>P&V is the most unbearable slop ever put to paper>there's only one translation worth reading and it's P&Vwhat is this retarded shit? Been looking for the best versions of Dostoyevsky's works until I found out about the apparently decade-old shitstorm between multiple translation camps.Which do you recommend, /lit/? I am listening to neither journos nor r*dditors on this.
Have AI translate it to your specific preferences>but AI can't do that!Yes it fucking can, it has the entirety of human knowledge at it's fingertips it can translate better than any human libtard would
>>24786892Michael Katz
>>24786895i'll make sure to use grok so the translation is extra based
>>24786892Constance Garnett
Why do people dislike P&V on here? I've read their translations of multiple books and didn't notice anything odd or untoward (granted, I don't speak Russian). The plethora of footnotes/endnotes in their translation is also nice.
>>24786982>Constance GarnettThis is the best if you've never read it before. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2554
>>24786892You could try the Princess Alexandra Kropotkin translations.
>>24786892P&V isn't bad. Its just very, very literal. I speak Russian (not fluently) and I can "see" the Russian through the translation. Thats how literal it is. Katz produces good modern translations with more style. Garnett translations are dated but always a great choice.t. rusofil
>>24786982>Garnett vs P&VPretty much every single one of D's books has >3 other translations. This "rivalry" is the real psyop so shills can pretend not that Garnett is bad, but that the others don't exist. The only issue is some translators didn't translate all of his works if you care about that
>>24787890This, you're not forced to pick between Garnett's amateurishness and P&V's autism. Personally I'm partial to Sidney Monas since it's the first one I read but honestly any modern translation that isn't P&V is probably decent.>>24786993It's stilted and unnatural, IMO it's trying too hard to make the english like the original russian, it ends up in an awkward no-man's land between languages that is miserable to read. There's perhaps a small population of people like >>24787821 who know a bit of russian and can get something out of their russified english, but for a casual reader P&V's translations are just a slog that turns people off of otherwise great books.
>>24786892P&V and no other is close. I don't care what arguments anyone else has, their English sounds the less faggy or british, it sounds like a proper translation. That is all I care and I tried many translations. I ignore the critique that the pair of translators was marketed a lot, it's a non-issue.
>>24787933>It's stilted and unnatural, IMO it's trying too hard to make the english like the original russian, it ends up in an awkward no-man's land between languages that is miserable to read.it's fucking perfect for that. Fuck your nigger native tongue, I'm ESL and I spit on the retarded idioms and collocations people use in English. You niggers sound retarded
>>24787933So P&V have the same approach as the weebs who want their VN translations to read like "Atashi am in love with Jamal-kun desu"?
>>24786895@grok repost what this anon said in uwu speak
>>24788078Basically, yes>>24787999>>24788004>P&V beloved by butthurt eslsexplains a lot
>>24786892The Oliver Ready translation is incredible.
>dostoevskyYou people need a good brainscrub.
>You people need a good brainscrub.t. the enlightened McCarthyist
>>24786892The proper way of doing this is comparing excerpts and seeing which one you feel you can live with for 500+ pages. This site is a useful reference for comparing English translations of 19th century literaturehttps://welovetranslations.com/2020/04/25/whats-the-best-translation-of-crime-and-punishment/I have a personal preference for Garnett as the "classic" translation, but I enjoyed the new Slater translation on a re-read.
>>24786892>>24787933P&V translations are great and the hate against them is a psyop. The literalism allows you to better understand what Dosto was trying to convey, you gotta remember that it's philosophical fiction. The "stilted and unnatural" language is not a problem because Dosto's characters speak in a way that is unnatural, verbose, and dramatic anyway. The covers are eye candy too.
Don't listen to this anon OP >>24788883You might get something out of reading P&V on a second or third readthrough, but I would never recommend it to a first time reader.
>>24787933>but for a casual reader P&V's translations are just a slog that turns people off of otherwise great books.I'm a casual reader and they're great. Stop being a complete faggot.
>>24786895the first reply I read after disappearing from /lit/ for years. i sincerely hope this is bait. you're a disgusting subhuman that is too stupid to recognize the lies and hallucinations that AI feeds to you. if you're smart, and an expert in anything, it takes 5 minutes of testing to realize that AI is fabricating information nonstop.
>>24788949That’s an overreaction. AI tools don’t “hallucinate nonstop” — they generate outputs based on probability and training data. Like any tool, they’re only as useful as the person using them. Experts do test and verify what AI produces, and when used critically, it’s a powerful accelerator for research, writing, and analysis. Dismissing an entire technology because it can be misused or misunderstood isn’t insight; it’s intellectual laziness.
I read P&V's translation of Brothers Karamazov and found it to be a slog. Currently reading Garnett's translation of Crime & Punishment and I can't put it down. I'm not smart enough to evaluate them on their individual merits, but I don't see anything wrong with Garnett's version and I don't feel like I'm missing any of the story either.
>>24786892Read the Constance Garnett translations only and move on. English literature is influenced by those specific translations of 19th century Russians.
