What's the difference? One's $12.50 and the other is $25.72
>>7740683
translation? paper quality?
>>7740687
Both are by P&V, and the paper quality on all the Vintage books I've got is pretty good I'd say (for paperbacks).
Would paper quality really have that much of a difference in price?
>>7740693
I have the Vintage edition. It's absolutely fine, but I'm still put off by that awful fucking cover.
The one on the left has an repulsive cover that misuses Cyrillic writing.
There's also this that I'm interested in buying, as I'm really satisfied with my Everyman copy of Ulysses. But for some reason the prices are different...for the same product?
Also, the design of of the logo and stuff on the cover is different, the Ulysses one has a picture of the author and the author's name is in a grey box unlike the TBK one which is in red.
Is it just because of different times of publication and that Everyman changed their design?
>>7740710
Everyman's always a safe option in my experience. The price difference is probably down to different sellers. Everyman have a couple of different designs with different colour spines, and plain covers verses picture covers.
>>7740730
Ah, I see. The Brothers Karamazov one seems to have the black and white spine covers on the dust jacket instead of the red and black that Ulysses has. Not something I'd mind too much I guess.
I guess I'll go with the $26 one since it's Everyman's, and it's not much more than the paperbacks.
>>7740683
they're both horrible. buy the Garnett edition for 5 bucks on abebooks.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=16077277943&searchurl=sts%3Dt%26isbn%3D9781593080457
What the fuck is happening here? Why is everyone talking about editions that have P&V translations and one retarded suggesting Garnett?
Avsey or McDuff.
>>7740683
the difference is about 13 bucks imho tbqh
>>7740819
P&V are absolutely fine.
I'm fairly sure the guy suggesting Garnett in just an lazy troll.
Remember everyone, most Russian novelists gained their canonical heft through the Garnett translations: When your favorite author gushes about how they loved Dosto or Tolstoy, they're gushing about the Garnett version.
Also remember that P&V are an unorthodox and questionable husband and wife team, one of whom can't speak Russian fluently and the other who can't write capable English prose. They are also major sellouts and Oprah's Book Club-tier publishing industry darlings.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars
>>7740825
ezzackly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ykytca6Y8
this is the woman who people seem to think is fluent enough in english to translate adequately.
frankly, it's no wonder that their translations have absolutely no flow and are clunky and distracting.
read a purple-covered paperback, translation felt lacking. read the p&v crime and punishment, abhorrent. read tolstoy via garnett, great.
>Pevear and Volokhonsky may be the premier Russian-to-English translators of the era. They are certainly the most versatile and industrious and the only such team in which one member, Richard Pevear, does not really speak the language. Pevear told me that he has not even spent much time in Russia—just one three-week trip to St. Petersburg to meet his wife’s old friends and family.
>“I’ve never been curious to see Russia,” he said during one of our conversations in Paris. “I’m not curious to see the city of Moscow. Should I be?”
>Larissa looked faintly embarrassed by her husband’s incuriosity. “I don’t know what to say.”
>>7740842
avsey is frankly not different enough to merit notice. David "Fishy" McDuff also is relatively forgettable.
Garnett is and always will be the queen.
>>7740839
Each translator builds a different "tone": The contrast is especially great with P&V (the most modern) and Garnett (the most antiquated), because P&V are really trying to get a word for word, "accurate" translation often at the expense of prose smoothness or readability, while Garnett wasn't so concerned with accuracy as with "smoothness." So you get Garnett's detached, level, consistent "British irony" tone, and you get P&V's closeup, staccato, "modern realism" tone.
>>7740854
ok
>>7740855
>Garnett wasn't concerned with accuracy
pleb harder.
P&V themselves state that though garnett is often the most true to form, that she simply missed out on some of the humor. I repeat, P&V's only problem with Dostoevsky is that he isn't funny enough in his current rendering by Garnett. If you had read any of their work, you would realize how laughable the idea of them being competent enough to relay "humor" through their clunky prose is.
for those of you who want to hear them say this, that video above, at 1:04:00 will give you what you want.
If some of you lazy fucks have available your personal pet versions of Karamazov, post a passage from them, then we can compare between editions.
ALEKSEI* FYODOROVICH KARAMAZOV was the third son of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, a landowner of our district, extremely well known in his time (and to this day still remembered in these parts) on account of his violent and mysterious death exactly thirteen years ago, the circumstances of which I shall relate in due course. All I shall say now about this landowner (as we used to call him, even though he scarcely ever lived on his estate) is that he was an eccentric, a type not uncommon however, not only worthless and depraved but muddle-headed as well, yet one of those whose muddle-headedness never stops them from making an excellent job of their business affairs.
Avsey
>>7740831
No. Garnett is objectively more conventionally aesthetic. Which is why her translations are terrible.Dostoevsky does not write as an aesthete. If you want to understand his prose style, just look at some examples of his taste in art. Pic related
And this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_of_the_Dead_Christ_in_the_Tomb
Garnette's prose does not convey Dostoevsky. Dosteovsky's prose is conveys a man who is in extreme agony but is determined not to show it. Dostoevsky's whole philosophy came out of trying to cope with his pain from prison, the loss of his first wife, the loss of his son--he was not trying to numb any of this pain, his struggle was in fact trying to find some sort of MEANING for it, it was not that he couldn't live with pain, he could live with infinite pain, so long as it had meaning. He said himself that the most terrifying and inhuman thing that could be done to a man, is to make him toil to no absolutely no purpose.
ALEXEY Fyodorovitch Karamazov was the third son of Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov, a landowner well known in our district in his own day, and still remembered among us owing to his gloomy and tragic death, which happened thirteen years ago, and which I shall describe in its proper place. For the present I will only say that this “landowner” — for so we used to call him, although he hardly spent a day of his life on his own estate — was a strange type, yet one pretty frequently to be met with, a type abject and vicious and at the same time senseless. But he was one of those senseless persons who are very well capable of looking after their worldly affairs, and, apparently, after nothing else.
Garnett
>>7740890
Alexey Fyodorovitch Karamazov was the third son of Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov, a land owner well known in our district in his own day, and still remembered among us owing to his gloomy and tragic death, which happened thirteen years ago, and which I shall describe in its proper place. For the present I will only say that this “landowner”—for so we used to call him, although he hardly spent a day of his life on his own estate—was a strange type, yet one pretty frequently to be met with, a type abject and vicious and at the same time senseless. But he was one of those senseless persons who are very well capable of looking after their worldly affairs, and, apparently, after nothing else. Fyodor Pavlovitch, for instance, began with next to nothing; his estate was of the smallest; he ran to dine at other men's tables, and fastened on them as a toady, yet at his death it appeared that he had a hundred thousand roubles in hard cash. At the same time, he was all his life one of the most senseless, fantastical fellows in the whole district. I repeat, it was not stupidity—the majority of these fantastical fellows are shrewd and intelligent enough—but just senselessness, and a peculiar national form of it.
Garnett pulled from Project Gutenberg.
Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov was the third son of a landowner from our district, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, well known in his own day (and still remembered among us) because of his dark and tragic death, which happened exactly thirteen years ago and which I shall speak of in its proper place. For the moment I will only say of this “landowner” (as we used to call him, though for all his life he hardly ever lived on his estate) that he was a strange type, yet one rather frequently met with, precisely the type of man who is not only worthless and depraved but muddleheaded as well—one of those muddleheaded people who still handle their own little business deals quite skillfully, if nothing else.
P&V
>>7740899
horrible
>>7740890
>not only worthless and depraved
This expresses Dostoevsky much better than this
>>7740894
>a type abject and vicious
Fyodor Pavlovich is certainly vicious in a way, but that is hardly the first word that would jump to mind if you were to describe him, because vicious can convey all sorts of personalities that he is not. "Worthless and depraved," on the other hand, gives a very good first impression of the type of personality we're reading about, and does not mislead or confuse at all.
>But he was one of those senseless persons who are very well capable of looking after their worldly affairs, and, apparently, after nothing else.
>yet one of those whose muddle-headedness never stops them from making an excellent job of their business affairs.
>one of those muddleheaded people who still handle their own little business deals quite skillfully, if nothing else.
One of these is not like the others.
AVSEY!
I also think "muddleheaded" is much more apt term for the character than "senseless", especially since the latter is paired with "vicious". He's a wicked man, but the kind of wickedness we're talking about here is very crucial to his character, since it is a darker kind of wickedness than conventional. We're talking in the vein of the serial rapist from Crime and Punishment, not some fierce tempered thug. That his wife beats him, rather than vice versa, is a clear indication of this, and he preference for tormenting his other wife by spitting or and stepping on her religious icon.
>>7740912
I think P&V is preferable here because it sounds more natural, which Dostoevsky strives for. Avsey is more aesthetically pleasing, but Dostoevsky sculpted his prose to sound very human and sincere and personal, he was not aiming for a literary sound. This allowed him to discuss very, very deep ideas, while making them sound like every day conversations.
>>7740683
Bpotnzp?
>>7740919
>P&V is preferable
opinion discarded
>>7740916
P&V is closer to how you talk in real life. That's obviously not the style of Melville or Shakespeare, but that is the style of Dostoevsky, and trying to twist that distorts him.
>>7740922
it's a relief to know that knowing greek doesn't make your opinion worth a shit.
best translation of Bros. K is McAndrews.
>>7740699
what? the vintage cover is cool. Looks like a nautical anchor. If anyone asks, I'd tell them I'm reading about pirates.
>>7741333
Not him but the faux cyrillic is just awful
http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Karamazov-Illustrated-Platinum-ebook/dp/B017YB4AJ4/
