>"ah, yes, I love Russian Literature, Dostoevsky, Tolstoi, Nabakov, the list just goes on and on. I'm a modern man and cant be bothered with trite Garnet translations, only P&V for these eyes"
Garnett
>Then -- this is all what you say -- new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided. Then the "Palace of Crystal" will be built. Then ... In fact, those will be halcyon days. Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment) that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom may lead you to anything. It is boredom sets one sticking golden pins into people, but all that would not matter. What is bad (this is my comment again) is that I dare say people will be thankful for the gold pins then. Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, A PROPOS of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: "I say, gentleman, hadn't we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!"
>>7387568
P&V
>And it is then – this is still you speaking – that new economic relations will come, quite ready-made, and also calculated with mathematical precision, so that all possible questions will vanish in an instant, essentially because they will have been given all possible answers. Then the crystal palace will get built. Then . . . well, in short, then the bird Kagan will come flying. Of course, there's no guaranteeing (this is me speaking now) that it won't, for example, be terribly boring then (because what is there to do if everything's calculated according to some little table?), but, on the other hand, it will all be extremely reasonable. Of course, what inventions can boredom not lead to! Golden pins also get stuck in from boredom, but all that would be nothing. The bad thing is (this is me speaking again) that, for all I know, they may be glad of the golden pins then. Man really is stupid, phenomenally stupid. That is, he's by no means stupid, but rather he's so ungrateful that it would be hard to find the likes of him. I, for example, would not be the least bit surprised if suddenly, out of the blue, amid the universal future reasonableness, some gentleman of ignoble, or, better, of retrograde and jeering physiognomy, should emerge, set his arms akimbo, and say to us all: “Well, gentlemen, why don't we reduce all this reasonableness to dust with one good kick, for the sole purpose of sending all these logarithms to the devil and living once more according to our own stupid will!”
>>7387547
>only P&V translations of popular works that've been translated many times before but are subject to marketing hype for these eyes
>>7387570
this one stinks
ALL HAIL THE LEGEND
Didn't Garnett skip over passages she couldn't understand?
>>7387570
This is much, much better.
>>7387547
>translations
>>7387652
The second is probably closer to the original, since it actually says "the bird Kagan", which is in the original, whereas the first says "halcyon days".
The second one has this note
>Dostoevsky first heard of the bird Kagan, a folkloric bringer of happiness, during his imprisonment in Omsk
>>7387575
>wickedness
>Garnett’s flaws were not the figment of a native speaker’s snobbery. She worked with such speed, with such an eye toward the finish line, that when she came across a word or a phrase that she couldn’t make sense of she would skip it and move on. Life is short, “The Idiot” long. Garnett is often wooden in her renderings, sometimes unequal to certain verbal motifs and particularly long and complicated sentences.
>Nabokov has written a quotation from Conrad, who told Garnett’s husband, Edward, “Remember me affectionately to your wife, whose translation of Karenina is splendid. Of the thing itself I think but little, so that her merit shines with greater lustre.” Angrily, Nabokov scrawls, “I shall never forgive Conrad this crack”—he ranks Tolstoy at the top of all Russian prose writers and “Anna” as his masterpiece—and pronounces Garnett’s translation “a complete disaster.” Brodsky agreed; he once said, “The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren’t reading the prose of either one. They’re reading Constance Garnett.”
So who are we supposed to like? The first was much better, and apparently the second is fedora, but apparently the first is shit?
>tfw all P&V translations of Gogol are irrefutably awful
Feels good.
>>7387687
>The first was much better
It wasn't. You just associate late 19th century verbiage with good literature.
>>7387687
Russian
>>7387693
I don't associate anything with Russian literature as I've never read it. I found that the first smoothed over the relatively awkward interjections of "You're speaking" and "I'm speaking", and that it executed the strongest part of the entire passage--the extended metaphor of the golden pins--much better than the second, which fell apart on the line about sticking them into people.
>>7387703
>I've never read it
modern /lit/, everyone
Garnett
>I was lying when I said just now that I was a spiteful official. I was lying from spite. I was simply amusing myself with the petitioners and with the officer, and in reality I never could become spiteful. I was conscious every moment in myself of many, very many elements absolutely opposite to that. I felt them positively swarming in me, these opposite elements. I knew that they had been swarming in me all my life and craving some outlet from me, but I would not let them, would not let them, purposely would not let them come out. They tormented me till I was ashamed: they drove me to convulsions and sickened me, at last, how they sickened me! Now, are not you fancying, gentlemen, that I am expressing remorse for something now, that I am asking your forgiveness for something? I am sure you are fancying that ... However, I assure you I do not care if you are....
P&V
>And I lied about myself just now when I said I was a wicked official. I lied out of wickedness. I was simply playing around both with the petitioners and with the officer, but as a matter of fact I was never able to become wicked. I was conscious every moment of so very many elements in myself most opposite to that. I felt them simply swarming in me, those opposite elements. I knew they had been swarming in me all my life, asking to be let go out of me, but I would not let them, I would not, I purposely would not let them out. They tormented me to the point of shame; they drove me to convulsions, and – finally I got sick of them, oh, how sick I got! But do you not perhaps think, gentlemen, that I am now repenting of something before you, that I am asking your forgiveness for something? . . . I'm sure you think so . . . However, I assure you that it is all the same to me even if you do . . .
>>7387703
The interjections are part of the novel itself, and are in both translations. Keep in mind that this is from Notes from Underground; the narrator is supposed to be unhinged and the prose fractured. Garnett feels formal here, and it isn't supposed to be formal, it's supposed to be deranged.
>>7387568
the 'palace of crystal' is a reference to what is to be done? no?
>>7387733
The problem with Garnett is she translates Dostoevsky's characters with a uniformity of voice, when in fact they all talk very differently.
>>7387735
Yes.
>>7387547
>Nabokov
>implying he wrote anything of relevance in russian
>implying he didn't translate that shit himself anyway
>>7387739
>aracters with a uniformity of voice, when
everyone keeps saying this, but when i read her version of Crime and punishment, rasolnikov sounded totally different from his sister, who herself sounded totally different from the detective, etc. don't know where this idea came from but it's wrong
>>7387637
Yes, and she also made changes as she saw fit.
She also added a line (at least) to The Brothers Karamazov that isn't in the original Russian.
>>7387665
>The second is probably closer to the original
This approaches the kind of translation criticism that ought to take place, not all the usual discussion (as in this thread) of what 'feels' better.
The thing to do is to go the rest of the way to actually looking at the original language to determine the best translation.
>>7387747
It's Russian [nationality] literature, not Russian [language] literature, you baka senpai.
>>7388074
He immediately followed it up by talking about translations though.
