/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13629027]

Is Tolstoy's prose supposed to be this dry? I'm reading the P&V translation, should I look for a new one or is this how it's supposed to be?
It seems jarring to me. Should I just power through for the story?

[Anonymous No.13629036]

>>13629027
>I'm reading the P&V translation
You deserve hell and worse then.

[Anonymous No.13629276]

>>13629027
I’m reading the Constance Garnett translation of War and Peace right now, and it is that same. I just think that maybe he isn’t a good writer. Either that or both translators are trash.

[Anonymous No.13629288]

>>13629027
Revised Maude is the superior translation. But what do you mean "dry"? Are you a faggot American?

[Anonymous No.13629389]

Try the Marian Schwartz translation.

[Anonymous No.13629399]

>>13629276
>I just think that maybe he isn’t a good writer.
Yeah and you’re just retarded. If you think the consensus GOAT “just isn’t a good writer” you’re the problem.
Nothing wrong with Constance Garnett either.

[Anonymous No.13629766]

>>13629027
Why do people hate on the Garnett translations?

[Anonymous No.13629785]

>>13629027
Maude is the way to go with Tolstoy

>"Early in the nineteenth century, when there were as yet no railways or macadamized roads, no gaslight, no stearine candles, no low couches with sprung cushions, no unvarnished furniture, no disillusioned youths with eye glasses, no liberalizing women philosophers, nor any charming dames aux camelias of whom there are so many in our times, in those naive days, when leaving Moscow for Petersburg in a coach or carriage provided with a kitchenful of home-made provisions one traveled for eight days along a soft, dusty or muddy road and believed in chopped cutlets, sledge-bells, and plain rolls; when in the long autumn evenings the tallow candles, around which family groups of twenty or thirty people gathered, had to be snuffed; when ball-rooms were illuminated by candelabra with wax or spermaceti candles, when furniture was arranged symmetrically, when our fathers were still young and proved it not only by the absence of wrinkles and grey hair but by fighting duels for the sake of a woman and rushing from the opposite corner of a room to pick up a bit of handkerchief purposely or accidentally dropped; when our mothers wore short-waisted dresses and enormous sleeves and decided family affairs by drawing lots, when the charming dames aux camelias hid from the light of day - in those naïve days of Masonic lodges, Martinists, and Tugenbunds, the days of Miloradoviches and Davydovs and Pushkins - a meeting of landed proprietors was held in the Government town of K--, and the nobility elections were being concluded."

[Anonymous No.13629800]

>>13629399
>i follow blind consensus
retard. Try to think for yourself at least one time. Everyone has classics they hate. I for example detest The Iliad and i couldn't give a single fuck about what academics or people in general think about it, i simply hate it.

[Anonymous No.13629819]

>>13629800
I assure you that you’re very much the retard. You detest the Illiad and Tolstoy. It has nothing to do with “muh independent thinking”, you’re literally just very low IQ.

[Anonymous No.13629828]

>>13629800
>hates the Iliad
Bro I’m sorry, you’re retarded

[Anonymous No.13629831]

>>13629800
Yeah what’s more likely, that legions of the greatest writers and literary minds the world has known have heaped praise on these works erroneously, being a bunch of conformist retards, or you, special you, has the discerned the truth?

[Anonymous No.13629832]

>>13629027
Kind of. He's not a poet who dazzles you with word choice on every page, that's for sure. There's a fuckton of other things in his texts that you can pay attention to, though. He's very "materialist" as a writer.
It should also be noted that P&V have a tendency towards wooden translations too.

>>13629276
If style means so much to you maybe you should just stick to poetry? Certainly avoid realism.

>>13629800
No, you don't blindly follow the academic consens, you just blindly follow your own caprices.

[Anonymous No.13629842]

>>13629819
I'm not the OP and i love Tolstoy. You are the one who blindly follows retarded /lit/ consensus without thinking for yourself for once. If one were to ask you what you like about such and such works, you'd answer "uuuuh it's really good man, like... i really like it you know, the prose was good and the characters were so good, it was all good; really good". retard.
>>13629831
>a lot of people like [thing], therefore [thing] real
A significant part of the population (more than 1 billion, in fact) worship a goat-fucking pedophile prophet, and it doesn't make him real any more than the academic consensus makes The Illiad or Tolstoy good.
>>13629832
Not even sure how you can think that's a good point. Yes, i follow my own logic.

[Anonymous No.13629866]

>>13629842
>You are the one who blindly follows retarded /lit/ consensus without thinking for yourself for once. If one were to ask you what you like about such and such works, you'd answer "uuuuh it's really good man, like... i really like it you know, the prose was good and the characters were so good, it was all good; really good". retard.
Baseless blithering, I responded to your actual retardation, you’re fantasizing about me being a retard to cope.
You can try to rationalize it all you want, “detesting” the Iliad makes you a confirmed brainlet, and deep down you know that. I shouldn’t have even humored you with a further response because you’re no better than a worm.

[Anonymous No.13629867]

>>13629842
>i follow my own logic
Well it doesn't sound very logical when you say you hate (aka strong emotional reaction) one fucking book.

>i love Tolstoy
>>13629276
>maybe he isn’t a good writer
This doesn't sound very logical either.

[Anonymous No.13629898]

>>13629842
>A significant part of the population (more than 1 billion, in fact) worship a goat-fucking pedophile prophet, and it doesn't make him real any more than the academic consensus makes The Illiad or Tolstoy good.
lmao this is called a false equivalency you total rock. illiad and tolstoy’s works are not something you have to have faith in. they’re objectively very high quality literature, in fact many would argue the greatest the world has seen. that you think whether they’re “good” is up for debate is pathetically dumb, but you’ll never know it.

[Anonymous No.13629906]

>>13629800
I had to power through half of the Iliad but I greatly enjoyed the other half and thought it was great literature. I can only keep up with so many spears being hurled. I suppose people like us would've enjoyed hearing it being recited more. There's someone on youtube that recites book 6 of the Iliad in Greek and it's riveting, I could probably listen to a good orator reciting Greek literature all day if I understood the language.

[Anonymous No.13629911]

I'm starting to think the P & V hate is deserved because i've tried to get through their translations of TBK and Demons and thought they were fascinating but both just became painfully boring at points.

[Anonymous No.13629921]

>>13629866
You are showing your own retardation as you could've responded with "no, i actually have the knowledge to defend books i like, see..." but you don't have that capacity.
>>13629867
Obviously i follow my own logic, as in, i follow my taste, and The Iliad is simply irredeemable trash that only got famous as a part of a broader reaction against Latin (mingled with anti-scholastic feelings) rhetoric by the Renaissance. See the anti-ciceronians and how they changed literature by rejecting what they essentially saw as "silly formalistic elements" (such as the famous periodic sentences) that permeated non-fiction, drawing from Cicero's style. That movement in general spawned a reaction against Latin literature, who enjoyed much more respect in medieval times, and so Virgil and better poets (remember, it's Virgil that is the guider of Dante, not Homer) stopped being translated in favor of figures like Homer, Greek playwrighters, and Plato.
Also, that guy is not me, retard.

[Anonymous No.13629929]

>>13629921
>You are showing your own retardation as you could've responded with "no, i actually have the knowledge to defend books i like, see..." but you don't have that capacity.
Because you’re not worth it you stupid bitch, if you think it’s subjective whether Tolstoy or the Iliad are great literature you’re not equipped to have a serious literary conversation. You’re better served by death.

[Anonymous No.13629931]

>>13629898
>they’re objectively very high quality literature
Dumb.
>in fact many would argue the greatest the world has seen
retards
>that you think whether they’re “good” is up for debate is pathetically dumb, but you’ll never know it.
You manage to be even more dumb!
It's not a false equivalency when you literally admit that you think it's good because people enjoy it, and that that also proves that it's good.

[Anonymous No.13629938]

Can you cunts shut the fuck up and tell me what the best translation of Crime and Punishment is?

[Anonymous No.13629942]

>>13629929
>stupid bitch, if you think it’s subjective whether Tolstoy or the Iliad are great literature you’re not equipped to have a serious literary conversation.
Honestly, that's kinda cringe, bro. That sentence reeks so much of reddit i want to puke. Kys my man

[Anonymous No.13629947]

>>13629931
>It's not a false equivalency when you literally admit that you think it's good because people enjoy it,
nope, never did.

[Anonymous No.13629948]

Russian authors didn't care about arbitrary memes like prose.

[Anonymous No.13629950]

>>13629948
That's not true. See: Andrei Bely.

[Anonymous No.13629952]

>>13629938
McDuff. Avoid P&V like the plague.

[Anonymous No.13629963]

>>13629947
No, you did.

[Anonymous No.13629966]

>>13629942
>n-no you kys, reddit
With every response you manage to convince yourself that this all some sort of rhetorical game among equals on 4chan. It isn’t. You’re legitimately retarded, and tonight when you’re about to fall asleep you’ll feel the truth of the points raised against you here and come back to banter more, and convince yourself it’s all a game all over again.

[Anonymous No.13629970]

>>13629963
hm, really? quote it. don’t try to interpret it where I didn’t say it. literally quote the part where I said I enjoy it because other people do. I’ll be waiting.

[Anonymous No.13629973]

I REALLY liked the Bartlett translation, though it's the only one I've read

[Anonymous No.13629996]

>>13629966
Of course it's not a game of equals, you're legitimately a braindead retard who says shit "n-nooo stupid biitch!" "you're better off dead" and thinks that by hiding himself under a layer of irony, it proves he's actually an intellectual and not a dilletante who will die as worthless as the random schmuck down the street. Don't murder yourself, live your mediocre life until you die full of regrets, retard.
>>13629970
>don’t try to interpret it where I didn’t say it
Idiot. You don't make the rules. You absolutely imply that the Iliad has value because people like it and you saw that this backed yourself into a corner so you have to cry "l-logical f-falacy" when it's not even a logical fallacy, like a neo-atheist debating a christian in 2006.

[Anonymous No.13630005]

>>13629027
>reading AK in an English translation other than Oxford's Revised Maude
lmao filthy plebs

[Anonymous No.13630027]

>>13629996
>>don’t try to interpret it where I didn’t say it
>Idiot. You don't make the rules. You absolutely imply that the Iliad has value because people like it
lmao. do you know why you can’t quote it, and why I knew you couldn’t? because I didn’t say it, because you’re retarded and only know how to strawman. I didn’t imply that at all, since that would be an awfully damning thing to imply about myself, right? have you thought that through? “o yeah I only like it because I’m a conformist” yeah that’s definitely something I’d imply. O no wait, it’s a strawman of yours. now that seems to make more sense.
I feel like at this point you’ve been shown your utter retardation and pathetic cope pretty straightforwardly.

[Anonymous No.13630039]

>>13630027
I don't need to quote it. One could simply scroll up and see retardations such as:
>Yeah what’s more likely, that legions of the greatest writers and literary minds the world has known have heaped praise on these works erroneously, being a bunch of conformist retards, or you, special you, has the discerned the truth?
Note that my original post talked about forming your own opinion, and nothing about the opinions of scholars and "great" writers on the subject (though later, responding to another poster, i did kinda touch on that topic). So yes, it's absolutely a retardation to imply "uuuh, these "great" writers liked X thing, therefore that thing is good and you're wrong to not like it!".

[Anonymous No.13630067]

>>13630039
"uuuh, these "great" writers liked X thing, therefore that thing is good and you're wrong to not like it!".
you’re so, so dumb. yes retard, this is what I was saying (not even implying lmao). no retard, that has nothing to do with why I like it personally. these are different subjects.
no, you don’t know better than great writers and literary thinkers what constitutes great literature. I know it’s very hard for you to swallow, because retards are always narcissistic, but it really is you, not them, who is in the wrong. this is all I was saying. are these the reasons I like Tolstoy and the Iliad? No. Are they the reasons you’re objectively in the wrong? Yes. Hope this helps. It won’t.

[Anonymous No.13630071]

>>13629800
this nigga reading beans

[Anonymous No.13630078]

>>13630067
Literally no one cares, or even mentioned your own particular enjoyment of The Iliad or Tolstoy or whatever. The attack was on your blind following of academic consensus as the mark of aesthetic validity, and not on your own retarded notions about what constitutes a good work or not.
>but it really is you, not them, who is in the wrong. this is all I was saying.
Since you don't have any arguments and only parrot a stupid assertion from early on i can also dismiss you the same. You are dumb, low IQ, and in any academic setting would be the butt of the joke as an unexpressive unoriginal idiot who lacks a single line of original thinking.

[Anonymous No.13630108]

>>13630078
you keep trying to dress yourself up like a freethinking intellectual, you're not and you know it. you're a contrarian dipshit. this is real life you dweeb, not an academic debate. your entire argument is based on YOU knowing better than the Western Canon. you would be a joke if it were funny, but you're just a gnat.
>and in any academic setting would be the butt of the joke
lmao yeah I bet you frequent those "academic settings" you pathetic tryhard. yeah show up to a Harold Bloom class and let him know your "original thoughts" about how literary quality is subjective and the Iliad is unimpressive. you'll definitely be applauded, just like in your fantasies.

[Anonymous No.13630137]

>>13630108
I literally never did that. All i said was that following blind academic consensus is dumb, and for retards, not only because you aren't on a formal academic environment, but specially because you don't have the erudition to even understand their criticisms and evaluations.

[Anonymous No.13630168]

>>13630137
>All i said was that following blind academic consensus is dumb
Never did, the point is clearly that there's a capacity for aesthetic evaluation that you lack, because you're retarded. Great writers don't lack it, so there's a solid reference point. Again, this is about you, not me. I have my own reasons for liking these works that I don't deign to share. Don't cast your pearls before swine.
>but specially because you don't have the erudition to even understand their criticisms and evaluations.
More cope fantasy about how retarded I am because you have such a dearth to draw on lmao, yeah it's definitely me who wouldn't understand literary criticism instead of the retard who can't see the quality of the Iliad, checks out you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.13630199]

>>13630168
Wrong, it's exactly why i have the right aesthetic sense and knowledge of history that i can say the Illiad is overrated trash.
>yeah it's definitely me who wouldn't understand literary criticism instead of the retard
For starters, you can not even start an academic discussion about the Iliad without an extensive knowledge of Ancient Greek. That already puts you to shame because you're obviously an idiot who never studied any language in your life. Do you know the way they determined centuries ago The Iliad was older than the Odyssey? Stylistic analysis of group related words and how in the Iliad it pointed to an earlier Greek. You would never understand such analysis without having a decent understanding of Greek. You've "read" the Iliad without even acknowledging the role of Kleos and similarly related concepts that are crucial to understanding the work.
No you wouldn't understand literary criticism because these are people who spend their whole lives on the subject reading and writing extensively about it. The connection that they make to put forth their inferences is so beyond your 90IQ mind you can only think "i-i understand it!" because you see the final product on whatever Harold Bloom book you read. But you couldn't point the subtle bad inferences Bruno Snell for examples commit when criticizing the supposed lack of free will in The Iliad (he has been BTFO by modern scholars, but i won't give you the sources because you neither know Bruno Snell and his terrible criticisms, neither do you know modern understanding of The Iliad).

[Anonymous No.13630203]

>>13630005
I was the guy who posted that he isn’t a fan of the Constance Garnett translation of War and Piece at the beginning of the thread. I also own the Oxford Maude version of Anna Karenina, so I guess I shall compare them to see how I feel. I just dislike the way the dialogue is written. I first tried Tolstoy by renting an old copy of Haji Murad from my library, I dunno which translation, but the dialogue was literally like cavemen speaking to each other, and I could finish ten pages. Albeit, the Garnett version of War and Peace is significantly better, and I have enjoyed many parts.

[Anonymous No.13630206]

>>13630199
>Wrong, it's exactly why i have the right aesthetic sense and knowledge of history that i can say the Illiad is overrated trash.
lmao you do you, hope you die

[Anonymous No.13630210]

Tolstoy is massively overrated. I read him in original, and it's shit. Dostoevsky is the only true classical Russian writer, perhaps the only true classical writer at all.

Tolstoy's works are only interesting in context of development of literature, to see how humanity has progressed in terms of writing. Much like Shakespeare - it's overrated garbage otherwise. If someone says they like Shakespeare - they are literary plebs, or liars, or plebs who want to appear 'sophisticated', but ofcourse fail, because Shakespeare is shit. Same goes for Tolstoy. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.13630216]

>>13630210
If you read him in the original, then point to me what are the flaws of his style, or narrative techniques, or any general flaw you see in his work. I ask the same of Shakespeare, because Tolstoy had a pretty retarded dismissal of Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.13630243]

>>13630210
fucking hell people are dumb, i'm so passionately for eugenics

[Anonymous No.13630263]

Imagine being so brainwashed, so out of touch with the modern world and reality itself, that you would circlejerk outdated writing. Only lazy, weak willed people circlejerk the past like this because the present nor the future is looking that good for them because they refuse to do anything about their situation in life. Actually intelligent, creative, strong people live in the present while looking ahead to the future.

[Anonymous No.13630382]

>>13629766
Because it’s not good

[Anonymous No.13630386]

>>13630263
Intelligent people learn from the past while using that knowledge in their present, bud.

[Anonymous No.13630391]

>>13630216
>>13630243
>>13630263
>>13630386

cringe and plebpilled

[Anonymous No.13630397]

>>13629027
ahh

you really should have went with the Miriam Schwartz translation.

t. john

[Anonymous No.13630399]

>>13629389
hi steve how are you?

[Anonymous No.13630404]

>>13629389

[Anonymous No.13630405]

>>13630391
Defend your assertions, retard.

[Anonymous No.13630506]

>>13630405
butthurt shakespearie

[Anonymous No.13630533]

>>13629399
>>13629766
Garnett is a shit
>didn't speak russian until she was 29
>would finish a page, and throw it off in a pile on the floor without looking up, and start a new page
>would leave out words or phrases she couldn't understand
"the reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They are reading Constance Garnett."

[Anonymous No.13630543]

>>13630533
I've read Garnett's Anna Karenina and the first quarter of Maude's War and Peace and some other translation of his short stories and they were all familiar and identifiably Tolstoy. The only translators that just read too terribly to have been accurate were P&V.
>the reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They are reading Constance Garnett.
Then she's the greatest writer of all time lol
On a serious note obviously I don't know how good the translations are, I hope to learn Russian one day (lol kill me) specifically to read Tolstoy in his own words, but it definitely didn't seem awkward or worse than the others.

[Anonymous No.13630556]

>>13629027
What a terrible fucking cover lol, Anna Karenina looks like Kiera Knightley, and not because of the movie, that was just cosmically ideal casting--in fact that whole movie was perfectly cast, now that I think lol
But that bitch is a straight gnome, good way to turn off potential readers.

Here's an example of one that appeals.

[Anonymous No.13630568]

>>13629027
How is the Rosamund Bartlett translation? Its what my local library has.

[Anonymous No.13630597]

>>13629027
Tolstoy has a very distinctive and plodding prose style, it might seem voiceless and repetitive but he conjures these moments of absolute beauty sometimes, like a painting or a movie or something, it proceeds inexorably with his measured, constant string of phrases to coalesce into this incredible 'image'. I wrote a long post about this once but nobody replied so it might have been low quality.

[Anonymous No.13630620]

>>13630597
Are you the Shakespeare anon? Anyway, i'd love to see you go in depth on this, as what you describe happens in pretty much any good author.

[Anonymous No.13630628]

>>13630597
I wouldn't say plodding so much as measured. Plodding has a bit of a negative conotation, like a fat trashy bitch trundling awkwardly through Wal-Mart. But Tolstoy is simply measured, similar to Conor McGregor against Eddie Alvarez--he's completely in his element and strikes at his ease.

[Anonymous No.13630667]

>>13630620
not the shakespeare anon no. I post a lot on here but it's of decidedly varied quality. If I can find the post in the archives I'll try to summarize it or just copy paste, but I'm not deep into Tolstoy right now as I was back then so i'd likely not do a great job. I intend to reread war and peace for the mllionth time soon and hopefully gain some more insights into his work.
>>13630628
you're right, bad word choice. I think i used it because sometimes you don't quite understand why he repeats phrases so much, but that's not even the same concept as plodding really.

[Anonymous No.13630682]

>not being fluent in both and making your own translation only for you to read

[Anonymous No.13632196]

Is Anthony Briggs better than P&V?

[Anonymous No.13632654]

OP here. I still haven't got an answer. You fucks can't stay on topic can you? I tried looking on Goodreads and they all recommend P&V, so unless someone can give me a better one I'll have to carry on with this.

[Anonymous No.13632668]

>>13629842
holy fuck /pol/ always reaches new heights of cringe

[Anonymous No.13632843]

>>13632654
Try the Maude one.

[Anonymous No.13632846]

>>13632654
Yes we did, avoid Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky like the plague, read the Maudes' translation instead.

[Anonymous No.13633194]

>>13630533
>the virgin transcriber
>the chadette interpreter
I know which translator I want to read

[Anonymous No.13633290]

Why didn't Tolstoy just write in Gods language to begin with? He knew how to speak English.

[Anonymous No.13633396]

>>13629027
The sad fact is that Russian simply doesn't translate too well. I'd never recommend reading Tolstoy in English, but since you have no other option, well, I have no advice for you.

[Anonymous No.13633404]

>>13632846
>Yes we did, avoid Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky like the plague,
I already got this but I keep seeing people here say similar things to what you're saying. Should I not even bother with it?

[Anonymous No.13633429]

>>13633404
Correct, literally don’t bother with it. It’s total ass. War and Peace is too important a read to ruin with the worst possible translation.

[Anonymous No.13633449]

>>13629800
> I just hate it. It isn’t for me
Nobody gives a fuck about your sentiments or if you enjoyed something. “I’m always right and nothing can dissuade me. I know it all.” Go back to your mother daughter book club anon.

[Anonymous No.13633451]

>>13633404
It’s fine. They and fagles are just popular. I doubt anyone on here has actually even read those translations

[Anonymous No.13633566]

>>13633451
>I doubt anyone on here has actually even read those translations
?? What a strange thing to try to posture about, yes I’ve read the first quarter of P&V’s War and Peace before I had to toss it because the prose was unbearably bad. We can assume Tolstoy’s wasn’t.