I'm 70 pages in P&V's translation of the Brothers Karamazov. I don't know if I should switch to a different translator...

I'm 70 pages in P&V's translation of the Brothers Karamazov. I don't know if I should switch to a different translator. So far, I can't tell what is necessarily so hated about them, their sentences seem clunky but it feels like they get the message across. I've read the numerous criticisms of P&V's translations (Pevearsion of Russian Lit, P&V Hype Machine etc.) and its just getting so frustrating that seemingly everyone loves one particular translation and hates all the rest. I've heard P&V be called both "flat and fake" and "closest to the original Russian"- those are fairly contradictory statements, which is true?

If anyone who is familiar with Dosto translations explain all of this? Also what translation is both fairly accurate and enjoyable?

With all translated works, you will find that a general consensus on the best version is a rarity. P & V and Ignat Avsey are most commonly recommended. Read a few pages from each and choose which works best for you.

I really enjoyed P&V's Karamazov, personally

P&V is the academic standard and my favorite translation but, translation is 99 percent personal preference. If you like P&V stick with it. If you like another translation better read that one. As long as it's not unrevised Garnett, you should be fine.
Also, the anti-P&V meme is because people on this board copy popular board opinions and one guy made a BTFO'd post where he sited a lot of blogs who themselves were all based off one article that was critical of P&V.

Mcduff

>"flat and fake" and "closest to the original Russian"- those are fairly contradictory statements,
You'd be surprised, the accuracy is what makes it stilted, that's really the core of the whole debate

I just very recently compared P&V and McDuff with several passages out of the book. The difference is hardly noticeable. Sure, they use different terms than the other occasionally, but the meaning from the passages was still fully intact. I still don't understand the highly criticism of P&V however- because compared to McDuff, I can't imagine how they misconstrued the text.

I don't understand. Can you explain?
Are you saying that Dostoevsky's orginal writing was stilted and Constance Garnett prettied it up?

>Are you saying that Dostoevsky's orginal writing was stilted and Constance Garnett prettied it up?
Not that guy but, yes. Dostoyevsky is notorious for his clunky prose in Russian. You have to remember that Dostoyevsky was a mass serialized writer who was constantly pumping out work in order to put food on his table and not a refined prose stylist. If you're reading Dostoyevsky for the prose rather than the message, you're missing the point.

This might seem off-topic to the what you said, but... If P&V are the most accurate to the original Russian, then why the fuck do people have beef with them?

No he's saying you always have two choices in translating sentences from language to language, one is to attempt to preserve total propositional accuracy and the other is to try preserve the spirit of the expressions (tone, emotion, pace, nuance) which requires veering from the original to be considerate of the language of the translation.

This is the problem with P&V and its autistic translation process, its good for academics who need to really make sure they're not missing anything but as a translation which conveys the Literature that became so loved in the first place its woefully inadequate. Although its new and has a pretty cover so idiots and redditors with no discernable taste will defend it simply out of the sunk cost fallacy

Which translation would you say is the complete inverse of P&V? And also your preferred?

What examples/passages do you have from a P&V Dosto translation that butchered the "spirit of the expressions" in Dostoevsky? (Either than the often posted criticisms)

McDuff's Revised Garnett to both questions.

This post said so
People on this site who lack knowledge or experience of a subject absorb the loudest opinions on that subject and echo them in order to feel well educated.

>McDuff's Revised Garnett
This guy has zero idea what he's talking about, ignore him.

which one? or both?

>McDuff's Revised Garnett
You mean the one that doesn't exist? David McDuff's translation is a totally independent translation and the fact that you don't know that is embarrassing.

>McDuff's Revised Garnett

I've only read Dostoevsky in my native language as a teenager, but it's definitely time to reread him.

Picked up a few Garnett translations. Is the consensus that Garnett is overly stylised to the point where it robs the works of their meaning?

The consensus is that Garnett has a lot of translation errors, is missing certain segments, is edited to fit her sensibilities, has "Tolstoyified" prose because Garnett thought that the way Tolstoy wrote was the way all Russians should write, and that the only reason her translations are still in use is that due to their age they fall in the public domain and are therefore free to print.

She is the only bad translation but, she works if you have nothing else.

Also what is your native language? There might be better translations in it.

Okay, I'll pick up P&V then as the worst critique of them seems to be that they were too 'clinical', or autistic in Veeky Forums's terms. I'll take that over someone else's stylisation fuckeries.

It's Romanian, so translations and editions vary on several levels. On the one hand, you've got Romania's closer proximity to Russia, both in geopolitical and cultural/linguistic terms, but then there are several translations and editions heavily mauled by censorship committees of the former commie regime. There's stuff to choose from, but I've been a filthy immigrant in the Anglosphere for a while now, so it's just more convenient to go for English translations.

Andrew R. MacAndrew is the best translation. He retains meaning/subtlety; rather than the most accurate translation in a grammatical/literal sense.

...