zlacker

>>mitchb+(OP)
the P&V translations always give me the sensation of American actors speaking in mock Russian accents, like in the Hunt for Red October.

I don't really like them for this reason. I imagine they have merits which I am not equipped to evaluate.

I find it sort of frustrating that they have a near monopoly. It can be pretty tough to find a non-P&V translation in a bookstore these days.

I think this near monopoly, and therefore the financial/career/publishing industry implications, might be why some of the critiques and takedowns seem oddly vicious. It's not just about literary taste.

>>currym+zF
I studied Russian for only a year in college, but it was incredibly clear that P&V was the most literal translation that followed russian patterns of speech. In my russian lit class (in english, but taught by a russian) we only used their translations.

>>carabi+gb2
Yes you've nailed it. The P&V translations respect the way Russians construct thoughts and sentences, even if it differs from the way English speakers typically do so. This is (in my opinion) very important for showing the reader what the writer is really trying to say, and also getting the feeling that you are really immersed in the Russian culture while you're reading the book.

>>silent+293
it's good to hear that my impressions weren't based on nothing. personally i don't like when a translation works like this, I think it's better to try to replicate the literary effect in the target language. (For example I really enjoyed Emily Wilson's choice to do her Homer translations in blank verse, as the analogue in the English poetry tradition to dactylic hexameter, rather than trying to write English in Greek meter.)

but I guess it's a valid choice and might actually be better in certain contexts (plausibly this is true for a university class about Russia and Russian literature).