/lit/ - Literature

I'll get this out of the way
>translations

>>5206542
P&V

>>5206557
Somebody will eventually post the Commentary article decrying P&V as the worst thing to happen to Russian literature since Stalin. An alternative is Constance Garnett. Somebody will inevitably say that she redacted the great works of the geniuses Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, and that she transformed their work into Victorian era mush. Somebody else will say Louise and Aylmer Maude, because they consulted with Tolstoy and the translation and received his blessing.

Honestly, just pick one. It doesn't really matter.

Pevear and Volokhonsky

>>5206597
Is /lit/ really that predictable? I was totally ready to argue against the Commentary anti-P&V article too

>>5206610
you can still give it a go, for old times' sake

>>5206597
>Somebody will eventually post the Commentary article decrying P&V as the worst thing to happen to Russian literature since Stalin
link?

>>5206621
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>>5206618
I-it's just not the same. OP just read whichever one is easier to get. He's right. It really doesn't matter.

>>5206627
pretty good follow-up article by the New Yorker if anyone's interested

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