[ 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: 21 KB, 411x600, 9B6AF03F-B0E6-4B94-BB9C-E0D9D3E91256.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19863670 No.19863670 [Reply] [Original]

Are the P&V translations really so bad? I’ve been told on this board to stay away from them but it’s hard to find some of Dostoevsky’s work which isn’t translated by them.

>> No.19863680

>>19863670
I think this board just hates things that are new and popular. With that being said though I’ve only ever read Garnett and I recommend you do the same

>> No.19864186

I read their W&P and it was good, unless anything was omitted which I have no knowledge of such.

>> No.19864200

i doubt anyone whos gonna reply has actually read dosto in russian as well as multiple translations so i woudlnt care abt what they say regarding what translation is good or not

also just started this book, abt 100 pages in

>> No.19864207

>>19863670
Might as well use google translate if you want awkward shitty prose.

>> No.19864232
File: 2.61 MB, 3128x2180, Dosto translations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19864232

>>19863670
Different book, but it's still a good comparison.

>> No.19864238

>>19863670
I've read most of my Russian literature translated by P&V and am now realizing how much I've been swindled. The public domain Constance Garnett translation (for all its Victorian foibles) is so much better that I don't know why anyone would ever bother with P&V.

In their misguided efforts for perfect fidelity to the original Russian P&V forgot that they're translating novels. They're academics not writers and they seem to have no ear for english prose. They are the Emperor's new clothes of the translation scene, hyped up just to sell more books.

>> No.19864253

>>19864232
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Garnett instantly seizes on le mot juste (garret) whereas P&V use the completely abominable and borderline nonsensical "closet". You could pardon one instance but actually, the more read other translations, the more I realize how poor some of P&Vs choices are.

>> No.19864255

>>19863670
You're probably going to read dosto multiple times in your life so just choose a different translation each time, same advice /lit/ gives for reading the bible.

>> No.19864257

>>19863670
They are the best translation, DFW agrees in his essay on Dosto.

>> No.19864275

This is shit. I compared it to my Wordsworth classic and it is wordy like a 14 year old wannabe novelist.

>> No.19864319

>>19863670
I have read the Idiot with Garnett, C&P with P&V, and honestly, they both read somewhat similar to me. In fact, I had a better experience with P&V, but that's probably because C&P is more fun to read.
>>19864232
>>19864253
Interesting to see the difference in choice of word. Perhaps 'garret' is really the standard term, but I disagree that 'closet' is a shitty choice. Closet conveys the image of tight-space and narrowness much more effectively than garret imo. But then again, in my country we really do have closet for rent (in fact, cage even), so it makes sense to me. You can perhaps argue that it is unfaithful to the original. I don't have anything to say to that since I know nothing about Russian.

I have also noticed the use of 'tangled' vs. 'muddled'. This reminds me that in P&V, the narrative mirrors closely that of depression & delirium, whereas Garnett's portrayal is more that of delirium & neurotic. Guess it depends on which do you think is closer to what Dosto had in mind.

>> No.19864328

>>19864319
Look at the definition of garret vs. closet:

garret
a top-floor or attic room, especially a small dismal one (traditionally inhabited by an artist).

closet
a small room, especially one used for storing things or for private study.
a tall recess or wardrobe with a door, used for storage.

One is clearly superior. Not only that but the prose sounds better with garret (granted, it also sounds more British) than with closet.

>> No.19864354

>>19864328
Precisely. The connotations of words matter, and Raskolnikov lived in something more akin to a garret than a closet.
>>19864232
Why do translators insist on preserving the censorship of place names that Dostoyevsky had to put up with? I first read the Sidney Monas translation (Signet Classics) and he filled them all in. In the foreword he said it so obviously corresponds to certain streets in St. Petersburgh there's no point in obscuring it. He even mapped out all the locations in the novel. Dostoevsky himself lived 700 steps away from where the pawnbroker would have lived.

>> No.19864378

>>19864354
They're trying to preserve the conceit of the literary technique. The whole point of it is to create the illusion of a kind of journalistic reality. Everyone (in Dosto's time) probably knew all the places he's referencing anyway, but by censoring it he creates the effect of a journalistic account which he has doctored to protect those involved. At least, so I've heard.

>> No.19864708

there are no good translations. simple as. learn the language or embrace fan fiction.

>> No.19864735

>>19864232
Garnett is miles better.

>> No.19864747

>>19864708
>there are no good translations
Some are better than others
>just learn Russian bro lmao
Haha no

>> No.19865107

>>19864232
McDuff remains superior.

>> No.19865117

>>19863670
Best translations for some Russian lit (The ones I have):

Notes From The Underground - Ronald Wilks
Crime and Punishment - Oliver Ready
Anna Karenina - Louise and Aylmer Maude

>> No.19865143

>>19865117
>Crime and Punishment - Oliver Ready
As a retard, I found this translation to be pretty accessible, would recommend.

>> No.19865194

>>19865107
Is he actually good though? It's the edition I bought

>> No.19865228

i've read multiple translations of russian and i think p&v is fine. i would recommend it before any other translation. the people saying it's bad don't know what they're talking about

>> No.19865353

P&V are good, they're the most popular modern translators by far and the most used in academia from my understanding. I've even emailed several slavic scholars asking for their opinions and they all said P&V. Most of the hate they get is plain contrarianism

>>19864253
But in the original Russian it uses "кaмopки" which literally translates to closet in this context. P&V is the most word-for-word accurate, followed closely by McDuff

>> No.19865358

>>19865353
Fake and gay.

>> No.19865374

>>19865353
Not really. There are several words in Russian for closet, e.g шкaф or клeтyшкa

Quoting another anon from this exact thread made several months ago:

>'кaмopкa' is neutral, just a small, narrow, contained place. It has the same root as English 'chamber', German 'Kammer', Polish 'komórka' and Italian 'camera'. It doesn't, I emphasize, doesn't have the questionable connotations of 'closet'.

Garnett may have its faults, but it doesn't fall into garish silliness like calling a garret a closet.

>> No.19865428

Garnettshills are getting increasingly desperate. Reminder that she didn't even speak Russian and was just translating from French editions.

>> No.19865441

>>19865428
I believe she learned Russian at the age of 29 from the Russian exile F. V. Volkhovsky, after which point she began her Russian translation efforts. I'm not even sure if she knew French, but I do know she was educated in Latin and Greek.

>> No.19865449

>>19865428
Nice try, P&V fag. I will never read your shit.

>> No.19865450

>>19863670
No, they're pretty good. It's a meme to say they're bad.

>> No.19865455

>>19865450
>It's a meme to say they're bad.
No, it's not. Even native speakers have criticized them.

>> No.19865464

>>19864232
>describing roskolnikov's room as a "closet" before stating that it's "more of a cupboard than a room"
Do P&V have no shame

>> No.19865469

>>19864257
Nah, DFW was biased against Garnett, iirc he called her "dreadfully Victorian". Is it such a bad thing that the novel be translated into English that was in style around the time it was published

>> No.19865470

>>19865353
Exactly, because what anons don't understand is that the previous translations are too much literary recreations that create extremely overly polished impression of the original to the point of parody or Orientalism vis a vis Russia and the Russian writers in question.

>> No.19865475

>>19865469
>Is it such a bad thing that the novel be translated into English that was in style around the time it was published
No. But it makes it increasingly irrelevant when that English is no longer in style.

>> No.19865477

>>19864257
>DFW
I'd rather listen to the opinions of native speakers than some pleb American 'author' who wrote a cringe book on rap music.

>> No.19865478

>>19865455
Yes it is, Russian speaking academics consider P&V generally superior to the Penguinite antecessors.

>> No.19865483

>>19864319
Idk, closet sounds weird and it also has some gay vibes.

>> No.19865493

>>19865478
>academics
Yes, it's the most awkward, dry, Google Translate tier dogshit literalist version so of course they spread their assholes to it. If you had anything resembling good taste, you wouldn't have such shit opinions.

>> No.19865622

>>19865493
So you don't get that what you're lickspittling is a distortion of the original, by making it read so polished that it's the equivalent of ruining heirloom furniture with the tackiest cheepest darkest varnish? I want something as close to the original effect of the book on Russian readers, overly polished translations with a style that is the translational equivalent of received pronunciation don't do that, but rather are a betrayal of that. Such translations are tacky and for middle class midwits at best.

>> No.19865990

>>19863680
I read the McDuff translation of the Idiot and I liked it a lot

>> No.19866017

>>19865483
>closet has some gay vibes.
Very fitting since Dostoyevsky's work has obvious homoerotic undertones. Read House of the Dead and Demons.

>> No.19867087

I just got to part 4 and still have no idea what is going on. I'm too midwitted to penetrate Dosty's prose.

>> No.19867223

>>19865194
I liked his translations a lot.

>> No.19867416

>>19867087
Dont worry, The Idiot is probably his most convoluted one. It was really haphazardly written, and Dostoevsky himself wished he wrote it better. Still an amazing book though, highest highs, but lowest lows of his works imo.

>> No.19867422

>>19865353
>Most of the hate they get is plain contrarianism
>P&V is the most word-for-word accurate
i have no need for translations from russian but i've been told that p&v rendered "чтo c тoбoй" as "what's with you" somewhere and that this sort of thing is characteristic of their whole approach, meaning that they are accurate precisely in the "word-for-word" sense, like someone looking things up in a dictionary, while distorting the tone of the message. again, this is second-hand knowledge, but if it's true it disqualifies them as translators of literature - you really don't want "accuracy" like this.

>> No.19867885

Thoughts on the recent translations that Alma classics publish
Planning to get their demons if not I'll just get the everyman's.

>> No.19869287

>>19863670
P&V are strongest when it comes to Dostoevsky. I heard that once they move away from that, the translations are a bit iffier.

>> No.19869329

>>19864232
guys i'm scared I haven't ready any dostoevsky and i don't want my experience soiled by shit translations. should i go with garnett or p&v? i have crime and punishment by garnett but also demons by p&v

>> No.19869514

>>19869329
dude its the same
none of them are experience shattering
its just autitst on this board larping as intelectuals and translators
most people have read P&V and none have misunderstood the book
naturally it is not the same as reading it in Russian, but these translations are all alright

>> No.19869524

>>19869329
If you've never read basic classics before then you don't have the ability to judge a translation anyway. Just read whatever copy you find.

>> No.19870370
File: 131 KB, 882x1339, 71NxCDm4iIL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19870370

>>19863670
I didn't like their translations of Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment, I read other versions and enjoyed them much more.

>> No.19871225

>>19869329
I read c&p in 5 days when I was 15, entered raskolnikov-ate-my-homework-mode and it was just the shitty signet trade paperback edition that was cheapest at the thriftstore. Loved it then, really don't worry about the translation for your first go. He's not a prose stylist anyways, not at all.

>> No.19872073

>>19863670
They are hit and miss, some are good enough others are subpar.

>> No.19872481

>>19863670
i just finished pic related and they are absolutely the worst translation; stick with Michael Katz or literally anyone else

>> No.19873742

bump

>> No.19874494

>>19865353
>P&V is the most word-for-word accurate
This just spells out that they suck. You don't do that as a translator.