anna karenina. #translationproblems

before i start, i would like to clear up any confusion about the title. surprisingly, i was never that person who corrected people that mispronounced the title but now i will be that person and . . . with a great vladmir nabokov quote,

"her name was anna karenin.  she was not a ballerina."

cute. clever. and very tongue in cheek. so why is there an a on the end? the a signifies that she is a female. ie my russia-fied name would krisha mendozaa. (though maybe that a is excessive. a better example: keira knightlya)

keira knightly and the new movie were only a small factor in my decision to read "anna karenina". another factor was that on twitter i found an article (but could not find again to link here) which listed that the two greatest novels of all time were "anna karenina" and "lolita" (yes but russkies!). but the biggest factor was that my social life in LA was going on a break so i had time for the 1,000 pages. therefore on my next visit to the library, i checked it out.

as i sat reading it, i was surprised that it was a fairly easy read which got me wondering if my translation was watered down. i then looked at the other copy of it at the library; it was also constance garnett's translation so couldn't do a comparison. i then decided to go home and do some research (aka google) and sort out which translation to read.

i googled "best anna karenina translation" "scholar endorsed translation of anna karenina" "nabokov recommended translation of anna karenina" and came across a lot of info.  though there was no solid answer.  i really wanted to read the version that nabokov liked best cos he did share greatest novel title with tolstoy. there was so much debate about which verison is best that i wish a) i knew russian so that i could read it in the original russian and b) that maybe i would read at least two versions to decide for myself.  (i would have done this but seriously, the book is 1,000 pages.  that is back to back readings of 2,000 pages in total. i read alot but even this seemed too much for me.)

i learned that there are 3 major translations: constance garnett, lousie and aylmer maude, and richard pevear and larissa volokhonsky. majority of people avoid garnett's translation because she was too victorian and interjected a word or two of her own. plus nabokov absolutely hated her. so i instantly ruled that one out.

the next was deciding between maude and pevear/volokhonsky. so here's the deal. i hate oprah and according to my google searches, P/V's translation became very popular due to her book club. i mean no where did i see an article about oprah's great translation woe but only about how P/V got a lot of money cos their translation which was published by penguin which was picked by oprah.  and we all know about oprah's midas touch when it comes to books.  though in my opinion, it was prolly some intern that chose it cos the cover was the prettiest (i actually think the cover is boring, which is sad cos i normally like penguin covers.) i mean seriously does oprah even read? i am going to say no because if she did she would have deeper insight to the human experience and would not have asked her tv guests such insensitive questions. so i initially ruled out P/V's translation on oprah alone.

but it was not that easy to disregard the P/V's version cos everyone recommends it (like gushing recommends). my friend emily endorsed it and told me that their translation was award winning, which made me reconsider.  i mean awards count for a lot in my eyes. i had two other friends recommend it after seeing my fb photo about trying to decide which one to read (the above photo). and lastly james wood of the new yorker was all about it! (not that i seriously read the new yorker but strive to one day do so.) should i let my hatred of oprah stop me from reading the best translation?!?!?

well it wasn't oprah that stopped me but actually an article by gary saul morson (i have no idea who he is, i just came across his article thanks to google, i did google him and he seemed pretty legit.) but he wrote an article called the pevearsion of russian literature which explained why the pevear/volokhonsky translation is not all that its cracked up to be.  as he explained in the article:

[P and V] who are married, work in an unusual fashion.  She, a native Russian speacker, renders each book into entirely literal English.  He, who knows insufficient Russian, then works on the rendering with intention of keeping the language as close to the original as possible.  What results from this atttempt at unprecedented fidelity is a word-for-word and syntax-for-syntax version that scarifices tone and miscontrues overall sense.

he then gives examples from other works in which their translations appear simple and unrefined as compared to others.  there is a tone that is lost because they tend to use very mundane words.  (click on the article to see for yourself.) 

this dealt the blow to p/v as a contender, but to make my final decision, i decided to check out both versions and read the first chapters myself to see which one i would read.  i will admit that the blog entry tolstoy vs. tolstoy did make me slightly biased, i wanted to feel a nostalagic connection to the maude translation like the blogger.

after reading the first couple of chapters, i decided to go with maude. just because i found some of p/v word choice uninteresting.

maude:
"All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

p/v: 
"All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

(i like the use of resemble versus are alike.  i think the novel as a whole dealt with the appearance of happiness versus actually being happy, which would make maude's line a better introduction.)

i randomly flipped to chapter 12 of the part 1 perferred maude's:

"Levin's arrival at the beginning of winter, his frequent visits and evident love for Kitty gave rise to her parents' first serious deliberation as to her future, and to disputes between them."

over p/v's

"Levin's appearance at the beginning of the winter, his frequent visits and obvious love for Kitty, gave rise to the first serious conversations between Kitty's parents about her future and to disputes between the prince and the princess."

and lastly, when reading tolstoy's beautiful description of levin's first encounter with kitty, maude read best again:

"He stepped down, avoiding any long look at her as one avoids long looks at the sun, but seeing her as one sees the sun, without looking."

p/v:
"He stepped down, trying not to look long at her, as if she were the sun, yet he saw her, like the sun even without looking."

i will admit that maude isn't perfect but p/v just seemed too simplistic at times.  there were times when the syntax of maude was confusing and when i looked up the sentence in p/v found it more readable.  also p/v had footnotes which helped contextualize the story.  (i used the footnotes when anna and the count visited the russian painter when aboard.) but in the end, i am glad that i chose maude.  they are sometimes sited as having their translation of "war and peace" approved by tolstoy, but as the great translation blog entry explained that is not true.  also check out the great translation chart. it was hilarious and helpful and i suggest you check it out for giggles and to help you chose your next russian lit read. (i used it to help me choose the the anna dunnigan's translation of "war and peace".)

and to be perfectly honest in a year or so, i will pick up the p/v version of "anne karenina" and see for myself which one is better.