors suit their style best? Or worst?

>>17937273
What’s the marketing scam??

>>17938922
>Which authors suit their style best? Or worst?
Best: Chekhov, Tolstoy.
Worst: Dosto, Gogol.

>>17938895
sure let's give P&V a time machine

>>17938937
not even a time machine could fix their translations

>>17938940
i'm not even a P&V fag but saying that one translation is "tolstoy approved" doesn't really mean much

>>17936247
P&V are fine.They are the gold standard for a few of the Russian greats

>>17936247
P&V are absolute trash.

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/

>>17940414
I hope the p&v shill sees this

>>17936247
I read the Garnett translation of Anna Karenina and P&V translation of War and Peace. I was struck by any glaring differences in the prose. I didn't learn about the "controversy" surrounding P&V's methodologies until later. Their approach feels like it should take away from the dignity of the original work... but all translation does this to some degree. I enjoyed War and Peace, and I've enjoyed at least one of their Dostoy translations as well. I think deciding between translators doesn't really matter when you're first getting into russian lit. Maybe compare and contrast when you get around to rereading books. But honestly, the Garnett translations of Brothers of Karamazov, Anna Karenina, and Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You were all a joy to read. If you're really worried about the fidelity of the translation process, she's the right choice.

>>17940538
Good god never mind I take it all back. Don't read P&V. Their translations are fine, they effectively communicate the events of the story... but their prose is too far divorced from the cultural context from which the works arose. I've been doing some research and their lack of cultural understanding is evident in many cases. They butchered the very start of Notes from the Underground, and I read that translation myself. It seems their translations became popular due to some artistic gimmick put forward as an innovation. But their method robs the original prose of its depth and passion.

Also this thread motivated me to order a copy of Dead Souls, which I was thinking about on my walk earlier today. Thanks

>>17940414
p&v bros... i don't feel so good.. .

I fell for the memes... damn you Oprah. I took your endorsement to heart, and I've been betrayed.

>>17940414
P&Vfags btfo

>>17936247
P&V are absolute hacks who butcher everything they work on and are basically a scam by the publishing industry to sell new copies of old classics.

>>17941103
Agree P&V are bad

>>17937273
Constance Garnett is awful and should be avoided. She makes the books feel way too British.

>>17940414
God I wish. No one else's translations felt right. Maude comes the closest, but it still feels awkward to read.