Alexei on/to Robert

[Olga Meerson]

Dear Colleagues, 
I hope, no matter whose translation you prefer of what, and even why, you all understand that asking questions is one of the most important merits of any translator, or interpreter of texts (including all of us here: we all have to engage in hermeneutics, willy-nilly), or anyone in any way engaged in any intellectual endeavors. It was the main vice of Perceval (Parsifal) that he didn't ask enough of them, on time. Alexei, I do not like to quote Chekhov, let alone quote him indirectly, let alone quote this song of Okudzhava to anyone (although I like him otherwise), but, given the tone of your comment to Robert about his frequent inquiries and questions to our list, I think it is inevitable that I do:

Anton Palych Chekhov odnazhdy zametil, // chto umnyj liubit uchit'sia, a durak uchit'.  Sorry, Alexei, you asked for this. Our list, as far as I remember, was created with the explicit purpose of asking one another questions and sharing the most helpful answers. 
As to your (Alexei's) comment about Saul Morson and his professional status, it was redundant: Dr. Morson's status is as well known and universally accepted as the fact that the citizens of Ephesus venerated Artemis, in St. Paul's times.  It is precisely this kind of redundancy that at times takes me aback in what you yourself term as hagiographic assessments of colleagues; at least MY occasional panegyrics refer to colleagues, not to their rank, status, or regalia. OK, you may be right and very sincere when saying that it is not very pleasant to know that someone likes a translation you don't like, but I assure you, it is doubly unpleasant when someone, not only dislikes, but vehemently attacks what you like--in my case, the Pevears' work very often, and Robert Chandler's, nearly always. 
In any case, what most matters about Dostoevsky is his tone--the more scandalous, the more profound and the better implicating the reader in what truly matters to him. I am making this comment as someone who has worked on Dostoevsky for decades and has written on him at least since 1991. (As per status, mine as an American Dostoevsky scholar is by now  established at least as well as Saul Morson's or my great--yes!!--teacher's Bob Belknap). The Pevears may have blunders, like all of us and all of the translators here mentioned, but they make it a priority to convey this tone, this shift between the scandalous and the profound, as well as Dostoevsky's own seeming blunders as the speaker's characteristic: as in "unable to resolve this irresolvable question, I am resolved to leave it without any resolution whatsoever"--coming from the Author's Intro, in their translation, to BK.

There is only one problem I have with the duo--something where Bob Maguire used to excel, and his translation of Demons excels as a result: THEY DO NOT ASK ENOUGH QUESTIONS, of us and their other colleagues :)))  

Coming back to Robert, I think it is silly to ACCUSE him of having the main virtue of any thinking person, let alone anyone coping with the complexities of Russian poetics, in the works of such untranslatable writers as Platonov, to boot.
Best wishes to everyone, Alexei especially. Your colleague,
Olga Meerson 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------