THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: SonofZ3 on 10 Jan 2008, 19:24
-
So I'm starting an honors Russian Literature Course in a few days, where we will be tasked with the reading of only one book, War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. We've got the 2007 Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation. What are people's thoughts/issues/problems/comments on this work (any translation)?
-
I actually started it last Sunday. I'm around 900 pages into the translation by Constance Garnett (from 1904). I've loved the book so far, found it well formed, with a grand plot and a huge host of characters, all distinct. The only issue I've found has been in keeping track of the names, as any one character may over the course of the book be refered to by two or three different names.
But good luck with it. I considered reading the edition you're to read, but decided that I'd rather read one of the classic translations. Maybe one day, if I choose to return to the book, I will try my hand at that one. Let us know how you find it as you progress.
-
I have a real problem getting through long books. My attention spans just not up to it. I've been interested in reading this and Anna Karenina for a while though. I really like waht I've read of Tolstoy, which is the death of Ivan Illyich (pretty terrifying stuff) and several of his short stories.
Have fun!
-
One of the short stories in a collection I have that also includes "The Death of Ivan Illyich" is "Family Life", which I thought was suspiciously akin to what Aristotle says about love and friendship in Nicomachean Ethics. I say suspicious not as if he was trying to plagarize, but I wondered if Tolstoy was influenced by the Greek Philosophers. I mentioned that to my Russian Lit Prof and he said that he likely was, and just to wait until we read parts of his biography for the first week of class. Whenever I sit down and start to think of all the books I want to read someday, it kinda gets depressing. I think I've managed to read a lot of good and important works, but I still have a long way to go before I would consider myself "well read" in only American and European literature, let alone Oriental works and modern books.
-
If the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation of Tolstoy is up to the standards of their Dostoevsky...oh how I envy you. Their Notes from Underground is fucking spectacular, so I'm sure War and Peace is in good hands. I read War and Peace over the summer for class and loved it. Some of the characters (<cough>Natasha<cough>) perhaps haven't aged well over this past century +, but the book is still absolutely fantastic.
The weakest parts, if you ask me, are Tolstoy's pontifications about history, but then again I'm a history buff, so I'm biased when an author argues it's all the inscrutable will of God beyond which no distinct causality can be determined (even if, speaking in terms of say mathematical certainty, this lack of understanding cause and effect is technically true...).
-
War and Peace is my white whale. I have started this book three times and I just couldn't get through it. I have been thinking about picking up that new translation, it's about time I tried again.
-
Having read classic epics like Les Miserables, I constantly surprise myself with my inability to get past the first 400 pages of War and Peace. It's just too slow and relentlessly expository, with very little actually occuring.
-
I basically didn't do anything else for a week after starting reading this. As with all the classic Russian stuff, it takes about half the book to actually pick up the pace and stuff to start happening, but it's worth the wait. The bizarre philosophical tangents/essays later on are great too. Definitely worth the initial-few-hundred-page immersion period.
-
Sounds like I'll enjoy it. =) And hey, getting a good grade for reading a classic piece of literature is just about the right way to end a college career.
-
I still contend that there is no right way to end a college career. Finishing in four years was a terrible mistake.
-
I'm out this spring after year 5. I have 4 day weekends, a night job 2 days a week to keep me in liquor and one of the other students in the Russian Lit class is by far the best looking girl I've seen on campus. I;m pretty pleased. I can say that last year was my party year without a doubt, this year I have a new roomie and the craziness is gone =/. Oh well
-
Having read classic epics like Les Miserables, I constantly surprise myself with my inability to get past the first 400 pages of War and Peace. It's just too slow and relentlessly expository, with very little actually occuring.
Funny, I gave up on it around page 400 too. Some books take awhile to get going, but I would think that by page 400 something would be happening. It was surprising, because I adored Anna Karenina.
-
I read it for fun about 5 years ago, I believe the Constance Garnett translation, and it's a great read that can be a lot of fun if you peace yourself. Some of the parts are riveting and exciting, most famously the Battle of Austerlitz portion but also some of the earlier scenes where Pierre is drinking and whoring on his inheritances, and some of the later ones where he starts to mature a bit. Yes, the action does come to a dead stop every time Tolstoy gets on his "Great men history is wrong" bandwagon, but relative to the straight narrative these parts are minor and totally worthwhile to get to the good stuff. Frankly I've always been mystified by the length deal, I mean 1400 pages is just 4 average sized books, and if you read at a rate of 50 pages a day, you'll be through within a month.
It's definitely a book that needs pacing though, because I can't even imagine how much it must suck to have to read it in a week before a final or paper is due. Oh, and you're probably going to come out totally idolizing Andrei -- don't worry, that's normal.
-
So far I've enjoyed everything in the book EXCEPT where Tolstoy inserts the bit about Pierre becoming mystified with Free Masonism (Masonry?) while waiting for post horses. I realize that Tolstoy was interested in the concept at the time, but I really felt it did little to help the character of Pierre, or any other part of the plot. Other than that I've been loving it, and the aforementioned prediction of me idolizing Andrei is 110% right. I have come to the conclusion that Andrei is the man, and the world simply isn't good enough for him.
-
It's freemasonry.
-
So far I've enjoyed everything in the book EXCEPT where Tolstoy inserts the bit about Pierre becoming mystified with Free Masonism (Masonry?) while waiting for post horses. I realize that Tolstoy was interested in the concept at the time, but I really felt it did little to help the character of Pierre, or any other part of the plot. Other than that I've been loving it, and the aforementioned prediction of me idolizing Andrei is 110% right. I have come to the conclusion that Andrei is the man, and the world simply isn't good enough for him.
I think the whole Freemasonry thing gets bigger and starts to make sense as the novel progresses. Basically, it's all part of Pierre's grand arc of misadventure from being a scallawag who ties policemen to bears into...whatever he becomes.
-
okay fellow forumites, those of you who have read War and Peace and remember it (or have a few minutes and a copy laying around) might be able to help me here. Near the end of Volume three, on page 921 of my, the richard pevear and Larissa Volkhonsky, edition there is a scene where the wounded Andrei is laying in bed, having fever induced delirium about a needle edifice being built over his face. He is also imaging his shirt by the door is a sphinx, and first sees Natasha as a Sphinx. I've done well throughout the course so far analyzing Tolstoy and understand his symbolism, but this kinda lost me. I'm really not sure what Tolstoy is trying to get across with the Sphinx and needle edifice part, but I know War and Peace well enough not to just shrug it off and assume it doesn't mean anything. Any thoughts?
-
Huh, been a while since I read it myself, so I have no clue. This is when Andrei is basically dying after Borodino, right?
-
yes, hes on the road and happens to be in the same hotel with Natasha, its the scene directly before and during their first reunion since their engagement had been broken off.
-
I could always ask my friend who wrote her senior essay (50 or so pages) on War and Peace what she makes of it.
-
Hey UberRitter, just out of curiosity, what school do you / your friend go to?
Also, with regards to the OP -- I haven't gotten around to reading War and Peace yet, mostly because I haven't really had the time to focus on it the way I'd need to. I've liked some of Tolstoy's other stuff though, and generally really like that period of Russian literature, and having a whole semester's worth of class on War and Peace sounds pretty excellent to me :-)
-
St John's College Annapolis. The Great Books school, not the basketball one.
4 years of dead white men and a rather pricey preparation for grad school but I love it so.
-
Ha! Wow. Well hi, I just finished a draft of my junior essay.
I can't decide whether this is awkward or awesome. Probably both.
For perhaps even more awkwardness: Were you in the Wittgenstein precept?
-
I've heard very mixed things about these translators. My Russian Lit professor at the moment dislikes them for Dostoevsky and Gogol but is ok with them for Tolstoy for some reason.
-
Yes. Hello Becca?
This is Will.
-
Hahaha, I suspected as much. Awesome.
-
Would a good way to start a war be me resurrecting a thread on the 1 year anniversary of its death as an April Fool's Day Joke?
(the 2nd here now, but I'm currently on US time)
-
No, but it will make everyone think you're being a dick.
Dick.
-
Well that was what i was going for, i suppose.
-
The translation is total rubbish compared to the original. I've read the russian version and I believe it's the only way to be read.
-
And all the other five or so translations?
-
Have you read the translation too?
Fourth of the way for the English novel. You're still getting War & Peace, just not as it was intended to be written.
-
Is it the Constance Garnett English?
The Aylmer Maude and Louise Maude English?
The Rosemary Edmonds English?
The Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky English?
The Andrew Bromfield English?
The Anthony Briggs English?
Obviously it is impossible for a translator to be exact in a translation. Style will always be somewhat difficult to move between languages. But within these translations, I am sure that there are vast ranges of faithfulness and achievment.
Which translation are you using to represent all of the English?
Also, Jens is awesome.
-
Constance Garnett; I'll finish the book and I suppose I'll post my full thoughts.
-
It is kind of cool to hear they leave a War and Peace unit til honours because I have been thinking of doing a Russian Lit course but my main concern is they will stick me with exactly what you're doing.
-
I doubt it'll be as biased as I have been, but this thread is about opinions and I'm telling you mine. It doesn't fucking compare.
-
прочитанный перед мысли.
-
To be fair, the Garnett is ancient and generally considered less than faithful. I've heard that for Dostoevsky she likes to polish out the rough edges, avoiding the sometimes deliberate ugliness of Dostoevsky's language for something more conventionally pretty.
-
Garnett is not well respected at all among contemporary translators and fans of literature. It's likely going to be the worst of all those translations I listed above when it comes to faithfulness.
She was fairly ubiquitous when it came to dawn of the 20th Century Russian translations, and no doubt exposed many people to some brilliant works, so props for that. But an accurate translator she was not.
-
I think the whole "oh man, how can you read that book in translation?? The original is so much better!" is as tiring an argument as the whole book to film adaptation one. Y'know, we get it. The words that we're getting in translations are not the same words that the author wrote. Clearly. And it's quite possible that in most instances the original is "better," whatever the fuck that even means. But basically I think you should look at the translation as its own thing, its own related yet unique piece of art. Most of us can't and never will be able to read the great Russian writers in Russian. That doesn't mean their books aren't brilliant and don't make us feel anything and don't have wonderful characters. I loved 'Dead Souls' and 'Hero of Our Time' and 'Eugene Onegin' and 'The Idiot' and...I could go on and on but I won't. The point is it's a silly and frankly somewhat obnoxious argument to insist that we're all missing out by not reading the Russian. Even if we are missing something, the world play or the colloquialisms or the subtle, untranslatable turns of phrase, there's still a tremendous amount to be gained from exploring these works in various forms, through the pens of various translators, some more gifted than others to be sure, and there's not much point in denigrating that experience.
-
Yeah, one should never underestimate colloquialisms as a language barrier. Even if you're speaking ostensibily the same language there's still a number of ways for meaning to be lost from era to era and region to region. Bottom line is, even if I can read a foreign language, I'm still not going to have the same experience as someone who's been steeped in the culture their whole lives. Note how that isn't even touching upon the fact that War and Peace is like 140 years old. I understand that the Russian form is by definition the most accurate experience, but pointing it out is basically crowning yourself Captain Obvious.
-
Captain Obnoxious
-
I think the whole "oh man, how can you read that book in translation?? The original is so much better!" is as tiring an argument as the whole book to film adaptation one.
An interpretation is not an adaptation they are two completely different things, and since this is kind of the idea that your whole argument relies upon you are completely and objectively wrong about this, sorry you had to hear that from me.
Translating something from Russian to English is not the same as adapting something from the written word to the cinema screen because the difference between written languages is not nearly as a vast as the difference between writing a novel and writing/directing a movie.
How did you even think that was analogous.
Captain Obnoxious
It's awesome that you seem to think that a fairly succinct explanation of the difficulty of colloquialism in translation is obnoxious, have you not bothered trying to learn another language or are you just a jerk?
Also I would like to say I have no particular problem with translations of literary classics. I can read French quite well for a foreigner, but I still don't bother with French authors unless they're translated because a lot of the subtlety of word usage is lost on me anyway, so I'd rather have faith in the ability of a translator to create the same effect with our language, and the very worst that can happen with a bad translation is that it makes a close reading of the text impossible, but honestly closed readings of texts are fucking tedious and in my opinion, the least interesting part of literary analysis.
-
Absolutely nothin' HUH!
-
Hat, I think you need to reread what you quoted from TFW. He's not saying that adaptations and translations are the same things at all.
I did not mean to call Alex obnoxious. I would likely have been more clear had I done my previous post like this: I understand that the Russian form is by definition the most accurate experience, but pointing it out is basically crowning yourself Captain Obnoxious.
Alex, I'm really sorry if you thought I was calling you obnoxious! It's not what I meant at all. In fact, I agree with your post completely.
Incedentally, I know some French (not a lot, but some), and am learning Italian (going to Italy this summer to try to learn more). If I am a jerk, I'm sorry. It really isn't my intention.
-
I think the whole "oh man, how can you read that book in translation?? The original is so much better!" is as tiring an argument as the whole book to film adaptation one.
An interpretation is not an adaptation they are two completely different things, and since this is kind of the idea that your whole argument relies upon you are completely and objectively wrong about this, sorry you had to hear that from me.
I actually wasn't comparing the two forms at all. I was comparing the arguments against them, both of which are often made purely based upon some form of nostalgia or fanboyish devotion or general unwillingness to give the other side a fair chance. Obviously films adapted from books and novels in translation are not the same at all and obviously the process of creation is totally different. People who insist that "the book was SO much better" or "the original language version is SO much better" often do so in the same annoying way, however, and rarely articulate a good argument to support their point.
-
Please never read a book over one hundred years old. You can't understand it, you're just not steeped in that culture.
Yeah, I'm being facetious, but it's far more true than most people realize. For something like Dante, for instance, even if you're reading it in the original language, you're still missing a lot.
Frankly, for a lot of the people reading War and Peace, or Crime and Punishment or the like, even in Russian, they're going to need footnotes to be able to get the full depth of a lot of what's happening.
-
I'm being facetious,
It's just valid (or in-valid) as the never read a translation remark.
-
Please never read a book over one hundred years old. You can't understand it, you're just not steeped in that culture.
Yeah, I'm being facetious, but it's far more true than most people realize. For something like Dante, for instance, even if you're reading it in the original language, you're still missing a lot.
Frankly, for a lot of the people reading War and Peace, or Crime and Punishment or the like, even in Russian, they're going to need footnotes to be able to get the full depth of a lot of what's happening.
I completely disagree. You may miss out on some of the reasoning behind remarks being made, or why some social situation happens to be very uncomfortable for an individual or what have you, but when we're talking about War and Peace, we're talking about an author who does an amazing job of portraying the conflict and feelings of human beings in all sorts of situation, the dichotomy of human existence. Which is the same now as it was 100 years ago, because we're still human beings. The novel hasn't had such staying power for no reason. People identify with the struggles of the characters, because humans are humans, 100 years ago or now.
-
...and so it doesn't matter if you're reading it in the original Russian or in translation. The themes and characters and ideas are universal and often transcend a specific historical era and certainly a specific geographic location. Beren is right though in a sense. Even Russian versions of the great Russian authors include footnotes just as any version of Dickens you might find in English would have plenty of footnotes. That's because the book is an artifact of a specific historical time and so much that actually happens and is referred to will in fact be lost on a modern reader no matter what language they read it in. If the translator conveys the major stuff, the themes and so on (and the good ones most certainly do), everyone is missing immediate familiarity with the minutiae of historical context, a point nullified by good footnotes, and yes, readers in the non-original language are "missing" the subtleties of the original language in many ways. Nonetheless, all of this supports what I originally said, I think, which is no matter what language you're reading something in, if it's great, it will be great in the hands of a skilled translator. Lost subtlety aside, War and Peace is a masterpiece in English just as it is in Russian and arguing that the latter is inherently better is, I think, missing the point.
-
You guys suck at reading.
What I was saying was that that's an equally invalid reason to not read something as the translation argument.
But really you should not read because you're bad at it.
:-P
Good writing is good writing because it's transtemporal as well as translingual
as well as transexual.
-
basically the text transcends the author and therefore the context and stands on its own as a work which can be read and interpreted in an infinite number of ways. The fact that we may never be able to fully understand what the author intended is irrelevant. this is called post-modernism, i dunno if you have heard of it it's a pretty radical idea*
*it is not radical at all
-
Alex, I'm really sorry if you thought I was calling you obnoxious! It's not what I meant at all. In fact, I agree with your post completely.
I'm afraid the time for that has past.
Pistols. Dawn.