Dostoevsky

>read Crime and Punishment, then The Idiot, then Demons, then The Brothers Karamazov
Thanks!
>David McDuff is the best translator of Dostoevsky
I've heard good things about him. Are there any other superb Dostoevsky translators? What are your thoughts on P&V?

Glad somebody shared my experience. The first part of the book was cringe, the second part of the book was hilarious, and the final part of the book was heartbreaking. But the book, overall, didn't shake me to my core or anything.

I already felt like I dealt with radical materialism and its emotional consequences, especially with the rise and fall of the internet atheism in the last decade. It would be nice if somebody who was unnerved by this book could share their feelings.

>Are there any similar works of literature by other authors?
If you want books that are a psychological study of neurotic characters with underlying political, emotional, and ethical themes, then read Hunger by Knut Hamsun.

I nearly forgot to ask; is The Idiot as funny as Notes from Underground?

>If you want books that are a psychological study of neurotic characters with underlying political, emotional, and ethical themes, then read Hunger by Knut Hamsun.
Sounds like my cup of tea. Which translation do you recommend?

I have tried to read P&V, their translation of Notes and C&P. Disliked both, but especially disliked the Notes translation.

>is The Idiot as funny as Notes from Underground?
It can be. If you're an atheist with a narrow worldview then you might get annoyed by the rest of Dosto's work.

>Sounds like my cup of tea. Which translation do you recommend?
Obsessing over translations is largely a waste of time unless you find the reading experience to be jarring. THEN it might be a good idea to check something else out.

I read the Penguin-published translation and it was great. Now that's a book that will really test you.

Alright, I'll pick up the Penguin Classics edition sometime. Although your "[n]ow that's a book that will really test you" comment has made me curious; is it a mixture of gloom and comedy, like Kafka and Notes from Underground, or pure misery?

I don't think either description is mutually exclusive. For me, misery outweighed comedy.
I guess you'll have to read the book to see how it affects you.

Pevear and Volokhonsky is just a marketing label, like Beats headphones. It's not about content or quality, it's about making the consumers picture themselves discerning connoisseurs. That's why they put all that junk about the translation on the cover. I won't be surprised if it is found that ghost writers have been doing the main work now. Also, I'm not sure whether Oprah came first, and their business plan second, or vice versa.

Why do publishers need a fresh translation? Because they get the copy rights. Classic books sell, and it's nice to have a virtual contract with someone on the scale of Tolstoy that way. However, anyone can print a public domain text at a minimum price, and that's why Garnett is their main enemy. In every article/advertisement that praises them, it's shitty old Garnett vs perfect modern P&V (as if millions of people who enjoyed her translations in the 20th century, including top writers, were somehow too stupid to notice). They really care to never mention that many other translations exist, and that the development of theory and practice of translation has never stopped, because these are their direct competitors, and P&V look quite amateurish when they are seen in the whole context.

Links to serious reviews were posted many times: warosu.org/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=pevearsion

Attached: pasta-chef-picture_csp2096051.jpg (432x470, 26K)

I like Constance Garnett.

>P.S. Is the P&V hatred a meme? I've seen lots of people accuse them of being too literal, but I didn't have any problems with their translation of Notes. In fact, it was a fairly easy read. I'm considering picking up their translation of The Idiot. Should I?
P&V's translations are fine, but not the best. I just finished the same edition you read, and other books translated by P&V and they get the job done.

> no one is perfect, still, get yourself P&V
Begone, shill. Mexican immigrants translating from Russian in a sweatshop also get the job done — if you don't care about the nuances. The question is how their media praise corresponds to reality, and it is perfectly valid.

languagehat.com/another-pevear-peeve/

fuck off cunt

google.ca/amp/s/johnpistelli.com/2016/06/04/in-defense-of-pevear-and-volokhonsky/amp/

>muh liver

These histrionics are the reason I ignored the P&V hatred and read their translation of NFU. I know this is pasta but I'm going to dissect this nonsense anyway. First of all, P&V put out their first translation in 1990 and Oprah didn't endorse them until 2004. Between 1990 and 2004 they put out over a dozen translations, and many of those translations received glowing reviews. Andrei Navrozov, a Russian who was born and raised in Russia, loved their translation of The Brothers Karamazov and believed it was the best English translation of TBK ever written. Joseph Frank, the leading expert on Dostoevsky who wrote the definitive Dostoevsky biography, said of P&V's translation of TBK "[I] [h]eartily [recommend] [it] to any reader who wishes to come as close to Dostoevsky’s Russian as it is possible." Numerous Slavic scholars endorsed P&V's TBK translation before it found a publisher. I could post tons of other examples of the praise P&V have received, but I think these examples are strong enough to make my point.

As for all of the rambling about publishers, it's undeniably true that publishers pump out new translations for profit. It's also undeniably true that P&V are heavily marketed. But none of that automatically disqualifies P&V's translations. As for the ghost-writer claim, you need to provide some solid sources. Even the biggest P&V critics don't accuse them of relying on ghost-writers.

As for P&V lovers talking about Garnett nonstop, you P&V critics are equally guilty of this. The Pevearsion article rips apart every little thing about P&V but defends and/or ignores Garnett's glaring flaws. For example, Gary Saul Morson loves to mock P&V's translation methods but carefully neglects to mention Garnett's. What were hers? She treated translating like marathon running. She would try to get it done as fast as possible, and if she came across a word or sentence that would've been difficult to translate she would cut it out. She also wrote everything in her own style, completely ignoring the prose style of whoever she translated. There's a good reason Joseph Brodsky said "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.” To be fair, Garnett is underappreciated in today's world. Her work exposed millions of people to great Russian authors, and she was a talented writer. However, it's still ridiculous that Morson heaps praise on such a blatantly flawed translator and at the same time rips apart every single aspect of P&V.

I'm not claiming P&V are perfect. Hell, I've only read one of their translations. What I'm doing is showing that the debates that surround P&V and Garnett are a lot more nuanced than you, and Morson, make them out to be. Hopefully, this wall of text will lead to some actual discussion instead of the usual "lol P&V suck. here's an article. bye," memes.

Okay.

Crime and Punishment is next level Notes.

Is it as funny and fascinating?

Yes, Raskolnikov goes further down the hole than the underground man.

Reading The Idiot right now, about 60 pages in. My first Dostoyevsky book ever. Even though not much has happened so far, I'm quite enjoying it. I'm not sure if it's the way Dostoyevsky writes that's captivating me or the content of the conversations of the characters, but something makes me want to keep reading. This is after reading the first 30 or so pages of The Road and having to stop because there was something cringe about it.

Which translation? I'm thinking about reading The Idiot this month.

I read the Idiot a few years ago and thought it was Dostoyevsky's best work.

I'm reading the free PDF on planetbook.com and it doesn't say who translated it but it reads clearly enough

The best translators of Dostoevsky are the ones who get the most hate on Yea Forums -- P&V and Constance Garnett. Stick with P&V if you want something that sounds more Russian and maintains close fidelity to Dostoevsky's style, down to maintaining the roughness of his prose which other translators smooth out. Give Garnett a try if you'd prefer a less literal translation that reads like a great English novel (P&V's approach does occasionally result in some odd, rather exotic renderings, though I'd argue that people exaggerate this).

The translators Yea Forums suggests are always middling nobodies who are only suggested because they're not P&V or Constance Garnett, both of whom posters here have been conditioned to despise due to sensationalist propaganda written by one camp or the other (anti-P&V articles are all written by Garnett supporters, and anti-Garnett articles are all written by P&V supporters). Don't take these people seriously.

P&V are Lattimore. Garnett is Pope.

The Idiot is a bit of a slow burn so be patient. The ending is worth it.

>P&V are Lattimore. Garnett is Pope.
Then give me the Fagles and be done with it.

>Garnett is Pope.
That settles it then. P&V is the better translation.

Garnett's translation is “I am a spiteful man”. Anybody have an argument for which translation is better?

Which one makes more sense:
Garnett
>I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I can't explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot "pay out" the doctors by not consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don't consult a doctor it is from spite. My liver is bad, well—let it get worse!

P&V
>I am a sick man . . . I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts. However, I don't know a fig about my sickness, and am not sure what it is that hurts me. I am not being treated and never have been, though I respect medicine and doctors. What’s more, I am also superstitious in the extreme; well, at least enough to respect medicine. (I'm sufficiently educated not to be superstitious, but I am.) No, sir, I refuse to be treated out of wickedness. Now, you will certainly not be so good as to understand this. Well, sir, but I understand it. I will not, of course, be able to explain to you precisely who is going to suffer in this case from my wicked- ness; I know perfectly well that I will in no way “muck things up” for the doctors by not taking their treatment; I know better than anyone that by all this I am harming only myself and no one else. But still, if I don’t get treated, it is out of wickedness. My liver hurts; well, then let it hurt even worse!

The P&V one objectively makes less sense to an English reader even if it’s more “literal”. The opening paragraph is conveying spite; changing it to “wickedness” even if that’s arguably a more “accurate” choice causes the meaning to get muddled to the English reader.

What if I don't want to be told that someone is spiteful and rather would infer that that person is spiteful? I think the second version is less cheesy, in that we can see that the narrator is spiteful, and that the narrator is aware of this himself, but he isn't going to just tell you that because why would he?

Does anyone know who translated the copy on Project Gutenberg?

gutenberg.org/ebooks/600

That’s the original Garnett one. You can compare it with others here:
web.archive.org/web/20131109182920/http://comparetranslations.com/index.php?page=2&id=241

>The opposite of zloy is dóbryi, "good," as in "good fairy" (dóbraya féla). This opposition is of great importance for Notes from Underground; indeed it frames the book, from "I am a wicked man" at the start to the outburst close to the end: "They won't let me .. I can't be .. good."

>We can talk forever about the inevitable loss of nuance in translating from Russian into English (or any other language into any other), but the translation of zloy as 'spiteful' instead of 'wicked' is not inevitable, nor is it a matter of nuance. It speaks for that habit of substituting the psychological for the moral, of interpreting a spiritual condition as a type of behavior, which has so bedeviled our century, not least in its efforts to understand Dostoevsky

This is Pevear's defense, and I find it convincing. The word "zloy" literally means "wicked" or "evil". You can check any online Russian dictionary if you doubt it. The simple fact is you prefer Constance Garnett's prose to Dostoevsky's, and no, this isn't a matter of literalism vs. comprehensibility. "I am a sick man, I am a wicked man" is perfectly comprehensible. You just don't like it. "I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man" is iconic because Constance Garnett's translation is iconic, and therefore any alternative seems wrong to many English speakers, but it isn't wrong. It's the best translation of a word that can be easily rendered into English with "wicked". It's fine to favor comprehensibility over strict literalism, but this shouldn't mean changing the meaning or the writer's style and idiosyncrasies to appeal to your own aesthetic preferences.

I actually prefer this translation over Garnett, since, as you mentioned, it adds spiritual weight to the passage while leaving room for inferring behavior.

That does explain why they translated “I refuse to be treated out of злocти (zlosti)” and “if I don’t get treated, it is out of злocти” when “злocти” is far closer to anger and spite than “wickedness”.

Attached: 527781B8-9C00-4EE6-9A14-22F651E35D78.png (1125x2436, 276K)

*doesn’t explain guess that’s what I get for phoneposting

Top one is what Dostoevsky wrote, I don't know what you mean by the other one being more literal.

Because its a confession, wickedness literally make 0 sense at all.

I don't know. This Russian speaking translation blogger seems to favor "wicked" or "evil" for "zloy" but also agree with you that "spitefulness" would be better for "zlosti":

russellv.com/2018/05/20/on-first-words/

Obviously, no translation is going to be perfect, but P&V seem to be the best of all the available translators, as they remain truest to the Russian and don't smooth out Dostoevsky's edges, which is crucial given his emphasis on capturing the unique rhythms of his speakers.

How does it make zero sense? Why wouldn't wickedness make sense in a confession? If anything, it makes perfect sense from a Christian point of view, which is exactly where Dostoevsky is coming from. Spitefulness is one of many behaviors that manifested from the wickedness that festered within the Underground Man. Despite it not being spelled out for you, you can still clearly see that he is being "spiteful" in neglecting his health, but to call all of his wickedness "spite" would ignore how he reached that state of depravity in the first place. The "wickedness" elevates the moral and spiritual dimension to the forefront of the passage, which would be somewhat lost if we were to focus on the behavior for the sake of behavior.

>russellv.com/2018/05/20/on-first-words/
After reading this, I now think that wickedness and spite are good choices, and that they should have been both used when appropriate. Perhaps the opening and closing sentences should have been "wicked", while the middle sentences should have elaborated that "spite" was the specific instance of said wickedness.

"I won't go to the doctor out of wickedness" baka that makes no sense nigga

> P&V seem to be the best of all the available translators, as they remain truest to the Russian and don't smooth out Dostoevsky's edges, which is crucial given his emphasis on capturing the unique rhythms of his speakers.

What a load of bullshit. It looks like shills are on scramble in this thread, isn't it?

I further clarified that I now believe that spite would have made sense for this instance, which coincidentally is where zlosti instead of zloy is used. But I think opening and closing that paragraph with wickedness would have been a good choice too.

Which translation of TBK should I go for?

No argument whatsoever, just insults. Typical anti-P&V memer. Either come up with an actual argument or piss off, you dullard.

I haven’t read P&V for Dostoevsky, but I thought their War & Peace was great (and I’ve read some Tolstoy in Russian for comparison, although my Russian is pretty mediocre). I think hating them is mostly just an opinion people parrot because they think it makes them seem more discerning.

To answer your other question, Dostoevsky’s other stuff is worth reading, but none of it is nearly as funny as the first half of Notes from Underground, except perhaps The Double, which is similar in many ways.

You are using Reddit discussion techniques on Yea Forums. Who the fuck taught you PR?

Come up with an argument, you worthless faggot.

I've read mcduff and had no problems

P&V if you want something that stays really faithful to Dosto's erratic style. Garnett if you want something that reads like an early 20th century British novel. McDuff if you want something that has smoother English than P&V and is more accurate than Garnett.

Underground man is a classic Dostoevskian character. All of them do what he does in one way or another: they say one thing about themselves, then immediately swing to the opposite, exposing their inner dialogue and the ironical "electric self" of the conscious person.

"I am a great man, a saint!"
"No. Truly I am a loathsome creature!"

It's very Shakesperian.

I've read Avsey. It was good enough

but zloy can also mean angry. I think wicked angry is spite

I know that the wicked/spiteful comparison gets brought up regularly to slam P&V (I think there was an article?), but without knowing Russian I can't say much about which is more correct, but I can say that when I first read the book I read Garnett, and the first part of the novella always seemed stilted to me. I thought it natural that the underground man's literary ambitions and delusions would cause him to monologue in a lofty unnatural way, but reading the P&V translation I'm struck by how much more convincingly it seems like natural speech.

For Idiot, it has to be either Myers or McDuff. When I was reading Myers, I'd often jump to P&V and the original to compare interesting passages, and I found P&V ridden with problems and quite annoying on top of that.

>Я чeлoвeк бoльнoй... Я злoй чeлoвeк. Heпpивлeкaтeльный я чeлoвeк. Я дyмaю, чтo y мeня бoлит пeчeнь. Bпpoчeм, я ни шишa нe cмыcлю в мoeй бoлeзни и нe знaю нaвepнo, чтo y мeня бoлит. Я нe лeчycь и никoгдa нe лeчилcя, хoтя мeдицинy и дoктopoв yвaжaю. К тoмy жe я eщe и cyeвepeн дo кpaйнocти; нy, хoть нacтoлькo, чтoб yвaжaть мeдицинy. (Я дocтaтoчнo oбpaзoвaн, чтoб нe быть cyeвepным, нo я cyeвepeн). Heт-c, я нe хoчy лeчитьcя co злocти. Boт вы этoгo, нaвepнo, нe извoлитe пoнимaть. Hy-c, a я пoнимaю. Я, paзyмeeтcя, нe cyмeю вaм oбъяcнить, кoмy имeннo я нacoлю в этoм cлyчae мoeй злocтью; я oтличнo хopoшo знaю, чтo и дoктopaм я никaк нe cмoгy «нaгaдить» тeм, чтo y них нe лeчycь; я лyчшe вcякoгo знaю, чтo вceм этим я eдинcтвeннo тoлькo ceбe пoвpeжy и никoмy бoльшe. Ho вce-тaки, ecли я нe лeчycь, тaк этo co злocти. Пeчeнкa бoлит, тaк вoт пycкaй жe ee eщe кpeпчe бoлит.

To be honest I prefer second translation. Except "fig" part. Garnett one seams pretty... bland if I may say so.
But the comment about the "wicked" or "evil" is also kinda wrong.
Word - "злoй" is sort of a spectrum between “full of anger”, and "the one that do bad things", and even more in that time frame of Dostoevsky. It could be weird, but the term "evil" is not that old in slavic languages, and even word "дoбpo", "good" came from the "wealth" not that long ago.
"Wicked" is something on par with "лихoй" or "лютый", not that it wrong to use it here. So I kind of like "spiteful" because it have wilder range than "wicked'.

Why does he give her money at the end?

It's incredibly clear Dostoevsky writes about spite, not wickedness, especially if you care to read the rest of the Notes. Underground Man is spiteful but not wicked, that's the central point of his character.

OH, LOOK. ANOTHER CUNT WHO BOUGHT INTO THE P&V HYPE. ERADICATE YOURSELF YOU CUNTING SHITFUCK.

I hated it honestly. It just reminded me of those austistic nerds that sniff their own farts because they're so much smarter and think they're edgy by being offensive and don't know how to behave in public or socialize

I was cringing to the end after the monologue.

wow that p&v translation is absolute cancer. I never realized just how important translation is until now.

Its basically a glimpse into the mind of everyone on Yea Forums

God, those invading shills kept to the same talking points without noticing they had been exposed.

> The translators Yea Forums suggests are always middling nobodies who are only suggested because they're not P&V or Constance Garnett
You need to return to hoaxing fat customers in a regular store. They are the only ones who can believe that absolutely nothing happened in the domain of translation in one hundred years. As I've said, the alternative that is just Garnett and P&V is totally fake, and pushed for marketing reasons.

> glowing reviews. Andrei Navrozov, a Russian who was born and raised in Russia… Joseph Frank, the leading expert on Dostoevsky… Numerous Slavic scholars
First of all, how did you make that list? Do you happen to know them personally, or is that just a retelling of what someone else has written?

This is also only impressive to hillbillies. Psychiatrists don't appraise surgeons, and surgeons don't appraise obstetricians. None of these is a translator, why is that? I hope some professional community still exists in English-speaking world, shouldn't anyone ask them for assessment?

It's no mystery why they like P&V translation. Brodsky, who was mentioned in passing, can serve as an explanation. Even his friends and admirers agreed that his self-translated English poetry is quite mediocre, and that other people did a better job. He wrote in English as if it was Russian, and it's the very “feature” that is now praised in advertisements for P&V. If you know Russian, you see it through broken English, if you only know English, you get broken English.

> I could post tons of other examples of the praise P&V have received, but I think these examples are strong enough to make my point.
You're shit. I hope they pay you enough for being called like that.

imagine being this mad over people liking a different translation lmao

>It's incredibly clear Dostoevsky writes about spite, not wickedness, especially if you care to read the rest of the Notes.
>They won't let me .. I can't be .. good.

Clearly...

>I think my liver hurts.
>My liver hurts; then let it hurt even worse.
P&V being trash is not a joke, wtf did I just read

Attached: puke.jpg (144x140, 4K)

While Garnett's sounds better in English, the point is that he doesn't trust his own senses enough to know whether or not his liver hurts, which P&V convey better with their more faithful rendering. The whole reason they decided to undertake their work is that they felt Dostoevsky's unique literary voice and sense of humor was lost in most English translations. Unlike previous translators, they retain the frantic, idiosyncratic prose and go to great efforts not to overly Anglicize his work. This occasionally results in some exotic sounding phrases, but it also allows the reader to actually hear the jokes and appreciate the unique voices of his characters and narrators. Try to imagine a French translator fixing the prose of Huck Finn and losing the regional Southern American twang, or Moby Dick and stripping away the grandeur and poetry of the prose of its narrator which is deeply influenced by Shakespeare and the King James Bible and its English literary heritage. They wouldn't be the same novels.

Who would you recommend in turn and why? What are the most distinguishing features of said translation? Are there any drawbacks? Why are the features better than the drawbacks?

This is all you've got? Lmao, absolutely pathetic. You're just as much of a brainlet as I thought.

>First of all, how did you make that list?
Google is a useful tool.
Andrei's review:
nytimes.com/1990/11/11/books/dostoyevsky-with-all-the-music.html
Where I found the Joseph Frank quote:
penguinrandomhouse.com/books/241840/the-brothers-karamazov-by-fyodor-dostoevsky-translated-by-richard-pevear-and-larissa-volokhonsky/9780679410034/
Where I found out numerous Slavic scholars endorsed P&V's translation of TBK:
newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars

>This is also only impressive to hillbillies. Psychiatrists don't appraise surgeons, and surgeons don't appraise obstetricians. None of these is a translator, why is that?
Your hypocrisy is mind-blowing. You relentlessly spam Gary Saul Morson's Pevearsion article, and Morson isn't a translator. If the people I mentioned are irrelevant to this discussion because they aren't translators then Morson is just as irrelevant. By the way, Andrei is the son of a translator.

> something that sounds more Russian and maintains close fidelity to Dostoevsky's style, down to maintaining the roughness of his prose which other translators smooth out

That's the kernel of all bullshit about P&V.

t. JBPcel

I've never read PV, but I don't really get this. I'm Russian, and I like Dostoevsky's prose. I wouldn't say it's rough or anything. It's kind of manic and insane sometimes, like some supreme gentleman, but it doesn't sound weird

…they don't have the concept of “style” at all. They translate word-for-word, and expect the sum of all parts become the whole that matches the original. That's top amateurishness for which they are criticized from day one. Only a delusional amateur would tell that translation is finding the world in vocabulary that matches the best. They produce lines that could've come from evil German or Russian from a Hollywood movie speaking with thick accent, and then blame it on Dostoevsky's “style”! Dostoevsky didn't wrote as a stuttering foreigner, and should be translated in literary language, but when he hit the hysterical notes, these notes must be rendered just as sharp.

Translators who take some part of text should, consciously or unconsciously, notice its mode and style, and place it relatively to as many modes and styles of original language as they know (theoretically, all of them), then find the mode and style of their native language that matches the relative position of original. (There are higher levels on which the work is sewn together, and they require getting into author's shoes.) Disregard for that result in hit or miss process that only the illiterates can find inspiring.

Take the most simple phrase, “he scratched his head”. Translated into Russian, it's “oн пoчecaл cвoю гoлoвy” [mind that stupid Yea Forums corrupts Russian characters]. Is it correct? Yes. Is in good? No, absolutely everyone who studies language can tell you that Russian doesn't require articles and pronouns as strongly as English does, it's “his” head by default. Therefore, “oн пoчecaл гoлoвy” (“he scratched head”). It is better, but still wrong, because the character doesn't simply scratch his head, he does “the common thing people do when they are puzzled”, and it is stated with “the common phrase that means just that”. He may not even physically do anything with his head (so far as imaginary characters can do something “physically”). The common phrase that means that in Russian is “пoчecaть в зaтылкe” (“scratch one's nape”), and the result should be “oн пoчecaл в зaтылкe”. “He scratched his head” and “oн пoчecaл в зaтылкe” are different phrases, but they mean exactly the same, and that constitutes a good translation.

If Pevear and Volokhonsky practive what they preach, they should translate “чecaть в зaтылкe” as “scratch one's nape” on each occasion. Without doubt, the reviewers would praise their attention to exotic Russian specifics, as to that ritual of scratching the nape in which everyone from peasants to tsars takes part.

Attached: Wassilij_Grigorjewitsch_Perow_004.jpg (2048x1333, 2.02M)

I repeat: the question is not about Garnett, spit into the face of anyone who posts that name when P&V are discussed. The question is how their translations are assessed professionally. And the elephant in the room is that a Coca-Cola of translations conquered the English-speaking word by pure marketing, and that the ones who got fooled defend it.

You're shit, and your canned response is shit. I hope they pay you enough for being called like that.

P&V would benefit from learning that “бoлит” is not just “in pain”, as it most often is in modern Russian, but also means “ill” in general (thank gods we have Dal's dictionary composed in the same era great Russians wrote; why won't one fucking use it?). The narrator clearly cares not just about his liver, but about the effects of its illness. You can even happen to be educated just enough to remember that humoral theory, or its revised versions, still affected the common stereotypes about person's temperament.

web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body1/liverpages/livergallbladderspleen.html

More like Poo & Vagina

>Try to imagine a French translator fixing the prose of Huck Finn and losing the regional Southern American twang, or Moby Dick and stripping away the grandeur and poetry of the prose of its narrator
fair point user

The key to understanding P&V's popularity is the eternal burger.
>low-quality shilled as the best
>validation by obsessive marketing
>double validation by burger "scholars" and the burger media
It's okay to read P&V versions of Russian novels and it's obviously better than the progressing non-readership, but don't think that by choosing them you'll get anything special. Don't fall for the lies of the publishing marketing machine as there are other translations for each and every Russian novel that are guaranteed to be better than the P&V least common denominator.

Not really, there is a part: "Bпpoчeм, я ни шишa нe cмыcлю в мoeй бoлeзни и нe знaю нaвepнo, чтo y мeня бoлит"; "However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me."; "However, I don't know a fig about my sickness, and am not sure what it is that hurts me." Where he clearly talking about his illness in one part, and that it hurts him in second. To use it two times make no sense.
Then again, I've only seen one paragraph in the thread and can't judge P&V or Garnett quality, but even if there is some questions I can agree with you, you are kinda picking on P&V.

>le P&V is bad :XDD
Back to rebbits faggot

It has taken me 2 months to read that book.

How would you try to redeem NFL's main character? At 40 its too late but during his 20s he could be saved, though his mind is so warped.

So I've learned that MacDuff > Garnett >>> P&V

>avoids addressing the argument presented
>doesn't present a counterargument
>only makes an edgy comment
P&V are exactly what reddit would recommend.
What do you think about this example, user? warosu.org/lit/thread/S11558064#p11560601

>Jewish characters in Dostoevsky's works have been described as displaying negative stereotypes
DOSTOEVSKY NO!

P&V is shit. Translating "бecoвcкий" as "demoniacal" in this context is googletranslate-tier
t. Russian.

it's never too late if you want salvation

> It would be nice if somebody who was unnerved by this book could share their feelings.
not really unnerved, rather that i share certain aspects, e.g. that im a sad little loser especially when drunk. in a cetain sense its kinda encouraging to know that this is somewhat of an archetype, given how people seem to react to the whole book.

i agreed, i was unnerved because it helped open my eyes to certain behaviors of my own that were in a very real sense kind of spiteful rebellions against myself and how ultimately self-destructive i was

Not really. Rather tragic.

Not the religious kind

Thanks for the input. I guess I noticed that too, but I felt more relieved that the worst of those tendencies had melted away by the time I started reading literature seriously.

i totally understand that too. I still found parts of it hilarious, especially the dinner party. But that didn't stop it from unnerving me at the same time.

I recognize this manner of explaining Russian prose.

How's the Japanese going?