[ 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: 429 KB, 1600x1242, 16176745476123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18190308 No.18190308 [Reply] [Original]

Are Constance Garnett's translation worth reading? Particularly Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment?

I know that this The New Yorker article quotes some of her critics, but are they warranted?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars
>Among the most astringent and authoritative critics of Garnett were Russian exiles, especially Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Brodsky. Nabokov, the son of a liberal noble who was assassinated at a political conference, left Russia in 1919. He lived in Europe until 1940, when he came to the United States. In “Lectures on Russian Literature,” there is a facsimile of the opening pages of his teaching copy of the Garnett “Anna Karenina.” On the blank left-hand page, Nabokov has written a quotation from Conrad, who told Garnett’s husband, Edward, “Remember me affectionately to your wife, whose translation of Karenina is splendid. Of the thing itself I think but little, so that her merit shines with greater lustre.” Angrily, Nabokov scrawls, “I shall never forgive Conrad this crack”—he ranks Tolstoy at the top of all Russian prose writers and “Anna” as his masterpiece—and pronounces Garnett’s translation “a complete disaster.” Brodsky agreed; he once said, “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.”

>Garnett’s flaws were not the figment of a native speaker’s snobbery. She worked with such speed, with such an eye toward the finish line, that when she came across a word or a phrase that she couldn’t make sense of she would skip it and move on. Life is short, “The Idiot” long. Garnett is often wooden in her renderings, sometimes unequal to certain verbal motifs and particularly long and complicated sentences. The typescripts of Nabokov’s lectures, which he delivered while teaching undergraduates at Wellesley and Cornell, are full of anti-Garnett vitriol; his margins are a congeries of pencilled exclamations and crabby demurrals on where she had “messed up.” For example, where a passage in the Garnett of “Anna” reads, “Holding his head bent down before him,” Nabokov triumphantly notes, “Mark that Mrs. Garnett has decapitated the man.” When Nabokov was working on a study of Gogol, he complained, “I have lost a week already translating passages I need in ‘The Inspector General’ as I can do nothing with Constance Garnett’s dry shit.”

>A less imperious but no less discerning critic, Kornei Chukovsky (who was also a famous writer of children’s books), esteemed Garnett for her work on Turgenev and Chekhov but not for her Dostoyevsky. The famous style of “convulsions” and “nervous trembling,” he wrote, becomes under Garnett’s pen “a safe blandscript: not a volcano, but a smooth lawn mowed in the English manner—which is to say a complete distortion of the original.”

>> No.18190324

Read Maude, Aylmer Maude was a personal friend of Tolstoy’s.
Maude = Soul
Garnett = soulless

>> No.18190366

>>18190324
I don't think them being friends affects the translation quality anon

>> No.18190400

>>18190324
>Read Maude
Did they translate Dostoevsky as well?

>> No.18190482

>>18190308
Garnett is a titan in translations. She was the first to make many Russian works accessible. She will always be a legend for that. The quality of her work is spotty though. She is fine for authors who write simply such as Chekhov, Tolstoy and Turgenev. He Dostoyevsky and Gogol translations are trash though

>> No.18190494

>>18190366
I think it does
Wouldn’t knowing someone personally give you more insight into how they think than just taking a brick of paper and and translating the words?
Like I said: Sovl

>> No.18191028

>>18190308
Yes, absolutely. I’ve read coulson’s translation of c&p which is supposedly the most scholarly but enjoyed Garnett’s equally. But I also enjoy reading older outdated translations out of curiosity.

>> No.18191606
File: 110 KB, 531x546, 1619400633352.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18191606

>>18190308
Maude for Tolstoy
Garnett for Dosotoevsky
Or McDuff. But Garnett is the best really. Everything will suffice though, katz, Ready, Avsey, you seriously cant go wrong with Dosto he has no prose at all and most modern translations fix all the mistakes that Garnett makes. Don't stress about it, just get McDuff if you are worried about Garnett's errors; McDuff worked closely with her translation and perfected it.

>> No.18191618

>>18190308
I had a Russian professor call her google translate tier

>> No.18192569

>>18190308
that particular copy of Anna Karenina from the Modern Library paperback is actually the Garnett that's been revised by Leonard J. Kent and Nina Berberova and is a wonderful translation that is significantly improved over Garnett's alone

i really liked the Michael Katz translation of Crime and Punishment

>> No.18192578

Give me some other opinions on it, I really don’t give a shit what Nabokov has to think

>> No.18192632
File: 262 KB, 1920x1080, napoleon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18192632

Garnett is great. Just avoid P&V at all costs.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed
http://www.thinkaloud.ru/feature/berdy-lan-PandV-e.html
https://classicsbookclub.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/socks-by-janet-malcolm-ny-review-of-books-june-23-2016.pdf
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down/
http://languagehat.com/more-translation-wars/

>> No.18192682

>>18190308
It's pretty funny that Modern Library would put a quote like that by Nabokov on the cover of an edition that is Garnett's translation considering what he said about her.

>> No.18194010
File: 131 KB, 882x1339, 71NxCDm4iIL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18194010

Maude or Rosamund Bartlett for Anna Karenina

David McDuff or Michael Katz for Crime and Punishment

>> No.18194191
File: 203 KB, 650x1041, Dead-Souls_2048x2048.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18194191

>>18190308
Garnett is without a doubt the worst russian translator I have ever read. I recommend McDuff for clarity and elegance.
Pic related is how all translations should be.

>> No.18194202

Garnett revised by Ralph Matlaw is by far the best for Notes From Underground

>> No.18194231

>>18190308
Have never cared at all about translations and don't understand the sheer amount of oxygen devoted to arguing over them. If they're featured by a reputed publisher, it's most likely fine. Convinced a whole load of this nonsense is driven by marketing and the need for publishers to sell you 2nd, 3rd, 4th copies of the same public domain text because /this time/ it's the authentic experience.

>> No.18194442

>>18190308
old translations are worthwhile only if you want to read what other people were reading. good example being the KJV bible. maybe its not a perfect translation, but it's beautiful in its own right and that's what folks have been reading for 400 something years.

when it comes to russian lit it doesn't really make sense. read new translations. Avsey, Schwartz, are good. >>18194191
is the best rendition of dead souls.

>> No.18196218

Hows MacAndrew for Karamazov?

>> No.18197491

She's fine, I agonised about getting the right translation for ages, said fuck it and got Garnett because it was the cheapest and it was totally fine.

>> No.18197877

>>18191606
>Dosto he has no prose at all
You didn't even read the OP, retard
>The famous style of “convulsions” and “nervous trembling,” he wrote, becomes under Garnett’s pen “a safe blandscript: not a volcano, but a smooth lawn mowed in the English manner—which is to say a complete distortion of the original.”

>> No.18197934

>>18190308
Nabokov hated Dostoevsky so you should not take his opinions on Garnett remotely seriously. also
>old literature is better and new literature is pozzed trash
>but also old translations are bad and you should only read the latest stilted hackjob turned out by [penguin/oxford/etc]
dolts

>> No.18197957

>>18197934
lit as an art and science is in free-falling degeneration; translation as an art and science is making incremental progress.

>> No.18197975

>>18197957
translation has precisely the same trajectory as literature. modern translations of older literature are revisionist archeology at best and deliberate falsification at worst. Garnett was closer to the meaning and spirit of her translated authors than Nabokov or any modern translator ever could be.

>> No.18198685
File: 616 KB, 1592x2400, 91VAMg3ir5L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18198685

>>18194202
>Garnett revised by Ralph Matlaw is by far the best for Notes From Underground
this

>> No.18199649

>>18192569
>>18194202
Revised Garnett is best Garnett.

>> No.18200246

McDuff and edited Maude for dosto and tolstoy

>> No.18201555

Garnett>P&V

>> No.18202889

Is the Constance Garnett War & Peace good?

>> No.18204014

>>18190308
Guys I bought Rosemary Edmonds' Anna Karenin is that fine did I fuck up I'm probably not gonna read it any time soon anyway

>> No.18204132

>>18192632
>t. ttranny
P&V's dostoevsky translations were approved by Joseph Frank. Kys

>> No.18204144
File: 210 KB, 882x1389, 71DfOob6UiL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18204144

>>18204014
>Edmonds' Anna Karenin
It's honestly not a bad place to start but the Maude, Bartlett and Revised Garnett are better IMO.

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/leo-tolstoy/anna-karenina/constance-garnett

>> No.18204153

>>18204144
>not a bad place to start
Nigga how many times do you expect me to read a 1000 page book in translation

>> No.18204160

P&V > Garnett

>> No.18204165

>>18194231
>tell me about a complicated man

>> No.18204204

>>18204153
The novel is a masterwork, if any book is worth re-reading it'd be this one. Reading different translations is almost like reading a different book, but I read the first chapter of 4 or 5 translations so I think I have a good feel for some of the general differences.

>> No.18204680

>>18204144
The link in your post is the unrevised Garnett, right? Can anyone link a preferred revised edition so that I can compare some chapters for myself? Maybe I missed them, but I couldn't find any on libgen.

>> No.18204715
File: 124 KB, 675x900, 14FC3EF8-3528-46F2-BC55-FB40C7818B2A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18204715

>>18197975
Gigabased

>> No.18205536

>>18204680
>The link in your post is the unrevised Garnett, right?
Yes I think it is, might just have to get it on Kindle.

https://www.amazon.com/Anna-Karenina-Modern-Library-Classics-ebook/dp/B000FCKNXC

>> No.18207107

>>18190308
I read the Anna Karenina one. Its good, and I read her translation is popular and acclaimed.

>> No.18208640
File: 442 KB, 1254x2063, 81IPY9RVZLL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18208640

Get the Everyman Maude.

>> No.18209351

Get the oxfords classic for anna karenina

>> No.18209369

>>18209351
Learn Russian for Anna Karenina