/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11558064]

How can publisherlets even compete with Everyman's Library?

[Anonymous No.11558077]

>>11558064
you're such a fucking loser OP

[Anonymous No.11559381]

Folio Society is good.
Eastman is ok.
Everyman's Library is prob the best.

[Anonymous No.11559406]

>majority of their Russian books are translated by P&V
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.11559426]

Everyman's is famous for using bad translations just because they are more modern ones

[Anonymous No.11559453]

>terrible translations
>shitty typesetting
>dustcovers on classics in current year
If you're going to build a hardcover library, stop being a cheap faggot and buy Folios or look for older Everyman's before the Random House days.

[Anonymous No.11559488]

>>11558064
Niggas don’t know about Arion Press

[Anonymous No.11559522]

>>11559381
how hard is it to just take a better picture

[Anonymous No.11559958]

>>11558064
I prefer Library of America

[Anonymous No.11559971]

>>11559381
Everyman's library is for people who use books as decorations but can't afford Easton Press.

[Anonymous No.11559978]

>>11559426
Which ones should I stay away for example?

I know Everyman use the polarizing Volokhonsky and Pevear translations for Dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.11559983]

>>11559971
I just want my books to last me a good while without having to shell out two hundred shekels.

[Anonymous No.11560039]

>>11559381
That image is worth $3000

[Anonymous No.11560310]

>>11559983
>

[Anonymous No.11560312]

>>11559971
>>11559983
Everyman's are really cheap if bought second hand. 5 to 10$ a book is excellent if you are willing to shop around.

[Anonymous No.11560316]

>>11559978
>Which ones should I stay away for example?
All of them.

[Anonymous No.11560330]

Post your Everymans lads.
I hope no one identifies me

[Anonymous No.11560357]

>>11560316
Holy shit seriously just fuck off. Go outside, get some fresh air.

[Anonymous No.11560393]

>>11560316
>>11559453
>>11559978
Literally what is wrong with P&V Dostoevsky translations? I understand not liking their Gogol or Chekhov (and I personally very much dislike their Master and Margarita), but they're easily the most readable, well-flowing Dostoevsky. My old copy of Brothers Karamazov was absolute garbage in comparison. My Notes from Underground feels downright cryptic in comparison to the P&V translations.

[Anonymous No.11560406]

>>11560330
Brother

[Anonymous No.11560454]

>>11560357
He's right, you moron.

[Anonymous No.11560478]

>>11560393
If you find other translations cryptic, then you must be an utter brainlet or USA (likely both). Their translations are filled with troglodyte AmE slang and they uniformly sound ridiculous.
T. Slav

[Anonymous No.11560481]

>>11560478
Not him but which translations would you recommend then?

[Anonymous No.11560486]

>getting anything other than academic editions from university presses

[Anonymous No.11560516]

>>11560454
Please refer to my previous post

[Anonymous No.11560537]

>>11560481
Usually Oxford translations.
>C&P
Ready for Penguin is very nice, and although it sounds distinctly British, it is orders of magnitude better than P&V
>Notes
Kentish for Oxford or Magarshack for Modern Library
>The Idiot
Myers for Oxford
>Karamazov
Avsey for Oxford, or some other language altogether
>Tolstoy
old translations with corrections (like Maude or Garnett) or Bartlett
>Chekhov
Payne, Bartlett are both good
>everything else
Basically make sure it isn't P&V and check Oxford. From among living translators, I like what Ready did with C&P, Bartlett is good, Nicholas Pasternak Slater is good. There's actually tons of new translations if one looks around and doesn't get normified into purchasing P&V.

[Anonymous No.11560601]

>>11560537
General Yepanchin describes Aglaya's character to the Prince:
>Myers
>But then she's such self-willed and fanciful creature, words fail me. Every noble and brilliant quality of heart and mind, she has them all if you like, but along with that she's so flighty and teasing—really an imp of mischief and full of fancies as well.

>P&V
>But she’s such a willful and fantastic being, it’s impossible to describe! All those magnanimities, all those brilliant qualities of heart and mind—all that, perhaps, is there in her, but along with such caprices and mockeries—in short, a demoniacal character, and with fantasies on top of it.

>Russian
Ho вeдь этo тaкoe caмoвoльнoe и фaнтacтичecкoe coздaниe, чтo и paccкaзaть нeльзя! Bce вeликoдyшия, вce блecтящиe кaчecтвa cepдцa и yмa — этo вcё, пoжaлyй, в нeй ecть, нo пpи этoм кaпpиз, нacмeшки, — cлoвoм, хapaктep бecoвcкий и вдoбaвoк c фaнтaзиями.

You can see P&V sticks close to the original, but it's very crude and almost ridiculous. Myers recreates the care and the slight perplexity the General has for his little daughter.

[Anonymous No.11560628]

>>11560601
Fucked up the formatting, oh well.
Anyway, to call Aglaya 'an imp of mischief' is such a skilled way to escape 'бecoвcкий' (is it devilish, is it demonic (demoniacal... lmao), is it possessed?). It is so good in fact, I can't stop but look at P&V with disgust. Also, take notice of how poorly the copying of Dostoyevsky's exclamation in the first sentence translates to English: it almost feels like the General is aroused, it works in Russian just fine, but feels awkward in English. Also, who the fuck would use 'magnanimities' in such a caring and impassioned speech. Only with fucking brainlet translators like P&V does it become possible.

[Anonymous No.11560765]

>>11560628
Yeah, demoniacal, what the hell? Almost makes her seem malicious rather than a flighty, light woman out for fun. Chaotic evil as opposed to chaotic neutral if you want to use those terms. Haha, your thoughts on the choice of "magnanimities" mirror my own, what the hell? Thanks for the help, slavfriend. I might still read P&V's Karamazov because I bought it and feel obligated. You might convince me to just get Avsey's any way.

[Anonymous No.11560918]

>>11560765
You're probably better off just reading P&V's Karamazovs. I noted that while I prefer Avsey, I don't find it any great either (it really should be read in Russian, and I know Polish has at least two very good translations, one very recent). To that end, I suspect you'd have trouble finding much improvement in Avsey over P&V, so just stick with it.

[Anonymous No.11560940]

>>11560918
Thanks, that comforts me.
>learn Russian
No thanks, maybe some day. A friend of mine was born in Kazakhstan and is going to do that, though. He is putting off reading any Russian lit until then. I also am about 1/8 through Anna Karenina. How much better are other translations for Tolstoy over P&V?

[Anonymous No.11560956]

>>11560940
As for Tolstoy, I don't have much experience with them, but I find the revised Maudes' War and Peace to be very good indeed (again, Oxford has very nice version of this one). Not sure if their Anna Karenina was ever revised, but I know there's the translation by Bartlett that I read and liked a lot, and also one for Yale Uni Press by Marian Schwartz that some of my acquaintances praised. As for Tolstoy and P&V, I've seen it criticised quite a lot, more so than their translations of other writers. I can't say more than that, but if you're reading their AK already and enjoying it, there's no reason not to finish it.

[Anonymous No.11560964]

>>11559488
I understand they were made with a letter press but even then they aren't worth the price. If I found one for a reasonable price, sure I would buy it. But for 1000+? No.

[Anonymous No.11560967]

>>11560601
I think I finally know why I hated The Idiot.

The constant fucking exclamation marks, everything seemed like it was unnecessarily fast paced, I don't see a single ! in the original Russian nor in the other translation

[Anonymous No.11560968]

>>11560967
I was blind, there is a ! in Russian but still, it's not as jarring as P&V

I can't believe I hated a 700 paged book because I read a certain translation

[Anonymous No.11560998]

>>11560628
aren't the defintion of "imp" a "being of mischief"?
an "imp of mischief" is extremely redundant

[Anonymous No.11561000]

Andrew R. MacAndrew is the best Karamazov translation

[Anonymous No.11561030]

>>11558077
the one who wastes his money on paperbacks and inferior hardbacks is the real loser
Everyman is based and master race

[Anonymous No.11561088]

>>11560998
Don't be silly. Such doubles are used in literature all over the place and it's pretentious to sperg over that, just for the sake of argument.

[Anonymous No.11561143]

>>11560601
>>11560537
Thanks russian, anon. Going to get the oxford edition of the idiot for sure now.

[Anonymous No.11561485]

>>11560601
Wtf i love p&v now. It's actually sublime

[Anonymous No.11561564]

>>11558064
How can one man be so wrong?

[Anonymous No.11561577]

>>11558064
The safest choice is to find early and then critical editions of the Russian text to put on your bookshelf, and then to buy an Oxford University Press translation for actual reading.

[Anonymous No.11561680]

>>11560968
>because I read a certain translation
Right? Very glad slavfriend stepped in before I read a vastly inferior version of The Idiot. P&V AK has been fun so far, might try the Oxford one (it's been on hold for months and months, I let it get away from me) when I go back to it.

[Anonymous No.11561685]

>>11561564
gross

[Anonymous No.11561689]

>>11561564
>paperbacks
I would rather pay more for a hardback than be paid to read the paperback of the same book.

[Anonymous No.11561702]

>>11561000
trips of truth but what makes you say so? isn't this all a matter of taste at the end of the day?

[Anonymous No.11561724]

>>11561689
>>11561685
Such vapid plebs ITT. Norton Critical is GOAT and most useful.

[Anonymous No.11561751]

>>11561724
>comfort of reading is vapid
Hipster

[Anonymous No.11561815]

>the I've enjoyed every p&v translation I've read
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11562105]

>>11561815
This but truly and sincerely