Greetings, readers and book lovers! Beginning on July 11, we’ll be a running a community-wide book club for Fyodor Dostoevsky’s classic novel The Brothers Karamazov. This diary is just an announcement so that interested readers have time to get the book.
That’s all you really need to know for now, but if you have specific questions, I’ll try to answer some of them below and/or in the comments:
HOW WILL THIS BOOK CLUB WORK?
I’ll be posting a diary every Monday at 2pm PST (5pm EST) so that participants have space to discuss that week’s reading. If you want to take part but can’t make that time: don’t despair! (Despair is for Russians.) Just bookmark the tags and come leave your comments at your earliest convenience: now that dkos notifies users when they have replies, other commenters will see your responses even if they come later in the week, and the conversation (we hope) will continue!
Why The Brothers Karamazov?
Simple! Because enough people mentioned it in the regular Bookflurries discussion. Sometimes we have a couple of commenters reading the same book, and since this is one of those “challenge” books that a lot of people say they want to read but never get around to (it’s thick, it’s Russian, it’s looks intimidating), what better way to cross off that challenge than by doing it with a bunch of your peers?
This is an awfully dense book for the summer…
That’s true, but it’s also a lot funnier and more engaging than its reputation. This is effectively a crime novel, so there will be plenty of “hooks” to grab you along the way. Plus I’ll be there to guide new readers through the process: each week I’ll post some contextual material in the diary, helpful hints (like how to get your head around all those Russian names), and some questions to prompt discussion. This is designed around your convenience, so your feedback will be helpful as we move through the novel.
Plus, the last time we did this, it was Joyce’s Ulysses, so Dostoevsky is way easier.
How much do I have to read per week?
That’s negotiable, depending on how many people are involved, and how quickly people are getting through the book. Like I said above: feedback, feedback, feedback. Page numbers can differ from copy to copy, but TBK is helpfully divided into subsections, so it’ll give us easy starting and stopping points that everyone can meet, regardless of translation.
Plus, there are some parts of the book that seem to zip by (murder! trial by jury!) and other parts that are undoubtedly compelling but need a slower and more concentrated pace (meaning of life! big, eternal questions!) We can make adjustments as we move along.
Which translation should I choose?
The short answer is: any of them are fine for our purposes. If that’s all you need to know, you can skip the next section.
The long answer is: there are some real differences between them, but the major and most readily available translations are all fine in different ways. If during our discussions we get tangled up over individual word choices, I can provide a literal translation of the Russian text for reference. It’s really not something to fret over.
There are quite a few translations of TBK out there, but the three easiest to find are those by Constance Garnett, David McDuff, and the team of Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky. Garnett was the first and (in my opinion) her translation reads the most smoothly and 19th century, but she’s sometimes a bit inaccurate or elides over nuances. McDuff is much more accurate but often reads a bit clunky, as does the award-festooned Pevear/Volokhonsky. My honest advice, unless you plan on becoming a Dostoevsky scholar, is to find a cheap copy that’s easy to get your hands on (If you plan on becoming a Dostoevsky scholar…. learn Russian!)
For reference, here are three versions of a section from chapter 1 describing the father, Fyodor Pavlovich. I picked a slangy and tricky idiomatic section on purpose, because that’s where a lot of the differences in translation will be clearest:
But he was one of those senseless persons who are very well capable of looking after their worldly affairs, and, apparently, after nothing else. Fyodor Pavlovich, for instance, began with next to nothing; his estate was of the smallest; he ran to dine at other men’s tables, and fastened on them as a toady, yet at his death it appeared that he had a hundred thousand roubles in hard cash. At the same time, he was all his life one of the most senseless, fantastical fellows in the whole district. I repeat, it was not stupidity — the majority of these fantastical fellows are shrewd and intelligent enough — but just senselessness, and a peculiar national form of it.
Garnett
[He belonged], though, to the class of muddle-headed men who are perfectly well able to handle their little property affairs, and, it would seem, these alone. Fyodor Pavlovich, for example, began with practically nothing, was a landowner of the very least important category, went trotting around other people’s dinner tables, aspired to the rank of sponge, but at the moment of his decease turned out to possess something to the tune of one hundred thousand roubles in ready money. And yet at the same time he had persisted all his life in being one of the most muddle-headed madcaps in the whole of our district. I repeat: here there was no question of stupidity; the bulk of these madcaps are rally quite sharp and clever — but plain muddle-headedness, and, moreover, of a peculiar, national variety.
McDuff
...one of those muddleheaded people who still handle their own little business deals quite skillfully, if nothing else. Fyodor Pavlovich, for instance, started with next to nothing, he was a very small landowner, he ran around having dinner at other men’s tables, he tried to foist himself off as a sponger, and yet at his death he was discovered to have as much as a hundred thousand rubles in hard cash. At the same time he remained all his life one of the most muddleheaded madcaps in our district. Again I say it was not stupidity — most of these madcaps are rather clever and shrewd — but precisely muddleheadedness, even a special, national form of it.
Pevear/Volokhonsky
For my money, Garnett is the best-written in itself but a little sloppy on the translating part: e.g. “fantastical fellows” sounds more whimsical than disreputable. McDuff’s commitment to accuracy means he provides extensive glosses instead of natural English paraphrases, which is why he’s the longest (by a good 25%!), and often unnecessarily so. P&V are just as accurate in a less long-winded way, but their word choices are sometimes the most jarring.
An even closer look: check out the following phrase from the passage above (“норовил в приживальщики”). A literal version would be something like “[he] strove to [be] among those who sponge” (specifically, people from an otherwise “better” class who, coming into hard times, would live off their friends and relatives without necessarily offering anything in return), which is tricky both because of the very non-English grammar and the cultural specificity. Our translators come up with:
“fastened on them as a toady” (Garnett)
“aspired to the rank of sponge” (McDuff)
“tried to foist himself off as a sponger” (P&V)
Garnett’s wording is the most terse and memorable (I love the word “toady”!), but toadying is more about attitude than moneygrubbing per se, so the financial aspect is lost; McDuff is the most literal, and even captures some of the implicit sense of class (though overplaying it a bit with “rank”), but isn’t nearly as successful with the rest of the sentence; P&V is in the right ballpark but sounds (to me) the clumsiest of the three in English.
But they’re all fine, so like I said, you’ll get most of what you need out of any of the three versions (or others); just expect some level of trade-off. Plus you might be able to find “updated” or “corrected” translations (like Ralph Matlaw’s version of the Garnett) that can mitigate some of the weaknesses.
What if I’ve already read the book?
You’re still more than welcome to participate, either by joining us for the re-reading or jumping in to make observations about your own experience as a reader. The only thing I ask is that you not spoil the book for new readers, who may not know what’s coming.
Any further questions? Feel free to ask in the comments!
In the meantime, get your hands on a copy, and we look forward to seeing you on July 11th for the “real” introductory diary.