Talk:Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky

Add Volokhonsky?

Given that there isn't a page for Larissa Volokhonsky and there's just as much information here about her as there is about Pevear, does anyone else think it would make more sense to make this page about both of them? -Unknownwarrior33 23:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

-- yes i completely agree, the title should either be "Pevear and Volokhonsky" or some variation. -bulbasaur 16:24, 9.9.2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.207.229 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Sdoroudi 02:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote this? I can't seem to find the author. Quotes are posted but there are no citations. Did the author interview the subject? --Mission Specialist (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the two should be merged. It appears almost all their literary work is done as a team. The only exception I found it Richard Pevear is credited for translation the Three Musketeers and Larissa Volokhonsky is not. Also, the interview with Ideas should be removed from the description because CBC lists no podcast episode in Idea's entitled "In Other Words" let alone in April 2007. Proof: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/calendar/2007/04_april.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.51.156 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Pevear and Volokhonsky pages

FWIW, I think that the two pages should be merged, since they work together as a team and it would eliminate redundancy. DJRafe (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is a team, and any separate pages would be almost identical in the most important aspects (i.e. jointly-translated works). Any personal info would most likely be minimal and therefore can easily be accommodated on a merged/combined page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.76.94 (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; can anyone do this, or is there some procedure one must follow? --Miczilla (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As this discussion has been open since August 2006 without any objections being raised, does anyone mind if I close the discussion and merge the pages? Dalmeny (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Its nice to think that a merged page would be more effective but it would only perpetuate the hegemonic masculine state of academia. A single page would inevitably favor the male Pevear as the leader of the pair. Please leave the page alone. This will recognize that a page written about the male member of a partnership cannot so easily be converted into representing the entirety of the coupling. A favorable solution would be to write a page about Mrs. Volokhonsky. As a foot note I would add that I am a male studying a "hard" science, facts which I believe add credibility to my plea as they have been constructed with a sufficient amount of doubt for the ideas. -HK @ MCSP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.120.156 (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism by other translators?

Would it be meet to mention that P&V's translations are generally looked down upon by people who speak Russian because of the stilted literalness of the translations?  Я Madler  גם זה יעבור R  04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your sources for such a criticism? Do they come from Russians in Russia, or Russians abroad? Are they critics, translators, readers, writers, other? Drouchka, 19 Nov 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.200.69 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I happen to be a student at Moscow State Linguistic University, at the Department of Translation and Interpretation, and I can say that Pevear's translations are, indeed, very literal and have little in common with the original texts of Bulgakov, Tolstoy and other russian writers. Here's an article by two professinal translators, Michelle Berdy and Victor Lanchikov, about P&V's translations: [1]. UseYourDelusion (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My cited mention of adverse criticism from Pasternak's niece should not be removed again. I actually do not agree with that criticism, but it does expand the idea that the "universal praise" for their work is not universal. Was it just the judgment of one person that allowed for the omission of a cited piece of information about the acceptance of their work? Dagoraus (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921022337/http://www.aup.edu/cwt/profiles/default.htm to http://www.aup.edu/cwt/profiles/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)