[ 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: 210 KB, 882x1389, 462738462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15917071 No.15917071 [Reply] [Original]

which translation for pic related and dostoevsky?

>> No.15917082

>>15917071
Rosamund Bartlett

>> No.15917092

>>15917071
That (Bartlett) translation for AK is very good. I thought PV was fine for Brother's K by /lit/ loves to hate it. My first read was Garnett but I read the PV next and have always reread the PV.

>> No.15917098

anne karatenigger was bladerunner all along?

>> No.15917525

>>15917071
Marian Schwartz' translation (Yale University Press, 2014) is the superior version to read these days.

The major change from other versions is discussed in the introduction. Tolstoy, as a conscious stylistic choice, stripped his vocabulary of synonyms. That is, he often used the same word again and again in a short space. Since some mandarins of English style consider repetition a stylistic mistake, many translators, trying "to save Tolstoy from himself," have varied the repetitions by substituting synonyms and even euphemisms. However, Tolstoy was reacting against precisely this kind of elegance. Indeed, he considered it immoral. This version emphasizes the repetitions, and the effect is that you get Tolstoy's attitude toward each character without him ever explicitly saying this one is good and this one is bad as well as the issues that Tolstoy considers important. The book changes from a romance about a woman who sacrifices all for love to a passionate vision of what makes a good society.

Gary Saul Morson provides a brilliant, erudite introduction to the work -- pure lagniappe.

I also highly recommend her Oblomov.

>> No.15917537

>>15917525
>translators thinking that their way is better than the original author, who himself was one of the greatest writers to ever live

When will people stop doing this. All people want is the most accurate translation possible, not what some random academic thinks is better

>> No.15917540

>>15917071
For Dostoevsky I recommend Avsey wherever possible. MacAndrew does good work as well. Stay away from P&V.

>> No.15917561

>>15917071
>>15917540
>>15917537
P&V is always the most superior, closest and most literal to the Russian texts, don't believe these fools!

>> No.15917563

>>15917540
Is P&V really shit? I just got a couple of their translations. I forgot to check before getting the books

>> No.15917630

>>15917561
This. Seriously, P&V really is the best.

>> No.15917635

>>15917563
Yes, they're bad. Russian's and bilinguals tend to like them but I think it has to do with the way they think of the two languages. For example it's almost always easier for me to understand a German learner's German because their words more accurately reflects how I would probably write it myself. I also tend to understand German better when spoken by a fellow anglo because that's more like how I sound. I think the same phenomenon is at play with P&V.

Also understand that the husband does not understand Russian at all. He gets his wife to do a rough draft, which he then edits. Very overrated translators.

>> No.15917656

>>15917635
Oh well i'm stuck with them now. I did notice in Notes From Underground they made a big deal in the Translators Note about changing spiteful to wicked. It bothered me.

>> No.15917739

Going with Bartlett after reading a few paragraphs from each. Its also free on Amazon so whatever.

Upon reflection, I don't think it truly matters until I read the various versions and can compare/contrast the experience of each

>> No.15917757

>>15917537
it makes sense, in a way. what you read has a different effect dependent on the language and some languages simply don't produce the same experience if using the same exact words

>> No.15917772

>>15917525
>The major change from other versions is discussed in the introduction.

This is always the case with translations, it's the only way to justify paying new book price for a 150 year old novel. I've read several other editions of Anna Karenina and don't think I've somehow missed the things highlighted in your post.

Having said that I'll still read that one if I come across it.

>> No.15917847

>>15917071
Revised Maude or P&V.
Avoid original Garnett and original Maude.
Bartlett is fine.

>>15917525
Stop shilling this shit.

>Bce cчacтливыe ceмьи пoхoжи дpyг нa дpyгa, кaждaя нecчacтливaя ceмья нecчacтливa пo-cвoeмy.
>Shwartz: “All happy families resemble one another; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
>Maude: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

She fucks up the first line to be 'unique' and make a statement. Her justification is shit.

>«Кaк быть винoвaтoю пpeд cyщecтвaми нe cyщecтвyющими?»
>Schwartz: “How can she be guilty before beings who don’t exist?”
>Maude: “How can one be guilty toward beings who don’t exist?”

Just a straight basic translation error. Nowhere in the original Russian does it say "she" - it is a general sentiment. There are other similar errors when characters put forward 'philosophical questions' (as Tolstoy frequently does in his work) which Schwartz translates as directed questionings.

The question is no longer how can it even be possible to be guilty to that which does not exist. Schwartz's new question now reads how is Anna personally guilty/why does Anna even feel guilty.

>«Hичeгo, cyдapь, oбpaзyeтcя,» cкaзaл Maтвeй
>Schwartz: "'It's all right, sir; things will shapify' said Matvey."
>Maude: "'It's all right, sir; she will come round' said Matvey."

Trying to make up her own words for 'oбpaзyeтcя' instead of just saying "take shape" or "take form" - or even as Maude does - use an colloquial English phrase.

Schwartz's translation is just her trying to make a name for herself.

>> No.15918228

According to Nabokov, the only good translation is a literal one, and I agree with him. In that case, P&V is the best one.