[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 189 KB, 800x639, pv.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14520380 No.14520380 [Reply] [Original]

What's /lit/s opinion on this translation duo? Do you think their work is good or are they overrated?

>> No.14520384

>>14520380
/lit/ always shits on their Dosto translations but I haven't read any others for comparison.

>> No.14520422

>>14520380
Their Chekhov is decent. Just stay away from their Dosto and their Tolstoy.

>> No.14520426

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

>> No.14521109
File: 117 KB, 1200x1200, notes-from-underground-paperback-cover-9780857860217.1200x1200n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14521109

>>14520426
Their Dosto always read clunky af to me.
Anyone familiar with this "radical" version?

>> No.14521129
File: 2.61 MB, 3128x2180, 1539708314058.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14521129

>>14520380
Only get 'em if you have to

>> No.14521323

>>14521129
mind explaining based on your example in what way the p&v translation is worse than the garnett translation?

>> No.14521333

>>14520380
They're terrible. Garnett takes a big smelly Victorian shit all over them.

>> No.14521338

>>14521323
The point is McDuff a best. If you can't get McDuff then you might as well flip a coin, it basically doesn't matter

>> No.14521408

>>14521338
im no expert but yes, it seems a bit better written. but other than that, whats the big deal? they are all good translations, all with the exact same content. all of them read perfectly fine.
why do we have gentlemen such as this one >>14521333 making exaggerations and saying "x translation is terrible, y translation does it a thousand times better" when in fact they are basically the same. speaking to you >>14521333, can you explain in what way "p&v is """"""terrible""""""""""" and precisely how "garnett takes a big smelly victorian shit all over them"?

>> No.14521509

>>14521408
Read this >>14520426

>> No.14521521

so you think anyone on /lit/ is fluent in english and 19th century Russian and has spent the time reading and contrasting translations with the original?

>> No.14521598

they’re fine

>> No.14521769

great translation of The Idiot

>> No.14522704

>>14521408
a "hot spell"? he rented a "closet"? that seems like google translate tier shit.

>> No.14522771

>>14520426
I really liked this article and believed it, and I still do, but honestly >>14521129 makes me think that he was overreacting and cherrypicking. I remember reading P&V Bulgakov too and it definitely had its moments. The versions in that chart are fundamentally quite similar, personally I think McDuff has a better style but not overwhelmingly, I think that P&V translation looks more than passable.

>> No.14522800

>>14521129
I liked Garnett's version the best.

>> No.14522977

They got hyped up so much that now the “counter culture” people say they are shit. Most of their translations are excellent

>> No.14522997

Pretty smart scam they have. The way they work they can get translations out quick, look at how much they have translated.

They do it solely for money, they churn sub-par translations and chase only profit. If you buy into it you are retarded.

>> No.14523245

>>14520380
Tried reading their dosto translation teo years ago, and was incapable of finishing it. Really bad.

>> No.14523250

>>14521129
Do you have one of these but for Chekhov ?

>> No.14523259

Read their Demons translation and didn't feel there were any issues. But now this >>14520426 article is making me second guess. Probably won't go for P&V next time I read Dosto