Eugene Onegin

Rating:
Summary: Pushkin by way of Nabokov
Review: At the close of his writing career Vladimir Nabokov predicted that he would be remembered only for two things: Lolita and his translation of the Russian classic Eugene Onegin. He was half right.

Lolita is now firmly apart of the western literary canon. Nabokov's other fictional works are, i believe, gaining popularity due to Lolita's renown. In his own candid assesment (which he had so many of) he placed himself only behind James Joyce as this century's top writer, and now many would agree. But his Eugene Onegin is under-achieving.

When it was published almost a half century ago, Nabokov's literal translation of Eugene Onegin was both praised and attacked. Edmund Wilson was the most effective (or the loudest) critic of the translation. He didn't like, for example, that Nabokov used words that he, Wilson, didn't know; he didn't like that Nabokov's translation didn't rhyme, or that it wasn't in verse. He even criticized Nabokov's choice of English/Russian equivalents.

Nabokov's reply to his critics and his reply to his friend Edmund Wilson in particular was, and still is, overwhelming. He told Wilson that out of the thousands of words his translation employs only a few are obscure, and that any dictionary would supply their definition. He argued that he left out rhyme and meter because he wanted to convey as closely as possible what PUSHKIN orignially wrote; he argued that all verse translations are more translator's artifice than the orignial writer's art. He assured Wilson that his Russian to English equivalents were as correct as possible.

For those of you that do ont know, Nabokov grew up speaking both Russian and English (in contrast to Wilson's adopted Russian and sometimes misused English). He was more than very fluent in both languages: he was a great writer in both languages. We're talking Joycean great, not merely Wilsonian great.

In Nabokov we have an ideal translator. If you've ever read his 'Lectures on Literature' you know how precise, how painstaking the man was. He spent more time researching Pushkin and more time translating Eugene Onegin than he spent on any three of his novels combined--add to this his already impressive knowledge and understanding of Russian Literature (see his notes on Russian Literature or his novel "The Gift"), and you start to understand how valuable and unique this translation really is.

His commentary on this poem is massive and laughably too informative (if such a thing can exist)--it will never be matched, only cited and added to. This, much more than the poem, is rather taxing to read (it's a very long scholarly work, after all) but it's often funny and it attempts what many translators avoid trying: to explain in prose those poetic effects from the original that even the most literal of translations will neccisarily miss or only partialy capture.

Russia considers Puskin their greatest writer, and Eugene Onegin is considered Pushkin's masterpiece. One can only imagine Nabokov's desire to see it translated adequately in English--picture Harold Bloom being given the proper ability and oppertunity to translate Hamlet. Nabokov did not take the task lightly. When he was finished, he knew he achieved something: but could he have predicted its luke-warm response?

Too bad for him and his translation that Edmund Wilson type critisisms still linger. Readers still don't understand that when they favor a rhymed and metered Ardnt or Falen translation to Nabokov's, they are favoring Ardnt and Falen's artistry, not Pushkins. Nabokov is as close as English speakers are ever going to get to Pushkin. Nabokov, with all his literary powers, could have created a best-selling metered/rhymed version of Eugene Onegin (as a younger man, in fact, he actually translated a few stanzas) but he didn't. He didn't want to exploit Eugene Onegin, like others before him; he didn't want to force a rhyme, a sentiment, a turn of speech that Pushkin didn't use. So, he made what many consider a 'bumpy', raw, un-poetic Eugene Onegin.

Though Nabokov's translation among readers is dying, it will always live and give life to other translations. It would be an interesting essay that focuses on the impact Nabokov's translation and commentary has on subsequent translations and commentaries of Eugene Onegin. James E. Falen's translation is the popular 'definitive' version of Eugene Onegin right now. And it is good. But Falen should take every oppertunity to thank Nabokov for making his translation possible.

With that in mind, I suggest that one buy both Nabokov and Falen's translations to read them side by side--it's a rewarding experience. You can see that Falen has taken Nabakov's text and squeezed it into verse--a smart move, and well pulled-off. Still, Nabokov would have disaproved of Falen's version as "piped-in background music" like all the other verse efforts. And he's probably right. At points in his beautiful verse translation, Fallen had to betray Pushkin's Russian. Nabokov tried to make his version uglier and uglier as he revised it to better serve Pushkin (a seeming contradiction considering Pushkin's elegant style). But don't be suprised if you start enjoying Nabokov's 'bumpy' translation--it has a certain haggard beauty. It's exactly what it is supposed to be: first-rate poetry without the poetry. It's a shaved cat.

Rating:
Summary: Pushkin by way of Nabokov
Review: At the close of his writing career Vladimir Nabokov predicted that he would be remembered only for two things: Lolita and his translation of the Russian classic Eugene Onegin. He was half right.

Lolita is now firmly apart of the western literary canon. Nabokov's other fictional works are, i believe, gaining popularity due to Lolita's renown. In his own candid assesment (which he had so many of) he placed himself only behind James Joyce as this century's top writer, and now many would agree. But his Eugene Onegin is dying.

When it was published almost a half century ago, Nabokov's literal translation of Eugene Onegin was both praised and attacked. Edmund Wilson was the most effective (or the loudest) critic of the translation. He didn't like, for example, that Nabokov used words that he, Wilson, didn't know; he didn't like that Nabokov's translation didn't rhyme, or that it wasn't in verse. He even criticized Nabokov's choice of English/Russian equivalents.

Nabokov's reply to his critics and his reply to his friend Edmund Wilson in particular was, and still is, overwhelming. He made a boob out of Wilson and his arguments. He told Wilson that out of the thousands of words his translation employs only a few are obscure, and that any dictionary would supply their definition. He argued that he left out rhyme and meter because he wanted to convey as closely as possible what PUSHKIN orignially wrote; he rightly argued that all verse translations are more translator's artifice than the orignial writer's art. He assured Wilson that his Russian to English equivalents were as correct as possible.

For those of you that do ont know, Nabokov grew up speaking both Russian and English (in contrast to Wilson's adopted Russian and often misused English). He was more than very fluent in both languages: he was a great writer in both languages. We're talking Joycean great, not merely Wilsonian great.

In Nabokov we had an ideal translator. If you've ever read his 'Lectures on Literature' you know how precise, how painstaking the man was. He spent more time researching Pushkin and more time translating Eugene Onegin than he spent on any three of his novels combined. This in addition to his already encyclopedic and perfect understanding of Russian Literature, which he helped to shape.

His commentary on this poem is massive and laughably too informative (if such a thing can exist)--it will never be matched, only cited and added to.

Pushkin is considered Russia's greatest writer, not just their greatest poet--he is placed just under Shakespeare in esteem. Eguene Onegin is considered his masterpiece. One can only imagine Nabokov's desire to see it translated adequately in English--picture Harold Bloom being given the proper ability and oppertunity to translate Shakespeare. Nabokov did not take the task lightly. When he was finished he knew he achieved something: thus his prediction of its survival.

Too bad for him and his translation that Edmund Wilson type critisisms still linger. Readers still don't understand that when they favor a rhymed and metered Ardnt or Falen translation to Nabokov's, they are favoring Ardnt and Falen's artistry, not Pushkins. Nabokov is as close as English speakers are ever going to get to Pushkin. Nabokov, with all his powers, could have created a best-selling metered/rhymed version that would have endeared itself to all our poetry bleeding hearts--but he didn't. He didn't want to exploit Eugene Onegin, like others before him; he didn't want to force a rhyme, a sentiment, a turn of speech that Pushkin didn't use. He didn't want to misquote his master. So, he made what many consider a 'bumpy', raw, un-poetic Eugene Onegin.

Though Nabokov's translation among readers is dying, it will always live and give life to other translations. A very interesting acedemic essay should be written on the impact Nabokov's translation and commentary has on subsequent translations and commentaries. James E. Falen's translation is and will be the popular, 'definitive' version of Eugene Onegin. And it is good. But Falen should take every oppertunity to thank Nabokov for making his translation possible.

I suggest that one buy both Nabokov and Falen's translations and read them side by side--it is a very rewarding experience. And don't be suprised if you start enjoying Nabokov's 'bumpy' translation--it has a certain haggard beauty. It's exactly what it is supposed to be: first-rate poetry without the poetry. It's a shaved cat.

Rating:
Summary: Nabokov's big flop is a work of permanent value
Review: Having spent the last year or so working on translations from the Arabic (Abu Nuwas) and the Persian (Hafez), I can tell you for sure that one of the major worries of any person who wants to translate poetry is: "But have I understood this poem I am attempting to translate?" That is, do I understand the "literal" meaning?

A silly example: Juliet goes to the balcony, and says (into the night): "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" In many bad high-school productions, this line is spoken as "WHEREfore ART thou, Romeo?" == "Romeo, where are you?" This is a big mistake.

The line should be spoken as, "Wherefore art thou ROMEO?" == "Why are you (named) Romeo?"

Difficulties in understanding and translating Shakespeare abound. A. L. Rowse went to the trouble of translating Shakespeare's sonnets into modern English. Evidently, he felt there was a need to be clear about one's understanding of Shakespeare.

With any major poet, there are opportunities galore for a well-meaning translator to simply blunder. And, as a result, one of the most valuable resources -- aside from the original text -- is a faithful "trot" or "pony" -- which will tell you the plain prose meaning of this poem.

Vladimir Nabokov gave the world an utterly definitive "literal" translation of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin. He knew what he wanted to do, he worked hard at it, and he did it. Then the wails began. The Nabokov translation did not rhyme. It was not "poetry."

And then Nabokov made a huge mistake: he began painting himself into a corner by defending his translation, and wound up declaring that this way of translating poetry or verse was the only legitimate way. He declared all verse translations to be anathema, in the end, and wound up putting himself in opposition to virtually every other poet the world has ever known!

Well, people are stubborn, and Nabokov got to be pig-headed on this subject. If I were to take him seriously, all my translations of Greek and Latin poetry would have to be thrown in the trash!

But I'm not going to take him seriously, because in this particular case he was just flat wrong. (For an example of a serious, total opposition to this VN position, see Jorge Luis Borges' fine book, "This Craft of Verse," where he distinguishes at least three genres of verse translation: (a) the creation of a parallel work of art, a poem "written around" the original (b) a good verse translation -- and (c) a "mere translation." It is very interesting to see that Nabokov's "beau ideal" of translation was, for Borges, the worst of three possibilities.

Throw out Pope's "Odyssey?" I don't think so. Nor will I throw out the Arrowsmith renditions of Aristophanes and the Satyricon, or my anthology of Greek literature in translation.

No, no, no. Nabokov gave us something very valuable in his literal translation of EO, but this is FAR from the only correct way of doing the job, or the best way.

A real literary oddity!


Rating:
Summary: Never mention "literature" without reading this book!
Review: I'm a Russian Language and Literature major in Yonsei Univ. in Korea. Having lived in Moscow for around 3 years, I'd heard there a lot about Pushkin and read many of his famous works. The most prestigious of his, however, must be "Onegin." It's a great mixture of verse and prose in its form. If possible, try to read this in Russian, as well. This long poetical prose was written for 8 years and the ending rhyme perfectly matches for the entire line until the very end. Compared to others, it is definitely a conspicuous and brilliant one. "Onegin" can be the author himself or yourself. The love between Onegin and TaTyana is neither the cheap kind of love that often appears in any books nor the tragic one that is intended to squeze your tears. As a literature, this book covers not only love between passionate youth, but also a large range of literary works in it, which can tell us about the contemporary literature current and its atmosphere. Calling Onegin "My friend", Pushkin, the author, shows the probability and likelihood of the work. Finally, I'm just sorry that the title has been changed into English. The original name must be "Yevgeni Onegin(¬¦¬Ó¬Ô¬Ö¬ß¬Ú¬Û ¬°¬ß¬Ö¬Ô¬Ú¬ß)." If you are a literature major or intersted in it, I'd like to recommand you read this. You can't help but loving the two lovers and may reread it, especially the two correspondences through a long period of time. Only with readng this book, you'll also learn a huge area of the contemporary literature of the 19th century from the books mentioned in "Onegin" that take part as its subtext. Enjoy yourself!

Rating:
Summary: Pushkin FOREVER!!! The best Russian poet in his best.
Review: I'm so happy that I'm Russian and I could read this masterpiece in original language. This is one of the best Russian books ever written, and it is the example of all-time classics. Evgeniy Onegin is so extremely well-written, so original, so interesting, so intelligent. If you want to understand Russian people, you should live in Russia for years. But if you want just to approach to understanding them read some Russian literature. Your first authors may be Tolstoy or Dostoyevskiy, but I should recommend reading Pushkin at first because he is the most Russian of all Russian writers.

The only thing that may make your reading not so great is the fact that you will read it in translation. I have never read any but I think that if you like (or dislike) one of them you should try some others.

I know that Nabokov didn't translate it using the verses (and Pushkin's verses are so great), but I think it is the most punctual one. So maybe you should try to read exactly it (especially if you have already read some not so punctual translation but in verse form).

Anyway Evgeniy Onegin is one of the greatest books ever written!!!

Rating:
Summary: Refuting D Stephen Heersink's Poshlust* review
Review: Ignorant Heersink ignobly writes, besides other trite nonsense, "But Nabokov's Pushkin is too literal to be any good. James Falen's trans. is far superior, ... Falen, while also literal, also is metered and rhymes. Nabokov's thuds."

In reply, I quote Nabokov from his Foreword, "Literal: rendering, as closely as the associative and syntactical capacities of another language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. Only this is true translation."

Later, Nabokov asks: "can a rhymed poem Like Eugene Onegin Be truly translated with the retention of its rhymes? The answer, of course, is no. To reproduce the rhymes and yet translate the entire poem literally is mathematically impossible. But in losing its rhyme the poem loses its bloom, which neither marginal description nor the alchemy of a scholium can replace. Should one then content oneself with an exact rendering of the subject matter and forget all about form? Or should one still excuse an imitation of the poem's structure to which only twisted bits of sense stick here and there, by convincing oneself and one's public that in mutilating its meaning for the sake of a pleasure-measure rhyme one has the opportunity of prettifying or skipping the dry and difficult passages? I have been always amused by the stereotyped compliment that a reviewer pays the author of a "new translation." He says: "It reads smoothly." In other words, the hack who has never read the original, and does not know its language, praises an imitation as readable because easy platitudes have replaced in it the intricacies of which he is unaware. "Readable," indeed! A schoolboy's boner mocks the ancient masterpiece less than does its commercial poetization, and it is when the translator sets out to render the "spirit," and not the mere sense of the text, that he begins to traduce his author."

If you, like me, agree only with Heersink's sentiment that "it's worth while to read the very best Pushkin", I wholeheartedly endorse Nabokov's sublime Eugene Onegin, but on condition you find the original 4 volume set (vol. 1 Introduction Translation, vol. 2 Commentary One to Five, vol. 3 Commentary Six to End, vol. 4 1837 Russian Text). Nabokov's Commentaries are like the blood to the heart that is his translation, it "thuds" for a reason!

EO is the counterpoint: completing a simplified stylistic publishing triptych of Nabokov the writer, the lepidopterist, the scholar.

* Nabokov writes "Russians have, or had, a special name for smug philistinism -poshlust." From Essay 'Philistines and Philistinism'.

Rating:
Summary: Nabokov's Pushkin
Review: Nabokov and Pushkin are among my favorite authors, both having an excellent command of the language, the media, and the art. But Nabokov's Pushkin is too literal to be any good. James Falen's trans. is far superior, perhaps the best, and it's worth while to read the very best Pushkin. Ironically, Nabokov was fretted that anyone other than his son would ever translate his words; I think Pushkin would have felt the same if he saw Nabokov's translation of his masterpiece. Falen, while also literal, also is metered and rhymes. Nabokov's thuds. Read Nabokov's great novels (Pnin, Lolita, King Queen & Knave, Bend Sinister, Invitation to a Beheading, Despair, etc.) but leave Pushkin to Falen, not Nabokov.

Rating:
Summary: Oh those Russians
Review: pushkin is a national poet of russia (im russian) this is his greatest project i loved this book

this book is about life love passion great book

Rating:
Summary: this is one of the greatest books ever
Review: pushkin is a national poet of russia (im russian) this is his greatest project i loved this book

this book is about life love passion great book

Rating:
Summary: Oh those Russians
Review: Pushkin is the master of the sting in the tail. A stanza of gentle rhyme, offering a safe but fragile surface sketch, is shattered again and again with depth charge irony in the final couplet.The comic result is side-splitting. But despite the sing-song meter, the descriptions of the Russian countryside in winter and his close observations of the city social whirl are breathtaking. By the way getting the correct translation is critical.