The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Please post any background information or other useful material that you think will be interesting and relevant to our discussion of Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev.

Please post spoiler warnings where appropriate.

Is anyone familiar with translators of Russian novels?
I have to go with the versions of the book I can get free online, and they were translated by Constance Garnett, Michael Katz, and Charles Hogarth. I don't like Constance Garnett, so it will be between Katz and Hogarth. Is anyone familiar with them?

I'm currently reading the translation by Hogarth, and am finding it perfectly readable, if a bit stilted (in the dialogue especially). However, I've nothing to compare it with.

I would enjoy advice about listening vs reading and I will pay attention to the advice about translations.

Lori wrote: "Is anyone familiar with translators of Russian novels?
I have to go with the versions of the book I can get free online, and they were translated by Constance Garnett, Michael Katz, and Charles Ho..."

Just curious, what don't you like about Constance Garnett's translations? My copy of The Brothers Karamazov, is translated by her. I have not read it yet, and not being familiar with the pros & cons of the different translators, I just bought the first copy I saw.

Gyoza wrote: "Lori wrote: "Is anyone familiar with translators of Russian novels?
I have to go with the versions of the book I can get free online, and they were translated by Constance Garnett, Michael Katz, a..."

Well, she's known to have skipped over difficult passages and gone through things pretty quickly. Other translators say she watered things down.

Along the same lines, I've also heard she did so many translations and lost much of the uniqueness of each writer.

Most of the Russian novels I've read have been her translations though, and as someone who isn't an expert I've loved them. They are certainly more understandable than some other translators I've tried, but maybe that's the problem--something was sacrificed to get to that readability.

Based on the scholarly reports that I've read about Garnett, she tended to embellish, so at times you hear more of Garnett's voice than the author's. That said, I really enjoy her writing so I guess it depends on how particular you are. I haven't heard that she's so bad that her translations changed the meaning of the text.

I'm not familiar with Katz or Hogarth ...... I think my copy is the Reavey copy -- I'll have to check when I get home. I read this book last year so I'm not going to read it again but I should be able to participate in the discussion.

Here's a link which compares some of the translations and gives helpful information as to what he likes and dislikes about them:
http://www.steamthing.com/2007/05/tur...

Thanks for the link, Cleo. Translations are always such fascinating stuff to me. I can't remember who was the rather Victorian translator of whom Tolstoy said kind things (he was, after all, writing in that same era), but sometimes with an edge (not time for me to go looking for the details right now -- Garnett versus Maude versus ...). I do know that one of my favorite ways of dealing with Russian novels is to listen to one translator while following the text of another. (Same is true for Bible reading for me.)

You're welcome, Lily! I'm fascinated by translation too. For literature, for some reason I'm very particular about Greek and Russian translations, but I know more about Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky translators than Turgenev. I highly dislike the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations, but with the other translators usually I can find something positive in each. Alymer-Maude knew Tolstoy and I belief they had his approval of their translations, so perhaps it was of them you were thinking ...??

Ah yes, Bible translation! ;-) My daughter is studying ancient Greek and the contextual is always of primary importance. And the Greeks can have many words for something (whereas we have only one --for example, "mind") each of which can have subtle connotations, so I can imagine how problematic translation can be!

Since you are talking about translations, here is a book about translating the Bible.God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. It is a wonder the work got accomplished at all.

Cleo wrote: "...Alymer-Maude knew Tolstoy and I belief they had his approval of their translations, so perhaps it was of them you were thinking ...??..."

Thanks again, Cleo. I had a few moments now and found this. It may interest others also: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9cb5c9e0-1e...
"Tolstoy translated" by Rosamund Bartlett

Note this comment on Turgenev: 'Not only was the sheer prolixity of Tolstoy’s great novels a deterrent to all but the most determined of translators, but after the urbane Turgenev, whose measured prose slipped so easily into English, Tolstoy was also far more unpolished, more uncompromising and, well, altogether more Russian."

Rosemarie wrote: "Since you are talking about translations, here is a book about translating the Bible. God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. It is a wonder the work got accomplished at all..."

Yes, and the discussions are endlessly fascinating. However, I also stand amazed at how much of Tyndale's work has remained the stable English even after the microscopic surveillance of generations of learned scholars.

Cleo wrote: "Based on the scholarly reports that I've read about Garnett, she tended to embellish, so at times you hear more of Garnett's voice than the author's. That said, I really enjoy her writing so I gues..."

Thanks Cleo, I'll go through it. My favorite translators for Russian classics are Pevear and Volokhonsky, but their translations are newer, so not available free online (and the English section in the public library here is small).

Being a translator is a dream of mine. Probably an unrealistic dream :-( and if I ever do get there it would probably be for nonfiction since I'd never be able to do justice to a novelist.

I find that I enjoy the style of some translators more than others. You are right, Lori, when you say that it is harder to translate fiction than non-fiction.

Sorry to be a party pooper, this thread should be for background info. The discussions re translations in general should continue in the croissant thread. Thanks :)

Oops. Thanks for the reminder.

Deborah wrote: "Sorry to be a party pooper, this thread should be for background info. The discussions re translations in general should continue in the croissant thread. Thanks :)"

They'd get lost there among so much other. To my mind, they do sort of belong among background information, but I understand your concern, too. Right now other background information is in definite danger of being buried here. Maybe a thread for translations, but still under the heading of Fathers and Sons, since this has largely been provoked by that?

Just a general comment on Turgenev-- he spent a lot of time in France.

Thank you all for the info on the various translators. That's one thing that I tend to forget when I read literature from countries whose language I don't speak.

On Turgenev, he was also apparently a mama's boy and unfortunately gained the reputation in Russian society for being a coward. Here is the link to a lecture by Sir Isaiah Berlin on Turgenev and the genesis of his short story Fire At Sea, which was based on an incident in his youth that embarrassed him. Berlin reads his own translation of the story at the end of the lecture.

http://mediapub.it.ox.ac.uk/feeds/129...

Just scroll down and look for the "Fire At Sea" link. BTW the other talks on that site are extremely interesting, particularly the ones on the Romantic movement. Berlin must have been a walking encyclopedia.

Fathers and Sons is part of an interesting three-part "conversation" between three Russian authors: Ivan Turgenev, Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

In response to the nihilist protagonist in Fathers and Sons, Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote What Is to Be Done?. Chernyshevsky despised the novel and Turgenev's portrayal of "new men"; with his novel, he strove to counter the portrayal, borrowing character names from Turgenev and metamorphosing Bazarov's nihilism into rational egoism for what he thought allowed for more efficient action. The ongoing debate continued with Fyodor Dostoyevsky's response to What is To Be Done?, in his Notes from Underground.

With his Underground Man, Dostoyevsky was attempting to shatter the philosophy seen in Nikolai Chernyshevsky's, What is To Be Done?, a type of monistic materialism brought about through a rational egoism: if only one used reason to discern the higher purpose of man, working through enlightened self-interest the perfect society would be created. Chernyshevsky's dogmatic ideology excluded the possibility of "free will", labelling it as a mistaken perception of what was simply a causal process. However Dostoyevsky, from his years in a prison camp, had continually witnessed the innate human desire to express individual free will, often to the person's own detriment, and with his Underground Man, he strove to prove the ridiculousness of Chernyshevsky's philosophy.

I made all three books a project for last year and reading the three together was incredibly enlightening. I'm not sure if anyone else is up for the challenge but I would highly recommend it. :-)

Cleo wrote: "I'm not sure if anyone else is up for the challenge but I would highly recommend it. :-) ..."

Cleo -- I'm not, but I am fascinated simply by the relevance of these entanglements. Thanks!

Fathers and Sons has been on my TBR for a long, long time and I am going to consider it an accomplishment if I get it alone read. :-)

Lily wrote: "Fathers and Sons has been on my TBR for a long, long time and I am going to consider it an accomplishment if I get it alone read. :-)
..."

:-D You're welcome! What is To Be Done? is quite long and dragging and Chernyshevsky's philosophy is rather wearing, but interesting nonetheless. Lucky for you, Fathers and Sons is much shorter. :-)

Wow, Cleo. That is really interesting info, and I appreciate you sharing. I can't tackle them all right now, especially with how long and probably difficult What Is to Be Done? will likely be, but I will try to not let too much time go by before reading it, and then Notes from Underground.

I started Notes a long time ago, and remember reading about this debate, but not really understanding it. Your explanation was really helpful!

Cleo wrote: "Fathers and Sons is part of an interesting three-part "conversation" between three Russian authors: Ivan Turgenev, Nikolai Chernyshevsky and [author:Fy..."

That's really interesting! Notes from Underground is on my to-read list, now I'll have to add the other one.

One essential resource: http://www.pronouncenames.com/pronoun...

Turgenev's literary activity was almost five decades long from 1830's through 1870's. He was a poet, a novelist, and a critic. He wrote during the time of Russian transition from feudalism to private enterprise. These times were filled with literary and philosophical debate charged with fierce political and economical struggle.

He was born in 1818 to a wealthy landed family, and died in 1883 after a long illness. He was very intelligent, entering university at the age of 15, and later studying in Berlin. He received a Master's Degree in Philosophy.

His work opened a new page in Russian Realism, showing peasants as human and capturing their inhuman treatment by nobility. He also uses nature as an integral part of the story instead of a backdrop. He originated the term nilalist.

He was arrested in 1852 for his obituary of Gogol, and in 1853 exiled to his estate.

Great! Now that I can attempt a proper pronunciation of Turgenev, and know a little about him, I'm ready to start!

First though, I'll try to find a quick review of Russian history so I have some idea where to place the events of this story ...

Interesting stuff--thanks!

Kathleen wrote: "Great! Now that I can attempt a proper pronunciation of Turgenev, and know a little about him, I'm ready to start!

First though, I'll try to find a quick review of Russian history so I have some i..."

Kathleen please post what you find on the history here

Well reading this Wikipedia article was helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History....

But then I found something really fun. It seems to be a project done by some college students. **Warning** some parts of the website might be offensive, but this page is not and has some great background: http://sites.middlebury.edu/fathersan....

The "Project Video" page is also interesting--explaining why they did the website and some background info. They even act out a scene from the book at the end of the video. :-)

Thanks, Kathleen, for the links. I followed the one to the Middlebury blog and rooted around a bit. Character bios and pronunciation guides will help, both there and in Wendel's citation.

A word about 'nihilism'.

In general the term 'nihilism' is used (more often than not in a pejorative way) to describe extreme skepticism regarding the possibility of an objective purpose or meaning in life. Turgenev used the term in a more specific way: for the (moral) attitude of what we might call the second generation of Russian revolutionaries (the 'sons'). And because of the popularity of his book the qualification did stick.

In more than one way however, this ’nihilism' seems a misnomer. The sons were idealists in a practical sense (often prepared to give their life for the cause) and a philosophical sense (considering themselves followers of Hegel). But it is also true that they denied the reality of many accepted truths, and made fun of the 'fathers' who they thought were too wishy-washy to confront the harsh realities of life.

Wendel, I don't know how old you are, but if you are a certain age you will remember the sixties and the "generation gap". And probably other memberw of the group too.

Wendel, your explanation is so helpful. Not believing there is a meaning to life didn't seem like enough of a motivating force to rebel, and I appreciate you pointing out the specific way the term was meant by Turgenev.

And I agree Rosemarie, that "too wishy-washy to confront the harsh realities of life" does remind me of the sixties.

I just realized we're only days away from starting this. Yay!

This is a reread for me but it's been awhile and I am reading a new translation I got out of the library. The translator is Peter Carson with an introduction by Rosamund Bartlett. It's a Penguin Classic from 2009. The introduction was helpful.