The Amazon page for Dostoevsky's Devils (aka Demons, The Possessed, etc) credits Michael Katz as an editor. On another website, he's credited as an editor and translator. This is a lie. It's an erasure of artistic mental labour, because Katz is not just an editor or a translator, but he's the book's English language co-author. The same tradition goes for other literary works translated into English. Lu Xun's phenomenal short story, Diary of a Madman, doesn't even have a translator credit.
Why is this so? Is the translator not first and foremost a writer? Translation goes through the process of comprehension (in the original language), interpretation (where the correct language is picked in their mind) and finally writing, where the interpreted words of the author are put down to the page. Yet only the second step is widely acknowledged. When you read Devils, you are not reading Dostoevsky. You are reading Katz. And when you read Demons (same book) by P&V, you're arguably reading an entirely different book, written by P&V.
The arguments then follow that:
1. The translator is most importantly a writer. When the reader interacts with the text, they read the words written by the translator. They do not interact with the other steps of the translation process.
2. Devils, translated by Katz, is not Devils in the Russian. It's a book written by Katz.
3. The same text translated by different translators are hence different texts.
***
The writing skill of the translator is paramount and sometimes more important then than faithfulness to the original. Literal translations are clumsy and awkward, despite their perceived accuracy.
"From the beginning of my translation career, Lorin Stein (who brilliantly edited The Savage Detectives, 2666, and so much more) reminded me over and over again to let go of the original, and to this day that’s the first piece of advice that I give to younger translators." - Natasha Wimmer
It's for this reason that Katz is a better translator than Garnett or P&V. He's a better writer. Garnett was good enough in her time, but her Victorian English today is flowery at best, confusing at worst.
***
Compare these translations of Devils, between P&V and Roger Cockrell:
These are the words in which I gave you my proof today, and not from the second word, but because you declared your rights (PV, 397)
Those were the words I used to prove it to you earlier. And it wasn’t almost the first thing I said; I said it, because you were asserting your rights (RC)
The P&V translation is incomprehensible without context. It's clear that they performed the first step of translation, comprehension and interpretation. Yet they completely failed to pick the right language to express that interpretation. This picking of language is what we define as "writing". It's even more important than the other steps because it determines the exact words the reader will see.
***
The translated text is like Borges' map and territory. In his story Borges depicts a cartography guild which sets out to map the territory of an empire. The guild's endeavour becomes greater and greater until the map becomes the size of the Empire itself and replaces it. It's the same with the translated text. The English-translated Bolaño, Dostoevsky, Lu Xun is a simulation of the original, yet it takes precedent over the real original text when it's read by a reader in the English language.
The Translator is Invisible, the Translator is Artist
A translation is never a word-for-word reproduction of the original. Neither is it a technical process like programming or solving an equation. Like a thief, the translator must steal the words of the author, smash the original and reforge them like a craftsman making a kettle from a battleship hull. This process of reforging is indisputably an artistic one. So the next time you read Kawabata, know that you're actually reading Seidensticker who isn't a very good writer. When you pick up a 'foreign' classic, ask yourself: who is the author? And: do I really want to read a book written by some dusty, wife-beating academic from the 40s? Or will I pick a good writer like Katz or Wimmer? And for God's sake, please stop reading Garnett!