[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

/lit/ Literature

Warning: All the content of this page originally come from 4chan.org. This is only a partial archive made to avoid destruction. Some posts and images may be missing. All the messages below have been posted by anonymous users and we do not guarantee any truth of what they said.
For any illegal content, please contact me so that I can immediatly destroy it!

Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:34:56 No.7422194

[Missing image file: ]

Are these two the best translators of Dostoevsky? The wife has done of a ton of translation work of Russian theology, and the husband is writer and poet and has independently translated a decent amount of Russian stuff on his own before they met. She makes a translation as literal as possible and preserves the syntax, then he molds her work into something that makes sense in English and is actually good writing on top of that. Seems to work pretty well.


>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:39:21 No.7422211
>>7422194
>translations

sure is reddit in here

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:40:12 No.7422214
i prefer constance garnett. i've compared a lot of translators, and from a purely english speaking opinion, none of them flow as elegantly as garnett for me. volokhonsky and pevear seem so chunky and clunky. i know the literal translation argument, but we're already quite far away from the original russian, so why not let a bit of aesthetics into the equation if only to make the reading a more pleasurable experience? you're really not going to miss out on anything either way except minute subtleties that pretty much require knowledge of russian idiosyncracies and a pretty general understanding of the language and culture.

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:40:14 No.7422215
How new are you?

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:41:30 No.7422217
>>7422214
Read the New Yorker article on them for what they have to say about Garnett, it's more than just subtleties.

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:43:24 No.7422222
>>7422217
i have read it, several times. and it is mainly subtleties. in tolstoy, she had trouble fully translating the novel, but aside from that even volokhonsky and pevear show utter respect for her capabilities as a russian translator, and i can show you a video in which they say it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ykytca6Y8

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:45:06 No.7422235
>>7422222
nice

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:47:03 No.7422245
>>7422194
always go with mcduff

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:47:16 No.7422248
>>7422217
almost all new editions are revised garnett translations and she does have the best prose of all the translators/writers.

>>
Anonymous 2015-12-05 00:49:01 No.7422255
/lit/ hates alternativey on P&V and on Garnett. I've read several books either by P&V and Garnett and McAndrews, I have to say P&V are not bad if you're studying the text, but for personal enjoyment McAndrews is the best. Garnett is p bad. The best idea is to ask around for particular translations of particular texts. The P&V Notes from the Underground is p terrible, fwiw.







[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

Contact me | All the content on this website come from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Dofus quêtes

Page loaded in 0.023874 seconds.