If you’re interested in reading Russian literature, do yourself a favor and avoid the Constance Garnett translations. Her main goals were speed and volume of translations, rather than to actually make the translated works a pleasure to read or keep them true to the original author's intent.

> “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.”

> Garnett’s flaws were not the figment of a native speaker’s snobbery. She worked with such speed, with such an eye toward the finish line, that when she came across a word or a phrase that she couldn’t make sense of she would skip it and move on.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translatio...

This reminded on another "lost in translation" article from The New Yorker on Albert Camus and The Stranger:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translat...

And the article you cite is by David Remnick who was instrumental on spreading Iraq war lies at the New Yorker. Should we trust him now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Remnick

"A lot of the people who made those mistakes are still occupying prominent positions, their credibility undamaged thanks to a new legend best articulated by New Yorker editor David Remnick, who later scoffed, “Nobody got that story completely right.”

Nobody except the record number of people who marched against the war on February 15, 2003 — conservative estimates placed it between six and ten million worldwide (I marched in D.C.). Every one of those people was way ahead of Remnick."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...

If anything, the fact that he's such a good propagandist should be an _endorsement_ of his literary opinion, evil notwithstanding. He clearly knows how to communicate well!

The marchers weren't necessarily right. How many of those people would have been marching against a totally just, necessary war? Probably many of them. Many Americans didn't want the US to get embroiled in WWII, even after Dec 7th

If Dostoyevsky is a pleasure to read, you have a bad translation. It is not a pleasure to read in Russian. His language is rather difficult.

Source: I'm Russian and have read Dostoyevsky.

The Brothers Karamazov is probably the only book I never finished reading. I since have never tried to read anything from Dostoyevsky and was wondering whether reading his book in Slovak language (my native language which is relatively close to Russian and as such should provide a better translation) would help me (I bought english print at airport). It eases my mind a bit knowing it is difficult also in the language the book was written in.

The Brothers Karamazov is one of the few books I've started but abandoned without finishing. Perhaps it was related to the particular translation I had (I don't remember details of it now), but it just wasn't working for me.

Crime and Punishment, on the other hand, I found utterly compelling, and will probably re-read some day (which is a status few books achieve in my world).

Highly recommend the translation by Andrew R. MacAndrew if you want to give it another shot

I haven’t yet read Dostoyevsky, though I have read Chekhov and Pushkin in translation. I’m speaking more generally about Garnett’s translations rather than a specific work. I’m currently learning Russian, and I’m sure it’ll be a while before I can read Dostoyevsky in it’s original form; though I have read some Chekhov and he is an absolute pleasure to read in Russian.

Chekhov and Pushkin are extremely easy to read in russian. Always straight on point, with few distractions, rarely engaging in highbrow ornamental phrases. Good choice when learning a language.

Sure, his prose requires a little bit longer attention span than what is common today, but otherwise Karamazov brothers was one of the most captivating and pleasant books I've ever read. Source: I'm Russian and read Dostoevsky.

Is it possible that he was a pleasure to read back in his time? Translations have the benefit of using a more recent language. Russian lacks that advantage.

You don't happen to know a good translator..? I was going to try the Garnett version but now I'm having second thoughts.

Counter-point: https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsi...

I find Garnett pretty readable, even if she doesn’t capture the original Russian as well as others.

The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett, and if we could, they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.

> The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett

Certainly! If your reading is constrained to public domain works, you have basically no other option. I've read many books in translation and before I learned about the Constance Garnett controversy, I paid little to no attention to who translated the work that I'm reading.

I guess I'm trying to spread the word that the translation matters almost as much as the original work itself, and it may be worth doing research on various translations before picking one to read. And although the original works are still as great as ever, it seems to me that the translating profession has really come a long way since the 1800s. As a result I tend usually to look at more recent translations first.

> they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.

I don't think I understand what you mean by this.

Agreed. The best translation of this book is done by Oliver Ready or Michael Katz-- I found these the translations the most readable and enjoyable.

My favorite translation is by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky - I prefer it to Katz anyway. I haven't examined the Ready edition. (I ended up aquiring all of Dostoevsky in Pevear/Volokhonsky translations, I like them so much -- I understand other dislike their editions for a number of reasons, tho)

I also really liked David McDuff's translation years ago.

Any of these are going to be miles better then Garnett, though.

There is an opinion that Pevaar/Volkhonosky translations are not up to the mark, and that their text is rather plain.

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-...

I know all about that. And for some reason they still work for me.

The only really recommended Dostoevsky translations are by Svetlana Geier. Not into english though.

Personally, I've always found the underlying structure of Crime and Punishment extremely tedious, never mind how any particular line or paragraph is translated. Obviously that makes me a philistine, etc., but there is some classic literature that I just find to be an utter slog, and that's one of 'em. Proust is in the same category for me. I think Dostoevsky's short fiction is wonderful.

Interesting. I have long thought that "Crime and Punishment" should have been called "The Idiot" due to the protagonist's infuriating idiocy, (all he had to do was keep his mouth shut), but now I wonder if the translation I read (which was Constance Garnett, it turns out) was just terrible.

Crime and Punishment doesn't tend to be what most Americans would expect. The major plot points happen up front and the remainder of the book is a philosophical exploration of, well, crime and punishment. The fact that the protagonist was free of the justice system but still tormented by what he did was the whole point.

You didn't quite understand the protagonist's problem and his motivation to commit crime.

I agree with you, thoroughly, but I don't think it's entirely fair to write a one-liner like this. If you're going to say this, you should write an explanation for why.

"Crime and Punishment" is such an important landmark in world literature, that there are literally millions of words written on this subject. Whatever my own interpretation, I could hardly write something that would meaningfully add to the existing works. However, I thought it fitting to point out that Raskolnikov's real motive wasn't raising some cash and getting away with it.

who in this thread claimed that Raskolinov's real motive was "raising some cash and getting away with it"?

You can provide a sort summary of an argument you find compelling regarding Raskolnikov's motivations without adding about to the millions of words written on this subject. You are also free to describe your own interpretation without feeling obliged to add something novel or useful to what's already out there.

Considering how much I agree with you that Raskolnikov didn't "just need to keep his mouth shut" (a phrase that did show up in this thread), I'm actually and sincerely very interested in your interpretation.

Raskolnikov was literally going insane even before he said anything of his crimes. I don't think everything would have been fine for him if he just didn't talk to Porfiry

I found it very illuminating to read Dostoyevsky's works alongside Goethe's Faust when thinking about the protagonist.

Do you have an alternative you recommend?

If they are all referals to quality libre versions of public domain books, we can certainly forgive the braggartry.

I was going to say the same thing. Giving me free stuff? Brag all you want.

Personally, I really liked the translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky. But it is also the only version I have read.

Their translation has been found to have many faults as well. It's like the speech of Ahti from Control: a literal translation of the source that adds "Russian character" to everyone, obscuring actual differences between the characters.

There are seven in-print translations of Crime and Punishment (and another six that are out-of-print). Which one is best depends on who you ask, or what you're looking for. The Garnett translation is itself considered a classic, and is in the public domain. The trendy one is Pevear and Volokhonsky. But there are other well-regarded versions to consider. This page lists them all and has extracts and links to articles to aid comparison. https://welovetranslations.com/2020/04/25/whats-the-best-tra...

That's an interesting article -- thanks for posting.

One thing that struck me: two of the translation samples included the (correct/reasonable?) names for the street and bridge (Stolyarnyi Lane, Kokushkin Bridge). The others replaced the words with S-----i Lane, and K------n Bridge (or S. Lane etc).

I think I understand the problem. Cyrillic alphabet doesn't map to Latin alphabet, and there was no established English-language translation for the names in question. The two that attempted it even had slightly different spellings, akin to the problem we see with many Arabic names in English today.

This makes a big difference in readability, to me. The setting is supposed to be foreign and a bit unfamiliar to excultural readers, but K-------n looks like an error, a misprint, or an "(unintelligible)" in a transcription. That becomes part of the story, and it isn't intended as such by the author.

For this and other reasons, my vote goes to Sidney Monas, 1968. I'll add that note to my long and ever-growing TOREAD list. :)

I think it is just the opposite, and I'm not sure how much Dostoevsky thought about excultural readers. The setting is supposed to be familiar, or at least feel familiar, to many of the readers, to the point where certain names are redacted to give the feeling that the author is "protecting the innocent", or avoiding accusations of libel, because you are actually reading a true story and not something made out of whole cloth.

The first line of the original is (asterisks mine, indicating where Dostoyevski intentionally did not write the name of a street or bridge):

"В начале июля, в чрезвычайно жаркое время, под вечер, один молодой человек вышел из своей каморки, которую нанимал от жильцов в **С — **м переулке, на улицу и медленно, как бы в нерешимости, отправился к **К —** ну мосту."

In English:

"On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. bridge."

I see. Well that changes things completely!

I assumed that the redactions were not in the original, and that the translators were avoiding complexity by presenting the English-speaking audience with a digstible form.

I guess I underestimated the translators, or the reading public. Thanks for the correction.

PS: I did not mean that Dostoevsky intended excultural readers to feel unfamiliar, but that excultural readers should expect (and maybe prefer) a certain amount of unfamiliarity in foreign works. I thought the translators were insulating their readers from it, which felt inauthentic.

I'm even more bothered by the idea of the translators "filling in the blanks" that were intentionally placed by the author. Curious that both translators who did so, used roughly the same names for each -- perhaps they are the real names that we know the author was referencing? Still, that's a bit presumptuous, I think.

Standard Ebooks is such a great project, a big thank you to all the volunteers.

This is a wonderful resource, thanks for posting.

Yeah you do. But this thread isn't about you. So, I find it pretty irritating.