> What's the thing about russians and noses?

Well. https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/g/gogol/nikolai/g61n/

I'd always had an impression of classical Russian writing as being impenetrable, but this was delightful. Thank you!

I wonder how much of that has to do with it having been translated by people of that period into a classical style of that period. For recent history, maybe that yields "official" translations that are into an older English form that is harder for modern people to read.

For example, is a 19th century translation of an ancient Greek text also somewhat impenetrable compared to a more contemporary translation? How much of the problem is that the translation may not target English as we expect it in its current common form?

Is it common (possible?) to find "from scratch" translations from the last 30-40 years of classical Russian literature?

Apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pevear_and_Larissa_Vol... have made translations of Dostoyevsky which are eminently more readable than the rest. I've started reading their translation of The Master and Margarita and I'm enjoying it a lot.

> I've started reading their translation of The Master and Margarita and I'm enjoying it a lot.

I'll have to check that out - I enjoyed their War & Peace. I found Ginsburg's translation of The Master and Margarita to be unreadably bad. There was just no joy in it whatsoever, to the point where I was wondering why it was such a famous book. It's been a while, but I recall the adjective use being terribly wooden. So many sentences with the basic structure "X walked down the long broad beautiful street. He spoke with the tall bespectacled bearded man" etc. It was quite tiresome.

It has a ton of footnotes explaining the background and in-jokes on the specific names and characters invoked. They really enrich the novel in ways that a non-religiously educated person like me would miss. The preface is really excellent too.

Well, there for sure are rows over the best translation of, say, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Hays for the enthusiasts, Long for the classicists.

There are different ones, and Gogol is IMHO one of the best ones and probably easiest ones too. His works are still widely enjoyed and quoted, which is not exactly the case with many other "classical" works, which are studied in schools but often fail to connect with a modern reader. His humor and satire is arguably as relevant now as it was back when it was written. I have no idea how it translates (it'd be a hard work indeed to properly represent his style, no idea whether even possible) but if there's a good translation that's the one I'd recommend to somebody who finds other classics impenetrable.

Check out Daniil Kharms too - http://www.sevaj.dk/kharms/stories/noteb10.htm

Gogol, Kharms and Bulgakov (The Master and Margarita, Heart of a Dog) are my three defaults for Russian literature. There’s that feeling of teetering on the edge of chaos that I love.

I don't think it's a uniquely Russian thing. I think it has more to do with the scale of bronze statuary. Busts have accessible noses, but feet are easier to reach on full figures. My university in the United States had a bust of Abraham Lincoln with a lucky nose.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any bronze statues of Abraham Lincoln without a shiny lucky nose, at least in Illinois. The state capitol of Springfield has several.

It probably doesn't help that he's on the penny as well, which is considered lucky if you find one and pick it up.

There may also be a bias tied to medicine. Noses are paticular indicators of some diseases (smallpox and syphalis) that may have created an association with luck.

Edinburgh's Greyfriars Bobby (a dog) has a nose people touch for luck. Nearby John Hume has an enlightened toe: http://www.scotsman.com/news/hume-giant-of-the-enligh-toe-nm...