Some people actually prefer Crime & Punishment to The Brothers Karamazov?

The Bible

Why? I've heard this said before

I've heard it before too, which is why I'm pointlessly regurgitating it. Even I haven't read Dost yet, because I haven't read the Bible.

I don't think it's necessary to read a whole lot of Russian lit before Dostoyevsky, but maybe get into some short stories first, like Gogol and Chekhov
As for Karamazov, some say go ahead and dive into it first while others recommend reading other works of Dostoyevsky first. I'm in the latter camp, but if you read it first t's not the end of the world. I would recommend some of his shorter works like The Double, The Gambler, and Notes from the House of the Dead. Crime and Punishment is great, and I would recommend reading it before Karamazov. The Idiot is also very much worth reading. So is Demons, but it's not as straightforward as the others. Dosto also wrote some fine short stories himself, including 'The Christmas Tree and a Wedding', 'A Gentle Spirit', and 'The Dream of a Ridiculous Man'

Because Christianity is massively important to the book.

Don't start with Brothers K start with Notes from Underground.

I'll definitely check out some shorter stuff first, then Notes from Underground and maybe the Bible. The edition of Brothers K I have is translated by Constance Garnett. Are her translations any good?

No. Garnett butchered quite a lot in texts, so you should avoid if possible even if you're not autistic about translations. P&V is the mainstream preference - they are very close to original text, but lack grace and flow in finished works due to their double-translation technique, which makes many disheartened with them. Look into Oxford Classics version and Google some more modern translations.

Read David McDuff's Brothers K.

Notes is the shorter stuff. it is only 129 pages.

Oh and Garnett is trash. She is only popular because she is in the public domain due to how old her translations are. Literally anybody else is better.

That being said, if you absolutely cannot find or afford anything else,Constance Garnett will work.

Garnett introduced decades of readers, myself included, to Dostoyevsky and other Russian writers, so she definitely has her place. Her translation style evokes the time period of the works she translated. On the flip side, two caveats. One, Garnett translated such a volume of works that she was often careless in her work, sometimes skipping or mistranslating difficult passages. Two, and related to this, her translations are definitely in her own wording and voice; she would at times go so far as to editorialize by omitting passages that didn't fit her Victorian sensibilities and to add occasional bits not present in the originals

I do not at all agree with the recommendation of Pevear and Volokhonsky by . (That user would lump me among those 'autistic about translations', which speaks to their carelessness about words.) The nature of P&V's work really is problematic: Volokhonsky, a native Russian speaker, produces a very wooden English gloss, and Pevear, who prides himself on not knowing Russian, alters the gloss to make it grammatical. They are marketed as being especially faithful to the originals, but their adherence to the letter makes them sometimes lose the spirit of the work (this is always an irresolvable tension in translation). Between the two of them, they introduce twice as much translational error as a conventional translator, since their work is essentially a double translation (and a mechanical one at that, like using Google Translate back and forth). In particular, they are deficient in rendering Russian idiom in a meaningful way. One more thing to note is that Karamazov was the very first work they translated, so on top of everything else they were just beginning to practice their work.

All things considered, I think you are better off with Garnett than with P&V. There are other translational options though for Karamazov that I would recommend over either. Another older translation, one much more careful than that of Garnett, is David Magarshack. Others have revised Garnett's work (which does read nicely in English), notably Ralph Matlaw and later Susan McReynolds, both published by Norton Critical Editions. Andrew MacAndrew took an opposite approach to P&V in his translation of the book, producing a relatively loose translation that's more true to the spirit of Dostoyevsky's writing. One outstanding modern translation is that of Ignat Avsey (titled The Karamazov Brothers), who translated Dostoyevsky exclusively. Another modern translation that's well-regarded is the one from David McDuff (although I thought that, while fine overall, at times it tended toward a clunky literality along the lines of P&V).

This is a very good post.
I just thought I would add that the P&V translation of C&P is much better than their Brothers K. And in my opinion their worst translation is M&M by Bulgakov.

>I do not at all agree with the recommendation
>repeats the exact same thing in that post

>mfw I'm Italian and I have 10 translations to chose from

Seconding the McDuff translation. If you don't find that go for Avsey's translation.

We agree about the methodology of P&V, but not about whether their translation is a good one to read

Obvious right thing to do is to learn Russian.

Пpaвдa

they're both excellent books I did like the epilogue of crime and punishment the most tho AMA

STOP WITH THIS MEME! yes, christianity is central to this work, and yes, if you want to gain a really complex understanding of the subtext, you should read the bible.

however—equally important to TBK is orthodox christianity, their liturgy, the lives of their saints, russian folk culture and how it merged with christianity.

YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW THIS STUFF BEFORE READING. you will miss literally 5% of the surface-text if you have no knowledge of lot's wife, job, the importance of the "holy fool", etc. it doesn't matter. the book is so good that you may even be driven to research christianity AFTER reading, then maybe read TBK again.

JUST READ THE BOOK! my translation of choice is ignat avsey's for Oxford World Classics; it has very earthly dialogue adapted for the English ear in much the same way Dosto was to Russians. also, it has great footnotes that clear up any hidden references, further diluting the need to research beforehand.

I'm sorry, I don't speak Italian

I like them both but C&P is a more focused narrative and is a goldmine of psychological insights.

“We sometimes encounter people, even perfect strangers, who begin to interest us at first sight, somehow suddenly, all at once, before a word has been spoken.”

“The fear of appearances is the first symptom of impotence.”

“Don’t be overwise; fling yourself straight into life, without deliberation; don’t be afraid - the flood will bear you to the bank and set you safe on your feet again.”

“Intelligence alone is not nearly enough when it comes to acting wisely.”

“Reason is the slave of passion.”

“It's the moon that makes it so still, weaving some mystery.”

“It would be interesting to know what it is men are most afraid of. Taking a new step, uttering a new word is what they fear most.”

Ending was weak and overtly convenient.

the ending of TBK sucked too