Is a Garnett translation worth reading?

[Frostball]

I picked up Crime and Punishment at the library, and it happened to be a Constance Garnett translation. Of the two translations available I had at least heard of Garnett, so I chose hers. I did some searching on the internet and found that people overwhelmingly prefer the P&V translation, which unfortunately wasn't at the library, and that there were some serious gripes with Garnetts.

Things such as sounding like a victorian english novel, all the characters sounding the same, and not having a russian feel are some criticisms I've heard. The worst, though, is that she omitted phrases and words she didn't understand. The omitting of words and phrases completely astounds me, and seems like sacrilege.

So is it worth spending the time reading through what might be a subpar translation, or should I take it back to the library and get something else?

[Lykren]

Just read the first chapter of each translation and see which you like. Or if you can't make up your mind, read both versions in their entirety. Crime and Punishment is a fast read anyways.

[mal4mac]

Some people like Garnett, and are not that impressed with P&V:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/26/books/raskolnikov-says-the-darndest-things.html

Given that Dostoevsky was writing in Victorian times perhaps sounding Victorian is a good thing? Garnett was a renowned translator, even if she missed a few things out is that worse than the "mistakes" other translators make? As you have Garnett's translation, and she is still admired by many people. why not give it a go? Writers like Joseph Conrad and Virginia Woolf encountered the Russians through her translations, and praised her highly, so you will be in good company.

[Frostball]

So, I've read the first three chapters and it seems quite good to me so far. I was so scared of dedicating time on it before being sure that I wanted to, that I couldn't even bring myself to open it, for fear of some kind of commitment. In retrospect the time I spent reading peoples' opinions on translations was definitely the bigger waste.

I have to thank you, Mal4mac, you gave me the exact kind of encouragement I needed, I think. Especially about Conrad and Woolf, though I don't know why the opinion of these sort of celebrity names should matter more to me than anybody elses, but apparently it does.

[ladderandbucket]

I have read a mix of Garnett and P&V translations and on the whole I prefer Garnett. I don't know if that makes me a bad reader or something but I can't help what I like.

[Clopin]

I've recently learned that the P&V translations are considered quite sub par by a lot of readers after my own investigation following a bad experience slogging through some gogol stories the duo totally sucked the life out of which I had really enjoyed previously when I read a different translation.

[Frostball]

Indeed, it isn't until after I posted this thread that I noticed there was already a rather recent thread about the P&V translations and how they are boring and flat. Apparently the whole translation matter is very much arguable and subject to opinion and taste. All I know is that I'm about a quarter of the way into Crime and Punishment and I'm enjoying it immensely, so for good or for ill, the Garnett translation I'm reading isn't getting the way of the story.

Maybe the thing with translations is there isn't any way to truly know which is better if you don't speak the original language (in which case you don't need a translation). You always have to take somebody's word for it, because learning a new language aside, there isn't anyway to investigate the matter of whether a translation if faithful, or good. From this end the only thing you can do is read the translation, and say whether you enjoyed it or not. You can even read multiple translations of the same work, and you could say which you enjoyed more, but even that isn't quite the same as discovering which translation is best. You still have no idea how close they got to what the original author intended.

Edit: And upon reading more of that thread, I notice that MorpheusSandman made basically the same point that I just did. I feel redundant.

[MorpheusSandman]

upon reading more of that thread, I notice that MorpheusSandman made basically the same point that I just did. I feel redundant.:) Don't worry about it. I'm sure I probably said that based on a similar point I'd read someone make somewhere else. The redundant story of human existence is redundancy.

[Dark Muse]

I read the Garnett translation and I thoroughly enjoyed. I haven't read any other translations to compare it to, but I really liked it when I read it.

[HSPS]

I haven't read the Garnett Crime & Punishment--I read the P & V version--but I have read the Garnett Karamazov, so I compared her Grand Inquisitor--the peak of the book, in my view--to P & V's Grand Inquisitor, and I found Garnett's to be much more beautiful. She may not have been the most loyal translator, but she certainly had an ear for powerful language. The P & V translation was clunky, and I can't imagine it having the same impact on a reader.

[KingNikolai1]

Although I dislike Garnett, I would rather have people reading Russian novels through Garnett than not at all. I suppose as a student of Russian literature I feel P & V translate the Russian-ness of the text quite well. Perhaps it is my studies of Russian culture and literature that allow me to connect with the P & V translations more. I have read Garnett's translations of Poor Folk and The House of the Dead. They were satisfactory although trudging.

[Vota]

I enjoyed her Crime and Punishment translation.

Keep in mind that newer translations are like the new hotness and the older ones are old and busted, but those translations can still show the new hotness a thing or two.

[Calidore]

I haven't read the Garnett Crime & Punishment--I read the P & V version--but I have read the Garnett Karamazov, so I compared her Grand Inquisitor--the peak of the book, in my view--to P & V's Grand Inquisitor, and I found Garnett's to be much more beautiful. She may not be the most loyal translator, but she certainly has an ear for powerful language. The P & V translation was clunky, and I can't imagine it having the same impact on a reader.

I read something similar once about Arthur Waley's translation of The Tale of Genji vs. a couple of newer ones. The translator posted the same long passage from each and showed that while Waley's translation took more liberties, the writing itself was on a different level.

For that matter, you could also say the same about the King James Bible. Four hundred years of archaeology and biblical scholarship have resulted in many, many more accurate translations, but nobody's ever come close to the KJV's quality of writing.

[HSPS]

I read something similar once about Arthur Waley's translation of The Tale of Genji vs. a couple of newer ones. The translator posted the same long passage from each and showed that while Waley's translation took more liberties, the writing itself was on a different level.

For that matter, you could also say the same about the King James Bible. Four hundred years of archaeology and biblical scholarship have resulted in many, many more accurate translations, but nobody's ever come close to the KJV's quality of writing.

I couldn't agree more. By the way, I apologize for using the incorrect tense in the second last sentence of my post. This may seem strange, but I wanted to write this because of my OCD.

[Frostball]

For that matter, you could also say the same about the King James Bible. Four hundred years of archaeology and biblical scholarship have resulted in many, many more accurate translations, but nobody's ever come close to the KJV's quality of writing.

The bible is one of the few books that I have actually read multiple translations of. When I was very young, about 13, I ventured into the KJV which I found highly confusing, and I also found it to be very much not what I expected a book written by god to be (especially by the time I got to the mass city killings in Joshua).

Later on I got an NIV translation and found it much easier to understand, but still confusing. The sentences were easier to parse, but the meaning and what was actually going on in much of it just went over my head, and I suspect still goes over most peoples heads today.

Finally I got a NOAB (New Oxford Annotated Bible) which fills half the page with historical context and explanation, and the actual text of it holds no bars about saying exactly what it originally said.

I probably agree that the KJV has the most beautiful prose, but I always figured a religious book of this kind (presumably from some godly source) should be as easily understood as possible. Even from when I was 13 I thought the whole point was to get sagely advice from on high, realize what everything is all about, and perhaps learn how to live your life. Nowadays, if you ask me, the KJV is for people who don't really care THAT much about what it all says, but enjoy the beauty and cryptic nature of it all. The KJV is also famous for a great many inaccuracies and purposeful fudges in order to make the whole book seem better than it actually ever was. The first time I came across the story of Lot and the angel coming down to his house, I had no idea what that story was actually about because of the "knew/know" language instead of simply "have sex". Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I can't help but think many of the choices they made in translation were done to smooth out the bible's extremely rough edges.