P&V you fag

>>7395376

I was told p&v was absolute trash for the brother's K, is that not the case here?

Dostoevsky translation.

>>7395376
topkek

>>7395381
Read the new yorker article on the issue

>>7395388

Ok

>>7395383

Ok

whichever translation doesn't call it notes from -the- underground

>>7395381
>>7395386
Whose translation do you prefer? Garnett?

>>7395366
it doesn't matter

it's not a book that requires a genius level translator

Mine is by Mirra Ginsburg. How much did i fuck up senpai?

>>7395423
Garnett is shit. P&V are shit. Luckily for humanity they aren't the only translations, as much of /lit/ believes.

To answer your question: Magarshack, Avsey, and McDuff, in that order but all three are good and a matter of preference. What you should do is just go to amazon and "quick read" all translations and choose whichever works for you.

>>7395509

I see. I guess it's not the readability I'm worried about, but the quality of translation

>>7395518
Again, go to amazon and read all of them. After reading the same paragraph you'll get the idea of what it's talking about and then you can choose which style you prefer as well as which one you believe is more accurate.

I hated the p&v style for The Brothers Karamazov, but it didn't bother me for Notes from the Underground. What's good about Notes - the utterly realistic paradoxes of the underground man's psychology - doesn't need a great translator. Read whatever is the most convenient.

>>7395518
>translation

>>7395534

Alright, thanks. Will do