When I told my friend Susan that I was also reading Anna Karenina, her first question was, "Do you have a good translation?" How smart of her to ask. Unfortunately, my answer was, "I don't know."As I mentioned in my initial post about the novel, the introductory material has some significant typos, as in World War II started in 1914. I suppose I shouldn't let editing errors cloud my judgment of the translation, but at the same time, there's a reason Simon and Schuster was giving these books away. I have a feeling it's not the best translation in the world. Other evidence supporting my hunch is the occasional poorly written sentence. Here's an example:
All the officials sitting on the farther side under the portrait of the Tsar and the eagle, delighted at any distraction, looked round at the door; but the doorkeeper standing at the door at once drove out the intruder, and closed the glass door after him.
Yuck! First of all, where else would a doorkeeper be standing? Secondly, how many times must one write the word door in one sentence?
The translator of this edition is Constance Garnett (1861-1946). Now, I haven't done extensive research on her, but what I've found so far indicates that while her translations from Russian to English use Victorian language and are therefore rather dated, there are no inaccuracies. The Victorian English doesn't bother me. After all, the novel was written in 1873 (actually, from 1873-1876 as a serial). So I guess I could tell Susan that I do have a good translation. But does that mean the above sentence is the actual work of Tolstoy? Gee, I hope not.
On another note, I'm intrigued by the number of characters--just in Part I--who are named Nikolay. Tolstoy lost his brother, also named Nikolay, in 1860. I suppose one way to pay tribute to a loved one is to name a character after him. But three? Good heavens.
Okay, here's a sixty-second synopsis of the classic so far:
Dolly's husband Oblonsky cheated on her with the governess. Oblonsky's sister Anna came to visit to smooth things over. Meanwhile, Oblonsky's friend Levin loves Dolly's sister Kitty. Kitty loves Levin but wants to marry Vronsky. Vronsky has the hots for Anna. Anna develops the hots for Vronsky but goes home to Karenin.
Stay tuned for remarks on Part II! Susan, I'd love to hear your assessment so far!
3 comments:
Your assessment stops at exactly where I've stopped - for the minute. My goal is to finish Part 1 today.
I love it. I wish it were not so long. The philosophical and political discussion doesn't even bore me, though I think it goes over my head. The takeaway of that part of the novel, for me (without solid historical knowledge -- that's my husband's milieu), is that life is sometimes rote, and mechanized - you need these councils and the simple joys of work, farming, social outlets, and civic duty. Though we may feel a tug towards drama and extravagance, it may end in our ruin.
I've not had enough coffee.
But you maybe get my point.
Other random thoughts: that Anna's character is GREAT. Fully realized, really gorgeous physical description, impressive insight into a woman (and mom's) mind. I just read the scene where she goes delusional in the train. So much more satisfying than her ominous preminition earlier at the train station (when she arrived with Vronsky's mother).
Dolly's character and Kitty too - also good. I'm sometimes annoyed by male authors writing for women (Little Bee) and sometimes amazed (The Hours). Tolstoy set some sort of standard.
I was enchanted by the ball scene. Period.
Are we meant to like Levin? I do - he was very cute about the ice skating. And of course he is the best pick for Kitty. But maybe he is a bourgesouisie (I really have no idea how to spell it) and has Tolstoy's disdain?
I need some Cliff Notes! Or my friend Nansch to break it down for me!!
I too love Anna's character and the way Tolstoy described her. I also love the way Tolstoy characterized Oblonsky. Perfectly annoying. Yes, I believe we are meant to like Levin, and I do as well. Just as you were taken by his behavior at the skating rink, I found his homecoming to the farm especially endearing. I wonder who he will end up marrying? We'll see.
Like you, I wish the novel were not so thick, but I have addressed the issue by tearing my copy of the book apart (which I don't mind doing because I have two extras). I cut the spine at the beginning of each book. So in a way, I'm kind of reading the novel as a serial like it was originally published. How fun! And the smaller sections make reading in bed much easier.
Susan, I am impressed with your take on the novel so far, and I definitely don't think you need me to break it down for you (except maybe with my exacto knife). You're doing a splendid job on your own.
More reading now.
Well, thanks! I should have also referenced the homecoming scene at the farm. What that said to me was more of the same thrust on the basics of life versus high drama. When I gave my husband my take on the novel thus far - specifically how Tolstoy seemed annoyed with his brother and friends and how the simple pleasures of life and civic duty were important, he said:
"Duh!"
Then he reminded me that Tolstoy was anti-communism, or mostly so. He was a socialist, but a fan of the common and working man.
Interestingly, my mother-in-law just finished AK! What in the world! She broke her arm and can't garden so I guess she picked a huge long book.
Good idea about ripping the book.
Oh and yes, Oblonsky is super annoying and no offense to any of your male readers but he reminds me of SO many men I know! I do love men - most of my close friends here in Raleigh are guys - but sheesh!
Post a Comment