What's the best translation?

...

Garnett, revised Garnett, McDuff, Avsey, Magarshack.

>translation

To expand,
>revised Garnett
the Norton Edition revised by McReynolds and Oddo. Comprehensive annotations.
>Magarshack
archaic like Garnett, but Magarshack didn't work under the time constraints or editorial pressures of Garnett, making for a more accurate and comprehensive translation.
>Avsey
The most contemporary English-speaking context, focused on Dosto's message over his literal words. Notably British.
>McDuff
I don't know but I've only heard good things

Thanks a lot for adding on, pal. Good stuff.

P&V because it's the closest to the original Russian.

the whole point of reading it in English is to understand Dostoyevsky's message, not the literal words he used.
context is everything.

How do you know what the message is if you don't know the words he would have used?

If all that matters is context then are all translations the same in quality as long as they set the scene well enough?

>How do you know what the message is if you don't know the words he would have used?
that's the job of the translator, academics, and critics. It also pretty easy to tell when comparing passages between translations. When you have one person flipping words from Russian to English and the other person polishing it into something readable, there's no Dostoyevsky in there, the spirit of it is lost in the translation because no one bothered to maintain it. That's why literalism is often frowned upon.

>are all translations the same in quality as long as they set the scene well enough?
no, there is more to Dostoyevsky's narrative than setting scenes. I prefer my translators to have a comprehensive understanding of the work, not just the language

all translations are interpretations. that being said, that doesn't mean some can't be worse than others. but obviously P&V has serious merits. i took a russian literature classs at my school (which has a highly regarded literature department) and we used pv because the professor who speaks Russian and English felt the literalness conveys an important aspect of the russian tone of the work

all Russian academics prefer P&V for obvious reasons.
but we aren't Russian academics. we're not reading Dostoyevsky for the context of Russian linguistics. I could care less how accurate they flipped the words if it alienates the reader moreso than other translations that bothered to write English for English readers that live in an English speaking society with no notions of Russian context.
I read Dostoyevsky to understand his message. He has very little to contribute as far as literary merit; prose and structure and the like.

What i'm telling you is that academics don't universally reject P&V even at top schools for undergraduates. If you're not writing a thesis it is good enough to get 90% of Dostoevsky that you'll be able get from any translation anyways

I didn't say academics reject P&V, i know that most don't.
And I never said P&V were bad.
I said P&V are literalists and that's not ideal for most readers. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for an English speaking casual reader to walk past a McDuff translation in favor of a P&V if you have the choice, you certainly aren't doing yourself any favors

I read somewhere that Garnett left out passages she thought were confusing or something and that the P&V was the best, but now I'm hearing Garnett is the best?

So is the Magarshack translation in general regarded as better than Garnett?

PV is by far the best

I've avoided the P&V trans of War and Peace for similar reasons. For universities it's nice to have the P&V translation available I guess, but for the casual reader I look elsewhere.

The casual reader often reads an abridged version of a long work, so when you take that into consideration it becomes clear that the differences between a modern translation and the source are less important than the readability.

penis & vagina

Basically all of this
There is an older Norton Critical Edition with a rather good revision of Garnett by Ralph Matlaw. The newer one seems to be favored now though. Either way, a good choice for a translation that reads like something from 1880; that or Magarshack
McDuff and Avsey, in contrast, are good for something that sounds more contemporary; I would go with Avsey over McDuff in part because he focused on Dostoyevsky exclusively
Another I will mebtion is Andrew MacAndrew. To me his work is the anti-P&V: looser with the letter of the work, yet more faithful to its spirit

>There is an older Norton Critical Edition with a rather good revision of Garnett by Ralph Matlaw. The newer one seems to be favored now though.
The newer one revised by Oddo used Matlaw's revision. It's a double revision.

Huh, I wonder what was considered unsatisfactory with Matlaw that they did that

How do you guys know the academic picking P&V isn't the classic lazy ass who thinks it's good enough and doesn't care about taking all the possible juice out of a translation? I sure know a lot of them.
Also it's a genuine question. Critiques about P&V are really consistent.

Also which translation for Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment?

you should be fine with McDuff for Crime and Punishment and Katz for Notes from Underground

McDuff or P&V. If you are getting Tolstoy - Maude and its not even close.

Thanks

It's not a correction of Matlaw or a different revision from Matlaw's. It's a further revision. Matlaw, I imagine, did a fine job, but this Oddo lady found more that could be done.

At this point we may as well have a sticky saying Don't Read P&V. Its amazing how this board has discussed this question on a near daily basis