/lit/ - Literature

>>20556208
Chuds see Jewish people translating Russian literature for him and instead of thanking them for their hard work, they assume there must be some “subversion” going on.

>>20556208
>It's just so tiresome why are they like this
Why can't you fucks just stay in /pol/.

>>20556516
>>20556747
you do know Pevear-Volokhonsky are universally panned for ruining great russian lit and it's only in the last 10 years or so that better translations have been made right you fucking retards?

>>20556516
What is a chud?

>>20556208
>>20556759
Go back to /pol/.

Retvrn to your containment board, Chuddo.

>>20557176
kys

>>20556208
Got any particular issues with their translations?

>>20556759
>universally panned
I've read as much criticism of P&V I could find and the sentiment is definitely not universal. In fact most criticisms start by pointing out that basically everyone praises them.

>>20556516
>>20556747
>>20557176
>>20557180

>>20557263
lol nigger and what they call someone having all his opinion taught by some retards in a mauretanian slave trade board, you are the actual and only npc in this thread and you are completley unaware of it like a true npc

>>20556208
Your first mistake was reading Russian literature in the first place.

I compared P&V's translation of the bros to the Avsey translation I'm currently reading, as recommended by a friend who knows russian classics, and P&V feels a lot worse whenever characters are speaking.

>>20556759
>universally panned
Reception to P&V's translations has been mostly positive, which is why they're so frequently used. What are you on?

I don't hate P&V but I find them pretty dry and avoid the translations when I can. I don't think any translator is perfect.

>>20558173
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>20558238
>What results from this attempt at unprecedented fidelity is a word-for-word and syntax-for-syntax version that sacrifices tone and misconstrues overall sense.
The horror. Translations that are too accurate!

>>20558238
You can't be serious.

Based Black man already BTFOs them
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

>>20558290
>Too accurate
No, too literal.

>>20556516
You know they are too lmao

>>20556759
It impossible to ruin Dostoevsky because his Russian is pulp fiction-tier.

>>20559071
I've been looking at the Maudes' translation that this guy recommended for a while now, feeling that when I get to reading War and Peace this would be the one I'd go to, the Oxford Mandelker revision. But the French dialogue translation appearing in footnotes... It feels like it would be quite jarring. There are a shit-tonne of French passages in the book right?

Also, I guess this stupid thread might as well be about something. What do you guys really think about P&V? Especially compared with Garnett, the Maudes etc... I'm likely to just read multiple translations of the classics over time but first impressions count for a lot.

inb4 learn Russian, I know translations are all inherently inadequate, just curious about people's opinions.

>>20556516
>instead of thanking them for their hard work
Why would I thank them for making the Everyman's Library Dostoevsky series useless for anything but kindling or toilet paper?