/lit/ - Literature

Michael Katz

DO NOT READ KATZ
fuck what the poster above me says. he is inferior to every other russian translator I have read and I literally threw out his rubbish book and bought a new copy.

READ ANYONE OTHER THAN KATZ

Garnet since it was before globohomo took over

>>21456133
clarification for why:
his syntax is all fucked up and he abuses the use of semi-colons. his intended purpose with his translation was to be the primary translation for the next 100 years. to this end he keeps his language restricted to simple words and structure. it really ruins the book.

>>21456133
That posted page does look bad

The worst translation of all Russian novels is P/V so avoid that too op

The one from Wordsworth Classics

>>21456139
Barnes and noble paperbacks have good older translations that are much better than modern slop

>>21456163
i disagree. this meme has to end. they are good translations.

>>21456166
Honestly probably the face he was making

>>21456172
>the p and v shill appears as you speak their name
Go away pvbot

>>21456178
i went out of my way to read garnet (good translations, btw), katz, p&v, carson, maguire, and probably others. i SPECIFICALLY WENT OUT OF MY WAY to read a wide veriety of russian translators to see if this meme is true. it is not.

you're just spouting shit you hear repeated time and time again off /lit/. YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG.

by my own experience, they are among the better translators

>>21456163
>>21456195
Between Garnet and P&V, which one do should i pick? I found a nice printed edition of P&V by everyman's library with hardcover that I'm interested in, but I haven't found from garnet's with similar quality

>>21456195
Well I don't like their translations and I've read like 5 or so from when I didn't know any better

>>21456233
sorry, my bad, meant to reply to the latter poster, only

>>21456233
Garnett
>I found a nice hardcover everymans
This is how those fucking P/V sleazeballs operate. They get all the nicest newest editions with the prettiest covers but inside there's nothing but butchery

I bought this book because it was fucking beautiful. I recommended p/v to people because all the dust jackets raved about how everyone loved these new translations

They suck

>>21456235
you still don't know any better

>>21456233
i'd read P&V
garnet gave me sweet feelings whilst reading 'notes from a dead house,' but i do not know how her affect would bear out over the course of crime and punishment. i get the impression that P&V would be the better experience for that particular novel.

>>21456252
>I'd recommend the worst translation
How come it's always p/v haters vs lovers? Where are the diehard defenders of one particular translator that isn't p/v? I see people recommend against them and recommend for them but I don't see anyone who's apparently read the numerous translations and has a strong preference for anyone in particular. You yourself jump to recommending p/v. It's always p/v.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
The excerpts here show they're really not very good translations, especially of Gogol

Also Op if you care to learn why to select or avoid the translations consider that they're done by a pair of translators, one of which doesn't speak or write in Russian and the other is barely fluent in English.

>>21456289
you have no idea just how tiring your position is. you guys always post the same fucking article. actually have a fucking opinion for yourself.

>>21456312
The article linked provides examples and commentary beyond what I'd post here. Op probably hasn't read it.
>actually have a fucking opinion for yourself
I do. I used to buy P/V translations because the editions were nice and all the advertising was for these "great new translations." Then I read the Gogol stories I posted and thought they were just awful and ventured off to see if there was any criticism of the translation that matched what I was experiencing. I found that article and was rather shocked to see how bad they really were.

Oliver Ready and no one else is even close.

>>21456085
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place."Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.

>>21456330
>one of which doesn't speak or write in Russian and the other is barely fluent in English
this is factually wrong. they're both familiar with both languages

they are highly regarded by experts in their field, taking issue with a particular piece of translation work they've done does not do justice to the translations they've done as a whole. again, i regard them as among the better translators.

you should also note that if they're writing in a 'bad' style, they may be reflecting the original author's style choice. it retains the fidelity of the original--not a valid point of criticism.

I quite like Katz, reading it now infact, is it really that bad of a translation?

>>21456085
Niggers are too autistic about translations. They’ll spend hours researching and arguing online but never even end up reading the book. Just more tribalism

>>21456355
Pevear can't read/write or speak Russian and Volohkonsky or whatever probably has like a 9000 word English vocabulary
>they are highly regarded by experts in their field
So is lots of crap. I don't think most literary, psychology, philosophy, etc experts even read to tell you the truth or understand anything. And besides what does this matter? Aren't we supposed to be thinking for ourselves? Read them side by side and compare. Go get your Gogol. P/V will fall flat in a blind comparison.

>>21456376
lol. gogol is shit, m8. i don't think any translation can make him good.

P&V hands down as explained in this thread
>>/lit/thread/S21397450

>>21456357
it's good to have your own opinion, if it's good for you, then fine and don't worry

>>21456392
>>21456395
>the mind of the p/v shill

>>21456401
I don't think i have a fully formed opinion, I'm a novice to Dostoyevsky and a novice to literature in general. Perhaps the more i read of Dostoevsky and read in general ill have a well versed opinion but for now Katz seems to be fine for me

I must ask, im looking to buy the brothers Karamazov after I'm done with C&P and I'd like to know what translations are recommended so i can compare myself to see which one fits me better

>>21456357
i stated why i thought it was bad here: >>21456151

if you find it to be to your liking, good for you. but, while i was reading C&P it was like i was wearing an itchy wool blanket. every paragraph grated on me. i considered dropping the book simply because i hated the translation so much.

>>21456352
Dostoevsky's writings was so low in style, I can't believe any tanslation can make it even worse. If you knew how Pynchon was translated into Russian, you would burst into tears.
t.Russian

>>21456433
Comparisons between all of them here
https://welovetranslations.com/2022/01/10/whats-the-best-translation-of-the-brothers-karamazov/
I read Macandrew and enjoyed it. Avsey seems to be the most recommended

>>21456440
Ah, sorry to hear that, in the future ill read different translations to compare but i like katz for the time being
>>21456452
Thank you anon, this will really help

>>21456085
Do americans really not have a proper Dostoievsky translation written by Gentiles?

>>21456433
You are supposed to read Karamazov at the end, not right after Crime and Punishment

>>21456514
It's because its his last novel isn't it? Well I could read demons or the idiot, i was looking forward to seeing how good Brothers Karamazov was but if its recommended for a good experience i could move onto demons next

>>21456548
You could read TBK second. It's the best one probably.

>>21456151
I downloaded Katz version because it looked pretty and it was a new translation, thank you for this I'll now consider getting a different version if the first pages absolutely bug me

>>21456553
I've also read his novellas notes from underground and white nights (both the garnet translation) by him already, i might save BK for last since its seen as his best work

>>21456509
What difference would it make? It's nothing special either way. Dostoevsky's only appeal is to Westerners and teenagers in general. Once you grow out of that phase you realize what Dostoevsky truly writes about is pure, unadulterated cope. The torment of being the statistical exception of a normal human being surrounded by subhumans makes one invent all sorts of stories and forced reasonings to try and make sense of things. It's literally no different that today's SJWs playing the "muh socioeconomic factors". Dostoevsky simply couldn't come to terms with the fact that his nation is utterly subhuman and tried to paint their actions as some sort of precursors to a salvation and attribute some fantastical and intricate inner monologues to "people" who are in fact devoid of any such things.

Of course this would appeal to the literary equivalent of blue-haired freaks screeching about the oppression of some group they know nothing of. Couple this with the Westernoid's obsession for novelty, as an almost pathological continual rejection of his own identity: in the 70s they "discovered" Buddhism, then Hinduism and traveled to India to pet sedated tigers and claim they're having an epiphany, then anime, and now begome Orthodox is the latest trend. Hell, even that homosexual Zionist BAP admits his whole mongoloid accent shtick is because the American is utterly attracted like a fly to shit by anything he perceives as foreign and exotic.

>>21456598
Demons is awesome. The Idiot is great too. You can't really go wrong unless you pick A Raw Youth/The Adolescent

>>21456602
>dostoyevskys only appeal is to westerners and teenagers
Wrong and retarded lol. Nothing else you wrote matters

>>21456602
I think you're onto something but you're too gay and obsessed with bait. Didn't read your second paragraph and forgot what you wrote on the first gay one

>>21456604
Funny enough i was looking at the adolescent online earlier, though I'll probably read demons next. It seems very interesting just from the description of the story alone.

>>21456610
I take it you're a Westerner/teenager and it did matter enough for you to show your butthurt, especially in that faggot "lol at the end" way. How about you prove me wrong?

>>21456624
Dostoevsky's perfect for your attention span, then. There's basically nothing you can miss since it's all make believe anyway and you won't ever find yourself asking "But why do they always behave like this? Certainly they can't all be killing themselves because of some deep metaphysical motive, right? Maybe we actually are shallow retards obsessed with the exotic?"

>>21456764
I really don't care about people like you who attempt to climb over dostoyevsky or anyone really to make themselves seem more intellectual or important. Enough great and admirable writers loved or even just liked Dostoyevsky to prove you wrong, while some did not. The novels are excellent to read. That's all there is to it. Nothing you think about anything matters at all.

>>21456625
I should reread it before claiming it isn't good but I do remember not like it when I read it which I didn't experience with anything else I read by Dostoyevsky. Not sure I even finished it desu.

>>21456117
Cool, I will give this a try. Everyone raves about P&V but this seems good too. Also, Raskolnikov is LITERALLY me

>>21456782
>asked to provide arguments
>entire point still revolves around me
>brings up what others think as relevant example
Are you a woman?

I don't climb over anyone, especially not to make myself seem something. Where did you even get that? Any normal false interpretation of my point would've at most made me come across as despising Russians and letting that cloud my vision. I absolutely loved Dostoevsky, I found his works like a shining ray of hope throughout my teenage angst. But really that's where it all ends, once you actually live more and come in contact with more people and start making comparisons, it really makes no sense and it comes across as wishful thinking. Not to mention diving deeper into religion and Orthodoxy you realize it's at best the watered down equivalent of pop-science. Seriously, if niggers had just a couple more IQ points they could've had their own Dostoevsky to try and justify why they are the way they are and how it's actually so much more deeper than BLYAAAAAT

>>21456865
>random anon has a stupid opinion
More news at 11
>where did you even get that???
It's obvious. You lit fags dont just dislike something. The something in question has to be "pseud" and "midwit." You haven't dived deep into anything you're talking about. You have nothing to offer this conversation. You are just an idiot who has decided to feel superior to others based on trashing Dostoyevsky and you have done this because he's a well-known author who is truly appealing to readers.

>>21456837
I'll save it for after i finish his more popular works, same with the double and the gambler

>>21456897
The gambler is pretty awesome and very short lol

It's not by Dostoyevsky but Father's and Sons by Turgenev is good to read at a similar time because they're sort of addressing something similar and Dosto references the work. I don't know what he thought about it but he hated Turgenev. It's a very good quite short novel though.

>>21456433
don’t let these fuckers jade you. a novice’s view is ten times more valuable than the weary and dreary opinions of an ‘expert’. remember, no one on lit even reads

What the fuck is wrong with you faggots? Pick a translation and read. Arguing over this hard over different translations is plain weird. Extra weird when you don’t even know the original language

>>21456926
Well the op is asking which translation is best

>>21456885
>your random anon opinion is stupid, my random anon opinion is good
>but I still won't give any argument whatsoever
Are you taking this personally? Because in fact I'm not trashing Dostoevsky, I think he's just as of a good and necessary stepping stone as being a commie at 15, deluded by the idea of all humans being equal and deserving the best, to then have these illusions properly confronted by reality. Or like Jordan Peterson, if you will, you know that warm & fuzzy feeling of having stumbled upon something seemingly deep and unique and thinking you're actually revolting against the world, just to realize later how kosher and sterilized it all actually is. I just don't think it's worth such a drama over whose translation you read.

>>21456939
And what is the criteria for best translation? The criteria will differ from reader to reader. It is subjective after all. And kek at judging a translation by a paragraph comparison. You need to read way more than that to get a feel

>>21456908
I'll check out Turgenev as well, I've been wanting to read more russian writers besides Dostoyevsky anyway, I've been currently reading the same two authors lately (mostly Dostoevsky compared to the other) and want more variety

>>21456943
>no arguments
My argument was the novels are good.
>explain why
They're enjoyable to read
>that's just your opinion
My opinion and nearly 200 years of him selling books and being considered a great writer
>but all those people are midwits and pseuds
OK man

>>21456962
Ya but he's asking for opinions. There obviously is no "best" translation, but he's planning to read one and wants some information. I don't see the issue.

>>21456911
Thanks, I've very much enjoyed reading Dostoyevsky ever since i got into reading this year.
Russian literature in general seems so interesting

>>21456965
The Overcoat by Gogol is a short story and had some massive influence on Dostoyevsky I think. You might also like to read it in between big dostoyevsky novels ^.^

>>21456985
Thank you for the recommendation, i will check him out too. I hear Alexander pushkin is also quite good, i remember seeing a poem of his online and quite liked it
I might check him out as well

>>21456995
The Nose is Gogol’s best. And Eugene Onegin is superb, and Nabokov’s autistic translation is the best but only after you have read a verse translation like Falen first, otherwise it is too difficult to follow

>>21456970
This thread has happened a million times. What new has been added? It’s like Groundhog Day. Also many anons have clear biases that transcend the actual translation

>>21457005
Has op already read it a million times? He's using the literature board for its intended purpose and its a good idea to research the translation. If you hate the thread so much there are many other fantastic threads in the catalogue to choose from.

>>21457008
No /lit/ is dead and the millionth Russian translation thread isn’t helping. I will concede that it is better than all the off topic /pol/ and incel shit infesting the board. That isn’t much of a compliment though

>>21457001
Thanks again, I plan doing breaks from dostoevsky and will read other Russian authors
Ill be sure to read the falen translation

>>21457018
Lit has literally always been exactly the same

>>21456966
So your whole argument is "others like it so I can't afford not to"? Should I once again ask if are you a woman? Do no other things that many others like that are objectively terrible come to mind? "OK man" to you too, I guess, if you insist on making this personal and defending not even some dead writer half the world away, but your membership to the fanbase.

>>21457038
Nice gaslighting. It couldn’t be more different. Only a newfag would think otherwise

>>21457054
What's the first thing I said in the post genius? Try to get that down before "so you said"ing me.

>>21457060
No it's pretty much the exact same except pol won the cultural exchanges on 4chan so now the Marxists and French theory fags are quieter or have left.

>>21456117
seems not too bad desu. However it might be because of my little expertise on prose

>>21457117
The same page from Garnett I think reads better

>On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. Bridge.

>He had successfully avoided meeting his landlady on the staircase. His garret was under the roof of a high, five-storied house, and was more like a cupboard than a room. The landlady, who provided him with garret, dinners, and attendance, lived on the floor below, and every time he went out he was obliged to pass her kitchen, the door of which invariably stood open. And each time he passed, the young man had a sick, frightened feeling, which made him scowl and feel ashamed. He was hopelessly in debt to his landlady, and was afraid of meeting her.

>This was not because he was cowardly and abject, quite the contrary; but for some time past, he had been in an over-strained, irritable condition, verging on hypochondria. He had become so completely absorbed in himself, and isolated from his fellows that he dreaded meeting, not only his landlady, but any one at all. He was crushed by poverty, but the anxieties of his position had of late ceased to weigh upon him. He had given up attending to matters of practical importance; he had lost all desire to do so. Nothing that any landlady could do had a real terror for him. But to be stopped on the stairs, to be forced to listen to her trivial, irrelevant gossip, to pestering demands for payment, threats and complaints, and to rack his brains for excuses, to prevaricate, to lie--no, rather than that, he would creep down the stairs like a cat and slip out unseen.

>>21456250
>I bought this book because it was fucking beautiful.
I question your judgement.

>>21457126
Well I learned the error or my ways but there are lots of beautiful tempting books.

>>21457074
/lit/ was much more centered around books and not just using them to talk about politics and cultural issues

>>21457183
No it wasn't

>>21457189
It really was though. How can you say otherwise?

>>21457206
I dont really remember it I barely used this board. You might be right but I do recall pretty much the exact same authors being discussed except there were also shill threads about Tao Lin or whatever his stupid name is.
>infinite jest
>Russians
>autistic philosophy threads
>Marxist threads
>whatever the rupi kauer of the moment is threads
>shelf threads/stack threads
Etc, it seems the same.

>>21457125
hmm, is it the "flow"? Garnet's feels more pleasant. Katz's feels much.. simpler? i had feeling Katz's version is more literal translation and Garnet's took more freedom

>>21456395
Irrefutable thread

>>21457219
Ya I'd say the Katz seems more stilted and halting; the other anon mentioned overuse of semicolons which does seem to be a problem almost immediately. And I prefer Garnetts word choices where they differ. Also, is Katz not a Jewish name? Another reason to dislike the translation if so.

Define "Good Translation"

>>21457213
I’m not saying old /lit/ was some erudite enlightened place, but there were many more knowledge anons. One of the biggest things that hurts nu/lit/ is the absence of those with useless English majors, who could really shed light in their area of expertise, and anons who actually read with ulterior motives. If you were lucky you could have a thread about a nonmeme book reach 100 replies, with every post being about the book. Now, getting 20 replies on a book that isn’t the usual suspects is rare. There was also less /pol/ bait, racebait, incelbait, ragebait, Twitter threads, eceleb threads, etc.

>>21457246
(2/2)

>>21457237
>Also, is Katz not a Jewish name? Another reason to dislike the translation if so.
kek. based

>>21457251
You're probably right. I tried to start a Hark a Vagrant thread to make people mad and hardly got any responses :(

>>21457258
We do not miss antisemitism here ^.^

>>21456085
Read David McDuff or revised Constance Garnett

>>21456433
Avsey, revised Garnett
Either one

>>21456085
Oliver Ready and no one else is even close.

>>21458922
outdated and inappropriate colloquial english expressions that in no way fit the tone of the original russian.

Oliver Ready