“As I begin the life-chronicle of my hero, Aleksey Fyodorovich Karamazov, I find myself in something of a quandary.”
translator: David McDuff (Penguin Books 1993)
“Starting out on the biography of my hero, Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov, I find myself in some perplexity.”
translators: P/V (Vintage, 1992)
‘Nuff said…….
(and for some awful reason, the Vintage edition has the epigraph and dedication on the copyright page – cheapo!)
***********
For an interesting take on the whole translation hype, have a look here.
Kaggsy's Bookish Ramblings 
Jun 01, 2013 @ 11:36:09
Urgh. I’m with you on P&V, I won’t touch them unless I have to. Who wants all prose to sound prosaic like that?
Jun 01, 2013 @ 13:22:08
I’m not an expert, but I think some of the English translations made the Russians sound, well, English. I am a fan of the P&V translations, at least for Dostoevsky. I have my first Tolstoy translation from them on my to-read pile — I can weigh in about non-Dosty after that.
Of course, I wish I could read Russian and have this be a moot point. 🙂
Jun 01, 2013 @ 15:05:24
Well, it’s a personal thing. I have read a lot of Hugh Aplin’s translations recently, particularly Dostoevsky, and found nothing that jarred and they didn’t sound particularly English to me! Having said that, I am not a Russian speaker (wish I was!!) and I just go for what sounds best to me as a reader! It’s the constant hype that bugs me, and I do question their way of working – one translating into literal English and then one rewriting that? I personally feel you need a person who is fluent in both languages, who can sense the nuances in the original and find similar nuances in the translated version. Aplin, Robert Chandler, Joanne Turnbull have all translated some of my favourite Russian writers, all seem excellent to me and we don’t get this hysterical, over the top trumpeting of them as the best thing since sliced bread, just a well-translated book that is a joy to read. That’s my feeling, anyway!
Jun 01, 2013 @ 15:24:05
Ooh yes, I would love to read it in the original too. 🙂
Jun 01, 2013 @ 15:28:41
Well, one day, when I have a few months (years!) to spare I may try to learn Russian….. 😉
Jun 01, 2013 @ 14:59:04
Yes, I personally don’t like what they do – I’ve seen several posts with comparisons and theirs don’t talk to me at all. Also I don’t trust their working method or all the hype!
Jun 01, 2013 @ 11:43:37
Interesting! I haven’t forayed into Russian lit myself but have heard P&V praised as the “go to” source for modern translation, almost as if there is no other worth reading. My eyes are opened!
Jun 01, 2013 @ 15:00:51
They get an incredible amount of hyped up praise but I feel personally it’s a lot of emperor’s new clothes. At the end of the day, it has to be whichever translation works for the reader imho.and theirs don’t work for me. In the same way, I looked at Don Quixote and just didn’t like the new Edith Grossman version (and interestingly enough she has been lauded and criticised in equal measure!)
Jun 01, 2013 @ 13:30:37
I read the article that you linked, and thought this commenter had some very interesting food for thought:
(anonymous)
I read Dostoevsky in Russian and I understand how hard it is to translate his work. It is hard reading even for Russian-speaking. Dostoevsky doesn’t posses literature skills of Tolstoy or Turgenev. You can’t view his books as piece of art because they are not. But his books carry strong religious and prophetic message. Dostoevsky has unique filling of the Evil. He describe the evil of Russian revolution 50 years before it happened. He filed a terror of a person that benevolent state wants to make happy even against his will. He wrote about things that nobody talk at his time, they didn’t even exist back then but we live through them right now. My son had to read Plato’s “State” in his literature class. I asked him to read “Notes from the underground” after. Wow! What a difference! Plato was building his utopian state by enslaving people, Dostoevsky destroyed it by setting them free, free to find their own way to God even through sin and misery.
Almost any translator, no doubt, could “improve” Dostoevsky’s literature by many ways. Choice of words and literature quality of translation are not really important. But if a translator lacks the philosophical and religious understanding of Dostoevsky he shouldn’t even try.
I would argue that P&V get the philosophical and religious understanding of Dostoevsky.
Jun 01, 2013 @ 15:07:19
Yes, that’s an interesting quote. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to get past the clumsiness I perceive in their work to see if that is the case. Some of the problems with their translation of The Master and Margarita actually significantly alter the understanding of passages and that is an issue for me!
Jun 01, 2013 @ 22:38:06
I have the Ginsburg translation of The Master and Margarita and loved it — I feel no need to replace it with another translation. 🙂 As you say above — whatever translation works for the reader.
I think it’s great we’re discussing translations, by the way. Not a conversation I get to have often in my daily life 🙂
Jun 02, 2013 @ 10:48:31
I have 5 translations of The Master and Margarita – let’s not go there……..:s
But it *is* great that we’re discussing translations – this is one of the joys of the book blogosphere!
Jun 02, 2013 @ 12:28:35
(Don’t smack me) May I ask which is your favorite translation of The Master and Margarita? Now I’m curious 🙂
Jun 02, 2013 @ 12:40:53
I haven’t read them all yet….. I have the Ginsburg, Glenny, Burgin and O’Connor, P/V and Hugh Aplin. I think the trouble with the Ginsburg is that it is taken from an edited text – so no particular issues with the translation, only incomplete source material. B&O are considered best by some but I have also read many of Glenny’s translations and again have no issues. My next read of M&M will be the Aplin version as I like his translations a lot!
Nov 03, 2013 @ 14:50:40
Sorry, reading Dostoevsky is not hard fo Russian-speakers.
Я гарантирую это:)
Nov 03, 2013 @ 15:48:21
Я хотел бы читать на русском!
Jun 03, 2013 @ 01:12:59
I read a lot of Simenon, and I know that since he churned out a lot of books some are going to be sub-par, but I sometimes wonder if the translations have something to do with that.
I came across an article in The New York Times that you might like.
Let’s see if I can do the link correctly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/books/review/bulgakovs-ghost.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
If it doesn’t work, it’s by Emily Parker, title is Bulgarkov’s Ghost.
And thanks for the ‘Follow’!
Jun 03, 2013 @ 09:36:17
Good point – especially with a writer as prolific as Simenon! And thank you for the link – very interesting piece!
Sep 04, 2013 @ 01:53:05
Until today I hadn’t known anything about the division and even hatred over the “P&V” translations and the old standards, though it isn’t very shocking that one or several exist. Hell, because I don’t watch TV I didn’t even know about the hype. I started collecting or keeping an eye out for the P&V versions a couple years ago after reading the P&V Notes From Underground and it hit me harder than the two other translations I’d read in the past had. I also get a lot out of their introductions – they are good reads in and of themselves, to me. Granted, I’d read just about anything on Dostoevsky. Although I get your point that you don’t care for their translations I thought your evidence was unconvincing – but that isn’t the reason I’m commenting. I’m glad that in my search for a P&V bibliography of Dostoevsky, (looking for Notes From The Dead House, or House Of The Dead, whichever!) I wound up discovering all this debate and then here to discover alternative translators you mentioned that I haven’t tried, not just the ones everyone who has read him in English has most likely read. So thanks!
Sep 04, 2013 @ 08:50:30
I do feel it’s a personal thing, simply because the reading of any book is a personal, emotional response to the text. I don’t like the way P/V phrase things – simple as that – and I find the hype just too much. I’m not intrinsically against new translations – I just finished an excellent book, “Smoke” by Turgenev, in a wonderful version from Alma Classics, translated by Michael Pursglove, and it’s an excellent, readable, literate book. The bits I’ve tried to read of P/V I’ve personally found clumsy and I’m coming to the conclusion that the best thing to do is read as many different translations as possible! I would recommend definitely *any* translation by Robert Chandler or Hugh Aplin – they produced excellent books in my opinion.
Nov 05, 2013 @ 16:41:19
Other translators translate into flowery words you might expect and enjoy, except the problem is Dostoyevsky didn’t use them himself. So you can choose truth (P/V) or comfort (other translations) 😉
Nov 05, 2013 @ 17:28:11
I don’t know any Russian so I can’t comment on that – but I have read plenty of Russian speakers criticising P/V!
Mar 08, 2022 @ 21:11:25
P&V are most definitely not “truth”. Check out these scholarly articles:-http://www.thinkaloud.ru/feature/berdy-lan-PandV-e.html
https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
P&V also did a translation of Dr Zhivago by Boris Pasternak. Pasternak’s niece who is a scholar and literary translator of Russian has nothing kind to say about the P&V translation of Dr Zhivago. P&V, although well educated, do not have the required scholarly credentials to undertake such tasks.
Mar 09, 2022 @ 08:29:54
Thanks – I’ve read both of these before and they’re spot on. I certainly wouldn’t touch their Zhivago with a bargepole!
Jan 04, 2014 @ 17:24:09
I’d rather have a translation as close to the words and rhythm used by Dostoevsky as possible. If there is a more elegant and familiar colloquialism or idiom in my native English then I would prefer to have that in the footnotes.
It seems from my reading of the pros and cons in this debate that some people would prefer a more poetic translation with more artistic license taken. That’s fair enough, but for me it is a bit like an art restorer painting a different smile on the Mona Lisa that appeals to contemporary tastes more than that vague, beguiling, so-called smile.
This linked to article finishes with an example of an unfinished but suggested rhyme that concludes crudely. (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/helen-rittelmeyer/2013/01/01/the-pevearvolokhonsky-hype-machine-and-how-it-could-have-been-stopped-or-at-least-slowed-down/). The authors preferred translation may be more comic, and it took me much longer to work out that the P and V version is meant to end with ‘shit’. But the author of the blog does not make clear, and maybe does not know, what the literal translation from Dostoevsky is. I strongly suspect, given their approach, that Dostoevsky did end it with being dragged through shit, rather than not getting a fuck.
Jan 04, 2014 @ 18:21:28
It’s a complex debate and a difficult one – because a lot will always come down to personal preference. I take your point but I still object to the hype and I *have* read comments from Russians saying that they don’t like P/V translations at all. I will continue to stick with those I personally prefer and I guess so will other readers!
May 06, 2014 @ 21:45:00
I happen to be reading a copy of Demons translated by Robert A. Maguire (Penguin paperback) as well as ebook, Nook version, from P&V. Due to my work schedule, I often read the same chapter by each translator every other day. There is no question, the Maguire version is far superior in feeling and readability for me-an American afficiando of Fyodor. Some of the words chosen from P&V, in all honesty (and I’m fairly well-read) I’ve never encountered before–and it makes me run to a dictionary or something. I’m very suspicious of P&V. I read their Anna Karenina, and I didn’t love the translation. I don’t know what it is, but if Oprah praises something, it seems to stick–and I know she praised them. I do not praise them. I’m starting to not believe in them, preferring instead that best translator that had enthusiasm for a specific piece of literature. I find P&V Clumsy. Yes, it may be capturing some Russian syntax and flow, but I have preferred the Anglo MacDuff and Macguire versions so far, of the Brothers K and Demons respectively. Sorry, not a “believer” in P&V. Let’s face it. There is money in them. But I’ve noticed Penguin stays away from them. Makes you think..
May 07, 2014 @ 09:00:11
I tend to distrust the hype too. I’ve found McDuff and Maguire both to be very readable, and also a number of other translators, notably Hugh Aplin. The AK I read was the Maudes version (contemporary to Tolstoy) and I loved it. I’ll certainly be avoiding P/V myself!
Mar 08, 2022 @ 21:20:50
I completely agree. I encountered Maguire’s translation after giving up P&V’s translation in frustration. It really was a revelation. It’s almost as if English is the second language of P&V.
Mar 09, 2022 @ 08:29:03
I thought the Maguire was excellent and as for P/V, I really don’t think their working method is a sound one…
May 07, 2014 @ 16:58:55
Thanks for the tips. It’s great that there are other geeks out there, like me, that actually care about nuances of translation. You make me feel like an adult!
May 07, 2014 @ 18:25:34
Thanks! I take the subject much more seriously than I used to, and I can see what a difference it can make to a reading. I’m become a bi of a stickler on the subject!
Aug 19, 2015 @ 11:48:25
Interesting PoV. I can only say that I tried to read War and Peace twice, and failed, and then sailed through the P&V edition and loved it.
I read Anna Karenina too, as a young woman, and really liked it, but when I started re-reading it more recently, I hated the translation, lashed out on a new P&V edition, and once again, loved it.
I’ve become more discerning about translations since starting my Zola Project and now that I’ve almost finished the Rougon-Macquart cycle, I feel better equipped to recommend one translator of this series over another. But although I read nearly all the 19th century Russian classics a long time ago, and have read a fair few post-Soviet novels in translation, I couldn’t say who’s good and who’s not. But based on my experience with P&V, I would choose their translations in preference to others.
Aug 19, 2015 @ 11:55:40
Translation is always going to be a personal thing, but I know when I saw some comparisons of the original Dr. Zhivago and their version that the original won hands down (and Pasternak’s niece didn’t like theirs either). Having just re-read The Master and Margarita in a different translation to theirs I liked the non P/V version much more too. So I guess we’ll have to differ! 🙂
Aug 19, 2015 @ 12:35:47
Was that the John Bayley translation of Dr Zhivago? I liked that too, though I’ve only read that one, so can’t compare. (I’ve read TM&M but I can’t remember who translated that one at all.)
I think/guess that sometimes translators use certain words that show the period or place they themselves live in and that’s going to be popular with some and not with others. (An obvious example is the American ‘mom’ v ‘mum’ or ‘mummy’ or ‘ma’. All might be appropriate translations for ‘mama’ or ‘maman’ but depending on what you’re used to, they might grate. In England there are class connotations depending on what you choose, whereas I think that’s not the case with ‘mom’ in the US?
I’ve just abandoned a dreadful British translation of The Beast in Man which uses a working class argot (presumably because the book is about a man who works in the railways) and it is such a distortion of the original French I almost threw it across the room. (I can read French, but I’m too slow to read the whole book in the original).
I suppose we should be grateful to have whatever we can, it’s so expensive to translate I think we must be lucky that some books are translated more than once for us to choose which ones we like!
Aug 19, 2015 @ 12:44:52
It was the Hayward/Harrari one from the 1960s I believe – if I recall correctly Pasternak’s niece recommends that one, and I certainly found it unputdownable. As for Tolstoy, I read the Maudes and was happy that they were in English that was contemporary to when Tolstoy wrote them – after all, we wouldn’t want to update the language in Dickens, and I prefer to read a book that sounds contemporary with its publication date. Americanisms can be a bit of a problem – there were some in the O’Connor and Burgin Master and Margarita, but only a few so I could overlook them.
It’s a really knotty problem – I prefer an older translation of Colette’s My Mother’s House because they left her mother’s pet name for her in the French as Minet-Cheri, whereas a more modern version translated it.As you say, I’m just happy that there are so many translated works available and so many people that will make them readable for a poor Anglophone like me! 🙂
Aug 19, 2015 @ 12:49:22
Agreed!
BTW when I click on the link for your blog (kaggybookishramblings.wordpress.com) that’s beside your icon it goes to a site that says your blog has been deleted. Is WP ‘remembering’ an old site?
Aug 19, 2015 @ 13:06:24
I don’t quite know why that is – people have said this before but I’ve only ever had the one blog and at this address :s
Aug 19, 2015 @ 13:46:38
Just one of the weird glitches of the web…
Nov 11, 2020 @ 17:34:50
Please which translation for Zola series?!!!
Nov 11, 2020 @ 18:45:53
I wish I knew! I’ve not read him…. Maybe Lisa will see this comment and be able to give you some advice! 😀
Nov 12, 2020 @ 00:18:07
Oxford University Press have just recently completed their project to give us new editions and translations of all of the Rougon-Maquart cycle and while you can get Project Gutenberg versions for free, I think it’s worth shelling out for the OUP ones because the translations are really good and the introductions are excellent as well. Interesting and helpful without being overly scholarly if you know what I mean. Different books have different translators because there is too much for one translator to do alone, but Brian Nelson has done a good few of them.
You can find out more here https://readingzola.wordpress.com/translations/
Nov 12, 2020 @ 02:24:23
Many thanks! I look forward to hunting them down.
Aug 31, 2015 @ 02:34:43
I agree that the hype is off-putting. I only have this to say: Considering I find Dostoevsky a dark-comedy writer, the V/P translations are a joy to me in their wry understatement; perhaps the very thing that some critics find unappealing.
Aug 31, 2015 @ 10:09:47
I guess it’s down to personal taste – I find plenty of wry humour and darkness in the versions of Dostoevsky I read. And my recent re-read of The Master and Margarita in a non P/V version was streets ahead of their version.
Oct 07, 2016 @ 11:35:00
why no one mentions constance garnett?
Oct 07, 2016 @ 14:16:43
She was a pioneer of translating, that’s for sure, but I think there are problems because she just left bits out if she couldn’t translate them….
Nov 29, 2021 @ 21:59:05
All the P&V hype is driven by the Oprah stuff and, to be honest, I suspect that it’s also simply because it’s an American, not British, translation – which, for me, is just another reason not to try them!
Nov 30, 2021 @ 09:34:17
LOL, yes, I confess I prefer a translation which doesn’t use Americanisms. Plus I do find their versions odd, often clumsy and sometimes actually not particularly understandable!