Dostoyevsky/ Tolstoy Translations

I hope Oliver Ready does some Tolstoy translations. His translation and footnotes for C&P were fantastic

This is funny it used to be consensus was that p&v were the goto translations.

I mean, my Professor in the Russian department is from St. Petersburg and made us use the P&V translations for A.K. So I'm slightly confused-- Why is a native speaker forcing us to read such a 'poor' translation?

He didn't.

P&V translations are only hated on Veeky Forums because of the contrarian streak that runs through here

People like to hate on what is popular.

When in doubt, go with P&V.

P&V is like a cleaned up machine translation. It's very "accurate" but the result is poor English.

no, he made them study it because it's a literal translation and thus better for objective study. since Veeky Forumsizens are not always inclined to study the works they read for pleasure, sometimes the varying prose in translations give a more pleasurable rendering for casual enjoyment. it's not just contrarianism.

>he spends time looking for best translation instead of learning the language of original
W E W
E
W

I mean, I'm definitely not finding it difficult to read, though. I guess I'm just somewhat skeptical about the pooh-poohing here-- But certainly, I'm sure there are more 'poetic' or concise translations out there if you're reading it purely recreationally.

Just don't go with Garnett

>However, Garnett also has had critics, notably prominent Russian natives and authors Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Brodsky. Nabokov claimed that Garnett's translations were "dry and flat, and always unbearably demure." Nabokov's criticism of Garnett, however, may arguably be viewed in light of his publicly stated ideal that the translator be male.[5][6] Brodsky notably criticized Garnett for blurring the distinctive authorial voices of different Russian authors:[3]

"The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They're reading Constance Garnett."

>implying i can't tell the difference between tolstoy and dostoevsky in the garnett translations i have read
>implying that P&V themselves don't acknowledge that most of the time constance garnett was absolutely correct in her translations

i think the real contrarians have been the ones shitting on Constance all along.

This is their translation method. Make of it what you will.

>Their division of labor was—and remains—nearly absolute: First, Larissa wrote out a kind of hyperaccurate trot of the original, complete with interstitial notes about Dostoyevsky’s diction, syntax, and references. Then, Richard, who has never mastered conversational Russian, wrote a smoother, more Englished text, constantly consulting Larissa about the original and the possibilities that it did and did not allow. They went back and forth like this several times, including a final session in which Richard read his English version aloud while Larissa followed along in the Russian.

newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars

>some of the greatest literary minds with native grasp of Russian deem a translation bad
>it's just le contrarianism
>implying

Take note of the fact that one of them isn't even fluent in Russian.

P&V translations of Tolstoy and Bulgakov are completely fine. Source: эм Paшн.

>MacAndrew TBK
>Maude W&P

These are fine choices
Magarshack, revised Garnett, McDuff, and Avsey are other good choices for Karamazov, for various reasons
Maude is by default the best choice for Tolstoy. Dunnigan is another good translator for W&P

>implying that nabokov wasn't a base contrarian in every aspect
>implying his analysis of Anna Karenina wasn't the most hilarious satire of literary criticism the world has ever seen
you're embarassing yourself.

That's bizarre, but somewhat oddly satisfying. If Pavear had a better grasp of Russian (one might argue English as well) it would make for a near universally acceptable translation.

So... The same amount of fluent Russian speakers as in any of the other translations?

>implying

if you listen to larissa, you suddenly realize that she's not fluent in english. neither is fluent in both languagez. which explains the disjointed nature of their works, and how it feels choppy to the point of disruption at every page.

P&V do a very literal translation of Russian, that doesnt make any fucking sense in English unless you already have an understanding of how the Russian language works.

>Translations

Also it sounds horrifically akward and ugly to read. The only time their translation would be useful is if you are studying Russian but dont care about good prose. "Retaining the essence of the orginal Russian text" is dumb and pointless when Russian is so fundamentally different from english

I have found that generally newer translations are better. P&V is readable, but as clunky enough to be disruptive. I think P&V got popular because native Russian speakers seem to like them, but that is not a good metric for judging an English translation.

Marian Schwartz does an amazing job with Anna Karenina and Oblomov.

Avsey does a great job with Dostoevsky.

I'm not sure. I was sold on the Dostoyevsky meme a month ago and started with The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Andrew R MacAndrew, it was a good read but holy hell, I made the mistake starting with Dostoyevsky's last novel. Currently reading C&P for the first time, translated by Garnett and its thoroughly enjoyable.

shame about the terrible cover desu

And Volokhonsky isn't fluent in English
Between the two of them they introduce (at least) twice the translational error of others, despite their ostensible adherence to the letter of the original

Its a pretty solid cover actually. Dostoyevskys characters are highly animated, I feel like the cartoonish style captures that.