Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

autodidacts.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#51

Post by reg_dunlop »

jszymborski wrote: post #47
still-learning wrote: post #32

I thoroughly enjoyed Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and White Nights, but I'm finding myself slogging through Karamazov. I'm about 600 pages in and its picking up at least. Banking on it all being worth it in the end. Normally I subscribe to the quote "life's too short to read a bad book", but making an exception for Dostoyevsky.

I started with Karamazov, then C&P, then the Idiot. I loved excerpts of Karamazov (The Grand Inquisitor, Dimitry's troika ride, any passage with Grushenka) but I also found it rough to get through. I really don't think I was ultimately able to appreciate it as a whole. C&P felt much smoother and finally I devoured The Idiot. Those novels felt like night and day compared to Karamazov. With Karamazov, I feel like there…

Ha. I love Karamazov. To me, it boils down to a love affair/triangle and case of mistaken identity and ultimate justice. But in true Russian lit fashion, you must pass through the absurd with a detour through morality and human nature.

edit: I read the Barnes and Noble translation. And I would encourage reading some passages aloud.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#53

Post by slackfan »

The Pevear and Volohonsky "translations" are an affront to english prose, russian literature, and the craft of translation in general. A heavily quantized LLM with an aneurism would provide the reader with a better translation than that trash.

(I used to be a professional translator for the relevant languages, so I have opinions™)

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#54

Post by summa_tech »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #5
david927 wrote: post #2

I also stumbled onto Crime and Punishment at 18 and expected it to be difficult and was blown away with how Dostoyevsky wrote one of the greatest novels of all time, to be sure, but as the author here says, also how engaging he made it. The scene where he commits the crime is an absolute stunner, edge-of-your-seat, thriller. Who does that? Who can pull that off? Dostoyevsky

Dunno. I can't read Russian for shit (pre-kindergarten level, I'd guess), but it seems like cheating to read it in English.

If you can read more than one language, try reading translations into two or three different ones. It'll give you a different view of a book you enjoy: the translations will all have a different feel, in my experience.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#55

Post by [deleted] »

carabiner wrote: post #13

LMAO he's saying russian lit is readable when using the most bastardized, westernized translations available, Garnet. That was the point of her work and what P&V sought to rectify when they put out their vastly more faithful renditions.

[deleted]

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#56

Post by fl4regun »

I see a lot of praise for Dostoevsky in here, personally, my attempt to read Crime and Punishment resulted in me giving up after a couple hundred pages, it read kind of like a crime novel if it was mostly slice of life and random characters rambling about the goings on of their personal lives, which I did not have interest in and so I dropped it. Maybe I am too stupid for it, but I can't say it is my cup of tea.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#57

Post by frogulis »

gaiagraphia wrote: post #28

Lol, remember being in my early 20s on a train and trying to read Crime and Punishhment, and just kept skipping random 5 pages here and there, before going back to playing Durak with some random Tajiks (who got kicked off the train in some random place...). The huge pages of French didn't help. Prefered Demons, personally. Probably becuase I read it when more mature.

Wonderful to see Durak mentioned. I learned it in its Vietnamese form (Tấn) and introduced it to friends in Australia where it was a big hit. We eventually settled on calling it "Dickhead" or "Dumbarse" which seems like an appropriately Australian interpretation of the source material :thinking:

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#58

Post by uberex »

fl4regun wrote: post #56

I see a lot of praise for Dostoevsky in here, personally, my attempt to read Crime and Punishment resulted in me giving up after a couple hundred pages, it read kind of like a crime novel if it was mostly slice of life and random characters rambling about the goings on of their personal lives, which I did not have interest in and so I dropped it. Maybe I am too stupid for it, but I can't say it is my cup of tea.

That is fine. You may not do well in the UK's The Office trivia quiz* (next question is about Suez Canal!) but apart from that who cares.

* The joke being they do a huge running one upmanship sketch on how much they know about Dostoyevsky before the quiz.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#59

Post by jallmann »

slackfan wrote: post #53

The Pevear and Volohonsky "translations" are an affront to english prose, russian literature, and the craft of translation in general. A heavily quantized LLM with an aneurism would provide the reader with a better translation than that trash. (I used to be a professional translator for the relevant languages, so I have opinions™)

Which translations would you recommend for Crime and Punishment or Dostoyevsky in general?

When I'm starting to read a non-English novel, the process of deciding which translation to use is half the fun. The Kent and Berbera (revised Garnett) version of Anna Karenina was mesmerizing.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#60

Post by Zarathruster »

still-learning wrote: post #32

I thoroughly enjoyed Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and White Nights, but I'm finding myself slogging through Karamazov. I'm about 600 pages in and its picking up at least. Banking on it all being worth it in the end. Normally I subscribe to the quote "life's too short to read a bad book", but making an exception for Dostoyevsky.

I've taken several stabs at it over the years but I always give up in exhaustion. It feels badly in need of an editor, not that anyone would dare. Maybe this is a consequence of the format: it was released serially in chapters to a literary periodical over the span of a couple years. It certainly would've been nice to trim away some of the side characters and ecclesiastical debates for a more focused read, but we got what we got.
Post reply on HN