Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We will begin 2010 by reading one of the greatest novels of all time, Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.

Earlier weeks stay open for posting throughout the discussion, so if you temporarily fall behind you can keep posting about the sections you’re on while you catch up.

Postings can be cumulative – that is, in Week 4, for example, you can discuss not just the chapters for that week but anything up to the end of that section. Sometimes you want to carry forward ideas from an earlier section into a later section, and that’s great.

If you’re reading ahead of the schedule, please be careful not to post spoilers – that is, nothing relating to, or even hinting at, chapters ahead of the assigned section. But if you haven’t read ahead but have thoughts of what might happen or things that you think are foreshadowing, it’s fine to post about them, since you’re not revealing anything that you read in future sections. Speculating about what direction a book might take is fun, as long as you are just guessing and don’t know from reading ahead.

If you’re reading ahead and have thoughts on a chapter we haven’t gotten to yet, you can jot them into a Notepad of Word document for cutting and pasting into the discussion when we get there. I find that’s a good way to avoid spoilers without losing track of interesting (I hope!) thoughts.

Discussion of a section begins on the day it is posted, so if you want to be ready on day 1, have that section read before the opening date. But if you're reading more slowly, that's fine; just post whenever you're ready.

Our reading/discussion schedule will be:

Day to begin discussion
1/06/2010 Part One 1-34 134pp.
1/13/2010 Part Two 1-35 141 pp.
1/20/2010 Part Three 1-32 136 pp.
1/27/2010 Part Four 1-23 94 pp.
--------------------------
2/03/2010 Part Five 1-33 130 pp.
2/10/2010 Part Six 1-32 134 pp.
2/17/2010 Part Seven 1-31 112 pp.
2/24/2010 Part Eight 1-19 55 pp.

sounds good, looking forward to reading with you.

Oh, boy!

Thanks for the schedule, Laurele! Can't wait to start!

Paula wrote: "Thanks for the schedule, Laurele! Can't wait to start!"

I'm looking forward to reading with you, Vikz, Andrea, and Paula. This is definitely one of my favorite novels.

Excited to finally read this great novel!

I love Tolstoy, but I've also committed myself to reading Our Mutual Friend AND A.S Byatt's The Children's Book with the Victorians in January, so we'll have to see if I can somehow juggle all of them. Anyway, as I have told Laurele before, I have some biographical material about the Count from my previous readings of War and Peace and Anna Karenina, and I'll gradually post them on the thread that Laurele has created.

I hope that it will be useful (and enjoyable!).

Kristen wrote: "Excited to finally read this great novel!"

I'm glad you're with us, Kristen.

Sandybanks wrote: "I love Tolstoy, but I've also committed myself to reading Our Mutual Friend AND A.S Byatt's The Children's Book with the Victorians in January, so we'll have to see how I can somehow juggle all of ..."

I'm looking forward to your contributions, Sandybanks. I know what you mean about so much to read.

Sounds great, I'm looking forward to it! Thanks so much for posting the schedule, Laurele!

Sounds great! I had a hard time with AK the first time I read it so I'm looking foward to the discussion and different perspectives.

I'm looking forward to this read. I've not read Anna Karenina previously, but know the general story. I started reading ahead a week back as I find Tolstoy's prose tedious at times and didn't want to fall behind.

Sergey wrote: "I started reading ahead a week back as I find Tolstoy's prose tedious at times and didn't want to fall behind. "

Are you reading in Russian? If not, which translation are you using?

Sergey wrote: "I'm looking forward to this read. I've not read Anna Karenina previously, but know the general story. I started reading ahead a week back as I find Tolstoy's prose tedious at times and didn't wan..."

Amanda, Eliza, and Sergey, welcome aboard.

I'm nervous about this one - Russian literature has not always been my friend - but I'm going to give it go. Looking forward to the discussion - I definitely think that will help the reading!

Jen wrote: "I'm nervous about this one - Russian literature has not always been my friend - but I'm going to give it go. Looking forward to the discussion - I definitely think that will help the reading!"

Good, Jen! We're right here with you.

Everyman wrote: "Sergey wrote: "I started reading ahead a week back as I find Tolstoy's prose tedious at times and didn't want to fall behind. "

Are you reading in Russian? If not, which translation are you using?
"

Hi Everyman. I'm reading the novel in Russian. Tolstoy's Russian is laboring at best; at least in my opinion. I did attempt to read the Constance Garnett's translation many years ago, but found it quite the bore and never got further than the first ten pages or so.

Looking forward to reading with such an engaged group!

Sergey, I imagine Russian must have changed quite a bit in the past 150 years. Nyet?

Laurele, thanks for leading the discussion and providing the great introductory info. I'm looking forward to seriously digging into Tolstoy for the first time.

Sergey, have you read the Pevear/Volokohonsky translation? Do you think that it's closer to the Russian than the Garnett version? I think it's wonderful that we have someone among us who is able to read Anna Karenina in its original language.

Sandybanks wrote: "Sergey, have you read the Pevear/Volokohonsky translation? Do you think that it's closer to the Russian than the Garnett version? I think it's wonderful that we have someone among us who is able to..."

This is really getting exciting, isn't it? Sergey, I've been learning a little Russian (love Russian opera) but haven't gotten much beyond the Three Pimsleur sets. I love the sound of it, especially in music.

I have the Garnett translation (it was hardcover and very pretty) but now am concerned about the quality of the translation. Any thoughts on whether or not I need to get a different version? Sorry if this question was already addressed elsewhere.

Dawn wrote: "Laurele, thanks for leading the discussion and providing the great introductory info. I'm looking forward to seriously digging into Tolstoy for the first time."

Thanks, Dawn. I'm glad we have you along.

Paula wrote: "I have the Garnett translation (it was hardcover and very pretty) but now am concerned about the quality of the translation. Any thoughts on whether or not I need to get a different version? Sorry ..."

Paula, I've read the Garnett translation several times, and I love it. I generally like translations that were done close to the time the author wrote. I do have the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation, but I've only read the footnotes in it so far. (I can't resist footnotes.} I frankly think it would be difficult for a translator to mess up Tolstoy too much.

Translators all have their theories and reasons, but unless they try to translate a classic book into modern slang I think to much fuss over translation of prose is unnecessary. Poetry, now, is a different matter.

If I knew the language well I might feel differently, but then if I knew the language well I wouldn't be reading a translation. Perhaps we have others here with different views, however. Speak up, if so.

Paula wrote: "I have the Garnett translation (it was hardcover and very pretty) but now am concerned about the quality of the translation. Any thoughts on whether or not I need to get a different version?"

For the sake of the reading and discussion here, I think any translation is fine. We don't get much into issues where a difference in translations would matter.

But whether you will enjoy reading one translation more than another, that's a different question and not, I think, one we can really answer. If you're wondering, why not get another one from the library and try it?

Laurele wrote: "I've read the Garnett translation several times, and I love it....Translators all have their theories and reasons, but unless they try to translate a classic book into modern slang I think to much fuss over translation of prose is unnecessary."

Thanks, Laurele! My main concern is that I would run into some of the problems that were experienced with DQ/Les Miz, where, even if the version said unabridged, there were parts that were left out, shortened, or the meaning a bit lost. I'll continue with the Garnett version, as I'm finding it enjoyable anyway.

Sandybanks wrote: "Sergey, have you read the Pevear/Volokohonsky translation? Do you think that it's closer to the Russian than the Garnett version? I think it's wonderful that we have someone among us who is able to..."

Hi Sandybanks. I've not read the Pevear/Volokohonsky translation. Sorry I can't be of help on this. Honestly, I didn't realize a new translation was on the market until recently browsing in a local bookshop. I do remember I was bored with the Garnett translation just so that I bought a copy in Russian instead; money was short back then (was still a kid, really) so had to pay through the nose to have it shipped to FL from NY. Didn't actually pick it up to read it until now.

Laurele wrote: "Sergey, I've been learning a little Russian (love Russian opera) but haven't gotten much beyond the Three Pimsleur sets. I love the sound of it, especially in music."

Hi Laurele. Funny you mention opera. I, in general, don't enjoy Russian opera. The only exception is Eugene Onegin by Tchaikovsky, but then again his music is so lyrical that I get lost in its pure pleasure; do tend to annoy at times, though, by signing select Onegin & Lensky arias; do it quite well, actually, but the frequency of and sudden outbursts seem to annoy than satisfy.

Anyhow, I'm digressing. The language, to address your previous comment, has changed without a doubt. But Tolstoy can be verbose at times that it is distracting, and I find myself re-reading passages again and again. In a way, a translation can help in this regard, I suppose.

This is my first time reading Tolstoy. I am looking forward to the discussions with everyone. Thank you Laurele.

Carol wrote: "This is my first time reading Tolstoy. I am looking forward to the discussions with everyone. Thank you Laurele."

It's an excellent book to read with a group, Carol. Welcome aboard the train to Russia!

Sergey wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Sergey, I've been learning a little Russian (love Russian opera) but haven't gotten much beyond the Three Pimsleur sets. I love the sound of it, especially in music."

Hi Laurele. ..."

Oh, Sergey! I wish we had an audio button here. I am very much in love with Eugene Onegin, both Pushkin's and Tchaikovsky's.

Sergey wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "Sergey, have you read the Pevear/Volokohonsky translation? Do you think that it's closer to the Russian than the Garnett version? I think it's wonderful that we have someone amon..."

Sergey, I'd love to hear your opinion about the various translations in comparison with the original Russian, if you eventually decide to compare the text in both languages. Is it true that Dostoevesky's language is much more complex (and more difficult to translate) than Tolstoy's?

Thanks for answering my questions! : )

On Pevear/Volokhonsky vs. Garnett: I did a project in college comparing their translations of Brothers Karamazov and (IMHO) I don't know that either is more "accurate" per se, but their styles are definitely different. Garnett's style feels more 19th-century and, as most of my professors agreed, sometimes sounds like Charles Dickens. P/V is much more modern in word choice and usage and, IMO, is a little easier to understand and follow. [For my project I picked a chapter at random and did my own translation, comparing it to the two I had on hand (Garnett and P/V). Mine tended to be a lot closer to P/V, which makes sense because I have a more modern English vocabulary...on the other hand, I'm certainly not an expert, just a student.:] So which style is better? I'd say it's simply a matter of opinion.

Unfortunately, while I understand the structure of Russian, my vocabulary was never quite good enough to consider fluent, so reading in Russian (and definitely translating) required a lot of dictionary work, and thus I've only read bits of AK in Russian. When I read it for one my classes in college I read the Norton Critical second edition, which is George Gibian's revision of the Maude translation. Like all English translations of Russian, it occasionally contains run-on sentences and strange participial phrases--normal and expected in Russian, but awkward in English. Otherwise, the translation didn't seem to interfere with my understanding of the story, which to me is the most important thing.

Thanks, Erica! I am only about 50 pages into the Garnett translation and really enjoying it so far. It makes sense that I would like this version if, as you said, it mimics more of a 19th century writing style, which is probably my favorite time period for literature.

As long as sections aren't left out I agree that preference for translation is probably best determined by personal taste.

Thanks again for the interesting comparison!

Erica wrote: "On Pevear/Volokhonsky vs. Garnett: I did a project in college comparing their translations of Brothers Karamazov and (IMHO) I don't know that either is more "accurate" per se, but their styles are ..."

Fascinating, Erica. How wonderful to be able to read even a bit of Anna Karenina in Russian!

Most of my reading is Victorian, and I adore Dickens, so that is probably why I like the Garnett and Maude translations. I feel like I'm at home!

Paula wrote: "Thanks, Erica! I am only about 50 pages into the Garnett translation and really enjoying it so far. It makes sense that I would like this version if, as you said, it mimics more of a 19th century w..."

Birds of a feather!

Thanks Erica. I wonder if you could tell the group about the unique manner in which P/V do their translations. I think you could probably explain it better than I, since you have worked closely on them.

From an article about P/V as translators by Orlando Figes :

"Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky have begun a quiet revolution in the translation of Russian literature. Since the publication of their acclaimed version of The Brothers Karamazov in 1990,[12:] they have translated fifteen volumes of classic Russian works by Dostoevsky, Gogol, Bulgakov, Chekhov, and Tolstoy, restoring all the characteristic idioms, the bumpy syntax, the angularities, and the repetitions that had largely been removed in the interests of "good writing" by Garnett and her followers, and paying more attention (in a way that their predecessors never really did) to the interplay or dialogue between the different voices (including the narrator's) in these works—to the verbal "polyphony" which has been identified by the literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin as the organizing principle of the novel since Gogol."

Link : http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20810

It is said that their translations are more accurate than Garnett's or Maude's because they chose to retain all of the characteristic features of the original text. Not being able to read the original Russian, I have no idea whether this is true or not.

Thanks for the interesting article Sandybanks. Since W&P is among my very favorite novels (unlike Anna K., but that may change in the weeks ahead) I was quite interested in the ways various translations work.

In the case of P/V, what I believe I heard somewhere was that she is a native Russian speaker but he speaks little or no Russian (but I could be wrong about him). She completes a literal translation of the text by herself. Then he works it into idiomatic and grammatical English. Then they negotiate a final translation.

But as I said to Erica, I am not a reliable reporter on this.

That's what I read about them too, Zeke. That is surely a rather novel method. I've never heard of other translators who use it.

I suppose Erica or Sergey can evaluate the various translations better than us non-Russian speakers.

Thank you Sandybanks! The article was most enlightening. I wonder whether I was really reading Dostoyevsky when I read Crime and Punishment many years ago. Reviews of the P/V translation of AK have been very positive, so I'll give it a try.

Sandybanks wrote: "That's what I read about them too, Zeke. That is surely a rather novel method. I've never heard of other translators who use it.

I've heard of this method just once before: when Marcel Proust, who apparently knew very little English, translated John Ruskin with the help of his mother and a friend. So Proust was the Pevear of the team.

For AK, I read the Garnett translation decades ago, and then the P/V one a couple years ago -- WAY too long apart to have an opinion on which I preferred, unfortunately. I planned to read the P/V version for this group, but sadly the copy I got from the library is falling to pieces, so I'm stuck with one of those ancient, yellowed paperbacks with tiny print! Extra-strong glasses have been recruited from a drawer and I'm underway. :-)

My husband and I translate folk stories this way, but that's from oral material. He listens to the story teller in his native language (Kalenjin) and then tells me the story in English. I write it down and try to make it into an understandable and entertaining story in English. A few times it has worked great and sometimes it hasn't. Stories sometimes based on understood assumptions just don't translate as entertaining.

Andrea wrote: "My husband and I translate folk stories this way, but that's from oral material. He listens to the story teller in his native language (Kalenjin) and then tells me the story in English. I write i..."

Fascinating, Andrea! As you say, using a written manuscript would be different, but the collaboration would be similar.

I am a little behind but will try to catch up some this holiday weekend! I really enjoyed reading the discussion of translations in this thread.

Moira wrote: "I am a little behind but will try to catch up some this holiday weekend! I really enjoyed reading the discussion of translations in this thread."

We're very glad to have you, Moira.