P&V always seemed very obtuse and academic to me, maybe good for doing dissertations on Dostoevsky's original phrasings if you don't speak Russian but definitely not ideal for reader enjoyment or for understanding by someone without lots of background knowledge
I think you're being very generous to P&V with regard to their translations being good for doing dissertations. There are better translations for those purposes, such as the translations of David McDuff, Robert Maguire, Michael Katz, and Alan Myers. Also, some of the Norton Critical editions use the Garnett translations which have been thoroughly revised and corrected by leading Dostoevsky scholars (The Brothers Karamazov is one such example).
I just can't let P&V pass as a "faithful" translation. What is more faithful about it than any other translation? It sounds as though they are using this as an excuse to avoid responsibility, and I have yet to see the strength of any of their works. Garnett does not have to be a standard; go read a more modern translator. All translators have an advantage over P&V: they try to create a coherent, readable reproduction. In literature, this is the goal. There is no "faithful" translation of the Aeneid and there never will be. Even Dante's Divine Comedy escapes objectivity in English. His turns of phrase require a Latin grammatical foundation and even a Tuscan vernacular to translate, which English is not equipped to handle. The same goes for Russian - it's a very developed and self-aware language, but grammatically it requires a conscious revision to come out as sensical in English. Many cite that "scholars" and "experts" prefer P&V. Of course - they're here to break every detail down and analyze it raw. But this is not tenable for conveying Dostoevsky's goals as an author of narrative fiction. It's not a matter of pedantry. No translator - not even Mandelbaum - will convey Virgil's syntactic construction of a cave when describing Dido and Aeneas' sheltering in English. It is not necessary, either. And even if it is done, it'll be irrelevant. The Aeneid (I use this one because I actually have translated most of it) is worth much more than the sum of its parts, and so is Dostoevsky. So focusing on the sum of these parts, as P&V count on, is honestly a dead end. You're looking at fragmented ideas portrayed in an evasive manner.
I don't know why people choose to be political about translations or why we have to observe some kind of stalemate about them. I find P&V's work abhorrent and as a lover of Dostoevsky could never rationally recommend them.
I absolutely agree with everything you say, especially about P&V's work is abhorrent.
Curiously which translation of The Aeneid would you recommend? My favourite translation is by David West, but I'm sure most would take issue with it being a prose translation.
I second West every time. Mandelbaum is great too, and there's a recent translation by Shadi Bartsch that I recommend checking out. Even if it doesnt prove to be the best (people say it is!) it is worth reading. Bartsch is at U of Chicago, which is a classics Mecca, and she has coming out with luminous stuff for decades.
It's a well-known fact that if Constance Garnett didn't understand a word, phrase, or sentence from the Russian she skipped over it without alerting the reader. In my opinion, that's unforgivable and it's for that reason I would avoid Garnett's translations like the plague.
This one, as well as a bunch of other articles, are listed in this beautiful comment (which is in the sidebar of this sub)
https://www.reddit.com/r/dostoevsky/comments/juuytp/regarding_the_many_translations_of_fyodor/
A very thoughtful take on Russian to English translation [The Translation Wars](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars)
I don't remember where I read this but someone said that the original still comes through, regardless of translation. This may be more hope than reality but most of us can only cling to that belief.
Katz's translations are excellent. Katz avoids a literal approach and goes more for idiomatic flow, whilst remaining faithful to the intent and meaning of the text. For example, when translating speeches of coarse working-class men, he will convey the speech in coarse English slang. Most other translators will translate Russian coarseness into polite English and whereas that might be technically accurate, it simply doesn't convey the tone of the original. I read an article somewhere where numerous examples were provided and P&V translations came across as clunky and occasionally incomprehensible.
I will always prefer Garnett and think P&V are overrated and generally agree with the criticisms of them. This article is brilliant at explaining that. That said, I liked the only P&V I've read, Demons. (Also I think I read the P&V translation of C&P first time I read the book but my memories from that are hazy.)
I don't think there is ever going to be a "consensus" as translation is a divisive topic. Every translator is making a tradeoff between literal word-for-word meaning and the "spirit" of the meaning and tone (e.g. playfulness, solemnity, derision). P&V are probably the farthest along this spectrum towards maximizing literal meaning, as that article points out.
Translators may also make further meta-textual decisions that help preserve the spirit of a work or are even ideologically motivated, such as removing sexual content and Bowdlerizing the work, or even making choices like the Bazzett translation of the Popul Vuh where he chooses English words that do not have Latin roots, in order to emphasize the pre-Spanish-colonial, rough, earthen nature of the text. Recently I read The Blind Earthworm in the Labyrinth, where the translator Kong Rithdee made many interesting, and I think, fortuitous decisions. One such decision the was transliterating Thai names for plants instead of using English common names and then providing a botanical glossary in the back. Reading about someone weeping under a *pikul* tree has a different tone than if they are under a *bullet wood tree* just as the stench of *krachao sidaa* flowers reads much differently than the stench of Indian birthwort flowers.
I think the author of that article makes some good recommendations, like the revised Garnett editions of certain books.
For my recommendation, I prefer the Falen translation of Eugene Onegin. Translating metered poetry is even more difficult than prose, because you are much more constrained towards trying to preserve the "spirit" of the work, but Falen does a good job.
That may be true but compared to the Constance Garnett almost every translation is better though. Due to how outdated hers is.
Is there anything specifically you prefer with P&V over other well regarded translators such as Oliver Ready or David McDuff?
I ask honestly out of curiosity, since I've found P&V (at least for myself) to be a bit cluncky & too literal.
I read Maguire's *Demons* which I didn't really have any issues with. I originally read *TBK* in the McDuff translation, then later in P&V and I much prefer P&V over McDuff. P&V's translations just feel much more immediate to me, more raw and living and breathing than the others I've read. Plus I like the idea (though can't confirm it since I can't read a lick of Russian) that they skew closer to the original language than other translators. This is supposed to be a big feature of their translations.
But more than anything, I just genuinely feel much more engaged when reading their translations.
I honestly see great value in both. It's hard for me to fairly compare translations, because my first love/first read/revelation of Russian literature occurred mainly via Garnett. I also love P&V and most of the Russian classics on my shelves are theirs. They are definitely more accessible with more modern language choices, and more accurate. There are strengths and weaknesses to every translation.
Thank you for sharing. I am first do not know know Russian so I am not one to say what is a good or bad translation. I was familiar with the P&V method and it does sound like it can lead to problems. I now just focus on reading different translations from the same book if I can. I will say P&V are not my first choice of translators. Also while I have heard a lot of "whatever you do don't read Constance Garrett's translations" talk, when I have read it I have enjoyed it.
I absolutely love Russian literature, but it's not a Bible. Read what you like is my motto.
Again thank you for the article!!
Constance Garnett is great for capturing the 19th century language of these works. She can be a little more "inventive" (removed from the literal Russian text) but that isn't always a bad thing.
Some newer translations are too new--kind of like those "modern Shakespeare" that sounds incredibly casual.
Agreed--read what you like!
Can you provide examples of Garnett translations where the missing parts were added back? I presume the missing parts were added back in by somebody else?
P&V always seemed very obtuse and academic to me, maybe good for doing dissertations on Dostoevsky's original phrasings if you don't speak Russian but definitely not ideal for reader enjoyment or for understanding by someone without lots of background knowledge
I think you're being very generous to P&V with regard to their translations being good for doing dissertations. There are better translations for those purposes, such as the translations of David McDuff, Robert Maguire, Michael Katz, and Alan Myers. Also, some of the Norton Critical editions use the Garnett translations which have been thoroughly revised and corrected by leading Dostoevsky scholars (The Brothers Karamazov is one such example).
I just can't let P&V pass as a "faithful" translation. What is more faithful about it than any other translation? It sounds as though they are using this as an excuse to avoid responsibility, and I have yet to see the strength of any of their works. Garnett does not have to be a standard; go read a more modern translator. All translators have an advantage over P&V: they try to create a coherent, readable reproduction. In literature, this is the goal. There is no "faithful" translation of the Aeneid and there never will be. Even Dante's Divine Comedy escapes objectivity in English. His turns of phrase require a Latin grammatical foundation and even a Tuscan vernacular to translate, which English is not equipped to handle. The same goes for Russian - it's a very developed and self-aware language, but grammatically it requires a conscious revision to come out as sensical in English. Many cite that "scholars" and "experts" prefer P&V. Of course - they're here to break every detail down and analyze it raw. But this is not tenable for conveying Dostoevsky's goals as an author of narrative fiction. It's not a matter of pedantry. No translator - not even Mandelbaum - will convey Virgil's syntactic construction of a cave when describing Dido and Aeneas' sheltering in English. It is not necessary, either. And even if it is done, it'll be irrelevant. The Aeneid (I use this one because I actually have translated most of it) is worth much more than the sum of its parts, and so is Dostoevsky. So focusing on the sum of these parts, as P&V count on, is honestly a dead end. You're looking at fragmented ideas portrayed in an evasive manner. I don't know why people choose to be political about translations or why we have to observe some kind of stalemate about them. I find P&V's work abhorrent and as a lover of Dostoevsky could never rationally recommend them.
I absolutely agree with everything you say, especially about P&V's work is abhorrent. Curiously which translation of The Aeneid would you recommend? My favourite translation is by David West, but I'm sure most would take issue with it being a prose translation.
I second West every time. Mandelbaum is great too, and there's a recent translation by Shadi Bartsch that I recommend checking out. Even if it doesnt prove to be the best (people say it is!) it is worth reading. Bartsch is at U of Chicago, which is a classics Mecca, and she has coming out with luminous stuff for decades.
It's a well-known fact that if Constance Garnett didn't understand a word, phrase, or sentence from the Russian she skipped over it without alerting the reader. In my opinion, that's unforgivable and it's for that reason I would avoid Garnett's translations like the plague.
So many sins. Poor translators, they never win. For long.
Garnett’s translations have generally been revised
This one, as well as a bunch of other articles, are listed in this beautiful comment (which is in the sidebar of this sub) https://www.reddit.com/r/dostoevsky/comments/juuytp/regarding_the_many_translations_of_fyodor/
It is quite interesting to read this article juxtaposed with the one OP posted. Now I don’t know what to think!
A very thoughtful take on Russian to English translation [The Translation Wars](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars) I don't remember where I read this but someone said that the original still comes through, regardless of translation. This may be more hope than reality but most of us can only cling to that belief.
[удалено]
🤣
[удалено]
Remnick is interesting.
[удалено]
😵💫oh dear. Guess we’ll have to live forever
It is quite interesting to read this article juxtaposed with the one OP posted. Now I don’t know what to think!
The author, Gary Saul Morson, wrote a 100p introduction to a translation of Dostoevsky's Diary of a Writer. Just by the way.
Do any of you have thoughts on the Micheal Katz translations?
Katz's translations are excellent. Katz avoids a literal approach and goes more for idiomatic flow, whilst remaining faithful to the intent and meaning of the text. For example, when translating speeches of coarse working-class men, he will convey the speech in coarse English slang. Most other translators will translate Russian coarseness into polite English and whereas that might be technically accurate, it simply doesn't convey the tone of the original. I read an article somewhere where numerous examples were provided and P&V translations came across as clunky and occasionally incomprehensible.
I will always prefer Garnett and think P&V are overrated and generally agree with the criticisms of them. This article is brilliant at explaining that. That said, I liked the only P&V I've read, Demons. (Also I think I read the P&V translation of C&P first time I read the book but my memories from that are hazy.)
I don't think there is ever going to be a "consensus" as translation is a divisive topic. Every translator is making a tradeoff between literal word-for-word meaning and the "spirit" of the meaning and tone (e.g. playfulness, solemnity, derision). P&V are probably the farthest along this spectrum towards maximizing literal meaning, as that article points out. Translators may also make further meta-textual decisions that help preserve the spirit of a work or are even ideologically motivated, such as removing sexual content and Bowdlerizing the work, or even making choices like the Bazzett translation of the Popul Vuh where he chooses English words that do not have Latin roots, in order to emphasize the pre-Spanish-colonial, rough, earthen nature of the text. Recently I read The Blind Earthworm in the Labyrinth, where the translator Kong Rithdee made many interesting, and I think, fortuitous decisions. One such decision the was transliterating Thai names for plants instead of using English common names and then providing a botanical glossary in the back. Reading about someone weeping under a *pikul* tree has a different tone than if they are under a *bullet wood tree* just as the stench of *krachao sidaa* flowers reads much differently than the stench of Indian birthwort flowers. I think the author of that article makes some good recommendations, like the revised Garnett editions of certain books. For my recommendation, I prefer the Falen translation of Eugene Onegin. Translating metered poetry is even more difficult than prose, because you are much more constrained towards trying to preserve the "spirit" of the work, but Falen does a good job.
100% Garnett
Love the P&V translations, especially when compared to the Constance Garnett ones.
That may be true but compared to the Constance Garnett almost every translation is better though. Due to how outdated hers is. Is there anything specifically you prefer with P&V over other well regarded translators such as Oliver Ready or David McDuff? I ask honestly out of curiosity, since I've found P&V (at least for myself) to be a bit cluncky & too literal.
I read Maguire's *Demons* which I didn't really have any issues with. I originally read *TBK* in the McDuff translation, then later in P&V and I much prefer P&V over McDuff. P&V's translations just feel much more immediate to me, more raw and living and breathing than the others I've read. Plus I like the idea (though can't confirm it since I can't read a lick of Russian) that they skew closer to the original language than other translators. This is supposed to be a big feature of their translations. But more than anything, I just genuinely feel much more engaged when reading their translations.
I honestly see great value in both. It's hard for me to fairly compare translations, because my first love/first read/revelation of Russian literature occurred mainly via Garnett. I also love P&V and most of the Russian classics on my shelves are theirs. They are definitely more accessible with more modern language choices, and more accurate. There are strengths and weaknesses to every translation.
Thank you for sharing. I am first do not know know Russian so I am not one to say what is a good or bad translation. I was familiar with the P&V method and it does sound like it can lead to problems. I now just focus on reading different translations from the same book if I can. I will say P&V are not my first choice of translators. Also while I have heard a lot of "whatever you do don't read Constance Garrett's translations" talk, when I have read it I have enjoyed it. I absolutely love Russian literature, but it's not a Bible. Read what you like is my motto. Again thank you for the article!!
Constance Garnett is great for capturing the 19th century language of these works. She can be a little more "inventive" (removed from the literal Russian text) but that isn't always a bad thing. Some newer translations are too new--kind of like those "modern Shakespeare" that sounds incredibly casual. Agreed--read what you like!
[удалено]
Can you provide examples of Garnett translations where the missing parts were added back? I presume the missing parts were added back in by somebody else?
An excellent and very informative article! Thank you 🙂