# Reading > General Literature >  Constance Garnett - Tolstoy & Dostoevsky

## ThousandthIsle

Constance Garnett's name has been scattered around the forum lately. While she is applauded for bringing many Russian works to the Western world for the first time through her translations, she has two major shortcomings I've learned of, which disturb me in the following order:

1) Her translations do little to distinguish each author's individual "voice" & writing style, etc.

2) Her rapid pace combided with her disadvantage of being raised an English speaker resulted in errors in her translations, even so far as she would "skim past" passages she could not understand in the original Russian versions.

Critics against Garnett in turn criticise _her_ readers as being more "Garnett fans" than lovers of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Chekhov, etc. because in her translations, Garnett essentially _conveys_ these authors' works in her _own_ writing style.

I still appreciate the work Garnett has done - she has covered wide ground, which clearly was her greatest motive, and she did it. 

But, upon learning this about Garnett, I am conflicted. Most of the Tolstoy/Dostoevsky translations I've read have been Garnett's, and though I can appreciate stories of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, I am now aware that I don't know either of them as artists. 

What I am going to have to do now is find other translations to re-read. I would love to learn Russian, but alas, cannot at this point. I know there are Russian speakers on this forum, and Tolstoy/Dostoevsky enthusaists as well. *In the meantime, would anyone care to take a stab at expressing the particular prose style of each Tolstoy and Dostoevsky?* (Or any of the others Garnett has translated also, but these two authors who I have spent the most time reading) 

Ahhh, disillusionment.

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

Buy, borrow (or steal) Nabokov's _Lectures on Russian Literature_, if you haven't already done so. He could problably explain the differences better than anybody on this forum (No offence!  :Smile: )Nabokov also wrote a book on Gogol which could be useful. For Nabokov, style was the essence of a book, so he concentrates on it heavily in his lectures. 

On a side not, Dostoevskii is supposed to have had a pretty poor prose style in Russian, though that would have been a reflection of Dostoevskii's priorities when writing literature.

----------


## patrickbeverley

> Critics against Garnett in turn criticise _her_ readers as being more "Garnett fans" than lovers of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Chekhov, etc. because in her translations, Garnett essentially _conveys_ these authors' works in her _own_ writing style.


OK. I haven't got a problem with being called that. If Garnett's translations are more Garnett than (for example) Tolstoy, I don't mind that I'm reading Garnett for Garnett. I like her prose, and that's all there is to it.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

I know that French can not be translated into English without losing its peculiar idiom and I've been told that same is the case with Russian. Some languages lend their meaning more easily to _some_ other languages and Russian does not happen to be one of them. I am developing another idea along slightly different lines:

While reading novels, it is the narrative voice that is of the essence and this narrative voice is markedly different in novels in languages with long traditions of story-telling than in the ones where this tradition is not that strong. Russian, along with Irish, Iranian, and Indian fall in the first category. The narrative voice is more stable. In the case of Russian, I find it more 'narrative' than dramatic, bit rustic, I can always visualise the story-teller sitting by the fire, puffing at his pipe and telling his story, being him/herself, i-e the omniscient narator. I was brought up on Russain folk tales (in translation) and I love this speaking voice so peculiar to Russian that we don not lose it even in translation. French novel is more _noir_, more carnivalesque and the narrator is more ruthlessly honest and almost sadistically clear about certain unpleasant things. 

I've been told that in rural Ireland you can still find folks who would tell you a 'yarn' for a pint of stout. Maybe it has something to do with the gypsy diaspora. Countries with stronger gypsy presence (Spain, France, Ireland etc) have richer and more diverse artistic traditions. If the Church gave us drama, gypsies (who were originally from India and were taken out of there a thousand years ago) gave us the wandering minstrel, the dancers, the musicians, the story-tellers. This is all very chaotic but I think more and more along these lines because I feel the absence of this typical speaking voice in the English novel. Authors have individual styles but these styles stem from traditions that they are rooted in and grew and took sustenance from. It can not be hidden. This is something that even translation can not lose. I am resigned to the FACT that I will never get the true essence of my favorite books (the Russian novels) still I enjoy the omnipresent narrative voice and that enjoyment is enough to keep me going. You can't have everything, can you?

(I just asked my 10 years old to read the above post and he says that it makes sense! Does it?)

----------


## ThousandthIsle

> Buy, borrow (or steal) Nabokov's _Lectures on Russian Literature_, if you haven't already done so.


Inderjit, you aren't an anarchist, are you??  :FRlol:  (Between my roommates and their boyfriends and friends, I'm surrounded by them!)

Thank you for the recommendation though, I've been meaning to read that at some point, and now I certainly will! Especially since Nabokov is one of the said "critics" who has instilled this crisis within me, I'm sure it would be best to read in-depth HIS thoughts on the matter.

----------


## ThousandthIsle

> OK. I haven't got a problem with being called that. If Garnett's translations are more Garnett than (for example) Tolstoy, I don't mind that I'm reading Garnett for Garnett. I like her prose, and that's all there is to it.


I agree, I love her prose too. But At the same time, it's true  there isn't much of a distinction between Garnett's translations of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, though in Russian, it turns out there IS a considerable difference.

It so happens that much of the Russian lit I've read is my favorite, though now I find myself very limited in the opinions I can actually have.

----------


## ThousandthIsle

> I know that French can not be translated into English without losing its peculiar idiom and I've been told that same is the case with Russian. Some languages lend their meaning more easily to _some_ other languages and Russian does not happen to be one of them. I am developing another idea along slightly different lines:
> 
> While reading novels, it is the narrative voice that is of the essence and this narrative voice is markedly different in novels in languages with long traditions of story-telling than in the ones where this tradition is not that strong. Russian, along with Irish, Iranian, and Indian fall in the first category. The narrative voice is more stable. In the case of Russian, I find it more 'narrative' than dramatic, bit rustic, I can always visualise the story-teller sitting by the fire, puffing at his pipe and telling his story, being him/herself, i-e the omniscient narator. I was brought up on Russain folk tales (in translation) and I love this speaking voice so peculiar to Russian that we don not lose it even in translation. French novel is more _noir_, more carnivalesque and the narrator is more ruthlessly honest and almost sadistically clear about certain unpleasant things. 
> 
> I've been told that in rural Ireland you can still find folks who would tell you a 'yarn' for a pint of stout. Maybe it has something to do with the gypsy diaspora. Countries with stronger gypsy presence (Spain, France, Ireland etc) have richer and more diverse artistic traditions. If the Church gave us drama, gypsies (who were originally from India and were taken out of there a thousand years ago) gave us the wandering minstrel, the dancers, the musicians, the story-tellers. This is all very chaotic but I think more and more along these lines because I feel the absence of this typical speaking voice in the English novel. Authors have individual styles but these styles stem from traditions that they are rooted in and grew and took sustenance from. It can not be hidden. This is something that even translation can not lose. I am resigned to the FACT that I will never get the true essence of my favorite books (the Russian novels) still I enjoy the omnipresent narrative voice and that enjoyment is enough to keep me going. You can't have everything, can you?
> 
> (I just asked my 10 years old to read the above post and he says that it makes sense! Does it?)


Thank you a million times for this response, Kafka! In asking my question, I was hoping for some light to be shed upon the world which I don't know enough about... thanks for this wonderful bit of chronology, which I am afraid to think I would never have stumbled upon otherwise. : )

And I agree, you can't have everything, I just feel discouraged and ignorant about a "genre" I have always believed I've been so passionate about. But I think Inderjit's advice will be extremely helpful. (And dare I hope - soothing? Haha)

----------


## ThousandthIsle

> I know that French can not be translated into English without losing its peculiar idiom and I've been told that same is the case with Russian. Some languages lend their meaning more easily to _some_ other languages and Russian does not happen to be one of them. I am developing another idea along slightly different lines:
> 
> While reading novels, it is the narrative voice that is of the essence and this narrative voice is markedly different in novels in languages with long traditions of story-telling than in the ones where this tradition is not that strong. Russian, along with Irish, Iranian, and Indian fall in the first category. The narrative voice is more stable. In the case of Russian, I find it more 'narrative' than dramatic, bit rustic, I can always visualise the story-teller sitting by the fire, puffing at his pipe and telling his story, being him/herself, i-e the omniscient narator. I was brought up on Russain folk tales (in translation) and I love this speaking voice so peculiar to Russian that we don not lose it even in translation. French novel is more _noir_, more carnivalesque and the narrator is more ruthlessly honest and almost sadistically clear about certain unpleasant things. 
> 
> I've been told that in rural Ireland you can still find folks who would tell you a 'yarn' for a pint of stout. Maybe it has something to do with the gypsy diaspora. Countries with stronger gypsy presence (Spain, France, Ireland etc) have richer and more diverse artistic traditions. If the Church gave us drama, gypsies (who were originally from India and were taken out of there a thousand years ago) gave us the wandering minstrel, the dancers, the musicians, the story-tellers. This is all very chaotic but I think more and more along these lines because I feel the absence of this typical speaking voice in the English novel. Authors have individual styles but these styles stem from traditions that they are rooted in and grew and took sustenance from. It can not be hidden. This is something that even translation can not lose. I am resigned to the FACT that I will never get the true essence of my favorite books (the Russian novels) still I enjoy the omnipresent narrative voice and that enjoyment is enough to keep me going. You can't have everything, can you?
> 
> (I just asked my 10 years old to read the above post and he says that it makes sense! Does it?)


Thank you a million times for this response, Kafka! In asking my question, I was hoping for some light to be shed upon the world which I don't know enough about... thanks for this wonderful bit of chronology, which I am afraid to think I would never have stumbled upon otherwise. : )

And I agree, you can't have everything, I just feel discouraged and ignorant about a "genre" I have always believed I've been so passionate about. But I think Inderjit's advice will be extremely helpful. (And dare I hope - soothing? Haha)

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> OK. I haven't got a problem with being called that. If Garnett's translations are more Garnett than (for example) Tolstoy, I don't mind that I'm reading Garnett for Garnett. I like her prose, and that's all there is to it.


In which case, Garnett is merely writer who has no imagination and relies on the stories of other people to make up for her lack of imagination, or artistic and aesthetic qualities. If it is true, then Garnett is the worst kind of translator, in my opinion, as her translations are possessed more with her own personality than of the writer's who she was translating. 



> Inderjit, you aren't an anarchist, are you?? (Between my roommates and their boyfriends and friends, I'm surrounded by them!)


You have been reading too much 19th century Russian literature!  :Tongue:  There are, alas, too few Bazarovs and Shigalyovs in modern literature!

----------


## patrickbeverley

> In which case, Garnett is merely writer who has no imagination


All writers have their faults.

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

True-but lacking imagination is a pretty big fault for a writer-it is a bigger fault than (say) solecisms or syntaxical errors; imagination is intrinsic to creative genius. A writer who lacks imagination is like a chef who cannot make up his own recipes and can only copy word for word, the recipes of other, better chefs. I would also hestitate to call Garnett a "writer" in relation to her translations, though the hesitation is somewhat ironic since I have already called her a 'writer' in my previous post. That is what carelessness does to you.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

Thanks Inderjit, I have ordered Nabokov's book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156027763

It should reach me Monday morning as I am an Amazon 'Prime' customer now!

----------


## patrickbeverley

> A writer who lacks imagination is like a chef who cannot make up his own recipes and can only copy word for word, the recipes of other, better chefs.


Not true! A writer who lacks imagination is more like a chef who does not invent whole new dishes from scratch, but instead works on the dishes others have created, adding new flavours and refining the method of cooking. Remember that all Shakespeare's plots were borrowed from other sources.

----------


## hellsapoppin

History will have to be the judge of Garnett's merits as I am in no position to measure the true worth of her works. Still, like you, I appreciate her translations as they gave life to those great classical Russian works. Many of them remain among my favorite readings to this day.

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> Not true! A writer who lacks imagination is more like a chef who does not invent whole new dishes from scratch, but instead works on the dishes others have created, adding new flavours and refining the method of cooking. Remember that all Shakespeare's plots were borrowed from other sources.


I think that there is a very big difference between borrowing a plot, which many writers do, to copying, word for word, another author's story and translating it so that it matches your own personal writing style. Would you be happy if somebody translated 'Ulysses' and 'Women in Love' so that they matched the style of the translator? It is kind of like legalised plagiarism.  :Biggrin:  Never mind, I am completely against it as a form of translation.

----------


## Logos

There have been a number of discussions about Russian literature and translation in general
http://www.online-literature.com/for...d.php?t=14658&

and Garnett in particular here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=31955

of which I won't repeat myself again  :Smile: 
http://www.online-literature.com/for...99&postcount=3

except to say that she did learn Russian and had many Russian revolutionary friends who visited her in England, or who she visited in Russia, including Tolstoy who praised her work on translating his novels.

----------


## ThousandthIsle

Since the initial post in this thread, I've also learned of _The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation_, which apparently evaluates available translations.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Dori

I found an interesting article: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-12600356_ITM

----------


## AJ12754

I was wonder where you learned that Garnett skipped passages in her translation work --I know that DH Lawrence and others commented on her speed but who commented on omissions? Nabokov possibly?

Also, would anyone here happen to know if Garnett translated and published "Family Happiness" (aka "Happy Ever After") -- I've googled looking for it and only the Edmonds translation comes up.

----------


## Leabhar

> Maybe it has something to do with the gypsy diaspora. Countries with stronger gypsy presence (Spain, France, Ireland etc) have richer and more diverse artistic traditions. If the Church gave us drama, gypsies (who were originally from India and were taken out of there a thousand years ago) gave us the wandering minstrel, the dancers, the musicians, the story-tellers.


Nah, those countries had that before the gypsies came. And wandering storytellers and musicians were there during/before gypsies. Minnesingers, bards, etc.

----------


## Etienne

> including Tolstoy who praised her work on translating his novels.


I know Constance has met Tolstoy, but I thought it was before she translated his novels.

Personally I've read a couple of her translations and I have to say that I did not like it. She might be credited to giving the English world a lot of Russian translations, but today, there are far better translations than her's.

For Tolstoy, although I haven't read their translations (I've read his works in French) but the Maude's translations should be the best bet

----------


## AJ12754

> I know Constance has met Tolstoy, but I thought it was before she translated his novels.
> 
> Personally I've read a couple of her translations and I have to say that I did not like it. She might be credited to giving the English world a lot of Russian translations, but today, there are far better translations than her's.
> 
> For Tolstoy, although I haven't read their translations (I've read his works in French) but the Maude's translations should be the best bet


She met Tolstoy in 1894 after she had translated "The Kingdom of God is Within You" but before the novels which came several years later.

I know there are more rigorously accurate translations than Garnetts but I am curious about what specifically you dislike about hers.

----------


## Etienne

Ok, thanks for the information. Well simply that at one point I read almost exclusively Russian classics in English, which meant that I happened to have a couple of Constance Garnett, and those were the ones that I found the most poorly written, especially her Dostoevsky's, they just didn't feel right. Her translation of Fathers and Sons was alright, I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that Turgenev was a somewhat more "European" novelist, and that Dostoevsky, on the other side was perhaps the more "Russian". I haven't read any of her Tolstoy's translation though.

And besides this, there has been many critics about her accuracy from competent authorities, but this has already been mentioned. I believe for Tolstoy's one should get the Maude's translation which has the seal of approval from Tolstoy himself (I enjoyed the translation I read which was Ann Dunnigan's too). Pevear and Volokhonsky seem to do a good job (or so I heard) and are some of the most recent translations, so I believe these should be recommended, but I haven't read them.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

All I can comment on to Tolstoy's prose style is what I've read from the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace and the Briggs of The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Other Stories. Tolstoy seems to be an incredibly lucid writer - not a flowery one. No mater what mode he's in - whether it's describing battles, a character's psychology and thoughts, certain philosophy, background information, etc. he doesn't muddy it up by being verbose. At times I even find his style... perhaps "rough" is the word. Or maybe it's just direct. He doesn't seem to soften his prose at all. 

One reason I chose not to get the Garnett translation of Tolstoy is because I heard she went a long way in prettying him up and removed or changed many of his literary techniques (repetitions and such). But then after talking to someone on Amazon who's read nearly every W&P translation he said he liked Garnett because she had a talent for getting to the aesthetic that the author meant to convey rather than just getting the words right. He gave the example of how she changed "Bald Hills" to "Bleak Hills", because the former was just a physical description in English, but she felt that the latter was meant to be implied by the title in Russian.

Not speaking Russian I certainly couldn't say. All I can say is that in getting into literature the barrier of translations of classic works has depressed me a bit because I'm a big believer that, in art, how something is said is just as (if not more) important than what is said. And translations can't help but change how it's said because different languages are, well, different. No real way around this though unless wants to learn a ton of foreign languages, which I might just end up doing anyway.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Constance Garnett's name has been scattered around the forum lately. While she is applauded for bringing many Russian works to the Western world for the first time through her translations, she has two major shortcomings I've learned of, which disturb me in the following order:
> 
> 1) Her translations do little to distinguish each author's individual "voice" & writing style, etc.
> 
> 2) Her rapid pace combided with her disadvantage of being raised an English speaker resulted in errors in her translations, even so far as she would "skim past" passages she could not understand in the original Russian versions.
> 
> Critics against Garnett in turn criticise _her_ readers as being more "Garnett fans" than lovers of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Chekhov, etc. because in her translations, Garnett essentially _conveys_ these authors' works in her _own_ writing style.
> 
> I still appreciate the work Garnett has done - she has covered wide ground, which clearly was her greatest motive, and she did it. 
> ...


Constance Garnett was at one time the main translator or possibly the only one translating the classic Russian writers into English. Although I haven't read a great deal of their writing, I do remember her as being rather irritating in her translations. A later and, to my mind, more readable translator is David Margashak who I believe had family connections with Russia, although I don't think he did as many translations as Constance Garnett.

----------


## AJ12754

I much prefer Garnett's translations of Chekov. I agree with the poster who said that she had a talent for capturing the aesthetic of a writer although I would probably exempt her Dostoevsky translation because I think she found him less to her taste than Chekhov or Turgenev. Her grandson wrote a very good biography (1991) of her in which he includes a chapter comparing her translations to others -- including Nabokov -- it's worth seeking out -- I think a lot of the criticism she gets comes from the picture DH Lawrence painted of her just producing reams of paperwork in the garden -- but she took pains to capture in English what the writer was trying to convey in Russian...and was willing to sacrifice some absolute accuracy to get there.

I don't think anyone yet has translated as much as Connie did -- 70 volumes over about 38 years.

----------

