What translation is best?
>>7712131
Most of the famous ones should suit you well. Dostoevsky is much more about ideas than his language, so a lot of what he's about survives translation.
>>7712131
P & V
&
V
>>7712139
This
Read a couple and pick whatever you like best, but definetly don't buy P&V, their translation doesn't manage to transport the meaning, it's not literal either and it's not even good in it's own right
>>7712170
Are you autistic?
>>7712131
Ignat Avsey.
Any other answer is wrong.
>>7712152
Your sample size is just a *wee* bit small there.
>>7712131
Here are five to consider:
* David Magarshack: for a translation with an older style more contemporaneous with the original writing, Magarshack was a much more diligent translator than Constance Garnett was
* Ralph Matlaw's revision of Garnett: Garnett's phrasing does have a nice flow, and Matlaw's revision corrects many of her omissions, additions, and so on. (Also the Norton Critical Edition, which published Matlaw's version, has some fine critical essays added.)
* Andrew MacAndrew: a bit more recent than the above, MacAndrew's translation is looser/less literal but still decent and has a nice flow
* David McDuff: one of two excellent modern translations
* Ignat Avsey: the other. Avsey was diligent about doing an entirely new version.
>>7712177
most academics are starting to move away from P&V
anyways, more importantly, they just don't read very well
>>7712131
The one that i read.AND I ONLY READ ONE AHAHAHHAHAHAHHA FAGGOTS
>>7712240
if they're academics they're not reading translations, fag
OP I won't tell you which translation to read, but I'll try to help you decide for yourself.
For starters, ignore people like this: >>7712139
Not because I have an issue with P&V, but because with a complex question like this, just saying one translator with literally NO backup or evidence just proves nothing.
Instead, consider posts like this: >>7712221
that actually make an attempt at explaining differences and qualities
>>7712514
>don't trust this post but trust this post with no backup or evidence
lmao /lit/
>>7712131
i don't understand this 'best' thing
if you actually care, you would read as many translations as you can and make the decision for yourself. you are trying to get something 'more' out of this reading experience, looking for the 'best'
and if you don't care, you would read whichever copy you can get your hands on and consider it done. you are simply trying to read the book and move on
>>7712526
P&V is simply objectively subjectively objectively ideologically worse than cancer.
>>7712526
Are you fucking retarded? Okay maybe it didn't have "sources" per se, but even if that second quoted anon was completely bullshitting, which I highly doubt, at least they compared different options and actually offered some sort of reason or opinion or evaluation of them, not just "lel P&V xD". Get your head out of your salty ass you idiot.
>>7712554
>damage control to the max
If I said something as vapid as
>P&V: one of two excellent modern translations
would that be enough for your retarded pleb ass? of course it would because you're a retard
>>7712565
damn P&V defence force in full riot gear today
>>7712583
lolno. I don't read in translation cause I'm not a filthy pleb.
>>7712554
>>7712565
>>7712583
>>7712600
please shitpost some where else
P&V fit everything Russian my friend. They have the most incredible system, one translates from the Russian with incredible accuracy and the other restyles it in English. They are essentially the definitive Russian translatorsavsey
>this translation does not carry what the author meant to say
>this other one does but is not as well-writen
>I know because I have read the book in Russian as well as at least 3 English translations
Who cares what translation you read for the first time, especially for prose? If you're really interested in it you'll want to read it again anyway.
If you're going to catch my attention posting covers of good books at least start a discussion about them.
>go to Amazon or the fucking bookstore or wherever the fuck you want
>read some different translations
>choose which one you like best
welp that was hard
>>7712139
P&V reads like a google translator.
Garnett's is the best even if she Victorianises it.
>>7713473
>why do you think this is good
See: spoiler
Avsey is the best translation. McDuff is nearly as good.
>>7712131
>translation
>>7712131
You're better off just spending a few years learning Russian and then read the book as it was meant to be read. The book loses so much of it's meaning in translation and is almost useless to read if you're not going to read it in the proper Russian
>>7712526
It's wrong not to appreciate the effort that he put into that post.
