As most Russian literature professors will tell you, and I am one, the Pevear translation of Karamazov is the absolute worst. Garnett’s is the best. It is the one most accurate to the period and retains a literary quality which is most true to Dostoyevsky’s intentions and to the original Russian. Some argue that the language is too Victorian, but few making that criticism understand that Dickens was one of Dostoyevsky’s primary influences. He held Dickens work dear to his heart and it comes through in his writing. Garnett understood this well and her treatment of Dostoyevsky and other Russia authors not only still stand the test of time but are usually the best. One incredible thing about Garnett is that every translator who takes a stab at translating Dostoyevsky, for instance, will always reference her work. Most new translations are simply rewording Garnett’s translation to suit a different style, usually a more contemporary one. If you want to read Karamazov, read the Garnett or read the Russian. Those are the options if you truly want to say you’ve read it.
I don't much care for the P & V translation, either, but it's ubiquitous and a good number of courses still seem to include it on their syllabi. Garnett's translations have certainly been influential, on their side, but my impression is that scholars differ quite a bit in assessing their accuracy and timelessness. Ultimately, the translation one identifies as "best" probably depends on one's prior assumptions.
I have been researching translations for my first reading of Dostoevsky. (Crime & Punishment) I have the Garnett version because I bought it before realizing there are all these different ones. (I joke that it might easier to just learn Russian!) This was very helpful, thank you.
For first reading maybe the Garnett translaton isn't that bad an idea. Gosh,one never knows if the reader will like a Russian novel. Personally,I've three translations and thank goodness that I used Garnett for my first time round. Having read all of Dostoyevsky novels I can be more picky if I wish to re-read him. As for Tolstoy.....gosh,read Anna Karenina but not War and Peace. I would rather go back to Dostoevsky or Turgenev 🙂 All the Best from GB.
Thanks for your video! Very interesting. Just a couple of additional points: 1. I read somewhere that P&V revised their Brothers Karamazov in their bicentennial edition. Not sure what they changed, if it's an overall improvement, etc. Just thought I'd mention it in case people want the latest edition of P&V. 2. Michael Katz has a translation that seems to be closer to Ignat Avsey ("freer") than P&V or McDuff ("literal") in terms of translation philosophy. I'd love to hear your thoughts if you're familiar with his translation? Thanks in advance!
I haven't read Katz's translation of Brothers Karamazov, but I'm a big fan of several of his other translations: his versions of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, Tolstoy's short fiction, and Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground are all excellent. In my view, they offer a good balance of accuracy and naturalness.
I read the Garnett. The thing about P&V translations is that their process is to use ghost translation initially, then get more involved in whittling down the final text of what we end up with. What we’re left with in this assembly line affair is something thoroughly modern, yet also stripped of all the music found in superior translations. Like many things today, P&V as an entity is the creation of public relations, clever marketing tactics, and a puppy mill like operation of workers handling the translation process - and that’s the feeling I get through the text. The idea they are being more faithful to the original Russian is also significantly overstated, and when that claim is made by their promoters it’s done with the understanding that what is considered “faithful” in translation often varies by definition, so they can make t he claim without really being made accountable for the claim.
Your critique of their final published translations is fair, although I have no inside info about their process beyond what they discuss publicly. I'm not a big fan of P&V's translation, but I don't much like those that smooth out Dostoevsky completely either.
Thanks for the video! I chose the Oxford World Classics because you said that it is the smoothest to read but I had one problem with it. The language was quite smooth but there were constant use of uncommon words. I'm new to reading novels, I usually read non fiction so my vocabulary is of an average English speaker. On every page I had to take out my phone multiple times to look up meanings. Could it be because they wanted to sell more Oxford dictionaries? 😅
I think you're describing a calculated choice on Avsey's part, though I doubt it's meant to sell dictionaries. In the translator's note, he expresses a desire to mimic Dostoevsky's style, which Avsey claims "breaks every rule of grammar, syntax, and punctuation," "is full of unusual words," and "stretches his own language to its uttermost limits."
Am currently reading War and Peace, after doing that decided to read this book and gonna go with oxford translation since you say its the smooth translation thanks for the recommendation.
No one is talking about Magarshack but from what I have heard and read, his is the best and most underrated and authors like Ishiguro highly recommend it. The only problem is that they are extremely hard to find and I have still not been able to procure it after hounding almost all online stores in my country.
I haven’t been able to find any good translations in my first language so I’m gonna bet in an English one. The video was very informative, thanks a lot!
I tried to read P & V's translation and I gave up because the English sounded forced, unnatural, jarred and clunky. I switched to Ignat Avsey's translation and it was everything that P & V's wasn't and I managed to read the whole novel. When I compared various paragraphs between the two translations, I found they were saying the same things, but Avsey's English was vastly superior. It's almost as if English is P & V's second language.
I actually started with Ignat Avsey but switched to the Andrew MacAndrew translation because it felt a little bit smoother and easier to read. If you found Avsey fluid and comprehensible, I can only imagine what P & V are like!
Since I made that previous comment, I also read the MacAndrew translation and it was beautifully translated. It was perfect as a re-read, but I wouldn't recommend it to a first-time reader because it doesn't contain any explanatory notes. @@oppie47
Thanks for your information about translations. I just finished crime and punishment translated by Oliver Ready for the Penguin Classics. I enjoyed it thoroughly but perhaps most importantly were the notes to be able to follow the characters names, nicknames, and informal names. I would prefer the style of P&V based on what you’ve said, but is there a version perhaps that would come with notes so I don’t find myself lost if the names in this book are inconsistent as in Crime and Punishment? Edit: perhaps the McDuff could accommodate the “true to Russian” style as well? My main goal here is just to not stumble at the Russian names while keeping the text as Russian as possible
I'm glad the information was helpful to you. I know that keeping Russian names straight can be a challenge. Most modern English translations will include a list of characters with some explanation of their various names. The P&V translation (published by Vintage) includes such a list of character names and nicknames directly following the introduction, as well as an extensive collection of end notes that provide useful context.
After reading P & V trans of C & P I then read Oliver Reedy trans and hated it. This British guy utterly removed the Old Russia feel of Dostoevsky’s writing and made it seem like Roskonikov was some london bloke banging around London. Stupid.
I bought a Garnett translation without having the knowledge about all the other translations and the nuances they carry. So, what should I do now, stick with it or go for some other translation? I care very much about enjoying the reading process.
If you are used to reading 19th-century novels in English, I don't think you'll regret reading the Garnett translation. It's a great novel. Garnett's translation sounds a little British and Victorian to my ear, but you'd still be reading Dostoevsky.
Hello have you tried Andrew macandrew's version? I'm poor and the only books that are available at my countries online store is Constance Garnett and Andrew MacAndrew work. So which one should I pick?. Btw I've read Constance Garnett's crime and punishment and I would say that I loved it. And I did in fact love her formal way of writing.
Even though Constance Garnett performed a great service through her early versions of Russian classics, I'm not a fan of her translations. They end up too uniform and English for my taste. So I'd choose Andrew MacAndrew for myself. But if you know that you love Constance Garnett's style, then you'll probably do fine with either option.
This video was made for a specific group of students choosing among different translations a few summers ago. It's meant to introduce principles of translation and to offer a few options. It's not exhaustive.
Do you suppose Dostoevsky was concerned with what was lost in translation when he read Shakespeare, one of his biggest literary influences? Or Don Quixote? He did some minor translation work of French literature in the 1840's, including Balzac's _Eugenie Grandet_ and George Sand's _The Last Aldini_ . However, he abandoned the latter when he learned it was already translated into Russian. Whether it was specifically because he thought that translation was superior to his I can't recollect. But if it was because it was already translated then one could argue he saw translations as a means to an end, to introduce it to another culture. That reminds me of Constance's Garnett's stance on translation.
My understanding (mostly taken from Joseph Frank's biography) is that Dostoevsky's own early translation work was pursued out of a combination of admiration and necessity. He was fascinated by the work of Balzac and Sand and Sue; he also needed money and opportunity to break into the literary world. To my knowledge, Dostoevsky never wrote explicitly about his motivations in translation. Broader access to great works seems an excellent reason to translate the classics. Garnett did the Anglophone world an invaluable service by making Dostoevsky (and Turgenev and Chekhov and Tolstoy) known to ordinary readers. We're fortunate to live in a time when a number of translating successors have built on, replicated, and revised her work
Can you please tell which one would you personally choose? I was really going for p&v after reading some reddit. But now i cam across this video and i really cant decide. Some say ignat some say garnett, mcduff, Katz? Really confusing!
I think the reason you're running into different opinions is that the choice of translation partly a matter of personal preference and priorities. There's no single right answer. I personally tend to favor translations that strike a compromise between strict accuracy and fluent English. On that basis, I'd generally recommend the Avsey or the Katz translations as a good balance.
I don’t care if English trans is clunky. What is this quest for smooth transition. I don’t believe Dostoevsky!s writing was smooth. To force a smooth English trans is distortion. What I’m saying is I liked P & V. The entire works I’ve read have a very old Russia feel which i like. For Americans, Russians are complex, don’t always make sense kind of people. That’s what’s interesting about Russians. There is always too much going on in the minds of Russians from American point of view. Anyways, I’m now reading Michael Katz Trans of the Brothers karamazov.
The translation question comes down to what you're trying to capture or replicate. Is it a reading experience? Is it a lyrical or musical effect of the language and of its sounds? Is it Russian diction and syntax? Some English-language readers prefer translations of Dostoevsky to sound Russian; others prefer a translation to sound natural in its target language. Translators who aim for a smoother, more natural-sounding English aren't trying to erase the distinctiveness of Dostoevsky's language and style-that would be very difficult to do, in any case. They are trying instead to replicate in English what Dostoevsky's Russian readers might experience. A Russian reader (even more so a Russian reader in the 1880s) would rarely experience Dostoevsky's language as _oddly foreign_. If readers of an English translation have that alienating experience, they are experiencing something that isn't so much a feature of Dostoevsky's own writing as it is an artifact of the translator's decisions. Trying to avoid that result isn't the only choice, but it is a reasonable choice.
I’ve set my intentions on reading the brothers karamzov, but I ran across a tiktok talking about different translation and their pros and cons. That raised an issue, so now I’m stuck. What would be the best recommendation for me?
Well, my view is that the best translation for you is the one that encourages you to keep reading. If you are still undecided after the video, I'd recommend starting with one of these three: Ignat Avsey, Michael Katz, or David McDuff.
Ha! True enough. I initially recorded these videos for some of my students, but I figured I might as well share them for those who might find them useful.
That depends on what you think of as "the real essence." Either of those translations could serve you well. The McDuff is smoother and more natural; the Pevear and Volokhonsky chooses to emphasize (some would say exaggerate) the strangeness of Dostoevsky's syntax and diction.
Just started reading The Brothers Karamazov and notice that Dostoevsky can be verbose and repetitive and so on and so forth. He drops in common phases, as it were, that don't really need to be there, so to speak, to get his point across. Yet even though Dostoevsky worries, as it were, that the reader will put down the book and never pick it up again because he wastes fruitless words and precious time, so to speak, I will keep reading and reading and so on and so forth.
This is true to a point, though it's important to remember that some of the features of the style are the narrator's, not Dostoevsky's. There may be good reasons for a narrator to be awkward or repetitive.
