[ 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: 275 KB, 388x640, Bro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3127507 No.3127507 [Reply] [Original]

I got sick of my buddy sucking this book's dick, so when I saw a copy for 50 cents, I bought it.

I got home and checked it online and found that my copy (same one in pic), is the Constance Garnett translation that is not very widely regarded.

Should I just shut the fuck up and read the book, or seek out a different translation?

My buddy told me to read it for the themes, then pick up a different translation and read that for the prose. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the book twice. I don't have much free time to read in the fist place, so reading it once will be a challenge.

>> No.3127510

Get a different translation, preferably Pevear and Volokhonsky.

>> No.3127512

it's fine. dostoevsky isn't about the prose (and garnett's prose is far better than most of the other, more faithful translators', anyway).

>> No.3127516
File: 13 KB, 220x324, sigmund.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3127516

>I got sick of my buddy sucking this book's dick
>my buddy
>sucking
>dick

Shit, son. We will have much to discuss about this.

>> No.3127517

You should probably read Crime and Punishment first

You'll be better prepared to handle TBK

>> No.3127521

>>3127512
This is the first time I've heard this.

I know that lots of people (including writers that I respect) read this because it was the first English translation (if I'm correct). But I know some writers, especially Nabokov, hated it.

Can someone else weigh in on this? Perhaps someone who's read this translation and at least one other?

>> No.3127526

>>3127521
She left out parts she couldn't translate and censored bits for the Victorian audience (like the references to fyodor's orgies)

Maybe she sounds nicer to some people, but what you probably want is accuracy...Also, Peavear/ Voloohnsky have very good footnotes

>> No.3127527

>>3127517
Naw, TBK was my first Dosty novel and is the reason I fell in love with his work.
It was a little difficult to get through at first though, and I did put it down without picking it up for about two weeks before I before I read the rest so I guess it just requires a little diligence.

>> No.3127534

The reason people dislike Garnett is because she isn't faithful to Dostoevsky's style. Reading her translations is, essentially, like reading an English-speaking Victorian woman's novel. Her prose is often flowery as shit, which, I've been told, isn't like Dostoevsky's at all.

The Garnett translations are pretty readable if you can handle the fact that they read more like Dickens than a Russian.

Also, as >>3127526 said, things were censored and removed sometimes.

>> No.3127538

>>3127527
Well, I say that because I'm actually in the same boat as you.

I just think Crime and Punishment is a much better entry point. I remember being kind of overwhelmed at first since I didn't really know what to expect with Doestevsky

Still loved the book though. I just kind of wish I started easier so I knew what to look out for when reading TBK.

(also I was kind of young, so that could have something to do with it)

>> No.3127541

>>3127521
nabokov was a great man but i would generally take his opinions with a pinch of salt. he was bit of a hardhead, and he didn't even like dostoevsky. and his own translations are bloody terrible.

garnett does often approximate instead of replicate, but she still conveys everything that needs to be conveyed.

>> No.3127543

>>3127534
dosto was never that bawdy to begin with, there isn't much to bowdlerize.

>> No.3127545

>>3127541

>hardhead

I read this as: he had integrity

>> No.3127561

>>3127538
Yeah I was about 15 when I read it and to be honest at the time when I had taken a break from it I almost didn't pick it back up because I was a little atheist twerp that didn't think there was any point after I had just read the part near the beginning when they're arguing in the monastery because I just assumed the whole book was going to be a big theological treatise (which it is a little bit) and I didn't really see the importance of it at the time. Boy was I wrong.

On the other hand, Crime and Punishment took me even longer to get through. Rasky's poverty and sickness just felt a little too real for me and made it pretty hard to read through the mid section of the book.

>> No.3127572

>>3127526
>She left out parts
>censored bits
That's really all I need to hear. I'm going to look into the Peavear/ Voloohnsky translation. I didn't know if had footnotes, and that appeals to me very much.

>> No.3127577
File: 20 KB, 320x272, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3127577

>>3127572
>>3127526
This actually really makes me want to re-read it and go with the P&V translation instead, I feel like I missed out a little bit.

>> No.3127589

the Oxford World Classics edition reads nicer than P&V and is more faithful than Garnett. The only negative is the title: "The Karamazov Brothers".

>> No.3127591

>>3127577
My point exactly. I think I'll donate my copy to Goodwill or something and pick up another.

>> No.3127593

>>3127516
aww yeah post of the year.

>> No.3127594

>>3127589
>the Oxford World Classics edition reads nicer than P&V
How so? And does it have footnotes? If it's not as faithful as the P&V translation, I would want footnotes at least.

>> No.3127597

P&V are so fucking entry level in terms of translations.

Read the Avsey translation, which actually calls it "The Karamazov Brothers" instead of the ridiculous "Brothers Karamazov" (because that's the original Russian word order and like, as the translator points out, saying "Brothers Warner" or "Brothers Marx" - it's fucking dumb in English).

>> No.3127603

>>3127594
P&V replicate the Russian to a fault, which often makes the syntax and diction a bit awkward. Garnett and Avsey's prose is more fluent.

Honestly: you will love the book regardless of which translation you read. Don't worry about it too much.

>> No.3127630

>>3127597
If the order of the words in the title is all you have, that's not the best deterrent from reading it.

>>3127603
Thank you. I guess I'll see which I come across first. I'm really put off by the Garnett translation because of the censorship and shit, so I'm kinda leaning towards Avsey. But I'm not going to rule out P&V. Whichever I find the better deal for, I guess.

>> No.3127680

Okay, so I'm reading P&V's translation of Notes from Underground (first time reading any Dostoevsky)

Can someone explain the whole mouse thing in chapter 2?
I feel absolutely retarded.

>> No.3127698

which brothers are those supposed to be on the book cover?

Alyosha with the crucifix, but who are the others?

>> No.3128534

>>3127698

Probably Dimitri, Ivan, and either Fyodor or Smerdokov

>> No.3128545

>>3127698
Gonna use spoilers for this one:

I'd say it is Ivan on the far left, cause of the higher class clothing, as we all know he was an intellectual who went to university or something.

The one with the gross is Alyosha.

The green one is probably Smerdyakov since he was born by the "Stinking Lizaveta" and the green might indicate that he is her son.

This leaves the second one from the left who then can only be Dimitri.

>> No.3128622

>>3127572
You're free to do what you want, but I really believe you're missing out. Without knowing Russian, you are never going to be able to read Dostoevsky the way he was intend to be read. Constance Garnett translated the novel with a certain amount of precision and without being too literal as to stilt the prose. I've read the P&V translation and I can tell you that it stumbles in many places, mainly as a result of a literal interpretation of a sentence. Garnett was definitely my favorite in that regard. There were several portions of P&V's translation of Crime and Punishment where the translation was completely mediocre, and sentences would literally contradict themselves. I don't think that P&V have the comprehension of English that other translators have - especially Garnett. If you don't want Garnett, avoid P&V if you can. Garnett isn't the most faithful but it is the most readable.

>> No.3128652

>>3128622
Garnett and P&V aren't the only options. I have the McDuff one and that was pretty good. I think that's what Penguin Classics use (they definitely used to) but I'm not sure. However, there is no perfect translation: there's a phrase "translations are like wives: the faithful ones are not beautiful, and the beautiful ones are not faithful". The 'perfect' translation should probably have balance between the two extremes, but where that balance lies is really down to the individual reader. Add to that the fact that with any complex literature, there's always a lot open to interpretation and translators (even subconsciously or unavoidably because double meanings can be impossible to preserve) will often slant the text to fit their particular interpretation.

>> No.3128664

>>3128652
>The McDuff one
fuck, had a brainfart and thought we were on about C&P
point still stands

>> No.3129069

>>3127507
I have the same exact edition as well, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

I was also concerned about the translation, but I should probably just read the damn thing.