What are the best editions of Dosto’s books

[Anonymous No.19201766]

What are the best edition of Dostoyevsky’s that I can get? I already have C&P. I’m planning on buying The Idiot, The Devils and Brother’s Karamazov.
My definition of “best edition” are the books with a great translation and a beautiful cover for my collection.

Should I get pic rel or is there a better alternative?

[Anonymous No.19201770]

>>19201766
What's a good translation of C&P?

[Anonymous No.19201826]

Zinovieff/Hughes wherever possible

[Anonymous No.19202063]

>>19201766
Best translation is Garnett. Best editions depend on what your priorities are. I value longevity and readability most, so I like Franklin, Easton, Everyman's, Folio, Heritage, etc. I don't know if EL and Folio have Garnett translations, but the others I listed do

[Anonymous No.19202101]

>>19201766
Alma publishing is surprisingly better translation after reading the penguin one.

So far I choose the Alma over Penguin like OP posted. It was more better, understandable, easy. Though qualities of Penguin translation is good. Alma did it better. Roger Cockrell is the translator btw.

[Anonymous No.19203520]

>>19201766
With the pic attached you'd get a beautiful cover and an acceptable translation. With >>19202101
you'd get a superior translation and decent cover. It's up to you.

[Anonymous No.19203709]

I think Andrew R. Macandrew had the best translation of Brothers Karamazov but he doesn't get recommended or recognized as much

[Anonymous No.19203714]

>>19201766
Wordsworth have the best covers of his, all have a theme too and are cheap

[Curdie !!odA+MaldFSv No.19203752]

>>19201766
Just avoid the P&V translations

[Anonymous No.19203762]

Honestly, if you're not fluent in Russian with a graduate-level knowledge of Russian culture and history you shouldn't bother reading Dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.19203773]

>>19203752
Why?
I just bought Everyman's edition of C&P.

[Anonymous No.19203782]

Katz (picrel) is also worth checking out. He translated a bunch of Dostoevsky's novels and seems to grasp the humour well.

Honestly, just go on Amazon and use the "read inside the book" feature to find one that you like the style of most.

Avoid:
Garnett
Pevear & Volokhonsky

[Anonymous No.19203791]

>>19201766
The Originals. Also, McDuff translations are whacky..

[Anonymous No.19203795]

>>19203714
this cover is the fucking worst, how does it describe the book? i almost wanted to not read C&P because of stupid covers like these

[Anonymous No.19203797]

>>19203773

>Pevear & Volokhonsky’s translations are awful travesties of the original Russian meaning and nuance. They succeed by virtue of seeming “weird” where the original text uses a completely commonplace idiom, or, vice versa, missing something unique to the writer’s style and replacing it with a pedestrian cliche. Readers who have no Russian think the “clunkiness” of the translation is a window to the original writer’s peculiar style and idiom. Unfortunately, they’re being deceived. The clunkiness is almost always the invention of the translators. The issue isn’t whether the original was “smooth” or not; it’s that it wasn’t smooth in ways entirely different than those ignorantly made-up by this team.

>I’m sorry if these words seem too strong; I have strong opinions on the issue. Any native speaker of Russian who appreciates the original texts and knows English well enough will find it painful to read the original and P&V’s translation side-by-side. I tried to do that in 2003 and briefly reviewed their translation of Bulgakov in my blog (in Russian).

>The examples cited in that blogpost and comments show that time and again P&V use a literal translation of an idiom or a common expression, resulting in a weird English phrase or a weird syntax that both obscures the original meaning, and makes the sentence stand out gratuitously, giving the reader some of that desired “clunkiness”.

>E.g. when Bulgakov speaks of “нeчиcтыe cилы” (nechistye sily), a traditional, entirely commonplace Russian expression for demons or evil spirits, he’s not introducing an interesting new metaphor. Now “нeчиcтыe cилы” is literally “unclean powers”, but even saying that is a bit of a stretch, as the word “unclean”, “нeчиcтыe”, has over the centuries become synonymous with “demonic” in any religious/mystical context, so much so that there’s a noun back-formed from it, нeчиcть, referring solely to all the forces of evil as a collective noun. Arguably, then, even a strictly literal translation of “нeчиcтыe cилы” should be “demonic powers” rather than P&V’s “unclean powers”, which is simply weird, confusing, unidiomatic where the original text, *on that particular occassion*, is completely idiomatic.

cont...

[Anonymous No.19203804]

>>19203797

...cont...

>A more systemic example is their consistent use of “here” where the original text is saying “then”. E.g. “Here the second oddity occurred, touching Berlioz alone”. Russian has two words for “here”, “здecь” (zdes’) and “тyт” (toot); they are entirely synonymous in that role, but “тyт” can also be used to link sentences describing events occurring one right after the other, that is, a sentence that starts with “тyт” is analogous to an English sentence that starts with “then” in a similar role - and there’s nothing spatial about this use of “тyт”. When P&V consistently translate “тyт” in the meaning of “then” as “here”, it’s a gaffe that produces sentences that seem a bit weird or jarring (especially after many repetitions of this “here"), while there was nothing weird or jarring in the original syntax.

>These are just two random examples out of a dozen that one could find on any given page. It’s the principle of the thing rather than an exception. P&V seem to start with a completely literal word-by-word translation by Volokhonsky, one that doesn’t even preserve common idioms; it is then perhaps edited into shape by going after some clunkiness here and some inventiveness there, in total ignorance of what’s interesting or unique about the original author’s style or idiom. The examples from their more recent translations cited in the discussion on Tanenhaus’ blog confirm that things haven’t changed.

See also:

https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed

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

[Anonymous No.19203830]

>>19203795
terrible taste tbqhfamalamadingdong

[Anonymous No.19203834]

>>19203797
>>19203804
Well fuck. I guess I have to return it now.

[Anonymous No.19203949]

>>19203834

Go for the McDuff, Pasternak, or Katz translations for C&P IMO.

[Anonymous No.19204020]

i read the edition of demons you posted and thoroughly enjoyed it, though i cant really compare it to others. i read pic related version of brothers K and enjoyed Ignat Avsey's translation, but the physical book wasn't exactly of the highest quality and part of the cover started peeling by the time i finished.

[Anonymous No.19204073]

>>19201766
where'd that faggot go who was shitting all over C&P a few days ago?

[Anonymous No.19204078]

>>19201770
Oliver Ready, by far

[Anonymous No.19204140]

>>19202063
Garnett is not the best translation. We owe her a great debt for introducing Russian literature to us, but the actual translations themselves are not good. They are not faithful, and the language is senselessly anachronistic for the modern era. It isn't reflective of the Russian.

[Anonymous No.19204149]

>>19201766
>>19203709
I heard that McDuff's Karamazov is the best available. That's the copy I have. I haven't read it yet, though.

[Anonymous No.19204230]

>>19204149
id be interested to see how mcduff compares to ignat avsey, those were the two i ended up coming down to and ended up going with ignat, but i still wonder if it was the best choice. oh well

[Anonymous No.19204249]

>>19204149\
McDuff - Penguin Classics
>The main thing is that you stop telling lies to yourself. The one who lies to himself and believes his own lies comes to a point where he can distinguish no truth either within himself or around him, and thus enters into a state of disrespect towards himself and others. Respecting no one, he loves no one, and to amuse and divert himself in the absence of love he gives himself up to his passions and to vulgar delights and becomes a complete animal in his vices, and all of it from perpetual lying to other people and himself.
>I repeat: here there was no question of stupidity; the bulk of these madcaps are really quite sharp and clever – but plain muddle-headedness, and, moreover, of a peculiar, national variety.

vs

MacAndrew - Bantam Classic
>A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself as well as for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love and, in order to divert himself, having no love in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest forms of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal, in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying—lying to others and to yourself.
>Let me repeat: it was not stupidity, for most such eccentrics are really quite intelligent and cunning, and their lack of common sense is of a special kind, a national variety.

for me MacAndrew is the best ratio of cleanliness-respect to the source material

[Anonymous No.19204254]

>>19204230
In the comparisons I've seen, Avsey seems to be a bit too dynamic for my tastes. I prefer a more formal translation. http://www.patrikbergman.com/2017/07/23/choosing-best-karamazov-translation/
But I understand how someone could prefer Avsey.

[Anonymous No.19204492]

>>19204254
yea its a pretty tough call. i do like the way mcduff sounds too

[Anonymous No.19204595]

>>19204254
Going through these examples as an ESL, I seem to enjoy Garnett more, although it depends on the paragraph t.b.h.

McDuff seems a bit "robotic" to me.

P&V for some reason keep coming up with things that aren't in the original text. Pretty pretentious to think Dostoevsky is somehow not good enough with words that they need to do that.

I like Avsey and MacAndrew as well. Avsey is similar to Garnett, and McAndrew seems very direct and no-bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19204762]

>>19204595
There's no denying that Garnett sounds nice. It's 19th century prose and that's always pleasant to read. But it isn't authentic; she took many liberties with the source text.

[Anonymous No.19204839]

Anything but P and V. They really really suck.

[Anonymous No.19205523]

Not on topic, but should I read C&P before BK? Will I miss any big development in Dostoevsky's style/ideas by skipping over his most famous work? Years ago, I read Notes from the Underground and The Idiot, as well as some of his short stories and novellas; but I never got around to reading C&P because it's the most famous of his works; but I've always had this idea in my mind that I have to read C&P before BK because if I don't I'll miss out on some integral part of BK. Like, to say, Dostoevsky wrote and "read" C&P before writing BK, so I would have to be in the same mindset. (I know this is idiotic because I've already admitted to reading various works written by him after C&P, but my autism doesn't always follow linear time.)

[Anonymous No.19206240]

>>19205523
Yes. I don't understand why anyone would choose to read authors out of chronological order.

[Anonymous No.19206769]

>>19206240
That’s kind of what I’ve always felt, that one should progress with the author through their works; but I won’t deny that sometimes an author’s work will call out to a reader despite it not being their first work. I mentioned I had read the Idiot because that was chiefly the reason why I’m still interested in Dostoevsky; because the story surrounding the Prince intrigues me enough to follow the author’s train of thought; but I’ve always had an irrational aversion to reading a writer’s most famous work, except a few exemptions (Gatsby, Ulysses, Moby Dick).

[Anonymous No.19207018]

>>19203520
>>19202101

I'll take both your words for it and purchase this edition of Dostoyevsky's Devils. I think this is an overall straightforward cover and I do give a great deal of consideration for the translation more than the cover.

Thank you so much for your suggestions!

[Anonymous No.19207441]

ah, fuck, I just found an edition I really like, but it uses Garnett's translation and I do find her language to dated rhythm-wise, is this something worth getting over or should I just buy that edition for the illustrations?

[Anonymous No.19208057]

>>19207441
The Garnett translation is the standard. Keep it.