This book sucked ass. Why does anyone like this boring garbage?

If you read what I actually said... In the third sentence I said that I read the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation. You really should read what you are responding to rather than assuming it.

>p&v

WTF, did I wander into bizarro Yea Forums unknowingly? It's been a while since I saw anyone recommend the fucking p&v translation lmao

Attached: 1566995789513.jpg (640x559, 23K)

>thinking Yea Forums's fickle and uninformed opinions mean anything

some of you guys are genuinely incapable of thinking for yourselves

I'd strongly recommend reading the David McDuff translation instead of Katz. But if you do really want to read Katz the Norton Critical Edition which has his translation but with better and more detailed explanatory footnotes and scholarly essays than the edition you posted is the best option.

If I had to rank the translations for C&P I'd say it goes:
David McDuff>Jessie Coulson>Michael Katz or Oliver Ready>P&V

Attached: A1pETcqnvsL.jpg (1593x2385, 1.4M)

it's so weird how you guys favor these also-fan translators and present your rankings as authoritative despite university departments still using p&v and russian scholars insisting they're the best.

it would be one thing if you guys just favored non-literal translations, which is fine, but you praise mcduff, who is a literal translator, and shit on a non-literal translator like garnett for "errors" that are more or less inevitable if your translation method emphasizes readability over strict literalism.

it comes across like you guys don't have a clue what you're talking about and are extremely susceptible to suggestion and just want to have an opinion that isn't going to offend anyone.

>p&v's work comes out and is a big hit
>articles are written criticizing garnett who was the old standard
>Yea Forums jumps on the bandwagon and shits on anyone who suggests anything but p&v

>some time passes, new translations are released and being marketed, contrarian attitudes set in
>articles are written criticizing p&v who were garnett's successors, and some of these are written by fans of garnett
>Yea Forums jumps on the bandwagon but ignores the garnett stuff because they feel they might be criticized for that, too, so they choose middling safer translators recommended by nobody who matters and act as if these are the only acceptable choices

i swear to god this place is filled with some of the biggest retards on the planet.

>also-fan

*also-ran

Remove all female characters except the two he dispatched and its a masterpiece

>it’s

>it comes across like you guys don't have a clue what you're talking about and are extremely susceptible to suggestion and just want to have an opinion that isn't going to offend anyone.

Bingo! That's why there are so many translation threads. If these people were genuinely this autistically obsessed with this stuff, they would just learn the language, or at least read multiple translations of the same work, but they're not going to do that because they don't actually care about literature. They just want to make sure that they have right translation so that when they post in a shelf/stack thread, no one criticizes their choice. All of Yea Forums's opinions are determined by whether or not they are going to be seen as "patrician" by a group of pretentious, monolingual, semi-literate pseudos on Yea Forums. Sad.

i have only read one translation because i really enjoyed it and i have a bunch of other books to read not to mention other hobbys you spergling

>despite university departments still using p&v
That sounds like an appeal to authority.

>russian scholars insisting they're the best
[citation needed]

>p&v's work comes out and is a big hit
You can thank the publishers and marketing for that, just because it's the most widely available edition/translation doesn't mean it's the best.

>[citation needed]

>Pevear and Volokhonsky had in the meantime armed themselves with enthusiastic letters of endorsement from some of the country’s best Slavic scholars—including Victor Terras, at Brown; Robert Louis Jackson, at Yale; Robert Belknap, from Columbia; and Joseph Frank, Dostoyevsky’s supreme biographer, from Stanford—and sent the manuscript out to Holt, Harcourt Brace, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, and a couple of others.

newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars

Garnett is still the best.

>That sounds like an appeal to authority.
I’d rather accept the opinions of actual experts than yours you fucking faggot

>Terras, at Brown;
>Jackson, at Yale;
>Belknap, from Columbia;
>Frank, Dostoyevsky’s supreme biographer, from Stanford
>Harcourt Brace, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, and a couple of others.
These don't appear to be Russian names or institutions.

>Constance Garret's "translation" lmao
i.e. the only good translation

>reads essays and footnotes on fiction
>doesn't include the best translation in ranking

>This book sucked ass. Why does anyone like this boring garbage?

Attached: 1517639533771s.jpg (218x231, 7K)

I first read it in 2005. Rereading it now. I beseech you, OP, to reread Part 3, Chapter V again. It is probably the most incredible "novel of ideas" chapter I've ever read. So amazing.

**SPOILERS** DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T READ C&P!!!!
----
>Raskolnikov and his autistic/encouraging/intelligent friend Razumikhin go to see Porfiry Petrovich, the police investigator.
>Raskolnikov wants to inquire about retrieving some of his previously pawned possessions from the pawnbroker, whom he has murdered.
>Razumikhin has loose suspicions about his friend, and is a relative of Petrovich, so encourages him to inquire (with the private hope that Raskolnikov coming forward will dismiss the fledgling rumours that Raskolnikov was involved in the murders), since he has previously informed Raskolnikov that Petrovic has interviewed all people who pawned items with the murdered woman.
>What follows is a brilliant interview between the clever, arrogant, and semi-mad Raskolnikov and the brilliant Petrovich, wherein the police detective brings up an article the former student has written about the rights and duties of "great men" (as opposed to the unoriginal masses) to commit crimes to achieve their overarching goals..."to remove obstacles," as it's phrased.
>Raskolnikov eloquently defends his article, albeit surprised that the detective knows about it at all.
>The detective politely grills Raskolnikov on the implications of possibly unoriginal men mistaking themselves for great men, and "removing obstacles" (committing crimes such as murdering a pawnbroker).
>All this occurs with Zamyotov (another officer who Raskolnikov earlier teased with insightful knowledge about the murders) and Razumikhin in the room.
It is an absolutely fantastic bit of writing. Part 3, chapter V, friends.

This is going to piss off Yea Forums but I agree with you OP.

Dostoevsky in general is trash. He is on the same tier as Dickens. Soap opera serial bullshit for housewives, yet for some reason he is revered as some philosophical genius.
There's only like 2 or 3 good novels ever. All great literature is either short stories or poetry.

i'm so p.o.'d at you right now, user

Imagine reading a book in a language it wasn't written in lmao

>hasn't read C&P
>hasn't read Notes from Underground
>hasn't read The Idiot
>hasn't read House of the Dead
>hasn't read Devils
Please, kindly escort your pseud ass out of this thread.

pretty much every great writer disagrees with you

lmao roflmao

The fact that he could have gotten away with literal murder but actively chose not to, triggers me to no end. What a fucking cuck.

>I could've done it... easily. What a fucking cuck

Attached: 847169841228430465.jpg (600x817, 47K)

>not wanting to do time is a fedora thing to do
Go post Chesterton quotes on Facebook or something you fucking nerd.

Yes user I'm sure you have murdered and know that it's pretty easy to deal with the psychological pressure and subsequent guilt
Imagine missing the point of a literary piece so fucking hard

Dealing with guilt is easier than eating water soup and dodging prison dick for decades.

Please, leave this board.

if you find it boring then maybe this type of literature is simply not for you.

Luckily I don't give a fuck what they think.

I had not read a book since high school and on a whim decided to start reading some classics. Started Dosto with Notes from Underground and I was amazed, continued with C&P, it's great also. There's so many great scenes, the meetings of Raskolnikov and Porfiry, the time where Raskolnikov leaves his family and Razumkin suddenly understands WHY, Luzhin trying to frame Sonia for stealing the 100 roubles banknote, Raskolnikov confessing to Sonia... When Raskolnikov talks about Katerina Ivanova to Sonia and despite everything she still defends her and just keeps going "she's just like a kid!", and when during Luzhin's accusation Katerina completely refuses to believe Sonia's guilt despite the at the time heavy proofs, and she hugs her and pleads for help... I don't know how the fuck you can say this book is "garbage".

Holy shit, what a badass. Dostosvsky BTFO

Too many pointless subplots. The story could have been told in a concise 250 pages instead of 600.
Even better, it would have been a brilliant 90 page novella.
Crime and Punishment is just further proof that the novel is an inferior artform. Read the short stories of Chekhov if you want to see what Dostoevsky only dreamed he could do.

Shut the fuck up already, idiot.

Yes indeed, so many great scenes. The ones you mentioned between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin, and when Sonya is being framed by Luzhin but gets BTFO again were some of my favorites. Also the Svidrigailov chapter was another one I personally enjoyed.

The axe is backwards.

True enough, but that doesn't make it any less of a fallacious argument.

I haven't read every single translation, I do plan on reading more when I'm in the mood for more Russki literature.

>I like to suck ass

Yea Forums has a spoiler tag

THIS

How stupid would you have to be to design a cover like that?

Just finished it and I feel the exact same way. Now I don't know who the fuck to trust for recommending books that are ACTUALLY good.

what are some novels that you loved?

What if the cover is depicting Lizaveta's? Ever think of that?

ITT: monolingual anglos circlejerk about translations

All the scenes with Porfriry interviewing are gold

That cover triggers me to no end. Rodya killed her with the butt end of the axe

Does him killing Lizaveta distract from the themes of the book? It's easy and expected to feel guilty for murdering an 'innocent' bystander.

I read that Dostoevsky intended the book to be a critique of extreme rationalist thought at the time and show the virtue of religion. I don't subscribe to these things but I still immensely enjoyed the displayed psychology and intimacy of Raskolnikov. Anyone else feel the same?

No, not at all. The protag expresses regret about it, but the central point isn't detracted from.
And I only brought up Lizaveta because she is killed with the axe properly, not with the back of it.

That would be reverse engineering. I doubt the designer even read the book.

Agreed. To me the book was mainly about the death of religion a la Nietzsche, but Dosto did it earlier of course.

Yes I got that, I just used your post as a 'speaking of...'
What is the central point? Rodja is enamored with a world view that allows 'great men' to do whatever they want and wants this for himself but is ultimately too weak for this ideology. He still decides to kill the pawn broker - a sub human in his eyes - and during this murder he is interrupted by Lizaveta who did is clearly NOT subhuman or beneath him in any form. At this point I'm thinking maybe Dostoevsky stumbled upon some truth that he didn't intend to find and thought he had to include this obvious moral failure in the form of Lizaveta. If his goal was to discredit Rodja's skewed perspective it arguably would have been more effective to show to focus on the ideology-inspired misdeed exclusively.

It's been some time since I've read the book though and I don't quite remember the finer details. Just some idle thoughts.

That's actually a rather insightful suggestion...that Dostoyevsky found a snag to his theory but his instinct was to brush it off. But, in composing the novel, couldn't completely ignore it and leave it unaddressed, so had the "simple-minded" and certainly innocent Lizaveta return and unintentionally become an impediment to Raskolnikov. Isn't that something?
Perhaps that is what caught him: that most people, neither great nor simple, just wish to live their lives in peace without becoming entangled in the schemes and ambitions of "great" men...and the snag is that many of these peaceful, harmless, productive people must be destroyed for the ambitions of the great...