Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Constance Garnett - Tolstoy & Dostoevsky

  1. #1

    Constance Garnett - Tolstoy & Dostoevsky

    Constance Garnett's name has been scattered around the forum lately. While she is applauded for bringing many Russian works to the Western world for the first time through her translations, she has two major shortcomings I've learned of, which disturb me in the following order:

    1) Her translations do little to distinguish each author's individual "voice" & writing style, etc.

    2) Her rapid pace combided with her disadvantage of being raised an English speaker resulted in errors in her translations, even so far as she would "skim past" passages she could not understand in the original Russian versions.

    Critics against Garnett in turn criticise her readers as being more "Garnett fans" than lovers of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Chekhov, etc. because in her translations, Garnett essentially conveys these authors' works in her own writing style.

    I still appreciate the work Garnett has done - she has covered wide ground, which clearly was her greatest motive, and she did it.

    But, upon learning this about Garnett, I am conflicted. Most of the Tolstoy/Dostoevsky translations I've read have been Garnett's, and though I can appreciate stories of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, I am now aware that I don't know either of them as artists.

    What I am going to have to do now is find other translations to re-read. I would love to learn Russian, but alas, cannot at this point. I know there are Russian speakers on this forum, and Tolstoy/Dostoevsky enthusaists as well. In the meantime, would anyone care to take a stab at expressing the particular prose style of each Tolstoy and Dostoevsky? (Or any of the others Garnett has translated also, but these two authors who I have spent the most time reading)

    Ahhh, disillusionment.

  2. #2
    Inderjit Sanghera
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England/Essex Uni/Wolverhampton
    Posts
    147
    Buy, borrow (or steal) Nabokov's Lectures on Russian Literature, if you haven't already done so. He could problably explain the differences better than anybody on this forum (No offence! )Nabokov also wrote a book on Gogol which could be useful. For Nabokov, style was the essence of a book, so he concentrates on it heavily in his lectures.

    On a side not, Dostoevskii is supposed to have had a pretty poor prose style in Russian, though that would have been a reflection of Dostoevskii's priorities when writing literature.
    The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov

    human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by ThousandthIsle View Post
    Critics against Garnett in turn criticise her readers as being more "Garnett fans" than lovers of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Chekhov, etc. because in her translations, Garnett essentially conveys these authors' works in her own writing style.
    OK. I haven't got a problem with being called that. If Garnett's translations are more Garnett than (for example) Tolstoy, I don't mind that I'm reading Garnett for Garnett. I like her prose, and that's all there is to it.

  4. #4
    Tu le connais, lecteur... Kafka's Crow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    ...the timekept City
    Posts
    847
    Blog Entries
    2
    I know that French can not be translated into English without losing its peculiar idiom and I've been told that same is the case with Russian. Some languages lend their meaning more easily to some other languages and Russian does not happen to be one of them. I am developing another idea along slightly different lines:

    While reading novels, it is the narrative voice that is of the essence and this narrative voice is markedly different in novels in languages with long traditions of story-telling than in the ones where this tradition is not that strong. Russian, along with Irish, Iranian, and Indian fall in the first category. The narrative voice is more stable. In the case of Russian, I find it more 'narrative' than dramatic, bit rustic, I can always visualise the story-teller sitting by the fire, puffing at his pipe and telling his story, being him/herself, i-e the omniscient narator. I was brought up on Russain folk tales (in translation) and I love this speaking voice so peculiar to Russian that we don not lose it even in translation. French novel is more noir, more carnivalesque and the narrator is more ruthlessly honest and almost sadistically clear about certain unpleasant things.

    I've been told that in rural Ireland you can still find folks who would tell you a 'yarn' for a pint of stout. Maybe it has something to do with the gypsy diaspora. Countries with stronger gypsy presence (Spain, France, Ireland etc) have richer and more diverse artistic traditions. If the Church gave us drama, gypsies (who were originally from India and were taken out of there a thousand years ago) gave us the wandering minstrel, the dancers, the musicians, the story-tellers. This is all very chaotic but I think more and more along these lines because I feel the absence of this typical speaking voice in the English novel. Authors have individual styles but these styles stem from traditions that they are rooted in and grew and took sustenance from. It can not be hidden. This is something that even translation can not lose. I am resigned to the FACT that I will never get the true essence of my favorite books (the Russian novels) still I enjoy the omnipresent narrative voice and that enjoyment is enough to keep me going. You can't have everything, can you?

    (I just asked my 10 years old to read the above post and he says that it makes sense! Does it?)
    Last edited by Kafka's Crow; 06-27-2008 at 09:23 AM.
    "The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the sh1t the more I am grateful to him..."
    -- Harold Pinter on Samuel Beckett

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe View Post
    Buy, borrow (or steal) Nabokov's Lectures on Russian Literature, if you haven't already done so.
    Inderjit, you aren't an anarchist, are you?? (Between my roommates and their boyfriends and friends, I'm surrounded by them!)

    Thank you for the recommendation though, I've been meaning to read that at some point, and now I certainly will! Especially since Nabokov is one of the said "critics" who has instilled this crisis within me, I'm sure it would be best to read in-depth HIS thoughts on the matter.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by patrickbeverley View Post
    OK. I haven't got a problem with being called that. If Garnett's translations are more Garnett than (for example) Tolstoy, I don't mind that I'm reading Garnett for Garnett. I like her prose, and that's all there is to it.
    I agree, I love her prose too. But At the same time, it's true — there isn't much of a distinction between Garnett's translations of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, though in Russian, it turns out there IS a considerable difference.

    It so happens that much of the Russian lit I've read is my favorite, though now I find myself very limited in the opinions I can actually have.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow View Post
    I know that French can not be translated into English without losing its peculiar idiom and I've been told that same is the case with Russian. Some languages lend their meaning more easily to some other languages and Russian does not happen to be one of them. I am developing another idea along slightly different lines:

    While reading novels, it is the narrative voice that is of the essence and this narrative voice is markedly different in novels in languages with long traditions of story-telling than in the ones where this tradition is not that strong. Russian, along with Irish, Iranian, and Indian fall in the first category. The narrative voice is more stable. In the case of Russian, I find it more 'narrative' than dramatic, bit rustic, I can always visualise the story-teller sitting by the fire, puffing at his pipe and telling his story, being him/herself, i-e the omniscient narator. I was brought up on Russain folk tales (in translation) and I love this speaking voice so peculiar to Russian that we don not lose it even in translation. French novel is more noir, more carnivalesque and the narrator is more ruthlessly honest and almost sadistically clear about certain unpleasant things.

    I've been told that in rural Ireland you can still find folks who would tell you a 'yarn' for a pint of stout. Maybe it has something to do with the gypsy diaspora. Countries with stronger gypsy presence (Spain, France, Ireland etc) have richer and more diverse artistic traditions. If the Church gave us drama, gypsies (who were originally from India and were taken out of there a thousand years ago) gave us the wandering minstrel, the dancers, the musicians, the story-tellers. This is all very chaotic but I think more and more along these lines because I feel the absence of this typical speaking voice in the English novel. Authors have individual styles but these styles stem from traditions that they are rooted in and grew and took sustenance from. It can not be hidden. This is something that even translation can not lose. I am resigned to the FACT that I will never get the true essence of my favorite books (the Russian novels) still I enjoy the omnipresent narrative voice and that enjoyment is enough to keep me going. You can't have everything, can you?

    (I just asked my 10 years old to read the above post and he says that it makes sense! Does it?)
    Thank you a million times for this response, Kafka! In asking my question, I was hoping for some light to be shed upon the world which I don't know enough about... thanks for this wonderful bit of chronology, which I am afraid to think I would never have stumbled upon otherwise. : )

    And I agree, you can't have everything, I just feel discouraged and ignorant about a "genre" I have always believed I've been so passionate about. But I think Inderjit's advice will be extremely helpful. (And dare I hope - soothing? Haha)
    Last edited by ThousandthIsle; 06-27-2008 at 11:32 AM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow View Post
    I know that French can not be translated into English without losing its peculiar idiom and I've been told that same is the case with Russian. Some languages lend their meaning more easily to some other languages and Russian does not happen to be one of them. I am developing another idea along slightly different lines:

    While reading novels, it is the narrative voice that is of the essence and this narrative voice is markedly different in novels in languages with long traditions of story-telling than in the ones where this tradition is not that strong. Russian, along with Irish, Iranian, and Indian fall in the first category. The narrative voice is more stable. In the case of Russian, I find it more 'narrative' than dramatic, bit rustic, I can always visualise the story-teller sitting by the fire, puffing at his pipe and telling his story, being him/herself, i-e the omniscient narator. I was brought up on Russain folk tales (in translation) and I love this speaking voice so peculiar to Russian that we don not lose it even in translation. French novel is more noir, more carnivalesque and the narrator is more ruthlessly honest and almost sadistically clear about certain unpleasant things.

    I've been told that in rural Ireland you can still find folks who would tell you a 'yarn' for a pint of stout. Maybe it has something to do with the gypsy diaspora. Countries with stronger gypsy presence (Spain, France, Ireland etc) have richer and more diverse artistic traditions. If the Church gave us drama, gypsies (who were originally from India and were taken out of there a thousand years ago) gave us the wandering minstrel, the dancers, the musicians, the story-tellers. This is all very chaotic but I think more and more along these lines because I feel the absence of this typical speaking voice in the English novel. Authors have individual styles but these styles stem from traditions that they are rooted in and grew and took sustenance from. It can not be hidden. This is something that even translation can not lose. I am resigned to the FACT that I will never get the true essence of my favorite books (the Russian novels) still I enjoy the omnipresent narrative voice and that enjoyment is enough to keep me going. You can't have everything, can you?

    (I just asked my 10 years old to read the above post and he says that it makes sense! Does it?)
    Thank you a million times for this response, Kafka! In asking my question, I was hoping for some light to be shed upon the world which I don't know enough about... thanks for this wonderful bit of chronology, which I am afraid to think I would never have stumbled upon otherwise. : )

    And I agree, you can't have everything, I just feel discouraged and ignorant about a "genre" I have always believed I've been so passionate about. But I think Inderjit's advice will be extremely helpful. (And dare I hope - soothing? Haha)

  9. #9
    Inderjit Sanghera
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England/Essex Uni/Wolverhampton
    Posts
    147
    OK. I haven't got a problem with being called that. If Garnett's translations are more Garnett than (for example) Tolstoy, I don't mind that I'm reading Garnett for Garnett. I like her prose, and that's all there is to it.
    In which case, Garnett is merely writer who has no imagination and relies on the stories of other people to make up for her lack of imagination, or artistic and aesthetic qualities. If it is true, then Garnett is the worst kind of translator, in my opinion, as her translations are possessed more with her own personality than of the writer's who she was translating.
    Inderjit, you aren't an anarchist, are you?? (Between my roommates and their boyfriends and friends, I'm surrounded by them!)
    You have been reading too much 19th century Russian literature! There are, alas, too few Bazarovs and Shigalyovs in modern literature!
    The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov

    human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe View Post
    In which case, Garnett is merely writer who has no imagination
    All writers have their faults.

  11. #11
    Inderjit Sanghera
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England/Essex Uni/Wolverhampton
    Posts
    147
    True-but lacking imagination is a pretty big fault for a writer-it is a bigger fault than (say) solecisms or syntaxical errors; imagination is intrinsic to creative genius. A writer who lacks imagination is like a chef who cannot make up his own recipes and can only copy word for word, the recipes of other, better chefs. I would also hestitate to call Garnett a "writer" in relation to her translations, though the hesitation is somewhat ironic since I have already called her a 'writer' in my previous post. That is what carelessness does to you.
    Last edited by Inderjit Sanghe; 06-28-2008 at 07:09 AM.
    The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov

    human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert

  12. #12
    Tu le connais, lecteur... Kafka's Crow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    ...the timekept City
    Posts
    847
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks Inderjit, I have ordered Nabokov's book:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156027763

    It should reach me Monday morning as I am an Amazon 'Prime' customer now!
    "The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the sh1t the more I am grateful to him..."
    -- Harold Pinter on Samuel Beckett

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe View Post
    A writer who lacks imagination is like a chef who cannot make up his own recipes and can only copy word for word, the recipes of other, better chefs.
    Not true! A writer who lacks imagination is more like a chef who does not invent whole new dishes from scratch, but instead works on the dishes others have created, adding new flavours and refining the method of cooking. Remember that all Shakespeare's plots were borrowed from other sources.

  14. #14
    Registered User hellsapoppin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    868
    History will have to be the judge of Garnett's merits as I am in no position to measure the true worth of her works. Still, like you, I appreciate her translations as they gave life to those great classical Russian works. Many of them remain among my favorite readings to this day.
    When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent

    ~ Isaac Asimov

  15. #15
    Inderjit Sanghera
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England/Essex Uni/Wolverhampton
    Posts
    147
    Not true! A writer who lacks imagination is more like a chef who does not invent whole new dishes from scratch, but instead works on the dishes others have created, adding new flavours and refining the method of cooking. Remember that all Shakespeare's plots were borrowed from other sources.
    I think that there is a very big difference between borrowing a plot, which many writers do, to copying, word for word, another author's story and translating it so that it matches your own personal writing style. Would you be happy if somebody translated 'Ulysses' and 'Women in Love' so that they matched the style of the translator? It is kind of like legalised plagiarism. Never mind, I am completely against it as a form of translation.
    The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov

    human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tolstoy on Art
    By chaplin in forum Tolstoy, Leo
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 11:49 AM
  2. Constance Garnett Translation
    By Zeruiah in forum The Brothers Karamazov
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 04:06 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 09:32 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •