本文是youressay网课代上英文原创essay代修翻译理论分析论文描述了作者为其奥涅金的翻译版本所采用的翻译方法，支持这种采用的原因，并进一步表明了他关于什么是正确的翻译方式的想法。在这篇文章的最开始，弗拉基米尔·诺科夫向那些赞扬任何翻译工作的人表达了他“无助的毛茸茸”。

      It is clear that this article by Vladimir Nabokov describes the translating method that the author adopts for his translation version of Onegin, the reason in support of such an adoption, and also further suggests his idea about what is the right way to make translation. At the very beginning of this article, Vladimir Naokov has shown his “helpless furry” towards those who praised any translating works done by “Mr. (or) Miss So-and-so” (p.113) that uses platitudes to take place of the original author’s great expression, which reflects his preference for literal translation. Later, he made a lot of arguments with an attempt to demonstrate the impossibility to translate the works in rhyme, to prove that footnotes are best ways to explain the works’ rhymes, and to attest the suitability of the use of iambic dimeter and iambic pentameter to substitute the fourteen unrhymed lines in the original works (p.125). Nevertheless, is a literacy translation version with copious footnotes really appropriate to serve as another language version of a well-known masterpiece for all readers? I indeed have strong doubts.

      In my point of view, Vladimir Naokov’s translation, based on this article, could be seen as a very typical academic translation template that is able to convey Pushkin’s semantics, syntax in an accurate way, which is a very good version for cholars, learners who achieve a certain Russian level. However, Vladimir Naokov’s literal translation with a large amount of footnotes makes the translation version to lose enjoyment, interestingness, and even aesthetic pleasure that the original works could bring to readers, or, to be more specific, readers knowing nothing or very little about Russian could feel hard to get any storyline or meaningful inspiration from Vladimir Naokov’s version, because they may suffer a lot in his profound and unfathomable expressions and struggle to switch between the main text and the more readable footnotes. As a result of it, I have strong respect for Vladimir Naokov’s own thought, but more appreciate a language version including necessary paraphrases and free styles into it.