For me, Garnett really captured that moment when one knows spring has come and the subconscious hope that it brings forth. By the way, Benjamin, you are a marvelous reader, thanks for your efforts to bring the magic of great literature to us.
The Garnett translation seemed to flow most easily to me, simpler to follow, but the P&V and Maude are perhaps more striking in their descriptives. I found ranking them very tricky!
Found this channel while I was reading Crime and punishment and fell in love with it instantly, very insightful and straight to the point, thank you for talking about classics since no other booktuber does so
@@BenjaminMcEvoy started re-reading the P&V translation of crime and punishment after seeing your video and I gotta admit it's definitely an improvement over the Garrett one (for me at least since I find it more digestible than Garrett's). So I genuinely thank you for that, have a great day!
This is probably the most useful video I've ever found in terms of providing direction for my own reading. Thank you for it. I've passed it along to others who are gearing up to read this beautiful book.
I have read the P and V, the Maud, and the revised Garnett (multiple times). I thought the Maud was far too anglicized and the prose a bit stodgy. The P and V is gives a more precise sense of unique class relations in Russia, and it really nails some of the big scenes (the ball is outstanding). The revised Garnett (modern library classic edition) is by far the best written in English that I have read. It is just so fluid, and strikes a nice balance Englishness and Russianness. However, I don't think any of the translations are actively bad. Tolstoy works in almost every English translation I have read because the characters are so psychologically rich, and the scenes so well-described that I think he is difficult to ruin. Dostoevsky, on the other hand...
@@BenjaminMcEvoy I recently bought Crime and Punishment translated by Oliver Ready because of the beautiful cover 😅have you read it? what do you think of it? I should have seen this before buying that book 🥲
I actually prefer the Maude translation in the blind test. Though P&V sounded great as well. I bought Anna Karenina from Everyman's Library, so the decision has been made for me (Maude). Interesting to hear the comparison in hindsight.
Maude is definitely my favourite for Anna Karenina, I think they capture Tolstoy's flow perfectly and the syntax is just beautiful in this translation. I usually favour P&V for Dostoyevsky translations. I never liked the Bartlett translations at all - take this paragraph for example, how many times did she add the word 'started'? Completely breaks the flow of the piece. The blind hearing test for this paragraph for me, I would have expected to order them Maude > P & V > Garnett > Bartlett but I actually chose Maude > Garnett > P & V > Bartlett.
THANK YOU SO MUCH ❤❤ i chose and bought garnett and i firmly believe my reading has been so successful and fun because of the correct translation...Garnett is easy to get into but still maintains that magic of the writing.....loving this book so far!!!
This was a great taste test. Thank you for it! I liked Constance garnett the best as she distilled the essence of the work without stilted vocabulary. It was very clear and straight-forward and for someone like me whose third language is english felt the easiest to follow. The other point I noted was that the garnett translation is in the cheaper editions in my country, even freely available online and for a first deep read, a cheap paperback is always the best option.
Number 3 for me. So poetic, so pastoral. I can see the scene as if I was reading a painting. The language is rich and full of promise, like the season it describes. It is music made with word. I loved your reading too. Thanks.
I liked the P&V, Bartlett, Garnett, Maude, in order. Going off now to order my copy. Thank you - this was very helpful. Have you reviewed "Fathers & Sons" by Ivan Turgenev? Another great Russian story.
Thank you Benjamin for making this decision of which translation of Anna Karenina to read more tangible. I somewhat surprisingly preferred the Maude translation in your blind test. (I thought I'd choose Bartlett.) I knew I wouldn't choose P&V - because I'd compared two versions of Anna Karenina at home (P&V vs. Garnett) and chose Garnett. P&V doesn't flow as well for me - while it may be a fine, accurate translation, I found the syntax a bit awkward. Note: I finished War & Peace last year and chose Briggs, which I enjoyed.
I was reading The Human Factor by Graham Greene and in it the main character Castle goes to his regular bookstore where he picks up a Tolstoy novel from the bookseller who sings the praises of the Maude translation. I wasn't sure if that was Greene's approval , or just the character. I went with it, but if I'm missing out on something better, I might have to reconsider it. Graham Greene is difficult to argue with.
I had just bought the Bartlett translation, but I preferred the Maude translation on the blind test. Hmmph! When I think about it, the Maude translation was more poetic and yet vivid, but I don't know if I could take a whole book of that language, so maybe Bartlett's more workman-like translation will be just fine, more Russian-sounding (if that's a thing).
I liked the P/V and Bartlet. The first few lines about the sun, ice and the vapour became very vivid in my imagination when you read the Bartlet translation. I am not an English native, so it's hard enough reading AK in any kind of English, but translation makes a lot of difference! I am currently reading P/V translation, but became very interested in getting Bartlet translation after watching this! Thanks for the inspiring video!
I agree! I understand a lot of people would go for one of the others and maybe parts of the book are more accurate or true to the original, but since English is not my first language I would definitely go for the Bartlett translation. Stands out when it comes to easiest to follow and imagination!
I downloaded a PDF version of P&V and Bartlett's work. Some verbs and adverbs in the two are in times better than the other. P&V has this structure of a classic english and provides tiny details to the environment while Bartlett is modernized one with different structure than P&V. They're so similar to each other that I'm going to read both of them at this point.
Listen #2 Nov. 4/22 Lovers of Jazz are well aware that Downbeat magazine used to do a blindfold test (they probably still do it). Jazz artists would listen to pieces they hadn't heard by artists whom _they have_ heard before and had praised or trash talked said artist. After listening to the piece/pieces they'd have to go on record first about who they thought was the musician playing the piece before getting the reveal, that's what I'm gonna do. There is another video where Benjamin knocks on Constance Garnett, I made sure to check her out for myself after hearing Benjamin's criticism. I had to decide on a version of Crime & Punishment and I liked Constance's the best-I like her work. So my dog in this blindfold test is that I hope the translation(s) I like, includes Constance. From past exposure, I already know I don't like Pevear & Volokhonsky. Their sound just sounds clunky and forced to me. I've noticed P & V are heavily marketed to the public. I don't know how true they are to the authors they translate and I won't know unless I learn a little or a lot of Russian. All the marketing of P&V has, for a long time, left me feeling like they are the Nike product of the literary world. Ok, on to my ratings/impressions: Translation 1. Hated it on listen #1, _still_ hate it on listen #2. "Fleet footed children."? Sounds like fantasy novel language. Translation 2. Better! there is some toughness to it. The description of the peasants with their axes was better, though axes don't "click", so it wasn't perfect. "swift footed children began to run..." What a relief, so much better than "fleet footed". (This one gave me the easiest and most involuntary spontaneous mental imagery out of all the translations.) Translation 3. Hated it the first time. Hate it even more the second time. Sounds like Tolstoy was put through an A.I. translation machine. Yuck! (Please don't be Contance!) Translation 4. It's alright. Yes, I know that's about the flattest level of approval you can give something, but the point here is to give the honest impression, and it's just alright. It sounds like someone who is just plodding along in the translation and being too literal. That is to say, they are rendering up the words but have lost some of the energy and spirit. Not good. The children are again, "fleet footed", and axes are "falling". I'd prefer for the axes to be connecting and smashing into something. "Falling" axes gives swooping imagery. Peasants live taxing, very physical lives. They aren't catching butterflies with those axes. (Unfortunately, I think this one might be Constance Garnett, I have a feeling #2 is Bartlett). Big breath, time to play the reveal in the video...
Personally, I found translations 2 and 4 to be the most engaging. I thought translation number 1 was the least appealing and didn’t provide as solid a visual image as the others. But I’ve never read any Russian literature (not yet), so I don’t really know what to listen for.
Thank you. I read Anna Karenina 40 years ago, version unknown. Am now reading Pevear and Volokhonsky translation. It reads easy so, wondered if earlier read was more accurate. I didn't want a sense that Tolstoy was born English! Glad to know I happened upon a great translation as I savour the remaining 200 pages of the novel. The TH-cam was helpful.
After hearing you praise P&V so much, I ordered Gogol's Dead Souls in their translation. Yet to be read though. I have read a few shorts of Chekhov by both Garnett and P&V. Will order P&V mostly now.
Constance Garnett’s version is the best, but of course some revisions can be made to tighten it up a bit, and that’s exactly what they did at Modern Library resulting in a wonderful version, with an introduction by Mona Simpson. So Constance Garnett doesn’t sound like Tolstoy? Dostoevsky? So what? She is good enough to be Constance Garnett. The other translations are merely revisions based on Garnett’s version, and they are not necessarily better than Garnett’s version, and some are even worse.
Here is Rosemary Edmonds' translation. I trust Edmonds, but #1 in this video is stupendous above all others. "the warm air was all atremble, filled with the vapours of the reviving Earth" was a marvelous choice, among so many fine choices in #1. But anyway, Edmonds wrote this: "In the morning the sun rose brilliant and quickly melted the thin ice on the water, and the warm air all around vibrated with the vapour given off by the awakening earth. Last year’s grass grew green again and the young grass thrust up its tiny blades; the buds swelled on the guelder-rose and the currant-bushes, and on the sticky, resinous birch-trees, and the honey-bee hummed among the golden catkins of the willow. Invisible larks broke into song above the velvety green fields and the ice-covered stubble-land; peewits began to cry over the low lands and marshes, still bubbly with water not yet swept away; cranes and wild gees flew high across the sky, uttering their spring calls. The cattle, bald in patches where they had shed their winter coats, began to low in the pastures; lambs with crooked legs frisked round their bleating mothers who were losing their fleece; swift-footed children ran about the paths drying with imprints of bare feet; there was a merry chatter of peasant women over their linen at the pond and the rings of axes in the yard, where the peasants were repairing their ploughs and harrows. Spring had really come." 1, 3, 4, 2
Oh, I definitely prefer the Maude from this blind test!! I find it so flowy and dreamy/magical ! I see in the comments that it's not a very popular choice, though! Haha But on the other hand, English is not my native language so maybe I have different criteria 😃🤷 Luckily, in my native language, Greek, we have a fantastic translation for the Anna Karenina, it's just stunning !! You cannot put it down. So this book for me was extra magical 😃🙌🙌 The same translator has translated all the Dostoevsky books in Greek, too, so we are very very lucky !!
Superb video idea. I'm for the PV translation, simply IMO the most poetic: "And from the yards came the knock of the peasant's axes." Exactly, I could even hear those knocks.
It's a perennial question and one that is very difficult for people to assess if they know nothing of the original language. Comparing passages tho is a really useful aid in deciding, so thanks for doing this vid. As an academic translator myself, I tend to agree with the large number of people out there who dislike the P&V intensely. Chiefly because of the way P&V try and equate their clumsy use of English as reproducing the quirks and ideosyncrasies of Tolstoy's original Russian. It doesn't. Pevear by all accounts doesn't even know Russian and has a flimsy grasp of English! There's a great article out there by Gary Morton, a US academic on Russian lit, who does a great job in explaining the issues. It's called 'The Pevearson of Russian literature'. Well worth a read. I'm about to try the Rosamund Bartlett edition. It sounds promising.
@@SandrineDamfino Just because someone speaks a language as their maternal language, it doesn't necessarily mean they understand translation or its art with the target language. I could ask a multitude of French friends which version of Proust is "the most accurate" and just because they speak English doesn't give them a professional understanding of both languages.
Tolstoy in Russian is about as far from clunky or stilted or idiosyncratic as can be. His language is highly literate and refined and is a model of clarity, order, and directness. I, too, strongly dislike Pevear's English style. Recently, I read a Gogol story translated by the P&V team, and there were some glaring errors--errors that could be caught by any attentive reader even without consulting Gogol's original Russian.
I'm reading AK for the first time now; I'm 1/2 way through. I'm reading the Garnett translation and it's very readable and enjoyable. And that's all I know... Wow. I recognize the passage you read from a Levin-oriented section. I guessed the Garnett was either the 2nd or 4th piece, and I liked the third best, so I guessed it was the P&V. Shows how wrong you can be! Being from farming stock myself, I identify and admire Levin and am always rooting for him. The dinner scene where he was communicating with Kitty with chalk on the table brought tears to my eyes, I was so happy for him.
Ben, Just excellent! I really enjoyed this 'taste' test especially given that I've just bought two copies of the Oxford World's Classics translation (pb). Luckily I couldn't pick between options one and four (phew) so no regrets. My husband and I are about to buddy read Anna together. Beyond excited! Last year was my year of English classics, this is the year of the Russian classic! Just found your channel and enjoying the content immensely. Thank you. Stay well. Sharon x
Thank you, Sharon! That's so cool you've grabbed two copies and are reading it with your husband. I swear you'll both have A LOT to talk about together. You'll be gossiping about the characters, debating, judging for years to come, I'm sure. Such is the power of that novel! I love your reading progression - English classics, then Russian classics. Very nice! Perhaps French next year? Stay well too, and warm wishes to you both :)
As a farmer, I found the P&V and the Bartlett more appealing, more "accurate". The second, or Maude, did not appeal to me at all. Garnett would have been my third choice. Interesting experiment, and it did influence my shopping. Thanks.
1.very poetic, onomatopeic, big fan. maybe a little disjointed? 2.not as good, lacks some of the poetry 3.absolutely beautiful. smooth. favourite so far. 4.WOAH. GREAT. KEEPS GETTING BETTER. wow ok, I have only read the maude so far, I guess I'm missing out!
Okay I totally underestimated the power of translation. So glad I found this after trudging through part one of P&V and feeling a little guilty that I didn’t like the book. While beautifully written, the long, mind-numbing passages made it so hard to get into the story. I’ll try the Maude version, it felt more natural Great video!!
This is useful. I am still yet to read the great book - but after listening to this, I realised I ought choose carefully. First impression was P and V sounded most appealling , then Bartlet ..... Looking forward to picking up a copy soon. Thanks Ben.
Extremely helpful, thank you. I read war & peace earlier this year after watching a few of your videos & loved it. I read the Maude translation, but interestingly Maude came in last place in this blind taste test! I personally liked them in the order 3, 1, 4, 2 - although there was little to separate 3 & 1 imo. Thanks again 😊
Such an interesting comparison. P&V I found a bit bare bones - almost an attempt to replicate the imagined simplicity of the original Russian. Maude was more musical and Garnett followed a similar path. Bartlett seemed to really soar, though without a knowledge of the Russian language it's hard to know whether this translation was too fully developed. As a reading choice I'd go with any of the latter 3 though for sheer enjoyment Bartlett seems to really stand out!
1) Rosamund Bartlett. 2) Maude. 3) Pevear and Volokhonsky. 4) Garnett. (It was such a surprise since I'd never heard of Bartlett's translation before, and I presumed that P&V would be my favorite.) This was a great and insightful video! (I have looked into the translations more and I've found that I generally liked the maude better, but this passage was just so good in the Bartlett translation)
I’m very late to this great video but enjoyed it nonetheless! Before the reveal I listened to each a couple of times and my impressions varied depending on whether my pedantic ecologist brain was alerted or my poetic ear stimulated. Results as follows: 1 - drove me mad because bees don’t hatch, peewits don’t weep and I don’t know what a spiritus birch is (pedantic ecologist took over!) 2 - was better but spicy birch was odd, and peewits are crying though this is slightly better than weeping 3 - was my favourite after the first listen, it just seemed to flow better, wailing isn’t quite right for peewits 4 - was my favourite after second listen - I particularly liked how the sun quickly devoured the thin layer of ice (rather than just ate it in 1), and peewits do send up plaintive calls but I wasn’t so sure about the repetition of started - but maybe Tolstoy intended the repetition? So I think I’ll read the Bartlett but I have renewed respect for Garnett given she was virtually the sole translator of the Russians for so long!
I feel English readers are unlucky, in Arabic the translation of Chekhov and Dostoyevsky, Pushkin, and Tolstoy is way more better and shows the actual Russian spirit. I like Robert Chandler I think he is the finest and the closest to Russian soul. Luck he translated Vasily Grossman and Pushkin
I originally read Anna K about 15 years ago in the Wordsworth Classics version - not sure if that was Constance or Maude. I'm currently re-reading in the Penguin Clothbound P & V. From what I've read and heard P & V do great translations. And to be honest I don't want the translation that I find most appealing when compared side by side, like in this video - I want, as far as possible, to get at which translation is objectively the best / most faithful. So that I can read it and assess the novel as fairly as possible - without the particular translation forming a layer of obfuscation. So if for example Tolstoy writes in an annoying halting staccato manner, I want to experience that and judge it accordingly, rather than having a flowery smooth translation give me a false impression if his style.
I did a point system out of 5 and here is my preference. I actually do like reading different translations of the same work and in multiple languages if I could (currently 2 English and Vietnamese) as I want to see different interpretations, different use of words. I've ordered 1 and 2 versions and might order bartlett in the future. 1. 3 - pevear & volokhonsky 2. 4 - maude 3. 2 - garnett 4. 3 - bartlett
I just spent 45 minutes deliberating between getting W&P or AK after having finally settled on which translations I'd prefer for each. Ended up buying a Chekhov collection 😭
Maude may have been my favorite blind... or the Bartlett. Felt like the Maude struck a nice balance between poetic and accessible. Bartlett pretty clearly felt the most modern. How is the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation? Thanks!
I just realised I liked Maude the least and that is the translation I read. Definitely P&V for the clear win - it seemed more lyrical and emotive. Maude and Garnet too direct and utilitarian almost to my ear. Bartlett returned some of the more poetic feel by the end. This has been very illustrative - thanks.
Thanks so much for this. I got the Everyman hardback for my birthday and then got the kindle version but hadn’t realised the difference it being the Garnett version. I’ve now decided to buy the Bartlett kindle version and keep the Everyman on the shelf looking good. My favourites from this were 1 and 4.
I began reading Anna K from a freebie I picked up and the translator was David Margarshak. It was ok but I was not gripped by the storyline or storytelling. I would alternate between it and an audio book with the Dole translation, which I liked much more. That got me wondering what other options were out there and I picked up a P&V translation from my library (late in the game - I was halfway through Part 7). The difference was huge! I read it in preparation for my son’s senior year of literature and am glad for the P&V translation.
I liked 1, 2, and 4. I thought 4 was best. 2 used too many “And” to start each sentence and 1 was really quite overdone with fluffy prose. Tolstoy in my opinion should never be fluffy. He has a more stoic beauty than anything and that is what I search for.
I currently have a copy of the Maude translation and was about to start reading, but thought I'd check this video out. I wish I had watched before purchasing, because I gave it the lowest score of 6/10, the other 3 all being above 8 😂 I'm going to give this one away and order a P & V translation which I rated a 9.
Interestingly, not only did I choose P&V, but I also guessed that it was their translation before you read any of the others. Something about the way that each aspect was stacked upon another struck me as very Tolstoy, and P&V's usual fidelity to his syntax. (In addition, minimal translation explanation; “women with their linen” as opposed to “women who were bleaching their linen” for example.)
I am reading it in German but after the P&V I am contemplating if I should buy that one as well and read it parallel.. What I find very fascinating is that in my German translation „morning“ wasn‘t mentioned with one word but you knew that he was talking about it.
I was just starting to read the Maude version (I bought it because of the beautiful cover, to be honest) and I didn't get very far before stumbling upon this video, so I thought it was alright. However, after you read from the different translations it was by far my least favorite and I immediately ordered the P&V version. Guess I'll just have one for display and one for reading! Thank you for the video :)
That's amazing :) I'm so glad the video was able to help you - and wonderful to hear you prefer the P&V. It's always nice to have two versions, one for display and the other for marginalia. I'd love to hear what you think of AK!
Just finished the book for the first time in English. It was the Maude translation. I previously read it in Danish (a translation from the 1910s) and that was awful in every way and it assumed you could read French and knew all the circumstances of Russian society at the time. I liked Maude translation. Plenty of annotations and bookmarks for context and translation. I skipped the introduction, because it says in the first paragraphs that you ought to read it before.
Ah, I've read a few translations that assumed French on the part of the reader and tons of Russian historical knowledge. I'm glad you enjoyed the Maude :) It has a poeticism to it!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy I really thought so too, especially in the infatuation moments. One of the great moments though, which I feel is a little diluted by English, is Karenins conversion. It seems (and is probably meant to) feverish and confused. But there is so much put upon this moment in a plot perspective. I get he suddenly gets her perspective and feel pity for her and her child, but this almost divinely inspired feeling withdraws. I guess my interpretation is, that people are able to find a saint-like sense of forgiveness and feeling of conciliation - but that can quickly dissipate once the mundaneness of life resumes.
I'm at part 6 of the P&V translation. I care little for the descriptions of nature and countryside that usually describe the transitions between seasons. For me they have been my least favourite part of the book along with Tolstoy's obsession with giving characters this sixth sense of knowing when something is awry or someone is looking at them without any actual physical sensory indicator. Aside from these small parts the book is incredible and my only qualms are with the actions of the characters themselves, which only serves to prove that they are truly "fleshed out". If I did not feel they were real I would have no issue with their action (or inaction).
This is a really nuanced review - thank you very much, Jamal! Your reaction sounds very similar to my first read reaction. It was only after a few rereads that I came to value the descriptions of nature and that internal sense you describe. Funnily enough, they became my favourite part of the novel. Really great point about the characterisation - Tolstoy's a master of creating people we believe to be real.
Just ordered the translation(Bartlett) recommended by you...thank you very much ... 💕 The result of blind test: P and V : 7 out of 10 Barrlett: 6.5 Maud : 6 Const: 6
Surely the 'go to' translations of Tolstoy's classics were those by Rosemary Edmonds, published as Penguin Classics? It is strange that she never seems to get a mention in the debates over whose is the best. I haven't read RB's version yet, but must say her biography of T is a wonderful read and full of new information and surprising revelations. She inspired me to read AK in Russian, which I found much easier and more enjoyable than I had expected, though when T starts describing the women's clothes at the balls, I needed to look up a word every line and even then I did not recognise some of the English words. There seems to be a conspiracy to blot out Rosemary Edmonds from the discussion of T's translations. Even if her versions are no longer in print, so many of them must have been sold over the years that I guess you could easily pick them up for a pound or two secondhand. Reading her versions, you forget you are reading a translation, whereas you can 'hear' the Russian in the background when reading the Maudes or Garnett. (From a 1963 SSEES graduate.)
I agree. I started reading AK in the Rosemary Edmonds and got utterly hooked. I then decided the print was a bit small for my migraine eyes, so I ended up down the rabbit hole of different editions and translations. I tried PV but to me it had nothing like the magic of RE. I really wish you could get a new, republished better edition of the RE translation.
@@shuttergirlUK Thanks for replying, Susie. Yes, print size is very much an issue. That affects me at my age, too. Of course there must be a huge commercial pressure to use tiny type so that you can squeeze the whole text into a single volume, mustn't there? You are the only person to respond to my comment. A question of age? I still think T is the greatest novelist and literary psychologist that I have ever read, though I am not a great fiction-reader. Non-fiction is more my cup-of-tea.
I bought the Maude translation from Everyman but always wondered if I had made the right choice. This comparison has confirmed my purchase as I find the Maude translation in this blind test superior for me. It's vivid and beautiful description leapt to my mind far clearer than the others and just rang better to my ear. Glad i decided to go with them vs the more popular V&P version.
I haven't read Anna Karenina. On the blind read test this was my initial order:- 1. P&V 2. Maude 3. Garnett 4. Bartlett On further listening they all sounded quite beautiful in their own way.
Wow, this is incredibly helpful! I've never read Anna Karenina but I have the Bartlett translation on my Christmas wish list because it seemed close in translation style to the Briggs War and Peace (which I love). Guess what? I preferred the excerpt from the Bartlett over the others, easily, though I ranked the P&V close behind it. I think I'm going to love this book.
Behind a veil of ignorance I initially liked #2. I listened to the passages another two times and I preferred #3. I don't know if I'll ever have the courage to read Anna Karenina. My mother has an old copy translated by V&P, so I'll start there regardless.
Sheep shedding, rather than requiring to be shorn, generally tells me they are a breed of meat sheep. Is it odd that I preferred versions 1 and 4 for suggestively retaining this education?
That's an amazing reason for preferring them! From what I've gathered, Tolstoy put a lot of work into including agriculturally specific vocabulary - which apparently can't be translated very well!
If I had to choose one on the basis of this then, for me, the first reading captures the best nuances of seasonal transition in the reading. Thank you for the readings that allow this comparison.
I fell in live with War & Peace with the Maude translation. Is the Maude good for War & Peace more than Anna Karenina? I am always apprehensive of modern translations because I love the older english. Not old english as in Shakespear but old as in just that 1800’s early 1900’s language.
The Maude translation is my personal favourite for War and Peace. I've tried Pevear and Volokhonsky's edition, and I love the effect they're going after, but I still find myself choosing the Maude!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy I agree that translations are important. Recently ive been attempting to sift through all the different translations of my carious favorites. Some like Arabian Nights, Don Quixote, the Divine Comedy, In Search of Lost Time, and other works even Ramayana and Mahabarahta, I LOVE those. Say, do you ever appreciate or review old Arabic literature? Such as some of the ones I have mentioned above? I simply cannot get enough of that archaic primitive epic style story telling especially when really translated by someone who understands the style really well.
I read the Maude translation. I will probably re read it in the P&V or Bartlett. Personally, I enjoyed the P&V rendering of that passage the most :) Great video - I really am enjoying your videos. 😀 Can you give a video where you recount your favourite scenes of Anna Karenina? :)
Great stuff, George! Nice - another P&V fan! Thank you :) I absolutely can do that. I've already got a few videos in the Book Club that discuss my favourite scenes in quite considerable depth, but I'm sure I can get some more out!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy oh yes, a P&V fan most certainly, but a Tolstoy fan more than that. I enjoyed reading literature as a kid. Getting married last year, my wife always read 15 minutes before bed as her routine and I used to stare at the ceiling while she did that. Then one day I decided to order a book in order to join her in her reading; that book happened to be War and Peace. I thought at first it was just some sort of political thriller, but turned out to be one of the most intense explorations of love and hate I have ever read (apart from the bible) and I just fell in love, with the beauty of his writing, his insights, and I have ended up treasuring a lot of the things in my heart. Now I am a massive russian literature fan! I have also signed up for your Anna Karenina book club and will be re reading it in the P&V. Can't wait to explore it with you!
@@georgejoun6232 Wow. That is such an amazing story!! I love hearing about couples who read together - trumps reading alone by x1000. And thank you for joining the club!! So happy to have you, George! :)
Thank you for this video! It was wonderful! I have only ever read P & V translation for Tolstoy's works, but now on my next reread, i think I may give Bartlett a go!
I’ve been reading Anna Karenina the Maude translation and have been loving it. Then I watched your video and liked her translation the least! I find the Maude translation an easy read but it is very English and not as beautiful as the Bartlett or the P&V.
Interesting results, Sharon :) Sometimes we prefer one work when it's read aloud, but we like other works when we see them on the page. I find myself going back and forth on which one I prefer!
Great video and great idea thanks !!!! I’ve been wondering this as I’m about to start AK . I’ve had the penguin P&V translation on my shelf for a while . I did the test and I’m delighted to reveal I chose P&V - definitely my favourite by far 😊
This is exactly what I did to choose a translation, however I had to use passages from the first chapter to avoid spoilers and also because that is the sample I could get through Kindle. Based on this comparison I chose Garnett. However, now I am reading War and Peace in the Maude and wish I had done so with AK. ETA: The reason I did it this way was because based on research there was no clear "top choice" translation. Opinions vary widely and are very passionate!
I've read ANNA KARENINA three times, first in the Maude's translation, then in Bartlett's, and then in Garnett's (as revised by Leonard J. Kent and Nina Berberova for Random House's The Modern Library series). I would recommend either the Bartlett (which is my favorite, despite feeling occasionally contemporary) or the *revised* Garnett which is straightforward and neither sounds anachronistic nor "translator-ese" (but isn't as musical... to use your apt word... as Bartlett). I've never been able to get through a book translated by Pevear and Volokhonsky. I've tried their Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, Notes from Underground, War and Peace, Doctor Zhivago and Anna Karenina. They all read to me like someone put the original Russian text into Google Translate and then haphazardly tried to smooth it out. BUT, I do think the best advice in choosing a translation is to sample many different ones, and choose the one you like best.
Great job doing these blind "taste tests". I find I can better discriminate among the various translations by hearing them aloud. I'm prejudiced against P&V after mistakenly buying their Chekhov short story collection which I couldn't stomach at all. For Anna I preferred the Maude translation in this selection. Thanks.
Benjamin I wish I could find an abridged version of this novel. It goes on and on like was much the style of these 19th century novels. endlessly. Do you know of any?
I feel like I read it in school when Garnett was common, and it may still be. My reading was pre P&V. Not sure I'd have thought to choose CG's translation given what I've since heard about her work, and it seems to mostly be about people deciding between P&V and Maude which I'm doing now, but CG was my first exposure to Tolstoy, and I was obsessed. I have to give credit where due. It might not be a popular opinion, but CG is a gripping read. Soon, I get to play the game of choosing one to re-read. Currently digging into War and Peace. Switched from P&V to Maude early on. Might do P&V for Dostoevsky. At this point, I wonder if it'd be easier to just learn Russian 😂.
Woow!! The p&v translation was so easy and beautiful. But as a non-native English speaker, will it be easy to read the book in this translation? (Btw, I've read c&p in constace garnet edition but found hard to understand in some parts)
I'm just going to take the same approach to anna karenina, like i did with war and peace; read slow, maybe 5 chapters a day...get a dictionary to define certain words....and listen to a couple of lectures, beforehand 🙂
Maude and Garnett get it mostly right. I read the Garnett. The thing about P&V translations is that their process is to use ghost translation initially, then get more involved in whittling down the final text of what we end up with. What we’re left with in this assembly line affair is something thoroughly modern, yet also stripped of all the music found in superior translations. Like many things today, P&V as an entity is the creation of public relations, clever marketing tactics, and a puppy mill like operation of workers handling the translation process - and that’s the feeling I get through the text.
@salcorbit6330 I think you've got this exactly right. I have their (P&V's) translations of Brothers K, The Master and Margarita, and some stories by Gogol. Invariably, I find these translations difficult and unrewarding to read. The English style is always stilted and lifeless ( to me, anyway). I recently read their translation of a Gogol story, and there were some glaring errors. Where "willow trees" was clearly intended by the context, they translated "pussy willows." In another place, where clearly "crab" or "lobster claws" would have been the correct translation, they used the word "tongs" and no reference to crabs or lobsters. These are errors that any reader would be able to catch just from the context. I am able to read Russian, and the language that Gogol uses in these cases is perfectly clear and unambiguous. I think P&V are overrated as translators.
Could not agree with you more. I would take it a step further though. Whatever the book, almost any other translation is better than P&V. That there’s this huge public relations advertising campaign behind convincing people P&V is somehow a more authentic translation makes it all the more insidious and harmful. @@battybibliophile-Clare
1: 8.5/10 2: 8/10 3: 9/10 4: 7/10 Guess I liked the Garnett one the best! But the P and V edition was good too. Thanks for doing this, makes it so much easier to track down my preferred version.
After reading quite harsh criticism about the P&V translations, I really wanted to like Barlett's version better. But I picked the P&V version as my favorite; Barlett got 2nd.
Yes!! There is a ton of harsh criticism against P&V... most likely from Bartlett's marketing team? ;) I love both, but the negative criticism against P&V (my personal favourite) is quite unjustified. Glad you enjoyed it :)
My experience is with the Maude, but Pevear & Volokhonsky have a great reputation. After enjoying what they did with Anna Karenina, I would be confident they did a great job with W&P too :)
The P&V seemed heavy and 'try-too-hard'. The Maude and the Garnett seemed to flow and was easier to listen to. I think the Bartlett might be my favorite but since I own the Garnett, I'll go with that for now. Glad I didn't purchase the P&V.
@@BenjaminMcEvoy Thank you! Benjamin I came across your channel and I've become addicted. Ordered some books and gonna give English lit a go. Spent most of my life in science and maths and spent most of my life avoiding the great books! 🤦🏾♂️
Great video! I would love to know what you think of the Marian Schwartz translation by the Yale university press coz the blurb is quite interesting..."Tolstoy produced many drafts of Anna Karenina. Crafting and recrafting each sentence with careful intent, he was anything but casual in his use of language. His project, translator Marian Schwartz observes, was to bend language to his will, as an instrument of his aesthetic and moral convictions.” In her magnificent new translation, Schwartz embraces Tolstoy’s unusual styleshe is the first English language translator ever to do so. Previous translations have departed from Tolstoy’s original, correcting” supposed mistakes and infelicities. But Schwartz uses repetition where Tolstoy does, wields a judicious cliché when he does, and strips down descriptive passages as he does, re-creating his style in English with imagination and skill." Btw I rated P&V 5 stars and 4 for Bartlett , Maude was my least favourite, way too literal, not enough musicality.
Thank you! Sounds delightful - another one for me to add to my Anna Karenina book shelf :) And thanks for your ratings - I would personally agree with you!!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy yes! The cover is stunning too! Hope u get a hold of a copy! I have yet to read it but I'm going to check the passage you read out in the Schwartz translation and see how it fares against P&V:)
@@BenjaminMcEvoy ok Ben, so they are almost IDENTICAL! but for a few differences in word choices but the Schwartz seems more modern in terms of the language while P&V retains the style of a classic. P &V wins imho
Thanks for yet another engaging piece - can I ask if you had any thoughts on the Clara Bell translation, published, I believe l, 1887 Vizetelly’s Second edition. 🙏🙏
NGL I really just want that beautiful copy of the Bartlett book. It's a similar lovely blue hue to both my Poe Anthology and one of my Jane Eyre copies and they would all just look so lovely together in a little bedside table pile. I don't consider myself a collector but I like to have "nice" copies and cheaper ones which I highlight and annotate. I had to buy another copy of 'Lolita' this week because my old copy was unreadable from my notes and coloured blocks. But then I also bought two copies of Jane Eyre too and another beat-up copy of Northanger Abbey so I can try to give Austen another go, despite really disliking P&P and S&S...both in text and film adaptation. I'm hoping the gothic satire will finally win me over this time. As for the blind reading, I immediately gravitated towards the P&V version, the middle two both paled in comparison and then something about that Bartlett translation seemed to spark a little interest in me. I think I will continue to go with the P&V version first, but then read Bartlett afterwards too. Gives me an excuse to go buy that beautiful edition, eh? (Like I even needed an excuse, lol). Thank you for doing this and helping to cement my decision to go with P&V...as well as enabling me to buy the Bartlett version too! Kind regards, Bex
I ended up giving the highest score to P & V. Thank you for these videos, they are so fun and helpful. When I was listening to the one that ended up being P & V felt like a sweet song being sung to me. My second highest rated was the Bartlett!
I'm here because I just picked up Anna Karenina from Folio Society, which is Maude. I didn't think to check translations ahead of time, so here we are! I liked the P&V the most, with Bartlett a close second. Maude was very sterile and exacting, losing the poetic prose that P&V and to some extent, Bartlett had carried over. Looks like I'm ordering a P&V reading copy from B&N now.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
For me, Garnett really captured that moment when one knows spring has come and the subconscious hope that it brings forth. By the way, Benjamin, you are a marvelous reader, thanks for your efforts to bring the magic of great literature to us.
The Garnett translation seemed to flow most easily to me, simpler to follow, but the P&V and Maude are perhaps more striking in their descriptives. I found ranking them very tricky!
1. 7:36
2. 9:10
3. 10:42
4. 12:03
Found this channel while I was reading Crime and punishment and fell in love with it instantly, very insightful and straight to the point, thank you for talking about classics since no other booktuber does so
Thank you :) I really appreciate that! I'm happy to have you here reading along with me!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy started re-reading the P&V translation of crime and punishment after seeing your video and I gotta admit it's definitely an improvement over the Garrett one (for me at least since I find it more digestible than Garrett's). So I genuinely thank you for that, have a great day!
This is probably the most useful video I've ever found in terms of providing direction for my own reading. Thank you for it. I've passed it along to others who are gearing up to read this beautiful book.
Thank you :) I really appreciate that, and hope you enjoy your reading!
I have read the P and V, the Maud, and the revised Garnett (multiple times). I thought the Maud was far too anglicized and the prose a bit stodgy. The P and V is gives a more precise sense of unique class relations in Russia, and it really nails some of the big scenes (the ball is outstanding). The revised Garnett (modern library classic edition) is by far the best written in English that I have read. It is just so fluid, and strikes a nice balance Englishness and Russianness. However, I don't think any of the translations are actively bad. Tolstoy works in almost every English translation I have read because the characters are so psychologically rich, and the scenes so well-described that I think he is difficult to ruin. Dostoevsky, on the other hand...
Wonderfully nuanced insights - thank you so much for sharing, Brett!! I completely agree - ha! Dostoyevsky is much easier to ruin than Tolstoy ;)
@@BenjaminMcEvoy I recently bought Crime and Punishment translated by Oliver Ready because of the beautiful cover 😅have you read it? what do you think of it? I should have seen this before buying that book 🥲
Can't agree more
Can you do War and Peace as well?
I actually prefer the Maude translation in the blind test. Though P&V sounded great as well.
I bought Anna Karenina from Everyman's Library, so the decision has been made for me (Maude). Interesting to hear the comparison in hindsight.
Very nice. The Maude definitely has its fanbase, so you're not alone! Let me know what you think of the work, Asim :)
Maude is definitely my favourite for Anna Karenina, I think they capture Tolstoy's flow perfectly and the syntax is just beautiful in this translation. I usually favour P&V for Dostoyevsky translations. I never liked the Bartlett translations at all - take this paragraph for example, how many times did she add the word 'started'? Completely breaks the flow of the piece.
The blind hearing test for this paragraph for me, I would have expected to order them Maude > P & V > Garnett > Bartlett but I actually chose Maude > Garnett > P & V > Bartlett.
Me too. Maude was number one and P was number two.
THANK YOU SO MUCH ❤❤ i chose and bought garnett and i firmly believe my reading has been so successful and fun because of the correct translation...Garnett is easy to get into but still maintains that magic of the writing.....loving this book so far!!!
This was a great taste test. Thank you for it!
I liked Constance garnett the best as she distilled the essence of the work without stilted vocabulary. It was very clear and straight-forward and for someone like me whose third language is english felt the easiest to follow.
The other point I noted was that the garnett translation is in the cheaper editions in my country, even freely available online and for a first deep read, a cheap paperback is always the best option.
Number 3 for me. So poetic, so pastoral. I can see the scene as if I was reading a painting. The language is rich and full of promise, like the season it describes. It is music made with word. I loved your reading too. Thanks.
I liked the P&V, Bartlett, Garnett, Maude, in order. Going off now to order my copy. Thank you - this was very helpful.
Have you reviewed "Fathers & Sons" by Ivan Turgenev? Another great Russian story.
Thank you Benjamin for making this decision of which translation of Anna Karenina to read more tangible. I somewhat surprisingly preferred the Maude translation in your blind test. (I thought I'd choose Bartlett.) I knew I wouldn't choose P&V - because I'd compared two versions of Anna Karenina at home (P&V vs. Garnett) and chose Garnett. P&V doesn't flow as well for me - while it may be a fine, accurate translation, I found the syntax a bit awkward. Note: I finished War & Peace last year and chose Briggs, which I enjoyed.
I'm of the same opinion for both novels.
I was reading The Human Factor by Graham Greene and in it the main character Castle goes to his regular bookstore where he picks up a Tolstoy novel from the bookseller who sings the praises of the Maude translation. I wasn't sure if that was Greene's approval , or just the character. I went with it, but if I'm missing out on something better, I might have to reconsider it. Graham Greene is difficult to argue with.
Translation 1 - 7:39
Translation 2 - 9:10
Translation 3 - 10:41
Translation 4 - 12:03
I had just bought the Bartlett translation, but I preferred the Maude translation on the blind test. Hmmph! When I think about it, the Maude translation was more poetic and yet vivid, but I don't know if I could take a whole book of that language, so maybe Bartlett's more workman-like translation will be just fine, more Russian-sounding (if that's a thing).
I liked the P/V and Bartlet. The first few lines about the sun, ice and the vapour became very vivid in my imagination when you read the Bartlet translation. I am not an English native, so it's hard enough reading AK in any kind of English, but translation makes a lot of difference! I am currently reading P/V translation, but became very interested in getting Bartlet translation after watching this! Thanks for the inspiring video!
I agree! I understand a lot of people would go for one of the others and maybe parts of the book are more accurate or true to the original, but since English is not my first language I would definitely go for the Bartlett translation. Stands out when it comes to easiest to follow and imagination!
I downloaded a PDF version of P&V and Bartlett's work. Some verbs and adverbs in the two are in times better than the other.
P&V has this structure of a classic english and provides tiny details to the environment while Bartlett is modernized one with different structure than P&V.
They're so similar to each other that I'm going to read both of them at this point.
Listen #2 Nov. 4/22
Lovers of Jazz are well aware that Downbeat magazine used to do a blindfold test (they probably still do it). Jazz artists would listen to pieces they hadn't heard by artists whom _they have_ heard before and had praised or trash talked said artist. After listening to the piece/pieces they'd have to go on record first about who they thought was the musician playing the piece before getting the reveal, that's what I'm gonna do.
There is another video where Benjamin knocks on Constance Garnett, I made sure to check her out for myself after hearing Benjamin's criticism. I had to decide on a version of Crime & Punishment and I liked Constance's the best-I like her work. So my dog in this blindfold test is that I hope the translation(s) I like, includes Constance. From past exposure, I already know I don't like Pevear & Volokhonsky. Their sound just sounds clunky and forced to me. I've noticed P & V are heavily marketed to the public. I don't know how true they are to the authors they translate and I won't know unless I learn a little or a lot of Russian. All the marketing of P&V has, for a long time, left me feeling like they are the Nike product of the literary world.
Ok, on to my ratings/impressions:
Translation 1. Hated it on listen #1, _still_ hate it on listen #2. "Fleet footed children."? Sounds like fantasy novel language.
Translation 2. Better! there is some toughness to it. The description of the peasants with their axes was better, though axes don't "click", so it wasn't perfect. "swift footed children began to run..." What a relief, so much better than "fleet footed".
(This one gave me the easiest and most involuntary spontaneous mental imagery out of all the translations.)
Translation 3. Hated it the first time. Hate it even more the second time. Sounds like Tolstoy was put through an A.I. translation machine. Yuck! (Please don't be Contance!)
Translation 4. It's alright. Yes, I know that's about the flattest level of approval you can give something, but the point here is to give the honest impression, and it's just alright. It sounds like someone who is just plodding along in the translation and being too literal. That is to say, they are rendering up the words but have lost some of the energy and spirit. Not good.
The children are again, "fleet footed", and axes are "falling". I'd prefer for the axes to be connecting and smashing into something. "Falling" axes gives swooping imagery. Peasants live taxing, very physical lives. They aren't catching butterflies with those axes.
(Unfortunately, I think this one might be Constance Garnett, I have a feeling #2 is Bartlett).
Big breath, time to play the reveal in the video...
Personally, I found translations 2 and 4 to be the most engaging. I thought translation number 1 was the least appealing and didn’t provide as solid a visual image as the others.
But I’ve never read any Russian literature (not yet), so I don’t really know what to listen for.
Garnett was the most beautiful and charming translation out of the 4
Thank you. I read Anna Karenina 40 years ago, version unknown. Am now reading Pevear and Volokhonsky translation. It reads easy so, wondered if earlier read was more accurate. I didn't want a sense that Tolstoy was born English! Glad to know I happened upon a great translation as I savour the remaining 200 pages of the novel. The TH-cam was helpful.
After hearing you praise P&V so much, I ordered Gogol's Dead Souls in their translation. Yet to be read though. I have read a few shorts of Chekhov by both Garnett and P&V. Will order P&V mostly now.
That's awesome, Imran :) Let me know what you think of them!
Constance Garnett’s version is the best, but of course some revisions can be made to tighten it up a bit, and that’s exactly what they did at Modern Library resulting in a wonderful version, with an introduction by Mona Simpson. So Constance Garnett doesn’t sound like Tolstoy? Dostoevsky? So what? She is good enough to be Constance Garnett. The other translations are merely revisions based on Garnett’s version, and they are not necessarily better than Garnett’s version, and some are even worse.
Alvie, thank you for the same thought.
Here is Rosemary Edmonds' translation. I trust Edmonds, but #1 in this video is stupendous above all others. "the warm air was all atremble, filled with the vapours of the reviving Earth" was a marvelous choice, among so many fine choices in #1. But anyway, Edmonds wrote this:
"In the morning the sun rose brilliant and quickly melted the thin ice on the water, and the warm air all around vibrated with the vapour given off by the awakening earth. Last year’s grass grew green again and the young grass thrust up its tiny blades; the buds swelled on the guelder-rose and the currant-bushes, and on the sticky, resinous birch-trees, and the honey-bee hummed among the golden catkins of the willow. Invisible larks broke into song above the velvety green fields and the ice-covered stubble-land; peewits began to cry over the low lands and marshes, still bubbly with water not yet swept away; cranes and wild gees flew high across the sky, uttering their spring calls. The cattle, bald in patches where they had shed their winter coats, began to low in the pastures; lambs with crooked legs frisked round their bleating mothers who were losing their fleece; swift-footed children ran about the paths drying with imprints of bare feet; there was a merry chatter of peasant women over their linen at the pond and the rings of axes in the yard, where the peasants were repairing their ploughs and harrows. Spring had really come."
1, 3, 4, 2
Oh, I definitely prefer the Maude from this blind test!! I find it so flowy and dreamy/magical ! I see in the comments that it's not a very popular choice, though! Haha But on the other hand, English is not my native language so maybe I have different criteria 😃🤷 Luckily, in my native language, Greek, we have a fantastic translation for the Anna Karenina, it's just stunning !! You cannot put it down. So this book for me was extra magical 😃🙌🙌 The same translator has translated all the Dostoevsky books in Greek, too, so we are very very lucky !!
Superb video idea. I'm for the PV translation, simply IMO the most poetic: "And from the yards came the knock of the peasant's axes." Exactly, I could even hear those knocks.
Thank you :) One of my favourite lines. I love the assonance and alliteration. Like you, I can actually hear those knocks!
It's a perennial question and one that is very difficult for people to assess if they know nothing of the original language. Comparing passages tho is a really useful aid in deciding, so thanks for doing this vid.
As an academic translator myself, I tend to agree with the large number of people out there who dislike the P&V intensely. Chiefly because of the way P&V try and equate their clumsy use of English as reproducing the quirks and ideosyncrasies of Tolstoy's original Russian. It doesn't. Pevear by all accounts doesn't even know Russian and has a flimsy grasp of English!
There's a great article out there by Gary Morton, a US academic on Russian lit, who does a great job in explaining the issues. It's called 'The Pevearson of Russian literature'. Well worth a read.
I'm about to try the Rosamund Bartlett edition. It sounds promising.
I have asked a Russian friend of mine to compare the translations and she said the Pevear and Volokhonsky is the most accurate translation.
@@SandrineDamfino Just because someone speaks a language as their maternal language, it doesn't necessarily mean they understand translation or its art with the target language. I could ask a multitude of French friends which version of Proust is "the most accurate" and just because they speak English doesn't give them a professional understanding of both languages.
@@shuttergirlUK sorry. I didn't mean to offend you.
@@shuttergirlUK la meilleure façon d'apprécier Proust c'est en effet d'apprendre le Français 😊
Tolstoy in Russian is about as far from clunky or stilted or idiosyncratic as can be. His language is highly literate and refined and is a model of clarity, order, and directness.
I, too, strongly dislike Pevear's English style. Recently, I read a Gogol story translated by the P&V team, and there were some glaring errors--errors that could be caught by any attentive reader even without consulting Gogol's original Russian.
I'm reading AK for the first time now; I'm 1/2 way through. I'm reading the Garnett translation and it's very readable and enjoyable. And that's all I know...
Wow. I recognize the passage you read from a Levin-oriented section. I guessed the Garnett was either the 2nd or 4th piece, and I liked the third best, so I guessed it was the P&V. Shows how wrong you can be!
Being from farming stock myself, I identify and admire Levin and am always rooting for him. The dinner scene where he was communicating with Kitty with chalk on the table brought tears to my eyes, I was so happy for him.
Ben,
Just excellent! I really enjoyed this 'taste' test especially given that I've just bought two copies of the Oxford World's Classics translation (pb). Luckily I couldn't pick between options one and four (phew) so no regrets. My husband and I are about to buddy read Anna together. Beyond excited!
Last year was my year of English classics, this is the year of the Russian classic! Just found your channel and enjoying the content immensely. Thank you.
Stay well.
Sharon x
Thank you, Sharon! That's so cool you've grabbed two copies and are reading it with your husband. I swear you'll both have A LOT to talk about together. You'll be gossiping about the characters, debating, judging for years to come, I'm sure. Such is the power of that novel! I love your reading progression - English classics, then Russian classics. Very nice! Perhaps French next year? Stay well too, and warm wishes to you both :)
As a farmer, I found the P&V and the Bartlett more appealing, more "accurate". The second, or Maude, did not appeal to me at all. Garnett would have been my third choice. Interesting experiment, and it did influence my shopping. Thanks.
1.very poetic, onomatopeic, big fan. maybe a little disjointed?
2.not as good, lacks some of the poetry
3.absolutely beautiful. smooth. favourite so far.
4.WOAH. GREAT. KEEPS GETTING BETTER.
wow ok, I have only read the maude so far, I guess I'm missing out!
Very nice ratings and reviews - particularly your fourth one! :)
Okay I totally underestimated the power of translation. So glad I found this after trudging through part one of P&V and feeling a little guilty that I didn’t like the book. While beautifully written, the long, mind-numbing passages made it so hard to get into the story. I’ll try the Maude version, it felt more natural
Great video!!
This is useful. I am still yet to read the great book - but after listening to this, I realised I ought choose carefully. First impression was P and V sounded most appealling , then Bartlet ..... Looking forward to picking up a copy soon. Thanks Ben.
Very nice :) Let me know what you make of the novel!
Extremely helpful, thank you. I read war & peace earlier this year after watching a few of your videos & loved it. I read the Maude translation, but interestingly Maude came in last place in this blind taste test! I personally liked them in the order 3, 1, 4, 2 - although there was little to separate 3 & 1 imo. Thanks again 😊
Such an interesting comparison. P&V I found a bit bare bones - almost an attempt to replicate the imagined simplicity of the original Russian. Maude was more musical and Garnett followed a similar path. Bartlett seemed to really soar, though without a knowledge of the Russian language it's hard to know whether this translation was too fully developed. As a reading choice I'd go with any of the latter 3 though for sheer enjoyment Bartlett seems to really stand out!
1) Rosamund Bartlett.
2) Maude.
3) Pevear and Volokhonsky.
4) Garnett.
(It was such a surprise since I'd never heard of Bartlett's translation before, and I presumed that P&V would be my favorite.) This was a great and insightful video!
(I have looked into the translations more and I've found that I generally liked the maude better, but this passage was just so good in the Bartlett translation)
I’m very late to this great video but enjoyed it nonetheless! Before the reveal I listened to each a couple of times and my impressions varied depending on whether my pedantic ecologist brain was alerted or my poetic ear stimulated. Results as follows:
1 - drove me mad because bees don’t hatch, peewits don’t weep and I don’t know what a spiritus birch is (pedantic ecologist took over!)
2 - was better but spicy birch was odd, and peewits are crying though this is slightly better than weeping
3 - was my favourite after the first listen, it just seemed to flow better, wailing isn’t quite right for peewits
4 - was my favourite after second listen - I particularly liked how the sun quickly devoured the thin layer of ice (rather than just ate it in 1), and peewits do send up plaintive calls but I wasn’t so sure about the repetition of started - but maybe Tolstoy intended the repetition?
So I think I’ll read the Bartlett but I have renewed respect for Garnett given she was virtually the sole translator of the Russians for so long!
I feel English readers are unlucky, in Arabic the translation of Chekhov and Dostoyevsky, Pushkin, and Tolstoy is way more better and shows the actual Russian spirit. I like Robert Chandler I think he is the finest and the closest to Russian soul. Luck he translated Vasily Grossman and Pushkin
I originally read Anna K about 15 years ago in the Wordsworth Classics version - not sure if that was Constance or Maude. I'm currently re-reading in the Penguin Clothbound P & V. From what I've read and heard P & V do great translations. And to be honest I don't want the translation that I find most appealing when compared side by side, like in this video - I want, as far as possible, to get at which translation is objectively the best / most faithful. So that I can read it and assess the novel as fairly as possible - without the particular translation forming a layer of obfuscation. So if for example Tolstoy writes in an annoying halting staccato manner, I want to experience that and judge it accordingly, rather than having a flowery smooth translation give me a false impression if his style.
I did a point system out of 5 and here is my preference. I actually do like reading different translations of the same work and in multiple languages if I could (currently 2 English and Vietnamese) as I want to see different interpretations, different use of words. I've ordered 1 and 2 versions and might order bartlett in the future.
1. 3 - pevear & volokhonsky
2. 4 - maude
3. 2 - garnett
4. 3 - bartlett
I just spent 45 minutes deliberating between getting W&P or AK after having finally settled on which translations I'd prefer for each. Ended up buying a Chekhov collection 😭
That's a good outcome :) Chekhov is always great. I'm rereading some of his plays at the moment!
Wow, I picked the Garnett, when everyone online seems to think she's not good. But I will stick with my gut on this one.
I've changed my mind in recent years and now have a great amount of admiration for Garnett's translations. Nice choice, Harold :)
Maude may have been my favorite blind... or the Bartlett. Felt like the Maude struck a nice balance between poetic and accessible. Bartlett pretty clearly felt the most modern. How is the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation? Thanks!
I prefer Garnett’s version.
I just realised I liked Maude the least and that is the translation I read. Definitely P&V for the clear win - it seemed more lyrical and emotive. Maude and Garnet too direct and utilitarian almost to my ear. Bartlett returned some of the more poetic feel by the end. This has been very illustrative - thanks.
Thanks so much for this. I got the Everyman hardback for my birthday and then got the kindle version but hadn’t realised the difference it being the Garnett version. I’ve now decided to buy the Bartlett kindle version and keep the Everyman on the shelf looking good. My favourites from this were 1 and 4.
I began reading Anna K from a freebie I picked up and the translator was David Margarshak. It was ok but I was not gripped by the storyline or storytelling. I would alternate between it and an audio book with the Dole translation, which I liked much more. That got me wondering what other options were out there and I picked up a P&V translation from my library (late in the game - I was halfway through Part 7). The difference was huge! I read it in preparation for my son’s senior year of literature and am glad for the P&V translation.
I liked 1, 2, and 4. I thought 4 was best. 2 used too many “And” to start each sentence and 1 was really quite overdone with fluffy prose. Tolstoy in my opinion should never be fluffy. He has a more stoic beauty than anything and that is what I search for.
I currently have a copy of the Maude translation and was about to start reading, but thought I'd check this video out. I wish I had watched before purchasing, because I gave it the lowest score of 6/10, the other 3 all being above 8 😂 I'm going to give this one away and order a P & V translation which I rated a 9.
Interestingly, not only did I choose P&V, but I also guessed that it was their translation before you read any of the others. Something about the way that each aspect was stacked upon another struck me as very Tolstoy, and P&V's usual fidelity to his syntax. (In addition, minimal translation explanation; “women with their linen” as opposed to “women who were bleaching their linen” for example.)
After listening to the narrations twice, I chose the 4th - the Bartlett - as the best. It sounded the most "painterly" to me.
Very nice :)
I am reading it in German but after the P&V I am contemplating if I should buy that one as well and read it parallel.. What I find very fascinating is that in my German translation „morning“ wasn‘t mentioned with one word but you knew that he was talking about it.
That is so cool, Nina! Are you finding the book enjoyable in German?
I was just starting to read the Maude version (I bought it because of the beautiful cover, to be honest) and I didn't get very far before stumbling upon this video, so I thought it was alright. However, after you read from the different translations it was by far my least favorite and I immediately ordered the P&V version. Guess I'll just have one for display and one for reading! Thank you for the video :)
That's amazing :) I'm so glad the video was able to help you - and wonderful to hear you prefer the P&V. It's always nice to have two versions, one for display and the other for marginalia. I'd love to hear what you think of AK!
For me, 1. P&V and 2.Garnett...loved your analysis❤
Aw, thank you so much! Wonderful choices ☺️
Just finished the book for the first time in English. It was the Maude translation. I previously read it in Danish (a translation from the 1910s) and that was awful in every way and it assumed you could read French and knew all the circumstances of Russian society at the time. I liked Maude translation. Plenty of annotations and bookmarks for context and translation. I skipped the introduction, because it says in the first paragraphs that you ought to read it before.
Ah, I've read a few translations that assumed French on the part of the reader and tons of Russian historical knowledge. I'm glad you enjoyed the Maude :) It has a poeticism to it!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy I really thought so too, especially in the infatuation moments. One of the great moments though, which I feel is a little diluted by English, is Karenins conversion. It seems (and is probably meant to) feverish and confused. But there is so much put upon this moment in a plot perspective. I get he suddenly gets her perspective and feel pity for her and her child, but this almost divinely inspired feeling withdraws. I guess my interpretation is, that people are able to find a saint-like sense of forgiveness and feeling of conciliation - but that can quickly dissipate once the mundaneness of life resumes.
I'm at part 6 of the P&V translation. I care little for the descriptions of nature and countryside that usually describe the transitions between seasons. For me they have been my least favourite part of the book along with Tolstoy's obsession with giving characters this sixth sense of knowing when something is awry or someone is looking at them without any actual physical sensory indicator.
Aside from these small parts the book is incredible and my only qualms are with the actions of the characters themselves, which only serves to prove that they are truly "fleshed out". If I did not feel they were real I would have no issue with their action (or inaction).
This is a really nuanced review - thank you very much, Jamal! Your reaction sounds very similar to my first read reaction. It was only after a few rereads that I came to value the descriptions of nature and that internal sense you describe. Funnily enough, they became my favourite part of the novel. Really great point about the characterisation - Tolstoy's a master of creating people we believe to be real.
Just ordered the translation(Bartlett) recommended by you...thank you very much ... 💕
The result of blind test:
P and V : 7 out of 10
Barrlett: 6.5
Maud : 6
Const: 6
Surely the 'go to' translations of Tolstoy's classics were those by Rosemary Edmonds, published as Penguin Classics? It is strange that she never seems to get a mention in the debates over whose is the best. I haven't read RB's version yet, but must say her biography of T is a wonderful read and full of new information and surprising revelations. She inspired me to read AK in Russian, which I found much easier and more enjoyable than I had expected, though when T starts describing the women's clothes at the balls, I needed to look up a word every line and even then I did not recognise some of the English words. There seems to be a conspiracy to blot out Rosemary Edmonds from the discussion of T's translations. Even if her versions are no longer in print, so many of them must have been sold over the years that I guess you could easily pick them up for a pound or two secondhand. Reading her versions, you forget you are reading a translation, whereas you can 'hear' the Russian in the background when reading the Maudes or Garnett. (From a 1963 SSEES graduate.)
I agree. I started reading AK in the Rosemary Edmonds and got utterly hooked. I then decided the print was a bit small for my migraine eyes, so I ended up down the rabbit hole of different editions and translations. I tried PV but to me it had nothing like the magic of RE. I really wish you could get a new, republished better edition of the RE translation.
@@shuttergirlUK Thanks for replying, Susie. Yes, print size is very much an issue. That affects me at my age, too. Of course there must be a huge commercial pressure to use tiny type so that you can squeeze the whole text into a single volume, mustn't there? You are the only person to respond to my comment. A question of age? I still think T is the greatest novelist and literary psychologist that I have ever read, though I am not a great fiction-reader. Non-fiction is more my cup-of-tea.
I bought the Maude translation from Everyman but always wondered if I had made the right choice. This comparison has confirmed my purchase as I find the Maude translation in this blind test superior for me. It's vivid and beautiful description leapt to my mind far clearer than the others and just rang better to my ear. Glad i decided to go with them vs the more popular V&P version.
I haven't read Anna Karenina. On the blind read test this was my initial order:-
1. P&V
2. Maude
3. Garnett
4. Bartlett
On further listening they all sounded quite beautiful in their own way.
Wow, this is incredibly helpful! I've never read Anna Karenina but I have the Bartlett translation on my Christmas wish list because it seemed close in translation style to the Briggs War and Peace (which I love). Guess what? I preferred the excerpt from the Bartlett over the others, easily, though I ranked the P&V close behind it. I think I'm going to love this book.
Thank you so much for this video, it's very helpful!
Thank you :)
i absolutely love you forever for doing that taste test!!!! i now know which translation to sprint to!!!! THANK YOU!!!! ❤️❤️❤️
Aw, thank you, Dahlia! I'm so happy you found it useful! Happy reading! 🙏❤️
Behind a veil of ignorance I initially liked #2. I listened to the passages another two times and I preferred #3. I don't know if I'll ever have the courage to read Anna Karenina. My mother has an old copy translated by V&P, so I'll start there regardless.
Sheep shedding, rather than requiring to be shorn, generally tells me they are a breed of meat sheep. Is it odd that I preferred versions 1 and 4 for suggestively retaining this education?
That's an amazing reason for preferring them! From what I've gathered, Tolstoy put a lot of work into including agriculturally specific vocabulary - which apparently can't be translated very well!
If I had to choose one on the basis of this then, for me, the first reading captures the best nuances of seasonal transition in the reading.
Thank you for the readings that allow this comparison.
I prefer the last one by Bartlett in that passage. Beautiful. That is the one I read also so yay.
It's a beautiful one :)
@@BenjaminMcEvoy 😊
@@BenjaminMcEvoy You read so well. You could get paid to do that.
Brilliant way to choose a translation! My preference was clear. Please do this again.
Thank you, Marna :) Will do!
The way i blindly ranked them was Bartlett, P&V, Garnett, Maud. Thanks so much for doing this!
Thank you for this video it was really helpful, all the translations were beautiful but just listening i preferred the second one by maude
Amazing - I really enjoyed reading Maude aloud :)
Great video series here. For me it was PV (the one I read), Bartlett, Maude and Garnett by favorite order
Thank you, Kevin! And very nice choices :)
I fell in live with War & Peace with the Maude translation. Is the Maude good for War & Peace more than Anna Karenina? I am always apprehensive of modern translations because I love the older english. Not old english as in Shakespear but old as in just that 1800’s early 1900’s language.
The Maude translation is my personal favourite for War and Peace. I've tried Pevear and Volokhonsky's edition, and I love the effect they're going after, but I still find myself choosing the Maude!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy I agree that translations are important. Recently ive been attempting to sift through all the different translations of my carious favorites. Some like Arabian Nights, Don Quixote, the Divine Comedy, In Search of Lost Time, and other works even Ramayana and Mahabarahta, I LOVE those. Say, do you ever appreciate or review old Arabic literature? Such as some of the ones I have mentioned above? I simply cannot get enough of that archaic primitive epic style story telling especially when really translated by someone who understands the style really well.
I read the Maude translation.
I will probably re read it in the P&V or Bartlett.
Personally, I enjoyed the P&V rendering of that passage the most :)
Great video - I really am enjoying your videos. 😀
Can you give a video where you recount your favourite scenes of Anna Karenina? :)
Great stuff, George! Nice - another P&V fan! Thank you :) I absolutely can do that. I've already got a few videos in the Book Club that discuss my favourite scenes in quite considerable depth, but I'm sure I can get some more out!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy oh yes, a P&V fan most certainly, but a Tolstoy fan more than that.
I enjoyed reading literature as a kid. Getting married last year, my wife always read 15 minutes before bed as her routine and I used to stare at the ceiling while she did that. Then one day I decided to order a book in order to join her in her reading; that book happened to be War and Peace. I thought at first it was just some sort of political thriller, but turned out to be one of the most intense explorations of love and hate I have ever read (apart from the bible) and I just fell in love, with the beauty of his writing, his insights, and I have ended up treasuring a lot of the things in my heart.
Now I am a massive russian literature fan!
I have also signed up for your Anna Karenina book club and will be re reading it in the P&V. Can't wait to explore it with you!
@@georgejoun6232 Wow. That is such an amazing story!! I love hearing about couples who read together - trumps reading alone by x1000. And thank you for joining the club!! So happy to have you, George! :)
Thank you for this video! It was wonderful! I have only ever read P & V translation for Tolstoy's works, but now on my next reread, i think I may give Bartlett a go!
I’ve been reading Anna Karenina the Maude translation and have been loving it. Then I watched your video and liked her translation the least!
I find the Maude translation an easy read but it is very English and not as beautiful as the Bartlett or the P&V.
Interesting results, Sharon :) Sometimes we prefer one work when it's read aloud, but we like other works when we see them on the page. I find myself going back and forth on which one I prefer!
Great video and great idea thanks !!!! I’ve been wondering this as I’m about to start AK . I’ve had the penguin P&V translation on my shelf for a while . I did the test and I’m delighted to reveal I chose P&V - definitely my favourite by far 😊
Thank you, Lizzie!! A P&V fan! Wonderful stuff :) I hope you enjoy the book - you're in for a treat!
This is exactly what I did to choose a translation, however I had to use passages from the first chapter to avoid spoilers and also because that is the sample I could get through Kindle. Based on this comparison I chose Garnett.
However, now I am reading War and Peace in the Maude and wish I had done so with AK.
ETA: The reason I did it this way was because based on research there was no clear "top choice" translation. Opinions vary widely and are very passionate!
I've read ANNA KARENINA three times, first in the Maude's translation, then in Bartlett's, and then in Garnett's (as revised by Leonard J. Kent and Nina Berberova for Random House's The Modern Library series). I would recommend either the Bartlett (which is my favorite, despite feeling occasionally contemporary) or the *revised* Garnett which is straightforward and neither sounds anachronistic nor "translator-ese" (but isn't as musical... to use your apt word... as Bartlett). I've never been able to get through a book translated by Pevear and Volokhonsky. I've tried their Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, Notes from Underground, War and Peace, Doctor Zhivago and Anna Karenina. They all read to me like someone put the original Russian text into Google Translate and then haphazardly tried to smooth it out. BUT, I do think the best advice in choosing a translation is to sample many different ones, and choose the one you like best.
Great job doing these blind "taste tests". I find I can better discriminate among the various translations by hearing them aloud. I'm prejudiced against P&V after mistakenly buying their Chekhov short story collection which I couldn't stomach at all. For Anna I preferred the Maude translation in this selection. Thanks.
Benjamin I wish I could find an abridged version of this novel. It goes on and on like was much the style of these 19th century novels. endlessly. Do you know of any?
I feel like I read it in school when Garnett was common, and it may still be. My reading was pre P&V. Not sure I'd have thought to choose CG's translation given what I've since heard about her work, and it seems to mostly be about people deciding between P&V and Maude which I'm doing now, but CG was my first exposure to Tolstoy, and I was obsessed. I have to give credit where due. It might not be a popular opinion, but CG is a gripping read. Soon, I get to play the game of choosing one to re-read. Currently digging into War and Peace. Switched from P&V to Maude early on. Might do P&V for Dostoevsky. At this point, I wonder if it'd be easier to just learn Russian 😂.
I like the P&V for other translations so I was surprised it ended up being my least favourite. I had them ranked Maude, Bartlett, Garnett, P&V
Woow!! The p&v translation was so easy and beautiful. But as a non-native English speaker, will it be easy to read the book in this translation? (Btw, I've read c&p in constace garnet edition but found hard to understand in some parts)
ahh!! I'm reading the Maude one for my English dissertation and it's way too late to attempt any kind of change😩 I'm 500 pages through.
I quite like the Maude personally :) Good luck with your dissertation!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy thank you very much :)) it is due far too soon and I have done far too little
I'm just going to take the same approach to anna karenina, like i did with war and peace; read slow, maybe 5 chapters a day...get a dictionary to define certain words....and listen to a couple of lectures, beforehand 🙂
Maude and Garnett get it mostly right. I read the Garnett. The thing about P&V translations is that their process is to use ghost translation initially, then get more involved in whittling down the final text of what we end up with. What we’re left with in this assembly line affair is something thoroughly modern, yet also stripped of all the music found in superior translations. Like many things today, P&V as an entity is the creation of public relations, clever marketing tactics, and a puppy mill like operation of workers handling the translation process - and that’s the feeling I get through the text.
Bro your everywhere copy pasting your comments
@salcorbit6330 I think you've got this exactly right. I have their (P&V's) translations of Brothers K, The Master and Margarita, and some stories by Gogol. Invariably, I find these translations difficult and unrewarding to read. The English style is always stilted and lifeless ( to me, anyway). I recently read their translation of a Gogol story, and there were some glaring errors. Where "willow trees" was clearly intended by the context, they translated "pussy willows." In another place, where clearly "crab" or "lobster claws" would have been the correct translation, they used the word "tongs" and no reference to crabs or lobsters. These are errors that any reader would be able to catch just from the context. I am able to read Russian, and the language that Gogol uses in these cases is perfectly clear and unambiguous. I think P&V are overrated as translators.
Part of the P&V is their English is American not British, and is clunky anyway. Barlett is superior to my mind.
Could not agree with you more. I would take it a step further though. Whatever the book, almost any other translation is better than P&V. That there’s this huge public relations advertising campaign behind convincing people P&V is somehow a more authentic translation makes it all the more insidious and harmful. @@battybibliophile-Clare
@@salcorbit6330 I agree.
1: 8.5/10
2: 8/10
3: 9/10
4: 7/10
Guess I liked the Garnett one the best! But the P and V edition was good too. Thanks for doing this, makes it so much easier to track down my preferred version.
Thank you for sharing your ranking :)
@@BenjaminMcEvoy my names Ben too and I love literature 📖 😊
After reading quite harsh criticism about the P&V translations, I really wanted to like Barlett's version better. But I picked the P&V version as my favorite; Barlett got 2nd.
Yes!! There is a ton of harsh criticism against P&V... most likely from Bartlett's marketing team? ;) I love both, but the negative criticism against P&V (my personal favourite) is quite unjustified. Glad you enjoyed it :)
I was pleased to find that each of the four translations of that particular passage is quite good. I suppose I like the P & V best.
Hey Ben, what translation would you recommend for War and Peace?
My experience is with the Maude, but Pevear & Volokhonsky have a great reputation. After enjoying what they did with Anna Karenina, I would be confident they did a great job with W&P too :)
The P&V seemed heavy and 'try-too-hard'. The Maude and the Garnett seemed to flow and was easier to listen to. I think the Bartlett might be my favorite but since I own the Garnett, I'll go with that for now. Glad I didn't purchase the P&V.
I have the Maude version. It's a long book that I have just started (again), only to find out I am reading an 'inferior' version.
So helpful. Thanks!
You're very welcome :)
Which translation of Crime & Punishment do people recommend? P&V or Garnett?
I personally like both, but I've reread the P&V the most!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy Thank you! Benjamin I came across your channel and I've become addicted. Ordered some books and gonna give English lit a go. Spent most of my life in science and maths and spent most of my life avoiding the great books! 🤦🏾♂️
Great video! I would love to know what you think of the Marian Schwartz translation by the Yale university press coz the blurb is quite interesting..."Tolstoy produced many drafts of Anna Karenina. Crafting and recrafting each sentence with careful intent, he was anything but casual in his use of language. His project, translator Marian Schwartz observes, was to bend language to his will, as an instrument of his aesthetic and moral convictions.” In her magnificent new translation, Schwartz embraces Tolstoy’s unusual styleshe is the first English language translator ever to do so. Previous translations have departed from Tolstoy’s original, correcting” supposed mistakes and infelicities. But Schwartz uses repetition where Tolstoy does, wields a judicious cliché when he does, and strips down descriptive passages as he does, re-creating his style in English with imagination and skill."
Btw I rated P&V 5 stars and 4 for Bartlett , Maude was my least favourite, way too literal, not enough musicality.
Thank you! Sounds delightful - another one for me to add to my Anna Karenina book shelf :) And thanks for your ratings - I would personally agree with you!!
@@BenjaminMcEvoy yes! The cover is stunning too! Hope u get a hold of a copy! I have yet to read it but I'm going to check the passage you read out in the Schwartz translation and see how it fares against P&V:)
@@1siddynickhead What a wonderful idea! Let me know how you think it compares :)
@@BenjaminMcEvoy ok Ben, so they are almost IDENTICAL! but for a few differences in word choices but the Schwartz seems more modern in terms of the language while P&V retains the style of a classic. P &V wins imho
@@1siddynickhead Wow!! There we go, folks. P&V beats Schwartz! Great to know :)
I liked the 1st and last without which is which but I think I liked the 1st more but the margins were tight.
Thanks for yet another engaging piece - can I ask if you had any thoughts on the Clara Bell translation, published, I believe l, 1887 Vizetelly’s Second edition. 🙏🙏
NGL I really just want that beautiful copy of the Bartlett book. It's a similar lovely blue hue to both my Poe Anthology and one of my Jane Eyre copies and they would all just look so lovely together in a little bedside table pile. I don't consider myself a collector but I like to have "nice" copies and cheaper ones which I highlight and annotate. I had to buy another copy of 'Lolita' this week because my old copy was unreadable from my notes and coloured blocks. But then I also bought two copies of Jane Eyre too and another beat-up copy of Northanger Abbey so I can try to give Austen another go, despite really disliking P&P and S&S...both in text and film adaptation. I'm hoping the gothic satire will finally win me over this time.
As for the blind reading, I immediately gravitated towards the P&V version, the middle two both paled in comparison and then something about that Bartlett translation seemed to spark a little interest in me. I think I will continue to go with the P&V version first, but then read Bartlett afterwards too. Gives me an excuse to go buy that beautiful edition, eh? (Like I even needed an excuse, lol). Thank you for doing this and helping to cement my decision to go with P&V...as well as enabling me to buy the Bartlett version too! Kind regards, Bex
I ended up giving the highest score to P & V. Thank you for these videos, they are so fun and helpful. When I was listening to the one that ended up being P & V felt like a sweet song being sung to me. My second highest rated was the Bartlett!
Nice one, Leah :) I'm so happy you found it useful! I love your description of the P&V as a sweet song being sung to you. That's so beautiful!
I'm here because I just picked up Anna Karenina from Folio Society, which is Maude. I didn't think to check translations ahead of time, so here we are!
I liked the P&V the most, with Bartlett a close second. Maude was very sterile and exacting, losing the poetic prose that P&V and to some extent, Bartlett had carried over.
Looks like I'm ordering a P&V reading copy from B&N now.