/lit/ - Literature

I presume everyone's asleep in the US right now

>>19207545

As I mentioned in another thread...

>Pevear & Volokhonsky’s translations are awful travesties of the original Russian meaning and nuance. They succeed by virtue of seeming “weird” where the original text uses a completely commonplace idiom, or, vice versa, missing something unique to the writer’s style and replacing it with a pedestrian cliche. Readers who have no Russian think the “clunkiness” of the translation is a window to the original writer’s peculiar style and idiom. Unfortunately, they’re being deceived. The clunkiness is almost always the invention of the translators. The issue isn’t whether the original was “smooth” or not; it’s that it wasn’t smooth in ways entirely different than those ignorantly made-up by this team.

>I’m sorry if these words seem too strong; I have strong opinions on the issue. Any native speaker of Russian who appreciates the original texts and knows English well enough will find it painful to read the original and P&V’s translation side-by-side. I tried to do that in 2003 and briefly reviewed their translation of Bulgakov in my blog (in Russian).

>The examples cited in that blogpost and comments show that time and again P&V use a literal translation of an idiom or a common expression, resulting in a weird English phrase or a weird syntax that both obscures the original meaning, and makes the sentence stand out gratuitously, giving the reader some of that desired “clunkiness”.

>E.g. when Bulgakov speaks of “нeчиcтыe cилы” (nechistye sily), a traditional, entirely commonplace Russian expression for demons or evil spirits, he’s not introducing an interesting new metaphor. Now “нeчиcтыe cилы” is literally “unclean powers”, but even saying that is a bit of a stretch, as the word “unclean”, “нeчиcтыe”, has over the centuries become synonymous with “demonic” in any religious/mystical context, so much so that there’s a noun back-formed from it, нeчиcть, referring solely to all the forces of evil as a collective noun. Arguably, then, even a strictly literal translation of “нeчиcтыe cилы” should be “demonic powers” rather than P&V’s “unclean powers”, which is simply weird, confusing, unidiomatic where the original text, *on that particular occassion*, is completely idiomatic.

cont...

>>19207636

..cont...

>A more systemic example is their consistent use of “here” where the original text is saying “then”. E.g. “Here the second oddity occurred, touching Berlioz alone”. Russian has two words for “here”, “здecь” (zdes’) and “тyт” (toot); they are entirely synonymous in that role, but “тyт” can also be used to link sentences describing events occurring one right after the other, that is, a sentence that starts with “тyт” is analogous to an English sentence that starts with “then” in a similar role - and there’s nothing spatial about this use of “тyт”. When P&V consistently translate “тyт” in the meaning of “then” as “here”, it’s a gaffe that produces sentences that seem a bit weird or jarring (especially after many repetitions of this “here"), while there was nothing weird or jarring in the original syntax.

>These are just two random examples out of a dozen that one could find on any given page. It’s the principle of the thing rather than an exception. P&V seem to start with a completely literal word-by-word translation by Volokhonsky, one that doesn’t even preserve common idioms; it is then perhaps edited into shape by going after some clunkiness here and some inventiveness there, in total ignorance of what’s interesting or unique about the original author’s style or idiom. The examples from their more recent translations cited in the discussion on Tanenhaus’ blog confirm that things haven’t changed.

See also:

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

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

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars

Ultimately you have to ask yourself - why would you read a Russian classic translated by a two-person team where one of them cannot read and write Russian?

>>19207545
I was always under the impression that the Pevear/Volokhonsky translations were the best

>>19207657
Wasn't Volokhonsky raised in Leningrad?

>>19207644
check em. also that article "the translation wars" is exactly the one which got me thinking that maybe I should read them, their translation philosophy sounds reasonable on paper, would you say that there are some works worth reading in their translation, like The Brothers Karamazov? I understand everything you said about their other problems, but the example with "unclean powers" you gave wasn't the most accurate, as the phrase "unclean powers" is also used in English to refer to demonic, or a traditionally Christian evil thing. Similarly, "here" in English is also used to mean "at this point in time" and though it is rather clumsy if used too often, it's not an entirely innacurate use.

>>19207732
Absolutely the opposite, you were atrociously misled

>>19207776
Close

>>19207545
The P&V translation reads like it was parsed through google translate

>>19208171
>>19208226
alright then, which one should I go for? Avsey, MacAndrew?

>>19208819
p&v

I think after multiple readings and re-readings, i've come to the conclusion that one must read all the translations over the years to get the most out of them. Thankfully Russian literature is so good that it can afford multiple readings.

Just be grateful and read and re-read. No point in discussing it.

That's all.

>>19208861
Fair enough. It's temporary, anyway, because I'm learning Russian, so there's that.

>>19207636
Their translation is fun to read for this reason. It's like reading a book retold by a fresh off the boat babushka.
t. understands russian but not literate enough to read a book in it.

>>19207644
Anyone who unironically links the Moroson article should be immediately dismissed. How can anyone read his retarded section about Anna Karenina and endure his Garnett shilling without immediately realising what a psued he is

I swear to god you guys are the worst. You always shit on a translation(which is completely fine) but then you don't tell us which we should read. Please. Just fucking tell me which one is the best translation

>>19209439
The PV Brothers K translation is completely fine. If you're put off by the contrarians then go for the Ignat Avesy translation

Imagine spazzing out this much over Dostoevsky translations.
1) It's prose, not poetry
2) He's not a particularly difficult author in Russian
3) He's not a great prose stylist in Russian

The translation literally doesn't matter that much unless you're a total autist. He became famous and beloved in the west thanks to Constance Garnett's translations which now every translation hipster here likes to shit on.

>>19209439
99% of people with strong opinions on translations don't know the original language and have no way to judge the success or failure of a translations.

>>19209519
>He became famous and beloved in the west thanks to Constance Garnett's translations
>in the west
In the anglophone world. "West" is a bit bigger than just the anglo parts.

>>19207636
Which translation do you suggest then?

Not OP

>>19207545
i read garnett translation of tbk and loved it, for what it’s worth

>>19207776
If you're curious about P&V, then pick up their book of Chekhov short stories and read them alongside a better translation. (E.g. Rosamund Bartlett.) You'll soon understand the broken-english-forced-exoticism of P&V's stilted translations.

>>19208819
>>19209591
>>19209439
For TBK? Ignat Avsey or David McDuff.

>>19209276
Nice try, Larissa. (Or as you would say: "The effort was found to be extremely pleasant.")

>>19208861
>>19209519
Translation's not being the most important thing when reading does not excuse the advocating of bad translations. P&V are dogshit.

>Garnett
>Volokhonsky
It's a tragedy that women have been allowed to be responsible for these classics. Anglos really do suffer.

>>19207776
If you're curious about P&V, then pick up their book of Chekhov short stories and read them alongside a better translation. (E.g. Rosamund Bartlett.) You'll soon understand the broken-english-forced-exoticism of P&V's stilted translations.

>>19208819
>>19209591
>>19209439
For TBK? Ignat Avsey or David McDuff.

>>19209276
Nice try, Larissa. (Or as you would say: "The effort was found to be extremely pleasant.")

>>19208861
>>19209519
Translations not being the most important thing when reading does not excuse the advocating of bad translations. P&V are dogshit.

>>19209691
I did love the Rosamund Bartlett translation of Chekhov, it was possibly the best Russian classics translation I've come across, so this is a good idea. Thanks. I'm still getting the high quality Garnett edition, fuck it.

I've read a number of pevear translations and it was fine. That said, that was years ago, and now I download multiple translations and compare a few pages of each and then just read what I like best. For Anna Karenina, for instance, I chose Bartlett, and for War and Peace I chose Briggs.

They all sound the same. Unfortunately you just can’t hide Dostoevsky’s shitty writing by translating it into a different language.

>>19210585
nigger

>>19207545
They are jewish. I wouldn't trust them, let alone give them my money

>>19209691
> For TBK? Ignat Avsey or David McDuff
For all of his work and Tolstoy too... I mean if you have the time of course.
I want to read to read them all soon

>>19210548
Based on what grounds?

>>19212697
>Based on what grounds?

I obviously don't read Russian so I just choose the one which has the style or flow that appeals to me, or if one seems to be clear in saying something where the other isn't.

>>19207545
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/
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

>>19212735
damn

>>19212735
>retard who posts the same random blog articles in every PV thread despite being called a retard for it every time

>>19212701
Yeah, but sometimes style may conceal the author's idea...
Do you compare versions cover to cover?

What's the thought of Oliver Ready's Crime and Punishment here?

t. monolingual english speaker who has only read that by fd.

>>19207636
>>19207644

What a bunch of pedantic whining. Anyone reading a translation will suffer some loss of the author's style. There's nothing to be done about it. Either learn Russian or accept it.
As long as the translation doesn't alter the actual content, it is good.

>>19213970
It's considered the best and a consistent board favourite

>>19214039
Great. When I previewed all the editions back in 2018 that was the one I decided to go with. That was my conclusion, as well.

>>19214039
what about mcduff tho. FUCK

>>19212204
I read the Maude for W&P and liked it very much

>>19214107
Eh. I don't really like him that much. Everyone gives P&V shit for missing stuff in translation but I've noticed McDuff does it a lot too. Most people see all of P&V's flaws because they have a giant spotlight shone on them but I think McDuff has loads of glaring flaws. At least he doesn't sound like an ESL though.

>>19213993

Regardless of the importance you personally give to translation quality, P&V are still bad at it. There is no reason for reading them.

>>19213697
There's multiple people who copy-and-paste the same links.

>>19207545
P&V's only saving grace is their endnotes, which give a lot of insight into the time period Dosto was writing in and shows references to the bible and other contemporary Russian authors. This was most notable in Brothers Karamazov
Their actual prose is pretty bad, but go to your own decisions. Read a chapter from them and other translators and decide what you like