/lit/ - Literature

what's wrong with P&V? I got that version at a used bookstore
I haven't read other translations and I don't follow Reddit culture as much as OP, so I don't have any frame of reference

Learn Russian.

>>18309972
Yea, not an option. I'm already learning other languages.
>>18309929
They're pure marketing, apparently. Their TBK is at least decent from what I've heard but very awkward and humorless.

bump

>>18309912
With all the time you spend looking for the best translations for books you could be studying another language you retard

>>18309972
This. Other option is reddit

think we've decided on the oxford world classics avsey translation

unironically p&v

>>18310047
>They're pure marketing, apparently
you fell for a meme

>>18310894
It takes a few hours to pick a translation vs years of daily studying.

>>18310906
>you fell for a meme
I haven't read P&V, so not yet.

>>18310899
Not OP. I know Russian fluently but it takes me almost twice as long to read anything in Russian as opposed to English. Are the translations really that different? Not really keen on reading 1k pages of classic Russian literature at a pace of 20 pages an hour.

>>18309929
P&Vs aren't very well-liked by academics. It's simply because there are better options out there.
They are passable, it's not like they are unreadable like renditions from a Japanese company that is shoveling out piss-poor translations of public-domain works.

>>18309912
Julius Katzer

P&V is the most accurate to date
t. Russian Russian professor

>>18310965
>P&Vs aren't very well-liked by academics
P&V is what you will be assigned in nearly every Russian language course in American universities

>>18309912
will never understand the amount of oxygen this board gives to translations, the handwringing over p&v probably exceeds how much bros k is actually discussed.

you know you can read a book twice?

>>18311076
> American universities
Which is a red flag, not a good sign. These faggots read Gabler's Ulysses, ffs.

>>18311141
>i know more than literature professors because i've absorbed some /lit/ nonsense about which translations are good or not

>>18311175
Yes.

>>18309912
I read the Oxford World Classics translation by Ignat Avsey and it was great, definitely recommend. Very natural prose and I thought the style and meaning was maintained throughout as well.

This version

>>18311076
This is empirically false.

I read Andrew McAndrew's translation and liked it a lo and it read smoothly. Plan on reading P&Vs on a re read to compare

>>18309912
Anything beyond Garnett is just vanity.

>>18311631
>Andrew McAndrew
that can't be real

>>18309912
avsey, the oxford world classics edition

good day!

>>18310047
>They're pure marketing
retard

>>18309912
it's such a shame that dostoevsky died before he finished the brothers karamazov. he left so many loose plot lines and the fate of many characters hanging. we lost one of the great that day

>>18312063
They became popular after Oprah's book club read their version of Crime and Punishment.

>>18310894
You don't know any foreign language to a communicative level. If you did, you wouldn't be making this comparison.

>>18311923
Avsey is by far the best of these, followed by McDuff and then MacAndrews. Garnett is, as always, dogshit.

>>18312111
Garnett's C&P is pretty good. If that was good enough for people like Hemingway or Borges in their youth, then that's good enough for me.

>>18309912
>P&V is Reddit
>P&V isn't Reddit
>Academics like P&V
>Academics hate P&V
>Americans like P&V so it's bad
>Americans hate P&V so it's good
getting some mixed signals here, plus these aren't even personal opinions. These opinions are based on what others groups of people do or say, not based on anon's personal experience
Has anyone here actually read and compared different editions? If not, then why do you hold such strong opinions about it?

>>18312145
I've read only portions of P&V's versions because I couldn't stomach a full version of their insipid, awkward prose. It's only one step above Google Translate. Personally I think there are better translators.

>>18312145
>P&V isn't Reddit
said no one ever

>>18312078
first, it was anna karenina that Oprah read
second, they were already 2 time award winning translators for dostoevsky before she even did that

>>18312176
Reddit hate P&V even more than 4chan do.

>>18312191
They actually love P&V.

just read mcduff.

>>18312111
McDuff is one of the worst ones there with his "fishy death." Garnett is as elegant as ever.
Poopoo and Vagina as soulless as ever. Avsey is pretty good, I agree.

>>18312219
yeah, 6 years ago you idiot. They hate P&V now

>>18309972
Very hard
Cyrillic is cool tho

>>18312137
Hemingway and Borges didn't say anything about the translation being good. Of course Dosto is still great, even if translated poorly.

>>18312240
I just don't get it. I can see why you would dislike McDuff. But to call Garnett elegant, I don't know, you must have no understanding of rhythm.

>>18312279
I called her version elegant because of her choice of words. This might be more evident later on.

>>18312315
>among us
Zoomers have polluted my brain

>>18312322

>>18312324
I dont get it

>>18312328
amogus is a bastardisation of among us.
other than that, there's not much to get.

>>18312279
>Hemingway and Borges didn't say anything about the translation being good.
Hemingway did like her translations and Borges simply called them readable. Although I don't think they had that many options back then.

>>18309912
I'll just google the answer.

>>18313442
I did. Was not satisfied.

>>18312279
No, Dostoyevsky translated by P&V is a chore to read.

Revised Garnett
McDuff
MacAndrews

I read Garnett because I bought a 70 year old book from a street vendor for $3. However, even without knowing the original I felt the translation was a little off sometimes. I wonder how the P&V version compares.

>>18310965
So what do the academics like?

Apparently looking at the file I've downloaded, I've settled on Avsey Ignat.
I don't remember why. I do remember doing about an hour or 2 of research.

>>18314089
>file
ngmi

>>18314096
I am very lazy and don't like holding the book open. If I've read 3 books on this thing this year so far and half of one last year before changing to this version then this is better because:
reading > not reading
One day I'll have a nice ergonomic chair (one for outdoors too!) and a desk so I can sit right and hold it open comfortably, but until then...

>>18311923
Longer version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131109201519/http://comparetranslations.com/index.php?page=2&id=239

For example, Dostoevsky uses “пoдтибpил”, “дeнeжки”, “тыcячки” in a sentence that can be roughly translated as
> He got 'em monies, and she would never see them again, like if those grands were — poof — gone.
This is an obvious caricature, and an incorrect translation, but the point is that narrator's language is not impersonal, as in journalist's report or historian's article, and resembles a letter to a friend or a relative.

Note that in addition to narrator's writing style there are (at least) Dostoevsky's own writing style, and individual speech styles of the characters. Any translator needs to take into account who is in control of camera and microphone at any moment, and change the style accordingly.

>>18312181
I wonder why posts that defend Pevear and Volokhonsky products always mention something that might impress laymen, and never get to the point professionally. You can organize as many awards for yourself as you like if credibility of nominating party does not matter. On the other hand, any student and anyone with a bit of a talent understands that word-for-word translation is an amateurish idea, and a well known dead end. Processing dozens of classical works in this manner might be Autismo Grande if one's intentions are pure, or much more prosaic endeavor if they are not.

I'm still reeling that I didn't even read the real version of the classic adventure bros novel.
Not until 20 fucking 18 did some autismo have enough and make his own translation of The Three Musketeers.
Apparently all the versions before this claim to be unabridged original sources. Yet lots of content was cut for sensitive unhorny (but secretly horny) protestants in America.
There's about 50 pages of that book that I know nothing about.

>>18309912
>tfw speak western slavic language so any translation of Russian I read is by definition better than any English one
feelsgoodman

>>18315498
Your parents could have taught you russian, lazy man

>>18311076
american universities are a joke

>>18311923
>>18314843
which translation do (You) think is best?

>>18309912
Shame that you cant find it in your native language.

>>18311923
>AMONG US
DAVID MCDUFF 1993
>AMONG US
4th LINE
>AMONG US

>>18315513
I studied it in school for 3 years (but the pace was slow and I was disinterested at the time.) Then I learned it from playing online games, I can even write in cyryllic as fast as in my native language and understand maybe 80% when someone speaks about every day stuff. However I already speak English and French well enough to read books in them so there are better ways to use my time than adding another indo-European language. Maybe someday.

>>18315565
>feetfag video
>superior belly
I want to touch the belly

>>18315565
why even wear pants at this point

>>18314125
>he cannot even fucking hold the book he's reading

>>18315607
she's not a whore

>>18314843
Because all I was doing was demonstrating that they were lauded well before Oprah came on the scene

>>18311923
>>18312111
>>18312145
>>18312240
If you retards read the excerpts without knowing which translator they belonged to you'd all be saying wildly different things

>>18312315
So you called her elegant even though the excerpt shows no evidence of elegance.
Your bias is showing, idiot

>>18315876
I have never read Avsey's translations in my life. Cope, seethe, dilate.

>>18314843
are you going to say there is no best translator and it should be read in the original...
or recommend a translator already

>>18315890
And yet you provided opinions for translators other than Avesy

>>18316058
Garnett being dogshit is a fact, not an opinion.

>>18315876
I tried this for War and Peace and I liked Brigg's the best but I still went with Maude

>>18316425
How come? Did you fall for the Tolstoy approved meme?

>>18315883
"Gloomy and tragic death" is more elegant than "tragic and fishy death", for example. "Abject and vicious" is also a nice choice of words. And "senseless" is definitely more elegant than "muddlehead" or whatever the fuck they used.
>>18316207
It is an opinion. The translation is pretty good, especially when you consider that it's more than 100 years old. Like I said, if it was good enough for Hemingway and Borges, it's good enough for me.

>>18316979
But senseless isn't as accurate as muddleheaded. It doesn't conotate what Dostoevsky tried to

>>18315534
Avsey seems the best. And all the others are also good, except for McDuff's "fishy death" (but maybe this is an exception and he's good elsewhere)

>>18316979
>It is an opinion
wrong

>The translation is pretty good
Unbelievably wrong

>more than 100 years old
Fuck off back to r*ddit, zoomer

>if it was good enough for Hemingway and Borges
Not a fucking argument, they physically couldn't read better translations because they weren't available. I already refuted this but you are conveniently ignoring it because you are a retarded zoomer.

>>18316979
Dostoyevsky is less elegant than you think; he's actually quite colloquial at times.

>>18317018
Refuted what? This was the classic translation than many writers read, writers like Hemingway and Borges, and the one that introduced Dostoyevsky to the West. You cannot refute history. The zoomer thing would be to read a most modern translation, not the one that's more than a hundred years old.
>>18317054
I never said he was elegant, much less all the time.

>>18317098
Do you seriously not understand that what you are saying is not an argument? Are you seriously that much of an idiot? This is the first translation therefore it is the best translation? Seriously, commit suicide.

>>18317098
>I never said he was elegant, much less all the time.
Yet you praise a translation for being elegant?

>>18317001
"Muddleheaded" isn't particularly accurate, it's just an odd choice. "Senseless" is not particularly wrong. All the modern translations are just senselessly parrotting MacAndrew in this one, it seems, given that there were other choices that they could use. I'm not sure why this caught your eye but McDuff's "fishy death" didn't. Dostoyevsky never says anything close to "fishy."
>>18317189
Never said it was the best. I said the choice of words was elegant and the translation was a classic read by many important writers, who, by the way, liked this Dostoyevsky and were influenced by it. Saying it's "dogshit" is a silly whine and has no nuance or relevance.

>>18309912
it doesnt matter just read the book retard

Well, the Russian word used is “dark”, meaning the death case was “suspicious”, “puzzling”, “unclear”, and, by extension, “fishy”, but it's not how someone would describe “fishy” death with an intend to stress it. The translator might had a certain idiom with that word in mind, and inherited the stress from it.

>>18317245
I'm not saying he was or wasn't elegant, I'm saying the choice of words in this segment is the most elegant when compared to the others, althought elegant might mean something different to people here. Do you care to point out a particularly colloquial moment in TBK?

>>18317332
>but McDuff's "fishy death"
What makes you think I care about McDuffs translation?

>>18317410
>yo dat gurl grushenka strait up be mad phat bruh. Dat ass be drivin me crazy, strait up. A bonerfied pawg f'real

Did you even read the book, anon?

>>18317410
The point is that a translation being 'elegant' is not automatically good if it fails to capture the language or tone of the original text.
>Do you care to point out a particularly colloquial moment in TBK?
Basically all of Fyodor's lines.

>>18311923
Garnett is, in this case, boring. I read McDuff's translation and felt that he did the story justice, writing in a very stylish but understandable manner.

>>18317504
Well nothing in this segment seems particularly overly colloquial. I'm reading a dialogue section and the dialogue's tone seems fine as well. The characters sound anxious or agitated when they need to, the emotions are there, etc. They use fillers like "Ah" or "Oh" like Dosto does in the original when the characters are talking and want to sound natural, I suppose.

>>18309929
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/
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

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

>>18311141
American universities would have you read Kaufman's edit of will to power.

>>18318176
did you even read those articles? The morson one is shitty and most of the others is just blog posts with people just saying they didn't like P&V

>>18318754
Have you read them? A copy of quite old school (and quite boring) critical article from a journal is not a blog post, and those that are technically blog posts have not been included for that reason only. Like, something is explained there. Also, no shitty articles have been chosen.

Or are you the one of those silly creatures who think a dozen of links is A LOT OF INFORMATION that requires A SIGNIFICANT TIME INVESTMENT from A BUSY PERSON?

>>18319040
>https://www.librarything.com/topic/260074
not even three articles in and we have a shitty thread of people just saying they didn't like them and referencing other articles (including the reddit-tier morson article whilst foaming at the mouth)

>>18319171
An intelligent person would use that link as a quick overview, and follow the referenced discussion, then search the web for more. Because that would be too much to expect from people even on /lit/, the relevant links are provided in a spoonfeeding fashion.

There is very little foam if we take into account that in the richest country on Earth today, in a society that has extra money to spend supporting arts (like professional translation work), the market has been flooded by Coca-Cola type work that is only notable for being marketed better than the others, and having a colorful branded fridge delivered to any bumfuck town. Really makes you question all those stereotypical equations between business success and actual value.

>>18319537
>An intelligent person would use that link as a quick overview, and follow the referenced discussion, then search the web for more. Because that would be too much to expect from people even on /lit/, the relevant links are provided in a spoonfeeding fashion.
are you retarded? What articles would you find from that thread that wouldn't be included in your list of articles? You either didn't read it or you just included it to make your list look longer.

>>18319537
holy BASED

bmp

I read P&V. Can I be saved?