6 Antworten2025-08-31
I must acknowledge that the P&V marketing machine is very good at what it does. So, you’ll find them on the cover of most classic sections in bookstores, and they are often good. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the best translation of a given work, and therefore, other very good translations are dismissed solely on the basis of-store front hype.
And it creates a fascinating (and totally unfair) situation in which to laud Garnett or another translator one instantly appears to be a snarky, overhyping hipster contrarian challenging the givens of mass marketing. P&V is, for many, often the only good option, for specific books, however, another translator might be offering a far more suitable translation than P&V’s. Ultimately, one serves Dostoevsky, not the translator or publishing brand.
11 Antworten2025-08-18
I have a sort of contrarian perspective here. The best translations of literature are typically the oldest published versions, from the early part of the 20th century. This is because there is so much of value in the cultural filter of a translator. The translation becomes a sort of historical document of how the literature was perceived and assimilated by the English-speaking world of that era. I have a number of these very old published versions of Dostoevsky, some of which even I wouldn’t recommend to the general reader, for reasons already mentioned, yet they are of enormous value to the literary historian. For the enthusiast of literature with an interest in reception history, the old published versions are the ‘best’ in a totally different, meta sense.
10 Antworten2025-07-13
A book that benefits from marginalia. I felt like I had the most wonderful time reading this book. I underlined so much, put in so many question marks and exclamation marks, and felt that I was almost arguing with Raskolnikov on the margins of the pages. Noting down all the symbolic moments and tracking the weather and how it affected the mood of the characters was all so very worthwhile. And I felt that the length of the book was made so very meaningful by my having been an active reader, as opposed to having simply read the book. All in all, therefore, my having read this book was not simply a matter of my having logged so many hours, for in fact the time spent reading, and then thinking about and annotating what I had just read, was more than worth while. In short, I felt that I had been able to establish a most wonderful relationship with a very complex book. And if one approaches a classic such as this with the same mindset, then soon one will realize that the number of pages does not even begin to matter. For what matters is not the mere counting down of the number of pages left to read, but rather the wonderful and most superb process of understanding the book that one is reading.
6 Antworten2025-07-17
The work of 19th-century writers like Dickens is generally OK to use. In the UK, works created longer than 50 years after the author’s death passed into the public domain. If we use the life plus 50 years rule currently used in the UK for works created since 1954, then for example all of Dickens’ works passed into the public domain long ago. In international agreements such as Berne this period is extended in some cases but in general terms the work of writers such as Dickens created in the 19th century is safe to use. (You can even download the whole of his bibliography from Project Gutenberg without violating any copyrights.) The ‘©’ on the cover of a new edition of a Dickens book published by someone like Oxford University Press refers to the particular edition that they have published, not to the work itself by Dickens. In other words, no one holds the copyright on the novels themselves – they’re a beautiful example of how culture becomes a shared, the public domain, commons over time.
3 Antworten2025-07-13
Let’s just give some credit to poor Sonya. Rather than telling us about Raskolnikov’s experiences, Sonya gives up her entire life and goes to Siberia. Her quiet strength in the epilogue is far more powerful than Raskolnikov’s collapse. She is the anchor of the entire ending to the novel.
7 Antworten2025-07-13
My edition of the novel was 671 pages long, and I read it in 14 days, averaging 48 pages per day. I didn’t force myself to read a certain amount each day, but instead tried to read at about the same time every day. By doing so, I was able to sustain the mood of the novel, and maintain the necessary tension. Reading a long classic such as this can be daunting, but by setting a daily goal of, say, 30-50 pages, it becomes a pleasant daily ritual, rather than a chore. I read for about 30 minutes before bed each night, completing a chapter or two before drifting off to sleep. During the night, I would have strange and philosophical dreams. The novel would seep into my subconscious if I gave it consistent attention, and I found that the daily commitment to reading was enjoyable, rather than arduous.
9 Antworten2025-07-16
Just as there are different interpretations of a Beethoven symphony – period-instruments performance, lush orchestral recording from mid-20th century, piano transcription, etc. – all playing the same notes but with a different timbre, tempo and overall ‘feel’ to them, Garnett being the grand, romantic orchestral recording of Beethoven’s work from the mid-20th century, P&V a period-instruments version of Beethoven’s work often jarring but attempting to be historically accurate, McDuff a crisp and clear digital recording of Beethoven’s work, Avsey being a passionate live performance of Beethoven’s work, etc. – none of them are objectively better than the others; they’re all just different interpretations of the work, and which one to go for will depend on what you’re looking for in music and/or prose.
8 Antworten2025-07-13
It’s interesting that no one has brought up the Constance Garnett translation of “Crime and Punishment” yet. While her translation is historical and oft-reprinted, reading it after P&V is like watching a movie with the contrast cranked down low. The rough edges of Garnett’s translation have all been smoothed over to make Dostoevsky’s work read like that of a slightly more agitated Jane Austen. But Dostoevsky isn’t Austen. He’s a tough, uncomfortable, and repetitive writer who dives deep into the psychological inner lives of his characters to expose their inner conflicts and psychological fears. The P&V translation has somehow managed to resurrect all of the edgey and uncomfortable aspects of Dostoevsky’s novel for English-speaking readers. While it’s true that some of the translations are a bit awkward, it’s sort of necessary in order to accurately portray the main character, Raskolnikov, as well as the dirty, sick, and oppressive city in which he lives. If you want to read a smooth and pleasant classic, then read something else. But “Crime and Punishment” is not for the faint of heart, and you’ll need a translation that isn’t afraid of the novel’s mess.
7 Antworten2025-06-03
In the anime he had been intentionally poisoned but, in a world where everyone has magical powers, death is not permanent. In fact, the fandom is currently speculating that he may have faked his own death or possibly used his abilities to come back from the brink of death. Therefore, the how of it all may only be temporary.
6 Antworten2025-08-01
For the original text, The Estate of George Orwell (administered by the author’s literary agent) holds the copyright until it enters the public domain: in the US this will be 2041; in life-plus-50 countries this has already occurred as of 2021. Thus, for instance, commercial, non-transformative uses involving substantial copying require permission from the author’s estate, whereas non-commercial, educational, critical, or parodic uses are likely to fall under fair use/fair dealing, although this is by no means certain. Different formats (e.g. audiobooks, translations, films) have their own copyright holders, but the ideas, titles and short phrases from the original text can be used freely as they are. (Casual, non-profit sharing is very rarely challenged for copyright infringement. Big, formal, for-profit uses should contact the agent first. Any more detail on this would be greatly appreciated – I assume this is more complex than simply “who” but I’d like to be sure I understand the main points).