Scan barcode
wshier's review against another edition
3.0
I found this very difficult. The basic story is of a young man who is caught up the anarchy swirling through Petersburg at the turn of the century. He unwittingly agrees to assassinate a government official that turns out to be his father. As soon as the plan is put into action, he and his co-conspirators have second thoughts. To really enjoy this book, you will need a fairly extensive understanding of Russian history, familiarity with Russian literature, and an appreciation of modern lit. At times, the famous bronze of Peter the Great comes to life. Circles, spheres, colors, mist, disguises...what it all REALLY means is, unfortunately, beyond my comprehension. If you like James Joyce or Virginia Woolf, it may work for you.
It reminded me of G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday.
It reminded me of G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday.
rdh217's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
angeldevil666's review against another edition
5.0
honestly on the same level of pale fire (#1 best book statuuusss) fuck i love it so much
adamcarrico91's review against another edition
4.0
Cool book. I went back and forth on how I felt about it, but there were sections of writing that were fun and innovative. The plot was interesting. It might’ve been better in the original Russian; it has to be hard to fully translate Bely’s stylistic choices. Although there are obvious similarities, I don’t know that it truly compares to Ulysses. Regardless, I’m glad I experienced this one.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
4.0
Andrey Beliy (Андрей Белый)'s «Петербург» has been translated four times into English, and determining which is the best also depends on which version of the Russian text you take as the "correct" one. The novel was first published in serial format from 1913 to 1914, then in a single volume in 1916. Prior to its republication in 1922, Beliy drastically revised the text; further changes were made alongside further reprintings in 1918 and 1935 and so on. The most significant differences are between the 1916 version (П.-A) and the 1922 version (П.-B); those are therefore considered the "main" versions.
П.-A (1916) was nearly halved in the process of becoming П.-B (1922). Much of what was removed happened to be the more experimental (nay symbolist) passages; the overall structural format of the text was also streamlined considerably. Of the four major English-language translations produced over the past century, two are of П.-A (1916) and two are of П.-B (1922).
П.-A (1916) was nearly halved in the process of becoming П.-B (1922). Much of what was removed happened to be the more experimental (nay symbolist) passages; the overall structural format of the text was also streamlined considerably. Of the four major English-language translations produced over the past century, two are of П.-A (1916) and two are of П.-B (1922).
JOHN COURNOS (1959)Cournos's translation, published under the title St. Petersburg, used П.-A. (1916) as its source text. Cournos, born Ivan Grigorievich Korshun (Иван Григорьевич Коршун) in Zhytomyr (now in Ukraine), was a ridiculously cool person who spoke Yiddish, Russian, German, Hebrew, and English. This translation, however, isn't great; it's really not worth reading unless you, like me, are interested in comparing all extant versions.
ROBERT A. MAGUIRE & JOHN E. MALMSTAD (1978)Maguire's and Malmstad's translation, published under the title Petersburg, used П.-A. (1916) as its source text. This is, in my opinion, the best by far, if for no other reason than the extensive scholarship included along with the actual translated text.
DAVID McDUFF (1995)McDuff's translation, published under the title Petersburg, used П.-B. (1922) as its source text. In the process of changing П.-A. (1916) to П.-B. (1922), Beliy not only removed various sections (mostly those related to the revolutionary movement and political terrorism) but also changed the foot of his prose to amphibrach instead of anapest. While preserving the linguistic details in Beliy's Russian writing is frankly impossible, McDuff does a decent job at maintaining the general feeling of the novel—which is why it's such a shame that he didn't translate П.-A. (1916) instead.
JOHN ELSWORTH (2009)Elsworth's translation, published under the title Petersburg, used П.-B. (1922) as its source text. Elsworth's translation won the Rossica Translation Prize in 2012, and Elsworth himself has written extensively on Beliy. It's unfortunate that Elsworth translated П.-B. (1922) rather than П.-A. (1916), because Elsworth's translation and comprehension of Beliy's work are both quite good; however, П.-B. (1922) is generally considered a significant downgrade from the original text, and I can't disagree.
njw13's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
camoverride's review against another edition
2.0
Being beautifully written isn't enough to make a book good: this book lacks a plot, character development, or anything interesting apart from vague references to a building peasant revolt. I put this book down after reading 25% of it.
jensteerswell's review against another edition
2.0
I read for pleasure for about 5 hours a day, longer when I'm on vacation. I've been like that since I was a small child. So I figure my reading comprehension skills are pretty good. But I get nothing out of post-modernism. Nothing.