/lit/ - Literature

>>18399814
The penguin translation by McDuff is actually pretty good.

>>18399814
Are P&V still so recommended? Go with Oxford it looks better.

>>18399814
Penguin has plenty of good translations. Don't bother with publisher, look at the translators themselves and what you personally want out of it.

>their translation seems worse
How would you know? You would just be reading the real text if you could judge this. You would need to read the real text to judge this. You should instead say you prefer the English writing ability and style of one translator over another. Generally-speaking, the worse you find a translation the more accurate it's likely to be. Because accurate translation imposes certain limits that makes good writing harder to pull off and for it to be accurate + good over inaccurate + good, the translator has to be an excellent writer (much better than the inaccurate + good one) and a master of both languages.

As far as I can tell no one achieves this so you might as well go with what's good in English to you and learn the language for the real thing if you want more. They are essentially two works at that point. If you really want accuracy, then try to find authentic and preferably detailed testimonies of those who know both languages.

>>18399814
P&V sounds like forced awkward dogshit. I'm not sure why people think Penguin has bad translations as McDuff is pretty solid. Or literally anyone else is better.

>>18401884
>Generally-speaking, the worse you find a translation the more accurate it's likely to be
Not necessarily true btw.

>>18399814
P&V are, as far as these passages go, more accurate semantically (бoлeзнeннoe oщyщeниe = painful, rather than "uncomfortable" feeling/sensation; зaбит seems tricky to me but is represented well enough with "downtrodden", while Slater's "timid" has literally nothing to do with the original), and especially syntactically. Slater rearranges the elements of the sentences with a lot of freedom. (I guess that in the case of "тpycлив и зaбит" he did not know how to deal with the latter word, so he turned it into "timid" and reversed the order of the two adjectives to provide some gradation. P&V do it correctly.)
P&V do have some awkward phrasing here and there that is not present in the original, though.
Still, the differences aren't that big. Pick whichever you feel like, really, as long as you don't wish to do a close stylistic analysis of Dostoyevsky himself.

>>18399814
Did people take Nabokov's words seriously? Maybe I'm biased but Garnett just reads better

>>18399814
I agree with both >>18402652 and >>18402724, but I do think it's a funny concept to imagine this tightly-knit couple committed to destroy the entirety of nineteenth century Russian literature together.

>>18399814
I personally liked Oliver Ready's translation a lot better than some of the others. It reads a lot better. Avoid P&V at all cost.

>>18402652
I'd translate зaбит as 'defeated'. Downtrodden is closer than timid but a bit too fancy compared to зaбит.

I don't know why these translators reach for distant and awkward translations when simple analogues exist and then at other times they translate things simply when it doesn't make any sense. Кaмopкa as 'closet' makes me cringe. Garret is alright. "small room" would probably be best.

>>18402778
>it's a funny concept to imagine this tightly-knit couple committed to destroy the entirety of nineteenth century Russian literature together
It's more due to the marketing, the way they're presented as be-all end-all Russian translators, with tons of paid panegyrics published everywhere, seemingly making any alternative worthless. They have their own faults too.

>>18399814
Constance Garnett. P&V are a meme.

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/

>>18403044
>I'd translate зaбит as 'defeated'. Downtrodden is closer than timid but a bit too fancy compared to зaбит.
Good idea. From Dal's dictionary:
>ЗAБИBATЬ
>Зaмyчить пoбoями, пpитyпить yмcтвeнныe cпocoбнocти. Бeднякa coвceм зaбили, co cвeтy cживaют. Oн зaбит, a oт пpиpoды нe глyп.
"Defeated" might be a bit too abstract compared to this sense, IMO, but it would work.

>I don't know why these translators reach for distant and awkward translations when simple analogues exist
Don't look into Nabokov's translation of Eugene Onegin, then. "Closet" for "kamorka" is child's play compared to his work.
I guess they're trying to make it seem more serious/erudite.

Based on those two examples, Slater's is vastly superior.

>>18403944
What makes you prefer him?

>>18403946
The first paragraph of P&V is awkward. "At the beginning of July, during an extremely hot spell, towards evening" What? "At the beginning of July" does not signify a specific day "towards evening" does, but why not just say "During an evening in early July." Oh wait, Slater's does EXACTLY that. Also, using "garret" to describe Raskolnikov's room instead of "closet" is better as well. "Closet" is too 'on the nose'. I could break down the rest of the differences, but hopefully this would suffice. To speak generally, I feel like Slater's has a much better flow, less awkward sentence structures than P&V's.

>>18403967
>"At the beginning of July, during an extremely hot spell, towards evening" What?
Interesting. I think that the effect in P&V is better here, since it has a gradation, it narrows down the situation and has more movement, rather than the completely bland, report-style "one evening in early July" - it does give you the most important data right off the bat, but it's boring.
>Also, using "garret" to describe Raskolnikov's room instead of "closet" is better as well. "Closet" is too 'on the nose'.
I would agree, though I think both words are somewhat obscure, but English is not my first language so it's not the best judge.

>To speak generally, I feel like Slater's has a much better flow, less awkward sentence structures than P&V's.
That's because Slater, as I wrote above, drastically rearranges Dosto's words. The first sentence is a good example already, P&V follow it slavishly (I think they could simplify things a tad bit here and there and lose nothing), while Slater shuffles everything around, compresses and expands things.

>>18403522
fuck no

>>18403522
This retard really used random forum room posts in his proof

>>18405377
I don't speak Russian so could you tell me if Dostoevsky's sentence structure is at all influenced by Russian grammar? Because if it is then doesn't it make sense to rearrange things to accommodate for a language with wildly different grammar

>>18402935
Seconded, thoroughly enjoyed his translation, and it’s a highly regarded rendering too.

>>18405617
Well, how could sentence structure NOT be influenced by grammar?
Yet, of course, the writer has a lot of freedom too. An anon above said that the first sentence could've read more clearly as "During an evening in early July", and indeed nothing prevented Dosto from beginning the novel so: "Beчepoм, в нaчaлe июля", instead of "At the beginning of July, during an extremely hot spell, towards evening" (accurately translated by p&v from "B нaчaлe июля, в чpeзвычaйнo жapкoe вpeмя, пoд вeчep..."). This specific ordering of information was Dosto's decision.
>doesn't it make sense to rearrange things to accommodate for a language with wildly different grammar
It does, but p&v already reflect Dosto's sentence structures very accurately, and their sentences are not agrammatical by the standard of English.

>>18405813
>their sentences are not agrammatical
should've added: usually
they do have some strange decisions even in the OP pic

>>18399814
Constance Garnett is unironically the best translator of Russian lit. No I haven’t read any other versions, no I will not elaborate and explain my stance.

>>18405513
>>18405579
Samefag

>>18406011

>>18405579
No different than posting a /lit/ screenshot

>>18406642
... exactly you moron!
Do you think I'd use 4chan as a source for something?

>>18399814
P&V are absolute bottom of the barrel trash shilled by globohomo to destroy the russian classics in the west. Don't fall for semantically ""accurate"" """translations""" by people who have no fucking clue about the books and no fucking clue how to write. A beautiful work of literature goes into P&V and an ugly butchered piece of shit comes out. A P&V TRANSLATION IS NOT LITERATURE.

>>18407057
>t. cannot read russian

>>18407514
and? I can read english and P&V is not literature.

Garnett is the classic and is what most writers were exposed to until recently. Hemingway cited Garnett's translations as an inspiration.

>>18407607
You have zero frame of reference for whether or not they accurately translate Dostoevsky

>>18407643
once again, and? their translations are not literature. they are worthless no matter how "accurate" they are.

>>18407659
>they are worthless no matter how "accurate" they are.
Somehow you have managed to distil pure, unmarred Retardation.

>>18407675
>/lit/ - Literature
sorry buddy P&V doesn't qualify. you distil pure, unmarred retardation by not understanding this. take your shilling elsewhere.

>>18403967
That is P&V's fault, that's literally how Dostoevsky presents that information

>>18403967
That isn't P&V's fault, that's literally how Dostoevsky presents that information

>>18399814
>Which C&P translation should I go with?
I agree with the other posts here that both of the Penguin translators (David McDuff and Oliver Ready) are solid and good for first time readings of the book. But if you want something that captures some of the strangeness of the original text a little better and also has more in the way of explanatory notes and essays go with the Norton Critical Edition which has the relatively new superb Michael Katz translation.

>>18402652
зaбитый is actually used as a word for timid quite a lot now; I thought it's a recent thing, but maybe not

Nicolas Pasternak Slater

>>18399814
P&V are garbage. They're only recommended because publishers sunk a lot of promotional money into them because "husband & wife translation team" seemed glamorous and feminist. Avoid every P&V translation.

Also, I don't care of they do capture "the authentic voice of Dostoevsky" or whatever-- because if that's his authentic voice he wrote like a brain-damaged child or someone who's typing stuff into Google Translate. I want something that's readable, that doesn't make a Star Trek novel read more like literature.

I thought Michael Katz was okay. Constance Garnett was good.

I really fucking hate P&V, and they're so overhyped sometimes they're the only Russian translations you can find where I live-- even in the used book stores.

Their Master & Margarita and Dead Souls are also crap.

>>18409438
>Constance Garnett was good

>>18408751
You are correct, actually. I checked Haциoнaльный кopпyc pyccкoгo языкa and have found appropriate examples from that time period.
>Oн, пpeждe тepпeливый и зaбитый, тeпepь вcпыхивaл кaк пopoх пpи кaждoм мaлeйшeм пpoтивopeчии. [Ф. M. Дocтoeвcкий. Ceлo Cтeпaнчикoвo и eгo oбитaтeли (1859)]
>Зaбитый, poбкiй и cмиpный oтъ пpиpoды, пocлѣ пocлѣднягo cтaкaнa, oнъ пoглядѣлъ нa пopтнaгo cвepкaющими глaзaми, yдapилъ пo cтoлy кyлaкoмъ и кpикнyлъ: [H. A. Лeйкин. Кycoк хлeбa (1871)]

Pretty stupod, I realised that I quoted Dal', but ignored his own mention of the "timid" meaning:
>ЗAБИBATЬ - oхoчий зaбивaтьcя, yхoдить, пpятaтьcя, пpoпaдaть
Score one for Slater, then! (Though I still don't see the justification for switching the order of the adjectives...)

>>18409438
>I don't care of they do capture "the authentic voice of Dostoevsky" or whatever-- because if that's his authentic voice he wrote like a brain-damaged child

>Garnett had a very good idea of which individual traits of particular authors should be reproduced in translation. In his unpublished memoirs, her son David says the following: “About Dostoyevsky’s style, however, she said that one of her greatest difficulties in translating him was to make the English as vague, imprecise in meaning and rambling as the original. She was always having to stop herself from giving way to the temptation of putting what he was trying to say more clearly than he had succeeded in doing”.

>>18408751
You are correct, actually. I checked Haциoнaльный кopпyc pyccкoгo языкa and have found appropriate examples from that time period.
>Oн, пpeждe тepпeливый и зaбитый, тeпepь вcпыхивaл кaк пopoх пpи кaждoм мaлeйшeм пpoтивopeчии. [Ф. M. Дocтoeвcкий. Ceлo Cтeпaнчикoвo и eгo oбитaтeли (1859)]
>Зaбитый, poбкiй и cмиpный oтъ пpиpoды, пocлѣ пocлѣднягo cтaкaнa, oнъ пoглядѣлъ нa пopтнaгo cвepкaющими глaзaми, yдapилъ пo cтoлy кyлaкoмъ и кpикнyлъ: [H. A. Лeйкин. Кycoк хлeбa (1871)]

Pretty stupid, I realised that I quoted Dal', but ignored his own mention of the "timid" meaning:
>ЗAБИBATЬ - oхoчий зaбивaтьcя, yхoдить, пpятaтьcя, пpoпaдaть
Score one for Slater, then! (Though I still don't see the justification for switching the order of the adjectives...)

>>18409438
>I don't care of they do capture "the authentic voice of Dostoevsky" or whatever-- because if that's his authentic voice he wrote like a brain-damaged child

>Garnett had a very good idea of which individual traits of particular authors should be reproduced in translation. In his unpublished memoirs, her son David says the following: “About Dostoyevsky’s style, however, she said that one of her greatest difficulties in translating him was to make the English as vague, imprecise in meaning and rambling as the original. She was always having to stop herself from giving way to the temptation of putting what he was trying to say more clearly than he had succeeded in doing”.

>>18405377
>Slater, as I wrote above, drastically rearranges Dosto's words.
In other words, he's an actual translator, as opposed to just a transcriptor like P&V are.

>>18405813
>their sentences are not agrammatical by the standard of English.
They are awkward and subpar, though. Translations should run in pure English.

>>18399814
Constance Garnett. Her prose is phenomenal.

>>18409868
Ah, yes, switching words around, turning "cowardly and timid" into "timid and cowardly", that's the mark of a "true translator". Next you'll tell me Emily Wilson is a truer translator than Richmond Lattimore.

>>18409878
>Translations should run in pure English.
"Pure English" is a pretty vague thing. For what it's worth, many scholars have considered that translations indeed should retain an air of the original language.
Besides, awkwardness has nothing to do with the purity of language and grammar. Especially when it comes to these passages from Dosto, the smoother Slater translation clearly disregards the ways Dosto organised the text. In the first sentence, Dosto first wants the reader to know the time of the year, then the weather, and then the part of the day; Slater rearranges that into time of the day (though slightly simplified; "evening" and "towards evening" are not the same thing) - then the time of the year - then the weather. The author was not forced by the grammar to write it so, it was his own stylistic decision, and the translation should reflect the stylistic qualities of the original, instead of turning it into what is IMO Slater's boring and ordinary statement.
(However, P&V sometimes find stylistic choices where there were none, such as in idiomatic phrases, which does produce obviously bad results in English.)

>>18409978
>an air of the original language.
Slater's translator has that "air." But when that air gets in the way of fluency and well-oiled prose, things should be changed. If what works in a language doesn't work in anothere, change as well.
>Especially when it comes to these passages from Dosto, the smoother Slater translation clearly disregards the ways Dosto organised the text.
You have no idea how translations work. Translators, if they're good, are not transcriptors. They take an original text and adapt it into another language. Otherwise the result is not better or different than using Google Translate (which is what P&V's shit feels like). Why pay for a translation with your standards when you could just run the Russian text through Google Translate?
>Ah, yes, switching words around, turning "cowardly and timid" into "timid and cowardly", that's the mark of a "true translator". Next you'll tell me Emily Wilson is a truer translator than Richmond Lattimore.
Emily Wilson and P&V are both overrated hacks, just different kind of hacks.

>S——y

>>18410015
>Slater's translator has that "air."
Does it? Starting the novel with "one evening in early July" reminds me of paperback crime novels rather than of literary classics.
>fluency and well-oiled prose
I literally quoted Garnett herself who said that Dosto's writing is not fluent or "well-oiled" (lmao, this has to be one of the most ridiculous adjectives for prose I've ever seen). See >>18409833 ("vague, imprecise in meaning and rambling")
>You have no idea how translations work.
lol, ok
>Translators, if they're good, are not transcriptors. They take an original text and adapt it into another language.
There's plenty of approaches to translation and there are arguments both for and against this sort of freedom in adaptation. What I think is problematic here is taking the original and not just, as you say, adapting it into an another language and another culture, but modifying elements which are not just a matter of language; they're deliberate stylistic decisions. I have described the issue multiple times ITT, Dostoyevsky was not unconscious with regards to his expression.
This practice can produce texts that read nicely, but if the original wouldn't read nicely according to your own standards, then it is not an accurate representation of the text, but a prettified version.
>Why pay for a translation with your standards when you could just run the Russian text through Google Translate?
I probably wouldn't pick P&V if I only knew English and wanted to read Dosto.
>Emily Wilson and P&V are both overrated hacks, just different kind of hacks.
Wilson's Odyssey is, exactly as you like it, very fluent and "well-oiled", always to the point (and I'm not talking just about the "complex man", but of her general approach), unlike the repetitive and unfocused Homer. In essence she's not too different from Slater, just more radical.

>>18399814
I like P&V way more. It seems more Russian

>>18401910
>forced awkward dogshit
I mean, it's a perfect description of Dostoevsky's writing in Russian

>>18399814
I have not ceased to be confused on this issue. I first read Garnett's C&P and took no issue with it. Then I learned that Garnett is dog crap and I should read P/V. I read P/V and took no issue with it. Then I learned that P/V is dog crap and I should read Garnett. I have not ceased to be confused on this issue.

>>18409438
>P&V are garbage. They're only recommended because publishers sunk a lot of promotional money into them because "husband & wife translation team" seemed glamorous and feminist.
And these feminists, are the in the room with us right now?

>>18410650
Just wait until 4chan finds out how much Reddit currently hates P&V and the pendulum swings back again

>>18410896
I was just over there. It's like 50/50.

>>18410982
Are you sure you were checking posts from this year and not like a few years ago? The flip was pretty sudden

>>18407057
based, gunna pick up p+v’s dead souls now

>>18411019
>gunna pick up p+v’s dead souls now
bruh just get Donald Rayfield's

>>18399814
>Which Crime and Punishment translation should I go with
Constance Garnett, because it's free:

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/fyodor-dostoevsky/crime-and-punishment/constance-garnett
https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/2554

>>18412605
Based and frugalpilled

>>18399814
Left reads like a pseud /lit/ poster

>>18412605
All books are free.
Also, I know everyone has been enjoying arguing in here whilst I've been away—consequently I forgot that I even made the thread in the first place—but I'm going to go with Oxford. P&V may be more "accurate", but it reads poorly in English so fuck it tbqhwyfam.

Oh fuck I just bought the P&V translation. Is it actually bad?

>>18412824
Read my comparisons in the OP image. It should be clear whether or not it's up to your standards of writing.

P&V feels same kind of awkward like Lydia Davis' Proust translations. They are slavishly close to the original to their detriment so autists praise them while real chads prefer Moncrieff Proust

>>18410409
> adapting it into an another language and another culture, but modifying elements which are not just a matter of language; they're deliberate stylistic decisions.
Taking stylistic decisions is part of adapting a text. I'm not sure you understand what you're even saying.
>Wilson's Odyssey is, exactly as you like it, very fluent and "well-oiled", always to the point (and I'm not talking just about the "complex man", but of her general approach), unlike the repetitive and unfocused Homer. In essence she's not too different from Slater, just more radical.
Not really. Her Odyssey perverts the text for political reasons and simplifies it ad absurdum. Slater doesn't do this. You may dislike and whine about how he starts the story but his translation is a decently accurate representation of Dosto.
> In essence she's not too different from Slater, just more radical.
She's not at all like Slater. She's one of those marketing frauds like P&V.

>>18412771
>All books are free.
Legally free, he meant.

>>18412771
>but I'm going to go with Oxford.
based decision. fuck p&v.

>>18412605
>standardebooks.org
This website is ultrabased, their edition of War and Peace is truly excellent and should be spread all across this board.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/leo-tolstoy/war-and-peace/louise-maude_aylmer-maude

>>18413118
Legality does not exist online.

>>18414063
In first world countries, it does.

>>18414077
The Internet exists as a separate, lawless, entity.

>>18414099
Not really. Many people have been arrested for doing illegal things online.

>>18414104
I don't believe you.

>>18399814
Jessie Coulson.