/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13866101]

This book sucked ass. Why does anyone like this boring garbage?

[Anonymous No.13866107]

>>13866101
I liked it because it convinced me to bot be a murderer

[Anonymous No.13866114]

>>13866107
You needed a book to teach you that?

[Anonymous No.13866480]

>>13866101

Did you read the Katz translation? If so then that may possibly be the problem. I just recently read through the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation and really enjoyed it(I enjoy slow burn stories though). However I do remember finding the new Katz translation on one of the shelves of a Barnes and Noble. At
that time I was about half way through the Pevear translation. I leafed through the Katz version a bit and re-read some of my favorite scenes. The translation however just did not work for me. It felt weird and generally I thought it didn't fit or flow very well with the story. I don't remember specifics because this was about 8-9 months ago... If you think that may have played a role then I would recommend the Pevear translation. If it has nothing to do with why you didn't like it then. Well. Good for you.

[Anonymous No.13866485]

>>13866101
that's a horrible translation

[Anonymous No.13866684]

Imagine being pleb filtered by one of the most enjoyable books ever written.
Just neck yourself desu

[Anonymous No.13866772]

>>13866101
Is this you?
>>>/a/193511137

[Anonymous No.13866774]

>>13866485
>>13866480
Shit taste detected. I bet you read Constance Garret's "translation" lmao

[Anonymous No.13866779]

>>13866749
Damn OP is a pleb and a weeb faggot

[Anonymous No.13866811]

>>13866774
p&v are the way to go if you want the most faithful rendering of dostoevsky (they're the lattimore of russian translators), but garnett is still the best non-literal translator. if you can't see that her prose style is far superior to her rivals, you shouldn't be here. her errors are actually relatively minor despite the hate she gets. the only reason to avoid her is if you dislike non-literal translations, but most of you guys claim this is your preference, so trashing her makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.13866832]

>>13866774

If you read what I actually said... >>13866480

In the third sentence I said that I read the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation. You really should read what you are responding to rather than assuming it.

[Anonymous No.13866835]

>>13866811
>p&v

WTF, did I wander into bizarro /lit/ unknowingly? It's been a while since I saw anyone recommend the fucking p&v translation lmao

[Anonymous No.13866870]

>>13866835
>thinking /lit/'s fickle and uninformed opinions mean anything

some of you guys are genuinely incapable of thinking for yourselves

[Anonymous No.13866890]

>>13866101
I'd strongly recommend reading the David McDuff translation instead of Katz. But if you do really want to read Katz the Norton Critical Edition which has his translation but with better and more detailed explanatory footnotes and scholarly essays than the edition you posted is the best option.

If I had to rank the translations for C&P I'd say it goes:
David McDuff>Jessie Coulson>Michael Katz or Oliver Ready>P&V

[Anonymous No.13866960]

>>13866890
it's so weird how you guys favor these also-fan translators and present your rankings as authoritative despite university departments still using p&v and russian scholars insisting they're the best.

it would be one thing if you guys just favored non-literal translations, which is fine, but you praise mcduff, who is a literal translator, and shit on a non-literal translator like garnett for "errors" that are more or less inevitable if your translation method emphasizes readability over strict literalism.

it comes across like you guys don't have a clue what you're talking about and are extremely susceptible to suggestion and just want to have an opinion that isn't going to offend anyone.

>p&v's work comes out and is a big hit
>articles are written criticizing garnett who was the old standard
>/lit/ jumps on the bandwagon and shits on anyone who suggests anything but p&v

>some time passes, new translations are released and being marketed, contrarian attitudes set in
>articles are written criticizing p&v who were garnett's successors, and some of these are written by fans of garnett
>/lit/ jumps on the bandwagon but ignores the garnett stuff because they feel they might be criticized for that, too, so they choose middling safer translators recommended by nobody who matters and act as if these are the only acceptable choices

i swear to god this place is filled with some of the biggest retards on the planet.

[Anonymous No.13866965]

>>13866960
>also-fan

*also-ran

[Anonymous No.13866974]

>>13866101
Remove all female characters except the two he dispatched and its a masterpiece

[Anonymous No.13866979]

>>13866974
>it’s

[Anonymous No.13867027]

>>13866960
>it comes across like you guys don't have a clue what you're talking about and are extremely susceptible to suggestion and just want to have an opinion that isn't going to offend anyone.

Bingo! That's why there are so many translation threads. If these people were genuinely this autistically obsessed with this stuff, they would just learn the language, or at least read multiple translations of the same work, but they're not going to do that because they don't actually care about literature. They just want to make sure that they have right translation so that when they post in a shelf/stack thread, no one criticizes their choice. All of /lit/'s opinions are determined by whether or not they are going to be seen as "patrician" by a group of pretentious, monolingual, semi-literate pseudos on 4chan. Sad.

[Anonymous No.13867073]

>>13867027
i have only read one translation because i really enjoyed it and i have a bunch of other books to read not to mention other hobbys you spergling

[Anonymous No.13867207]

>>13866960
>despite university departments still using p&v
That sounds like an appeal to authority.

>russian scholars insisting they're the best
[citation needed]

>p&v's work comes out and is a big hit
You can thank the publishers and marketing for that, just because it's the most widely available edition/translation doesn't mean it's the best.

[Anonymous No.13867349]

>>13867207
>[citation needed]

>Pevear and Volokhonsky had in the meantime armed themselves with enthusiastic letters of endorsement from some of the country’s best Slavic scholars—including Victor Terras, at Brown; Robert Louis Jackson, at Yale; Robert Belknap, from Columbia; and Joseph Frank, Dostoyevsky’s supreme biographer, from Stanford—and sent the manuscript out to Holt, Harcourt Brace, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, and a couple of others.

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

[Anonymous No.13868766]

>>13866774
Garnett is still the best.

[Anonymous No.13869861]

>>13867207
>That sounds like an appeal to authority.
I’d rather accept the opinions of actual experts than yours you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.13869980]

>>13867349
>Terras, at Brown;
>Jackson, at Yale;
>Belknap, from Columbia;
>Frank, Dostoyevsky’s supreme biographer, from Stanford
>Harcourt Brace, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, and a couple of others.
These don't appear to be Russian names or institutions.

[Anonymous No.13870191]

>>13866774
>Constance Garret's "translation" lmao
i.e. the only good translation

[Anonymous No.13870204]

>>13866890
>reads essays and footnotes on fiction
>doesn't include the best translation in ranking

[Anonymous No.13870246]

>>13866101
>This book sucked ass. Why does anyone like this boring garbage?

[Anonymous No.13870250]

>>13866101
I first read it in 2005. Rereading it now. I beseech you, OP, to reread Part 3, Chapter V again. It is probably the most incredible "novel of ideas" chapter I've ever read. So amazing.

[Anonymous No.13870324]

>>13870250
**SPOILERS** DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T READ C&P!!!!
----
>Raskolnikov and his autistic/encouraging/intelligent friend Razumikhin go to see Porfiry Petrovich, the police investigator.
>Raskolnikov wants to inquire about retrieving some of his previously pawned possessions from the pawnbroker, whom he has murdered.
>Razumikhin has loose suspicions about his friend, and is a relative of Petrovich, so encourages him to inquire (with the private hope that Raskolnikov coming forward will dismiss the fledgling rumours that Raskolnikov was involved in the murders), since he has previously informed Raskolnikov that Petrovic has interviewed all people who pawned items with the murdered woman.
>What follows is a brilliant interview between the clever, arrogant, and semi-mad Raskolnikov and the brilliant Petrovich, wherein the police detective brings up an article the former student has written about the rights and duties of "great men" (as opposed to the unoriginal masses) to commit crimes to achieve their overarching goals..."to remove obstacles," as it's phrased.
>Raskolnikov eloquently defends his article, albeit surprised that the detective knows about it at all.
>The detective politely grills Raskolnikov on the implications of possibly unoriginal men mistaking themselves for great men, and "removing obstacles" (committing crimes such as murdering a pawnbroker).
>All this occurs with Zamyotov (another officer who Raskolnikov earlier teased with insightful knowledge about the murders) and Razumikhin in the room.
It is an absolutely fantastic bit of writing. Part 3, chapter V, friends.

[Anonymous No.13871519]

>>13866101
>>13866101
This is going to piss off /lit/ but I agree with you OP.

[Anonymous No.13871531]

Dostoevsky in general is trash. He is on the same tier as Dickens. Soap opera serial bullshit for housewives, yet for some reason he is revered as some philosophical genius.
There's only like 2 or 3 good novels ever. All great literature is either short stories or poetry.

[Anonymous No.13871534]

>>13871519
i'm so p.o.'d at you right now, anon

[Anonymous No.13871551]

>>13866480
>>13866485
>>13866774
>>13866811
>>13866832
>>13866835
>>13866870
>>13866890
>>13866960
>>13867027
>>13867073
>>13867207
>>13867349
>>13868766
>>13869861
>>13869980
>>13870204
>>13870191
Imagine reading a book in a language it wasn't written in lmao

[Anonymous No.13871582]

>>13871531
>hasn't read C&P
>hasn't read Notes from Underground
>hasn't read The Idiot
>hasn't read House of the Dead
>hasn't read Devils
Please, kindly escort your pseud ass out of this thread.

[Anonymous No.13871624]

>>13871531
pretty much every great writer disagrees with you

[Anonymous No.13871635]

>>13871551
lmao roflmao

[Anonymous No.13871657]

The fact that he could have gotten away with literal murder but actively chose not to, triggers me to no end. What a fucking cuck.

[Anonymous No.13871670]

>>13871657
>I could've done it... easily. What a fucking cuck

[Anonymous No.13871681]

>>13871670
>not wanting to do time is a fedora thing to do
Go post Chesterton quotes on Facebook or something you fucking nerd.

[Anonymous No.13871706]

>>13871681
Yes Anon I'm sure you have murdered and know that it's pretty easy to deal with the psychological pressure and subsequent guilt
Imagine missing the point of a literary piece so fucking hard

[Anonymous No.13871719]

>>13871706
Dealing with guilt is easier than eating water soup and dodging prison dick for decades.

[Anonymous No.13871775]

>>13871657
Please, leave this board.

[Anonymous No.13871824]

>>13866101
if you find it boring then maybe this type of literature is simply not for you.

[Anonymous No.13871900]

>>13871624
Luckily I don't give a fuck what they think.

[Anonymous No.13871926]

I had not read a book since high school and on a whim decided to start reading some classics. Started Dosto with Notes from Underground and I was amazed, continued with C&P, it's great also. There's so many great scenes, the meetings of Raskolnikov and Porfiry, the time where Raskolnikov leaves his family and Razumkin suddenly understands WHY, Luzhin trying to frame Sonia for stealing the 100 roubles banknote, Raskolnikov confessing to Sonia... When Raskolnikov talks about Katerina Ivanova to Sonia and despite everything she still defends her and just keeps going "she's just like a kid!", and when during Luzhin's accusation Katerina completely refuses to believe Sonia's guilt despite the at the time heavy proofs, and she hugs her and pleads for help... I don't know how the fuck you can say this book is "garbage".

[Anonymous No.13871983]

>>13871900
Holy shit, what a badass. Dostosvsky BTFO

[Anonymous No.13871992]

>>13871926
Too many pointless subplots. The story could have been told in a concise 250 pages instead of 600.
Even better, it would have been a brilliant 90 page novella.
Crime and Punishment is just further proof that the novel is an inferior artform. Read the short stories of Chekhov if you want to see what Dostoevsky only dreamed he could do.

[Anonymous No.13872067]

>>13871992
Shut the fuck up already, idiot.

[Anonymous No.13872193]

>>13871926

Yes indeed, so many great scenes. The ones you mentioned between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin, and when Sonya is being framed by Luzhin but gets BTFO again were some of my favorites. Also the Svidrigailov chapter was another one I personally enjoyed.

[Anonymous No.13872336]

>>13866101
The axe is backwards.

[Anonymous No.13872508]

>>13869861
True enough, but that doesn't make it any less of a fallacious argument.

[Anonymous No.13872544]

>>13870204
I haven't read every single translation, I do plan on reading more when I'm in the mood for more Russki literature.

[Anonymous No.13873511]

>I like to suck ass

[Anonymous No.13873527]

>>13870324
/lit/ has a spoiler tag

[Anonymous No.13873674]

>>13872336
THIS

How stupid would you have to be to design a cover like that?

[Anonymous No.13874050]

>>13866101
Just finished it and I feel the exact same way. Now I don't know who the fuck to trust for recommending books that are ACTUALLY good.

[Anonymous No.13874053]

>>13874050
what are some novels that you loved?

[Anonymous No.13874257]

>>13873674
What if the cover is depicting Lizaveta's? Ever think of that?

[Anonymous No.13874735]

ITT: monolingual anglos circlejerk about translations

[Anonymous No.13875135]

>>13870324
All the scenes with Porfriry interviewing are gold

[Anonymous No.13875844]

>>13866101
That cover triggers me to no end. Rodya killed her with the butt end of the axe

[Anonymous No.13875915]

>>13874257
Does him killing Lizaveta distract from the themes of the book? It's easy and expected to feel guilty for murdering an 'innocent' bystander.

I read that Dostoevsky intended the book to be a critique of extreme rationalist thought at the time and show the virtue of religion. I don't subscribe to these things but I still immensely enjoyed the displayed psychology and intimacy of Raskolnikov. Anyone else feel the same?

[Anonymous No.13875932]

>>13875915
No, not at all. The protag expresses regret about it, but the central point isn't detracted from.
And I only brought up Lizaveta because she is killed with the axe properly, not with the back of it.

[Anonymous No.13876027]

>>13874257
>>13875932
That would be reverse engineering. I doubt the designer even read the book.

>>13875915
Agreed. To me the book was mainly about the death of religion a la Nietzsche, but Dosto did it earlier of course.

[Anonymous No.13876100]

>>13875932
Yes I got that, I just used your post as a 'speaking of...'
What is the central point? Rodja is enamored with a world view that allows 'great men' to do whatever they want and wants this for himself but is ultimately too weak for this ideology. He still decides to kill the pawn broker - a sub human in his eyes - and during this murder he is interrupted by Lizaveta who did is clearly NOT subhuman or beneath him in any form. At this point I'm thinking maybe Dostoevsky stumbled upon some truth that he didn't intend to find and thought he had to include this obvious moral failure in the form of Lizaveta. If his goal was to discredit Rodja's skewed perspective it arguably would have been more effective to show to focus on the ideology-inspired misdeed exclusively.

It's been some time since I've read the book though and I don't quite remember the finer details. Just some idle thoughts.

[Anonymous No.13876200]

>>13876100
That's actually a rather insightful suggestion...that Dostoyevsky found a snag to his theory but his instinct was to brush it off. But, in composing the novel, couldn't completely ignore it and leave it unaddressed, so had the "simple-minded" and certainly innocent Lizaveta return and unintentionally become an impediment to Raskolnikov. Isn't that something?
Perhaps that is what caught him: that most people, neither great nor simple, just wish to live their lives in peace without becoming entangled in the schemes and ambitions of "great" men...and the snag is that many of these peaceful, harmless, productive people must be destroyed for the ambitions of the great...

[Anonymous No.13876705]

>>13876200
Thank you. I also enjoyed your take.

[Anonymous No.13876837]

>>13876100
>but is ultimately too weak for this ideology
He is just like Smerdyakov in that regard.

[Anonymous No.13877925]

>>13874050
Exactly. One of my goals was to go through the classics that were universally accepted as fantastic pieces of literature. Made it through like 3 books and noticed all of them were pretty fucking stale. I've concluded that they were just fantastic for their time period.

I've been playing guitar for like 15 years and people still drone on about how certain guitar players are the greatest (Jimi Hendrix for example). He doesn't even make my personal list of favorite guitarist but I understand his influence. I'm guessing these books are kind of like that.

[Anonymous No.13878188]

I enjoy classic literature and most of what I read skews pre-20th century just by coincidence. I've also read BK and notes from underground. Dosto strikes me as a person who underwent a lot of psychological stress, which is relatable, but isn't really interesting to read about how much someone is sobbing because
Of something they said in a passionate moment to someone else

[Anonymous No.13878214]

>>13878188
shut the fuck up retard

[Anonymous No.13878225]

>>13871531
>not liking soaps

[Anonymous No.13878977]

>>13866101
THE FUCK YOU SAID ABOUT DOSTO YOU LITTLE BITCH?

[Anonymous No.13879333]

>>13866114
It definitely convinced me too.

[Anonymous No.13880558]

It doesn't suck but it is a bit overrated compared to some of his other books.

[Anonymous No.13880863]

bro there are chapters that literally end with characters confessing huge shit and then you find out that there's someone listening behind the door and the chapter ends. That's some SVU-type suspense/"oh snap what's gonna happen now" type of entertainment

[Anonymous No.13881225]

>>13870324
>giving spoiler alerts for great classics
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.13881232]

>>13871531
>>13871900
I remember when I was 16 and thought C&P was crap because it had a happy ending in the epilogue.

[Anonymous No.13881236]

So rodja could not love with his decision to kill them.

But what it rodja was a so called "great" man? Surely he would've been able to live without guilt right?

[Anonymous No.13881488]

>>13881225
I didn't want to take away a very specifically enjoyable scene in the book from someone who might be in the process of reading it.

[Anonymous No.13882689]

>>13880558
That book was fucking boring as well. The father was the only interesting character.

[Anonymous No.13882720]

>>13881232
C&P for me had the best ending in all of Dostoevsky's books. TBK ending comes close. There's little silver lining in the end of Demons, Notes, The Idiot, and the Gambler, to the point it's just depressing. But C&P actually gives you hope.

[Anonymous No.13882734]

>>13866101
Maybe it was just too simple for you.

[Anonymous No.13884115]

This book made me gay

[Anonymous No.13885220]

>>13882689
If you think that Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment are both boring you may have to consider the possibility that you just have shite taste anon.

[Anonymous No.13885240]

>>13866101
i started reading it randomly from the library and got hooked from the first sentence, op is a fag

[Anonymous No.13886033]

>>13882720
agreed

[Anonymous No.13886038]

>>13885220
If you don’t think these books are boring then you may have to consider that you missed a key aspect at the absolute core of the story, it’s a fucking dreg almost by intention.

[Anonymous No.13887658]

>>13885220
Please explain what you liked about it? The superfluous dialogue? The long eventless segments?

[Anonymous No.13887788]

>>13866960
> russian scholars insisting they're the best
Each time you spot this, you spot a shill. Russian scholars consider P&V's approach as amateurish and ignorant, and woe the capitalist system in which such shit can be marketed and forced upon unsuspecting public. You don't know any anyway.

There is a difference between comparing which translator has more talent, and comparing translators who master their trade to those who “invent” literal translation because they are completely style-deaf.

>>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=pevearsion

[Anonymous No.13887919]

>>13875915
> Does him killing Lizaveta distract from the themes of the book?
Well, hello there. The dual murder not just an accident.

[Anonymous No.13887941]

>>13875135
If only they did not portray Dostoevsky's masochistic desire to see the patriarchal state restoring order.