Translations of The Brothers Karamazov - reading from five different English versions

[@bigmofarah9084]

Good to see Jurgen Klopp taking an interest in literature.

[@itamarshaashua]

This comment is what I came here looking for

[@david-pb4bi]

From Liverpool, hope he doesn’t give up the day job.

[@Abhi-rd4me]

The thing about translating a dense piece of literary work such as Dostoevsky's is that you just cannot escape the trade-off that comes with it. At one end of the spectrum, there's a translation that tries to adhere to the original prose by retaining the syntaxes and nuances which may perhaps be semantically rewarding in the original language but looms over obscurity in the other. In the process, the work either invariably succumbs to becoming cerebrally verbose in a clunky way (if done right!) or just becomes a mess of unnecessary jargons, dead-ends and non-sequiturs. On the other end, there's a translation that seems to flow organically and manages to maintain a riveting pace throughout (possibly on account of superior prose rather than the subject matter itself) but takes immense liberties at cropping redundancies, modifying cadence, altering diction, transposing or completely omitting phrases to augment or curtail parts of the text. This rendering is done in a manner that holds the hallmark of the translator's own unique writing style and insight, much to the peeve of purists. There are no winners in this tug of war. The soul of the original work gets sacrificed on either end because the soul of a text is not merely a mixture of discrete constituents, but rather their amalgamation, each inseparable from the other; and then some more... Reason would dictate that the sweet spot must lie somewhere in the middle of that spectrum or perhaps slightly tilted towards either end of it depending upon personal preferences. But against what reference point must they be placed on an ordinal scale? The only qualifier would be the original written by Dostoevsky himself. I needn’t expose the glaring fallacy here that one needs to have an equally good command over both Russian and English to compare the translations, although then it would be a self-defeating exercise to search for one in the first place. But as the adage goes - “perfect is the enemy of good”. There's only one way to find out.

[@patrik_bergman]

Thanks! I am learning Russian slowly but of course that is a great way forward. But so is comparing my main language Swedish versions to what I feel about the English ones.

[@Abhi-rd4me]

@@patrik_bergman English is not my first language as well. But I feel I'm fairly comfortable in it. Unfortunately there aren't any worthwhile translations in my native tongue. But all the best to you for your endeavours! Slavic languages usually appear daunting to non-natives but it'll open you up to not only colossal amount of rich literature but also some very interesting socio-economic works of the region.

[@radiantchristina]

This was wonderful. Translation is very important and the best translation for someone is the one that works best for them. The greatest thing to do is to read samples and compare as you did. I'd love to see more videos like this.😍

[@christine6059]

Thank you so much for this. Very helpful. I always struggle with finding “the best” translation.

[@alanjohnson901]

Thank you for this. This passage is so beautiful.

[@buster9106]

Thank you very much for this video. I'm game for more of them! I'm half way through the Constance Garnett translation of The Brothers Karamazov. I'm a native English speaker and I'm quite content with the translation. I put a lot of time into choosing the translation I wanted, as well as the affordability of the book. The only other contender was the Pevear and Volokhonsky version. However I just bought the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of Crime and Punishment.

[@patrik_bergman]

Great! I avoid P&V since they follow Dostojevskij exactly but misses the nuances in English (I think). So it is very correct but a bit boring to me. MacAndrews is my no 1 still for Brothers Karamazov but for Crime and Punishment I found Oliver Ready and it is fantastic. Both these translators follow Dostojevskij but then turn it into prose that sings! To me anyway. Glad you found the versions you like.

[@buster9106]

@@patrik_bergman I'll keep that in mind. I don't mind having different translations of the same book in my home library.

[@tim2401]

I have the msduff version right now but idk if i want to start with that, might try the double author one since its more accurate?

[@mapleext]

I agree- best book ever! This is very interesting - I read a lot of Russian lit, but have very little knowledge or understanding of Russian, or the nuances of translation. I’ve mostly stuck with Constance Garnett - I guess because I started with her and wanted consistency in style. I can’t really agree he meant it was a “ nice” little family - and “fishy” doesn’t feel heavy enough to me. All so individual, as comments have said. Great video!!

[@samstewart4329]

Thank you! I’m trying to decide which to buy

[@zaklinakovace6792]

Thank for your work. Dostoyevsky with his profound writings was one of the people who brought me to Christ to the Truth. I cant thank him enough. I was baptized Orthodox Christian in usa and that was the most beautiful day in my life. My spiritual birth for eternity. And that's the real understanding of Dostoyevsky. When his writing moves all your being to Christ

[@QED_]

It seems to me that too many Russian to English translators have either a Russian sensibility or an English one . . . but not both. So they either don't have a feel for the Russian . . . or don't have a feel for the English. For example, take the famous Chekhov story ""Дама с собачкой" ("Lady With a Lap Dog"). The equally famous first line in Russian is: " Говорили, что на набережной появилось новое лицо: дама с собачкой." (Notice the comma and the colon, which along with word order, affect/effect the feel a lot . . .). Here are 3 published translations: (1) "It was reported that a new face had been seen on the quay; a lady with a little dog." (very bad) (2) "People were telling one another that a newcomer had been seen on the promenade - a lady with a dog." (bad) (3) "It was said that a new person had appeared on the sea-front: a lady with a little dog." (fair) And here's my own feel for it: (4) "They were saying, that on the sea-front someone new had appeared: a lady with a small dog."

[@lucasm4299]

I understand your intention but your translation is too literal with the word order. We should transfer meaning not arbitrary unnatural grammar rules. In English, “they were saying” does not make sense there. Who was saying? “People were saying” works better because it conveys a rumor. The comma there is not necessary. It’s common before что by convention but it’s unnatural in English.

[@QED_]

@@lucasm4299 You know nothing about Russian or English rhetoric . . . or about this story.

[@Raymanujan]

I like your translation the best.

[@DonaldJacobson-h4t]

Tack så mycket Patrik! I studied in the USSR obviously many years ago. I then became a physician. I’m retired now and finally have the time to read Dostoyevsky. Your review has been very helpful. I will be reading in Russian but want a good translation available in case there are some tough passages.

[@Erik-Monge]

Hello Patrick! Firstly, thank you for the great video. It gave me a lot of insight. It made me look further into the translations, whereupon I found a website comparing different translations in various works. Therein I was linked to a blogpost of yours from 2017, where you gave Ignat Avsey's translation on the Brothers Karamazov high praise. I was wondering how come you did not feature his works in the video? Did it fall out of favor for some reason, or was it simply not at hand? If the latter, do you still find it and McAndrews to be the "best" for non-natives, and could you share your insights into their differences? Secondly, you mentioned the book being quite funny in Swedish, our mother tounge, and I wanted to ask which translation(s) you've read? I've noticed most recent publishers are using Staffan Dahl's work, but before him there have been quite a few it seems. This turned out a bit longer than expected, but you arose my curiosity in finally taking the plunge into Dostoyevsky. Tack på förhand och med Vänliga Hälsningar Erik

[@patrik_bergman]

Thanks! Yes I did not have it at hand. Making MacAndrews the one I like the best in English. In Swedish I always read Staffan Dahl but then found Ellen Rydelius and she kicks his behind. The tragic, the humor, the personalities, the wording, everything is better.

[@Erik-Monge]

@@patrik_bergman Thank you for your time Patrik. I see, I will be sure to look for the MacAndrews translation then. After seeing your reply I started looking for the loppisar, and managed to find a prime condition Rydelius translation for €3. I belive it to be a good sign. I look forward to coming back to your videos about the book with great eagerness. Vänliga hälsningar Erik

[@patrik_bergman]

@@Erik-Monge Excellent! I just posted a long video on the Brothers Karamazov Reimagined. It is my quest for creating a thorough summary and analysis of all chapters of all books. My first video captures the Epigraph and Book 1 plus a lot of other material.

[@2Hot2]

Thanks for turning me on to the McAndrew translation, it's really a cut above the others. I''ve compared Garnett against the Russian and it's true that she smooths everything over and eliminates the odd things that make D. so original. Bakhtin calls D's prose "dialectic" because the different characters and social classes have their own distinct voices, like a dialog, instead of being "homogenized."

[@2Hot2]

@@QED_ The reader is stone blind without the words, and thus without the translation. Tell me how the translation, i.e. the choice of words, is not essential to this: What is dialogism? 1. In literary works, Bakhtin's term for a style of discourse in which characters express a variety of (potentially contradictory) points of view rather than being mouthpieces for the author: a dialogic or polyphonic style rather than a monologic one.

[@2Hot2]

@@QED_ A book isn't film. Doestoevski doesn't give elaborate explanations of the context, he lets the characters speak through long elaborate, sophisticated dialogues, as in the meeting of the roomf of Father Zosima. The context of the room doesn't change but the radically different styles of Fyodor, Ivan, Ilyoshka, Father Zosima, etc. express their radically different attitudes. Fyodor's irony could be expressed in hundreds of different ways in translation, each of which would convey a completely different impression in the context of that same room, and that's the readers' only clue to his attitudes towards the others, towards society, and life in general.

[@2Hot2]

@@QED_ Ideas are inseparable from words unless you're a Platonist who believes in eternal abstract ideas that can only be approximated by art. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the topic of translation of Dostoevski. You can believe that the expression of contradictory social attitudes has nothing to do with translation or style or class-specific speech if you like, but I find that argument, based on 3-word sound byte examples totally unconvincing.

[@davidhall8656]

Thanks for this. Probably my favorite book, too. I have read the PV, Ignat Avsey, and the David Magarshak. Of those, I very much prefer the Avsey (it's the Oxford Classic version). I just got a copy of the new translation by Michael Katz, so we'll see how that one measures up. Best.

[@ryokan9120]

How did the Katz translation go? I know on several occasions he has been critical of P&V translations.

[@davidhall8656]

@@ryokan9120 it was good, but I still prefer the Ignat Avsey. I havent done a close comparison, but some of the Katz felt a little flat, toned down compared to the Avsey, which for me was electric and funny. The Katz was good, and I think much better than the PV, but for first time readers of the book I'll continue to recommend the Avsey. When I eventualky reread it again, I may try the MacAndrew or maybe the latest Norton reworking of the Garnett.

[@MoreTrenMoreMen69]

@@davidhall8656Have u considered david mcduff. currently reading it and it’s meh. nothing to compare it to. it does the job but I do wish for a translation that flows easier, mcduff feels very academic and formal. I knew from page 300 this book would certainly be reread many times in my life. Looking forward to it. Also i never thought the brothers K could be described as electric and funny, but after reading many passages i can see where i could be with the right translation. i think my most memorable funny moment was when father ferapont stormed into zosima’s chamber and screamed “exorcise! I shall exorcise!” after hearing about the “putrid smell”

[@davidhall8656]

@@MoreTrenMoreMen69 I have read McDuff's translation of House of the Dead, and agree it was meh, a bit stilted. That's my only experience with him, but it didnt incline me to search out more of his translations. I too love the Ferapont scenes.

[@67Parsifal]

I’ve read Magarshack, P&V, Avsey and McDuff. I’d say Avsey is easily the most readable of the four, with McDuff as the least readable.

[@ivanaznar6495]

This is something that i hadn't thought before, to read an awesome book also means that the translation is good. Now there's something more to look out in a book 😅, life is complicated

[@stephenmarmer543]

Very interesting and helpful. Yes, please do more. Thank you

[@jesuis316]

Tragic and gloomy death Tragic and dark death. Tragic and obscure death Tragic and fishy death Tragic and mysterious death Anyway, traducteurs seem to be unanimous on one aspect: the death was tragic.

[@ExpatRiot79]

For me it's the MacDonald or the Garnet. Fishy death? I like it, but does the translation hold? I don't know any Russian. I think 'tragic and mysterious end' is the best. This exact question has been on my mind lately, owing to wanting to read The Brothers K, but also to reading Vladimir Nabokov's letters and he bemoans not having a translator capable of the perfect translation in both Russian and English. Yeah, I'd like more of this type of content.

[@alegzyi]

Yeah and what's funny about Nabokov himself he was, how to put it best, not a prominent translator himself

[@vicjames3256]

I've read or listened to all parts of all of the first three, and even after hearing the next two, I still like to believe the Pevear and Volohnsky transl. is most accurate. It's the one that speaks to me most, even though I appreciate the Constance for getting me into his writing. Just from everything I've read and heard about (and of) Dostoevsky, this feels the most like a closer match. I don't know Russian, have no great standing in Russian Lit, yet it feels the most true to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Like tell me you don't feel like you're missing inside jokes while reading Notes From the Underground?

[@michaelboucher3100]

Thank you for the video and reading the passages from each translation. Which translation best balances authenticity with readability in your opinion? Thank you and well done.

[@patrik_bergman]

Thank you. I would say Andrew McAndrew any day. Pevear and Volokhonsky stay close to the Russian original but for some reason things get lost in that translation. My mother tongue is Swedish and it seems to be closer to Russian and there I noticed how funny the novel is.

[@michaelboucher3100]

@@patrik_bergman thank you Patrik. Very helpful.

[@josephgrinton841]

@@patrik_bergman Your brief readings have convinced me to buy the Andrew MacAndrew edition. I have several translations by Pevear and Volokhonsky and, though, many people praise them as being 'faithful' they seem clumsy to me. Was Dostoevsky really a clumsy writer? Constance Garnet makes him appear natural and fluent and her achievement should not be underestimated but I think she has smoothed over some of the things that makes his voice characteristically his. Perhaps P & V go too far the other way by not translating his words into fluent English. David McDuff's version is the most eccentric. It seems to be trying too hard and strikes the wrong tone, with slightly awkward expressions. Andrew MacAndrew uses the most natural English words and the most comfortable sentence structures. I'm sure in his native language Dostoevsky was similarly fluent and easy to read. It's helpful to have side-by-side comparisons and very worthwhile. On the first sentence I would say you can't call a death obscure if it has made someone a celebrity. Dark can mean the same as tragic so "dark and tragic" is not good either. "Fishy" is a colloquial word in a very literary sentence structure so that's a bit jarring. "a landowner .. who became a celebrity ... because of the tragic and mysterious end he met..." is a very neat way of saying it that makes perfect sense without any false notes.

[@jessemantyh796]

Deep thanks to you.

[@aminebenjeddi4469]

Is garnet translation good for who is new to the language

[@patrik_bergman]

I would say yes also because it is a free resource. Just mind that she smoothed out some of his Russian to be more like English, thereby missing some parts.

[@blakeray9856]

I would have translated the phrase "по трагической и темное кончине своей" this way: "for his tragic and murky death." But dark is ok, too.

[@ВладимирКолесников-п5м]

Мде, английский язык, конечно, скудноват 😂😂😂

[@valentincherkaj3833]

I read it in its original language. And now? Maybe I should read it in English or German.

[@patrik_bergman]

Great! Yes, or Swedish 😁

[@chrisbeveridge3066]

Reading a book in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on...but that doesn't stop me though I kind of believe it's true...I dig your paintings

[@lauterunvollkommenheit4344]

Please note that the "z" in Karamazov is pronounced as the "z" in "zoo". The stress is on "ma".

[@BettyBooper-z1i]

Which do you like the best?

[@patrik_bergman]

Andrew MacAndrew and Ignat Avsey give us the best of two worlds. You?

[@bojens865]

Do you read Russian? It sounds like you're comparing the English to the Swedish versions..

[@patrik_bergman]

Not yet, but getting there slowly 😁

[@imikalfunangongo]

Some see English as puerile when compared to Russian. This criticism comes from a native Russian using English as a second language, who adds that Russian is pliable to invention and thus is meaningfully more expansive than English. The correct reply to this very specific criticism uses Melville's Moby Dick as a counter example of invention in the English language. Melville perfected figuration in this one work. Both writers, Dostoevsky and Melville, are steeped in either Cristian theology or Russian Orthodoxy and thus both are inheritors of Biblically expansive metaphor. Thus, of the five translations presented, which of the five interprets Dostoevsky's figuration through the lense of Biblically charged figuration? In Dostoevsky, is there rationale to avoid or ignore the backdrop of Russian Orthodoxy as an engine of invention??

[@Kellie-c6k]

There very different people in this this reguard...you cant really "interrupt"them as there very good at it

[@БьярмГипербореев]

What are you suffering for? Not every Russian understands Dostoevsky, depending on his education and church background.. The Karamazovs must be understood with age and in the context of understanding the era of Dostoevsky and Russian society of the 19th century.😅

[@bulldog3512]

Wow!

[@ilqar887]

Is it worth reading 850 pages

[@brad349miller]

English is my first language and I can't understand it. I was tested at 10 years old and had the reading ability of a 17 years old.

[@БьярмГипербореев]

Патрик, а ты хоть понял из прочитанного кто убил старика Карамазова (Фёдора Павловича)??😜

[@patrik_bergman]

Ha ha yes of course.

[@Kellie-c6k]

The Russian people ive met...are very privet...they dont engage in loose conversation for sake of it and protect that space

[@Abu_Azeez]

Klopps younger brother

[@demotsit1290]

За да познаеш оригинала, трябва да съвпаднат най-малко три определения в изказа; драма, комичност, ирония. Изказа му е стремеж към цялото, трябва да получиш усещането за цветна картина. В Русия не случайно писателите ги наричат и художници; изхождайки от факта, че текста в същото време е и картина, образ.

[@willieluncheonette5843]

" Just a single man, Fyodor Dostoevsky, is enough to defeat all the creative novelists of the world. If one has to decide on 10 great novels in all the languages of the world, one will have to choose at least 3 novels of Dostoevsky in those 10. Dostoevsky’s insight into human beings and their problems is greater than your so-called psychoanalysts, and there are moments where he reaches the heights of great mystics. His book BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is so great in its insights that no BIBLE or KORAN or GITA comes close."

[@djo-dji6018]

That's ridiculous, there would be no Dostoevsky without the Bible. The Bible is infinitely deeper than any other literary work. But it's hard to explain to someone who has never studied it.

[@TheAlbaner990]

I like him, but comparing him go the bible or the koran is not only an insult to these two books but also dostoevsky himself.

[@Scottlp2]

Tolstoy fans would argue War and Peace has greater insights ;-)

[@A1888-A]

You shouldn't compare novels to religion

[@A1888-A]

​@@TheAlbaner990agreed

[@AndrewLeigh-v1l]

LOL 😂 😂

[@derekrials4932]

Juergen Klopp is good at translations