It took a big effort to hear this audiobook. It was not as attractive to me as the other audiobook I reviewed, Mumu. How come? The voice of the narrator was more nasal and the intonation too monotonous. Combined with the slightly less interesting stories I just couldn't get the book finished for months. In this case (also contrary to Mumu) I prefer reading the stories myself. I still think it is a good idea to bring out these stories on audio, but with a better voice (sorry, Max Bollinger)! ( )

These short stories relate the interactions between a Russian land owner and his neighbours. I enjoyed them.
These stories were read via an audio book, and while the Russian accent gave the stories a more authentic feel, and I am most grateful that someone else was pronouncing those Russian names, I did find that unless I paid close attention I easily lost the flow of the stories. There were also times where I felt the narrator was reading without understanding as I noticed several errors, (eg: .....I made him a preposition....... , ... he attended versity.....)
Maybe in the car was not the right place to listen to them. ( )

As commented on several times already, the major problem with their work for me is the vocal track. I found it to be flat, and lack energy. I've not come across Turgenev before and I have to say that after this audio reading I would be hesitant to do so again. There's not excitment or joy in it, no variation or tone or interest in the voice, it sounds like someone reading a very boring text they'd rther not be reading and when the reader is board how can I help but feel the same? The accent is also quite strange and I spent a long time trying to work out if it was an English person affecting a Russia accent or a Russian person trying to affect an English accent. The fact that I was contemplating this as he was reading should give you some idea of how much his voice engaged me with the text.

That said, once you get used to the tone "The hunting sketches" do seem interesting and worth investigating on teir own, I just certainly wouldn't recoment this audio reading for a beginner like myself.

I'd say the other thing I found disapointing was that the entire book ran at about an hour, which had I payed for this I would find disapointing, though I do suppose that depends on the price. Still, at this is labeled as volume 1, one can't help but think they'd have done better to combine them all and have one volume of a decent length. ( )

Prachtige verhalen van Toergenjew. Helaas is ook dit audioboek, net als Mumu, erg monotoon voorgelezen. Hierdoor is het moeilijk om geconcentreerd te blijven. De tekst is in ieder geval goed vertaald, zodat de sfeer van 19e eeuwse Rusland behouden is. Al met al een ruime voldoende. ( )

What Turgenev’s Early Writing Led Him To (A review of The Hunting Sketches)

A work from a distant country in a foreign language written over a century-and-a-half ago had better be able to speak for itself. Fortunately, as an audio book, it now can.

When a book first comes out, as this one did, it attracts or repels readers largely on the basis of three things: its author, its topic, and its type or genre. While a swing and a miss on any of these is a strike against you, a hit on just one of them may save the day and keep the game alive. When Turgenev published The Hunting Sketches in 1852, he wasn’t well known (Strike One!). What’s more, though his material had a definite place to it (the estate he had just inherited from his domineering mother) and a gaggle of colorful people, it really had no theme or topic (Strike Two!!). When it came to the sole remaining chance, what Turgenev did actually doubled his difficulty ratio, because what he chose wasn’t the familiar and more popular story form, but that of the sketch (When was the last time you read, and thoroughly enjoyed, a sketch – on anything?). And here is exactly where Turgenev’s fortunes pivoted and turned around. Not only did he get his hit, but he knocked the ball into the stands, and – to stick with the sports metaphor – he even made it into the hall of fame.

The response was instantaneous. It wasn’t a matter of beginners luck, but emerged out of what he chose to focus his sketches on: character. Not as a mere literary device or technique employed to make a written piece more effective (though many regard it in this very way, and their work shows it), and few writers succeed, despite their many labored attempts, in learning to wield it in the engaging and life-like way Turgenev did. That is what shows so clearly in The Hunting Sketches, where again and again he seizes his people with both hands, determined not to let them go until they all “gave,” handing over the revealing riches character always holds within. He wrote of this exclusively, relentlessly, and unswervingly in every single sketch. What Turgenev found in character gave the people he wrote about -- the peasants and nobles of the provincial Russia of his day -- real things to talk about, think of, feel, say, and do. And that is found in his distinctly vivid characters.

Surely this boundless depth and dimensionality came as something of a surprise even to him. For what had he published up to that time but a long poem and a short story? But in 1847 at 29, he begins to write in the fine fashion found in The Hunting Sketches. It changed both the way he saw things and the way he would write from then on. It even had a hand in changing the world around him (several credit his writing with hastening the official end of serfdom as well).

That Turgenev could actually see the reality of character is evidence of his artistic creativity, but that he also chose to follow where it led is a sure sign of his own.

If the quality of narration matched that of the writing, I would have given this audio book a four star rating. As it presently stands, though, I rate it at three-and-a-half.

* * *

(General comments on the recording and on two mispronunciations:)
I strongly suggest re-recording the entire first track in order to correct the mispronunciation of two words in the first track (see notes at bottom), and to use this as an opportunity to bring the narrator’s level of animation and vocal energy up to the level achieved in the third track and those following. As the opening track, it is simply not up to standard! – and, it is likely to turn-off listeners otherwise interested in hearing Turgenev’s work. (This commonly happens in readying professional recordings, and when it does, as indeed it has, there is no need to delay in quickly getting it corrected. After all, Turgenev handled his part very well, and now the current producers must do the same!)

To an American listener, the accent sounds “British,” which needn’t be a drawback, yet it seems “odd” and a little puzzling. This is likely due to the speaker’s having learned English from people whose natural accent was an English one, as is commonly found among Europeans who learn English in that way.

The narrator’s strength lies in the accurate pronunciation of the many Russian names. He speaks distinctly and enunciates well, warming to his task as he got further into it, so that his pace picked up, his tone grew less deliberate and became more natural, reflecting the accompanying feelings treated in the dialog. Beyond that, there is the slightly dated language of another historical era (which, of course, is there in Garnett’s translation); but a case can well be made for the language being closer in its style to that used in Turgenev’s day. Some will find it “quaint” by modern standards, but it can nevertheless serve the purpose of opening to the modern listener the world and times treated in the book. Without doubt, a greater formality was observed back then, particularly between people of different social classes, and was simply a fact and feature of how these people lived and related.)

Mistake #1 – (3:43 into Track 1), in the phrase . . . “a dog blinking and twitching in every limb was gnawing a bone” . . . (the word was mispronounced as ‘knowing a bone’).

Mistake #2 – ( 6:21 into Track 1), in the phrase . . . “took the bow” . . . (the word was mispronounced ‘bow’, as in the posture of respect, but here is meant to be ‘bow’ as that with which one plays a fiddle). ( )