6 ms·
If you’re interested in reading Russian literature, do yourself a favor and avoid the Constance Garnett translations. Her main goals were speed and volume of tr
by jxcl 5y ago
If you’re interested in reading Russian literature, do yourself a favor and avoid the Constance Garnett translations. Her main goals were speed and volume of translations, rather than to actually make the translated works a pleasure to read or keep them true to the original author's intent.
> “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.”
> 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.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translatio...
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoIf Dostoyevsky is a pleasure to read, you have a bad translation. It is not a pleasure to read in Russian. His language is rather difficult. Source: I'm Russian and have read Dostoyevsky.
- rkuska 5y agoThe Brothers Karamazov is probably the only book I never finished reading. I since have never tried to read anything from Dostoyevsky and was wondering whether reading his book in Slovak language (my native language which is relatively close to Russian and as such should provide a better translation) would help me (I bought english print at airport). It eases my mind a bit knowing it is difficult also in the language the book was written in.
- jfk13 5y agoThe Brothers Karamazov is one of the few books I've started but abandoned without finishing. Perhaps it was related to the particular translation I had (I don't remember details of it now), but it just wasn't working for me. Crime and Punishment, on the other hand, I found utterly compelling, and will probably re-read some day (which is a status few books achieve in my world).
- kozd 5y agoHighly recommend the translation by Andrew R. MacAndrew if you want to give it another shot
- jxcl 5y agoI haven’t yet read Dostoyevsky, though I have read Chekhov and Pushkin in translation. I’m speaking more generally about Garnett’s translations rather than a specific work. I’m currently learning Russian, and I’m sure it’ll be a while before I can read Dostoyevsky in it’s original form; though I have read some Chekhov and he is an absolute pleasure to read in Russian.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoChekhov and Pushkin are extremely easy to read in russian. Always straight on point, with few distractions, rarely engaging in highbrow ornamental phrases. Good choice when learning a language.
- laserlight 5y agoIs it possible that he was a pleasure to read back in his time? Translations have the benefit of using a more recent language. Russian lacks that advantage.
- guimplen 5y agoSure, his prose requires a little bit longer attention span than what is common today, but otherwise Karamazov brothers was one of the most captivating and pleasant books I've ever read. Source: I'm Russian and read Dostoevsky.
- spurgu 5y agoYou don't happen to know a good translator..? I was going to try the Garnett version but now I'm having second thoughts.
- borepop 5y agoPersonally, I've always found the underlying structure of Crime and Punishment extremely tedious, never mind how any particular line or paragraph is translated. Obviously that makes me a philistine, etc., but there is some classic literature that I just find to be an utter slog, and that's one of 'em. Proust is in the same category for me. I think Dostoevsky's short fiction is wonderful.
- throwaway123x2 5y agoDo you have an alternative you recommend?
- robin_reala 5y agoI find Garnett pretty readable, even if she doesn’t capture the original Russian as well as others. The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett, and if we could, they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.
- jxcl 5y ago> The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett Certainly! If your reading is constrained to public domain works, you have basically no other option. I've read many books in translation and before I learned about the Constance Garnett controversy, I paid little to no attention to who translated the work that I'm reading. I guess I'm trying to spread the word that the translation matters almost as much as the original work itself, and it may be worth doing research on various translations before picking one to read. And although the original works are still as great as ever, it seems to me that the translating profession has really come a long way since the 1800s. As a result I tend usually to look at more recent translations first. > they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian. I don't think I understand what you mean by this.
- smcameron 5y agoInteresting. I have long thought that "Crime and Punishment" should have been called "The Idiot" due to the protagonist's infuriating idiocy, (all he had to do was keep his mouth shut), but now I wonder if the translation I read (which was Constance Garnett, it turns out) was just terrible.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoYou didn't quite understand the protagonist's problem and his motivation to commit crime.
- geebee 5y agoI agree with you, thoroughly, but I don't think it's entirely fair to write a one-liner like this. If you're going to say this, you should write an explanation for why.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago"Crime and Punishment" is such an important landmark in world literature, that there are literally millions of words written on this subject. Whatever my own interpretation, I could hardly write something that would meaningfully add to the existing works. However, I thought it fitting to point out that Raskolnikov's real motive wasn't raising some cash and getting away with it.
- geebee 5y agowho in this thread claimed that Raskolinov's real motive was "raising some cash and getting away with it"? You can provide a sort summary of an argument you find compelling regarding Raskolnikov's motivations without adding about to the millions of words written on this subject. You are also free to describe your own interpretation without feeling obliged to add something novel or useful to what's already out there. Considering how much I agree with you that Raskolnikov didn't "just need to keep his mouth shut" (a phrase that did show up in this thread), I'm actually and sincerely very interested in your interpretation.
- prvc 5y agoCounter-point: https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/ https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsi...
- 1cvmask 5y agoThis reminded on another "lost in translation" article from The New Yorker on Albert Camus and The Stranger: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translation-what-the-first-line-of-the-stranger-should-be https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translat... And the article you cite is by David Remnick who was instrumental on spreading Iraq war lies at the New Yorker. Should we trust him now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Remnick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Remnick "A lot of the people who made those mistakes are still occupying prominent positions, their credibility undamaged thanks to a new legend best articulated by New Yorker editor David Remnick, who later scoffed, “Nobody got that story completely right.” Nobody except the record number of people who marched against the war on February 15, 2003 — conservative estimates placed it between six and ten million worldwide (I marched in D.C.). Every one of those people was way ahead of Remnick." https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq-war-media-fail-matt-taibbi-812230/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...
- nerdponx 5y agoIf anything, the fact that he's such a good propagandist should be an _endorsement_ of his literary opinion, evil notwithstanding. He clearly knows how to communicate well!
- oh_sigh 5y agoThe marchers weren't necessarily right. How many of those people would have been marching against a totally just, necessary war? Probably many of them. Many Americans didn't want the US to get embroiled in WWII, even after Dec 7th
- flicker-rate 5y agoAgreed. The best translation of this book is done by Oliver Ready or Michael Katz-- I found these the translations the most readable and enjoyable.
- peapicker 5y agoMy favorite translation is by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky - I prefer it to Katz anyway. I haven't examined the Ready edition. (I ended up aquiring all of Dostoevsky in Pevear/Volokhonsky translations, I like them so much -- I understand other dislike their editions for a number of reasons, tho) I also really liked David McDuff's translation years ago. Any of these are going to be miles better then Garnett, though.
- billfruit 5y agoThere is an opinion that Pevaar/Volkhonosky translations are not up to the mark, and that their text is rather plain. https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-are-indeed https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-...
- peapicker 5y agoI know all about that. And for some reason they still work for me.
- rurban 5y agoThe only really recommended Dostoevsky translations are by Svetlana Geier. Not into english though.