I'm in the bookstore I have a bunch of credit. P&v or c. Garnett translation please help. Also Russian translation thread
are those literally the only two translations they have? neither are ideal
>>7627600
P&V would be better than Garnett I think.
It's a small local shop I'm just trying to support him
Take a read through both and decide which one reads better.
In this case P&V is better, but read through the first few pages of both and make your decision that way.
Are you still deciding after 15 minutes?
Looking through other stuff simultaneously. Have 20 min before my bus comes
I've always enjoyed Garnett's transaltions of Dostoyevsky...
>>7627604
According to Hugh McClean's "Which English Anna?" they are the two best versions, although his review predates Briggs and Bartlett.
P&V
Just get the p&v
/lit/ hates P&V now that they're popular but of the two it's clearly a superior translation
I'm sure someone will be in here soon to drone on about how the Maudes are superior because they worked in conjunction with Tolstoy though
>>7627678
Bartlett has the best cover. And I don't think Briggs translated Anna Karenina...maybe I'm wrong.
When I reread I'll be buying Bartlett. First read was P&V.
>>7627708
forgot pic
>>7627703
They are superior, but they're not one of the options, so
>>7627703
Actually if you follow these translation threads closely we don't hate P&V, and for some books they have the superior translation... But in many cases they are overrated, as a result of hype. Better options are available.
>>7627703
Reddit only hates Garnett because she's popular. She writes much better English than P&V and her inaccuracies are wildly exaggerated.
>>7627600
garnett, actually. PV is utter shit every time. P&V are two people, one who doesnt know english, the other who doesnt know russian. Volokhonsky translates the work literally and then Pevear "smooths it out", offering only the most clunky translations possible. low grade. Garnett was even prided by P&V as an excellent translator, and i can easily show you a video in which they do this. In most cases, her translations more than suffice for the use of the public, and P&V are a publisher's cashgrab with very little worthwhile for the customer.
>>7628080
>one who doesnt know english, the other who doesnt know russian.
So the married couple doesn't have a language in common?
Larissa does know English. That is how they got started doing russion translations, she found what she considered a mistake in a translation Richard was teaching in his Russian lit class.
He is a good English prose writer where she is not, that is why they work as a team.
I'm not defending all their translations, but at least get your facts straight.
>>7628101
>He is a good English prose writer
Really? That's not the conclusion I came to from their M+M.
>>7628101
you have not heard her speak if you think she's fluent in english, and if you had read any of their finished work, you would not think pevear a worthwhile prose stylist.
>>7627703
>of the two
that's some narrow fucking boundaries
Best translation for the brothers karamazov anyone ?
>>7628151
Avsey
>>7628151
P&V
>>7628151
McDuff
>>7628151
mcduff
>>7628151
Garnett
>>7628151
Garnett.
>>7628182
no, P&V mangle english with their subpar translation methods. read Garnett.
>>7628182
no, just read mcduff
everyone has contrary opinions on p&v and garnett, but no-one dislikes mcduff
>>7628204
No, Garnett is too Victorian and skipped whole sections she didn't understand. Get Avsey.
>>7627600
>P&V
Complete garbage, do not purchase.
>>7628211
>repeating this meme
do you even know what she skipped and in which novel she skipped it? you're just regurgitating a factoid and thinking it relevant. P&V themselves hailed Garnett as an incredible translator, and that often she outperformed them.
>>7627703
>/lit/ hates P&V now that they're popular
No, /lit/ has specific reasons for disliking P&V's poor language grasp, slavish adherence to the letter of a text at the expense of its spirit, and butchering of idiom.
>I'm sure someone will be in here soon to drone on about how the Maudes are superior because they worked in conjunction with Tolstoy though
No need, since you just said why they're to be preferred. Now if only you would say why P&V are superior.
Is this a good translation for The Possessed? Published in 1936, Avrahm Yarmolinski translated.
>>7628151
>Best translation for the brothers karamazov anyone ?
Any of the following are good for their own reasons:
* Magarshack
* Matlaw's revision of Garnett
* MacAndrew
* McDuff
* Avsey
>P&V praised for twenty years
>One article comes out bashing them
>/lit/ hates them
>>7628459
>P&V themselves hail garnett as a superior translator
>/lit/ doesnt know because they do no research
>>7628237
>Yarmolinski translated
Can I just get confirmation from you that Yarmolinsky is the actual translator? I have a copy of that book, with the same cover, but translated by Garnett and with a Foreword by Yarmolinsky. I'm getting inconclusive info online (wikipedia, goodreads, and so on). Any chance of seeing your cover page? Just for my own curiosity and confirmation.
>>7628237
This is the version I read and I thought it was fine. I have no idea if it is the most widely acclaimed though.
>>7628477
If they truly believed this they wouldn't have made their own translation.
>>7628818
What? This makes no sense. Why wouldn't they?
>>7629753
exactly. his shit's all retarded. they did it for money. they thought they could do it better, but in the end they still acknowledged that constance garnett was an incredible translator, and they owed her their utmost respect. it is without question that without garnett, russian literature would not have its standing in the western sphere as it does today. perhaps, yes, it would trickle, but garnett acted as a dambuster, flooding us with some of the greatest authors of all time.
