/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1589492]

Does anyone know what the most literal translation of War and Peace is? I've read that Tolstoy wrote in a rather terse style, and that most translations have tried to embellish his text with unnecessary words. I enjoy a good terse style.

Wikipedia lists the following translations. Any input on them would be appreciated.

* Clara Bell (from a French version) 1885-86
* Nathan Haskell Dole 1898
* Leo Wiener 1904
* Constance Garnett (1904)
* Louise and Aylmer Maude (1922-3)
* Rosemary Edmonds (1957, revised 1978)
* Ann Dunnigan (1968)
* Anthony Briggs (2005)
* Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (2007)

[Anonymous No.1589521]

>I've read that Tolstoy wrote in a rather terse style, and that most translations have tried to embellish his text with unnecessary words.
That's more a problem with translating from Russian to English.

[Anonymous No.1589528]

I read Rosemary Edmonds' translation and I thought that it was pretty well written. The only thing that annoyed the shit out of me was that she always used "said he" instead of "he said." Shit like that makes me want to rip the page out; but nevertheless, it was a good translation.
Also, it is generally a common consensus here that the Richard Pevear and Larissa translations are the best for Russian lit.

[Anonymous No.1589540]

Wasn't Louise and Aylmer Maude approved by Tolstoy himself? Unsure if any that came after were a massive improvement or not.

[Anonymous No.1589555]

>>1589540

>implying Tolstoy could read english.

[Anonymous No.1589734]

Louise and Aylmer Maude. That is all.

[Anonymous No.1589740]

>>1589540

Yes, after being dead for 12 years good old Leo rose from his grave and approved of their translation when it was completed.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1589756]

>>1589492
>Constance Garnett

[Anonymous No.1589771]

>>1589555


Hurr durr.

>His criticism of Shakespeare?

[Anonymous No.1589794]

>>1589771
>implying Shakespeare is untranslatable

[Anonymous No.1590753]

Last bump from OP.

[Anonymous No.1590846]

I see Maude's been named already. God, I love this board.

Oxford publishing's released a rather nice hardback with a newly revised Maude translation. It's pretty much definitive.

[Anonymous No.1590856]

>>1589794
In his criticism he stated that he has read Shakespeare in three different languages, one of them English. He could read English.

[Anonymous No.1590869]

Not OP, but I have Garnett's and i'm about to start reading it

is it not worth it? apparently Garnett knew Tolstoy

[Anonymous No.1590881]

>>1590856
>In his criticism he stated that he has read Shakespeare in three different languages, one of them English.
The other was the original Klingon.

[Anonymous No.1590909]

>>1590869
>However, Garnett also has had many critics, notably prominent Russian natives and authors Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Brodsky. Brodsky notably criticized Garnett for blurring the distinctive authorial voices of different Russian authors[1]:
>"The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They're reading Constance Garnett."

[Anonymous No.1591552]

In my opinion the best translation is the Maude translation, but I have not read the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation.

[Anonymous No.1591563]

Constance Garnett is considered the gold standard of Russian translations and her translation is by far the most prevalent. However many complain that she translates Tolstoy rather politely in a style that would be more suitable to Dickens.

Pevear and Volokhonsky are a more modern translation and are supposedly more faithful to the style that Tolstoy wrote in.

However if your serious about reading Tolstoy and want the most faithful translation you should учит по-русский

[Anonymous No.1591581]

Does anyone posting in this thread commenting on different translations actually read the original Russian? I mean that would be the only way to judge the validity of a certain translation.

[Anonymous No.1591583]

>>1591581
>>1589521 here
I've started reading Dostoevsky in the original Russian (though my Russian is next to non-existent), and know, to some degree, a couple of slavic languages. That's essentially what I base my claim on.

All I can see is that it's really difficult to translate from Russian.

[Anonymous No.1591593]

>>1591581
Nabokov and Brodsky have read the originals.

[Anonymous No.1591597]

>>1591583

Good for you man I am currently reading Братья Карамазовы in Russian and have about 200 pages to go. I find Russian is really easy to read because it is so heavily prefixed and suffixed but speaking it is really difficult because you have to conjugate every single fucking word correctly.

[Anonymous No.1591606]

I think it's just very hard to have an original voice when translating a classic work.

The translation gets "updated" to modern language and I think that blurs the original voice of a text.

[Anonymous No.1591625]

>>1591597
The conjugation when speaking is cool for me, since I can speak some south slavic 7 different cases stuff naturally. So Russian 6 case declension is easy mode.

However, the fucking Ь modifier is a total bitch, and thus I sound completely retarded when speaking.

[Anonymous No.1591637]

>>1591625. I Know how you feel man. The modifiers ъ, ь, and to a lesser extent ы always make me feel like a tard.

I studied some Latin so the case stuff is hard but not completely foreign. My biggest problem is I don't know anyone who speaks Russian so I don't speak it much. I just mostly reads stuff. I write a little in emails to some friends or when I post on Двач. I try to listen to audio books and podcasts and watch Russian films with Netflix but I only speak Russian occasionally. feelsbadman.jpg

[Anonymous No.1591670]

>>1591637
My face when I started studying German, laughed about the case stuff, then got totally confused about the articles taking the declension