Best translation of IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME?

[husker du]

I have copies of the whole thing from 1934, but was wondering if I should buy the revised translation. The one I have is translated by C.K. Scott Moncrieff.

Then there is a revised translation by Kilmartin and Enright (which is for sale here, for a relatively decent price. http://www.amazon.com/Search-Lost-Ti...7086790&sr=8-1). I'm not sure what time period this originally came out during.

Finally there is an updated translation from the 1990s which according to Wikipedia has only had the first four volumes released in the US.

So is anyone out there knowledgeable enough on this to tell me which of these three choices would be the best to read or if it doesn't really matter much?

[Red-Headed]

Personally I would try & find the most modern translation you can. Before you do that though I would read Alain De Botton's interesting little book ~ How Proust can change YOUR LIFE (Picador 1997 ISBN 0 330 35491 4).

[dfloyd]

I have the Moncrieff translation, and have found his translations from French into English to be very good. Currently, I am reading his translation of Stendahl's The Red and the Black. The problem I have with modern translations is that they tend to oversimplify the work in questions. IMO classics should not be simplified in order to cater to the inexperienced reader.

For example, I have read both the Fitzgerald and the Fagles modern translations of The Iliad, and they are lacking in establishing that aura of heroic endeavor which is so readily apparent in the translations of Chapman and Pope. I want to read a translation close to the experience of that of the original author, not some modern version which is simplistic.

[Red-Headed]

I have the Moncrieff translation, and have found his translations from French into English to be very good. Currently, I am reading his translation of Stendahl's The Red and the Black. The problem I have with modern translations is that they tend to oversimplify the work in questions. IMO classics should not be simplified in order to cater to the inexperienced reader.

For example, I have read both the Fitzgerald and the Fagles modern translations of The Iliad, and they are lacking in establishing that aura of heroic endeavor which is so readily apparent in the translations of Chapman and Pope. I want to read a translation close to the experience of that of the original author, not some modern version which is simplistic.

I would hardly call all modern translations simplistic. The Moncrieff translation of Proust reads like exactly what it was, a 1920's English interpretation & translation. How do you mimic upper-class or middle-class French speech, idioms or semiotic nuances in modern English?

The English that Moncrieff wrote in never really existed outside of 'Southern' Received Pronunciation south of the Watford Gap & in my opinion was antiquated then. Don't confuse out of date idiomatic English with complexity or intellectual ability.

In my country the concepts of 'Standard English' & Received Pronunciation are still being debated. If Langland could write Piers Plowman in a Mercian dialect (incidentally one that I am perfectly familiar with) why is that not considered 'educated' today? Look carefully at Shakespeare & note his Midland dialect words & phrases. He even pronounced certain words differently to southern English. I was born not far from where Shakespeare was born. I still hear people pronounce 'sea' as 'say', 'beat' as 'bate' & 'seat' as 'sate'.

Of course this is seen as relatively uneducated as it isn't Southern Speech! Which is the oldest English dialect? I can tell you. *Hint* it isn't southern!

Translations age just as languages age & develop. Constance Garnett's translations of Dostoyevsky were good seventy years ago but David McDuff's recent ones are the best I have ever read.

Lattimore's Iliad is by far the best translation (of Homer) I have ever read. I prefer it to Chapman or E.V. Rieu. I would hardly describe an august scholar like Rieu as being dumbed down (even if he did speak in RP).

[husker du]

Personally I would try & find the most modern translation you can. Before you do that though I would read Alain De Botton's interesting little book ~ How Proust can change YOUR LIFE (Picador 1997 ISBN 0 330 35491 4).

One of the reviews I read of the middle translation said that this book should be read only after reading the actual text. I'd be fine reading it first and imagine it would give me a sense of what to expect, but I absolutely don't want spoilers. Are there plot spoilers or anything else in that book that might ruin the experience of reading In Search of Lost Time?

[Red-Headed]

One of the reviews I read of the middle translation said that this book should be read only after reading the actual text. I'd be fine reading it first and imagine it would give me a sense of what to expect, but I absolutely don't want spoilers. Are there plot spoilers or anything else in that book that might ruin the experience of reading In Search of Lost Time?

From what I can recall there are no real plot-spoilers that I can think of (does In Search of Lost Time actually have much of a plot?) I was familiar with a lot of Proust's work when I read De Botton though. I would read Du Cote de Chez Swann to about Le Cote de Guermantes to get a feel of Proust's writing then read De Botton. Maybe that would be a better idea. De Botton certainly isn't going to spoil anything for you! But it may be better to have a bit of a better understanding of Proust.

[dfloyd]

Personally I would try & find the most modern translation you can. Before you do that though I would read Alain De Botton's interesting little book ~ How Proust can change YOUR LIFE (Picador 1997 ISBN 0 330 35491 4).

Your first sentence was all I was replying to. Your retort lost me. I am not a scholar. I have never taken a course in literature, and it is too late in life for me to read literary criticism even if I wanted to. I accept the fact you know much more than I do about literary history. I read strictly for pleasure, and when you said the above about 'most modern translation' it struck a nerve. Everything in your retort may be absolutely true, but I know what I like when I read a translated book, and it generally isn't a modern translation. When I started reading Dostoevsky in the 1950s, Constance Garnett was what everybody read. So even if she is out of style for you, she is not for me. And I don't intend to reread all of Dostoevsky to find out if you are right.

[Red-Headed]

Your first sentence was all I was replying to. Your retort lost me. I am not a scholar. I have never taken a course in literature, and it is too late in life for me to read literary criticism even if I wanted to. I accept the fact you know much more than I do about literary history. I read strictly for pleasure, and when you said the above about 'most modern translation' it struck a nerve. Everything in your retort may be absolutely true, but I know what I like when I read a translated book, and it generally isn't a modern translation. When I started reading Dostoevsky in the 1950s, Constance Garnett was what everybody read. So even if she is out of style for you, she is not for me. And I don't intend to reread all of Dostoevsky to find out if you are right.

Sorry, it must have been a particular bee in my bonnet that was getting to me! LOL!

It is never too late to read literary criticism, in fact, it is never too late to learn something new (well, maybe learning fluent Russian from scratch is a bit of a challenge). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Garnett's translations, & she was advised both culturally & linguistically by several contemporary Russian émigrés, but if you want to get closer to what Dostoyevsky really wrote you need a more modern, or at the very least, a more accurate translation. Unless, of course, you actually do read fluent Russian.

English as a language (like any language) is in a consistent state of semiotic flux. Much of this is due to fashionable external influences as much as anything else. Furthermore linguistic systems have always been associated with power bases & hegemonies.

French was the official language of England for at least two centuries after the Norman Conquest & its influence can be seen every time you use a word like 'pork', 'beef', 'curfew' or spell the Old English adjective 'cwic' as quick.

English changed at a fantastic rate from around the time of the death of Chaucer (1400) to Malory's writing of Le Morte Darthur (1485). In the space of less than a century old third person present indicatives familiar to Chaucer (e.g. he speaketh, she drinketh) became 'he speaks', 'she drinks'. These 'Northern/Midland' dialect forms were mentioned by Chaucer as he thought they were funny & possibly viewed them as uneducated forms of colloquial speech. Now they are standard. Many dative & subjunctive forms with their attendant inflective forms also disappeared around this time.

In Shakespeare's time entirely new concepts came into English & we had our linguistic Renaissance (a little later than most). The language developed more in this period than in any other in its history.

My original point being that English as a language is in a constant state of flux & change & in my opinion translations from other languages (Aryan or other) should be as modern as they can possibly be. Language is not so much a 'tool' as more of a gestalt response to configurational wholes.

Old translations are filled with odd connotative, denotative & ideo-mythological concepts buried in the translated text. If you are not familiar with these you may not fully understand the original author's intent.

Translation is an art form not an empirical science!

You cited FitzGerald earlier (I assume you are referring to Edward), compare his translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam with more modern translations & you will see just how fanciful his are. They tell you more about him & 19th century Europe than 12th century Persian literature.

I apologise if I appear to be having a bit of a rant, you have touched on an ongoing academic debate.

It has been good to discuss this with you. I will agree sometimes there are translations that are older that I prefer to many modern ones. Just not many.

[mal4mac]

I've seen more modern translators criticised for being less accurate than Garnett in many circumstances.

There's a modern trend for translating Dostoevsky's sentence structure & turns of phrase in Russian into exactly the same sentence structure & turn of phrase into English, leading to stilted and baffling English. Garnett (and Coulson) tend to translate the sentence structure & turns of phrase & give other help - leading to more readable English.

I prefer readable English.

Caveat - I'm a 'common reader', not a scholar. A student of foreign literature might be better reading a modern, foreignizing translation - with A students reading all translations and the original!

I recently read Coulsons' Crime & Punishment and the latest (foreignizing) Penguin translation of Devils and much preferred the former. I read the first few pages of the Idiot in several translations and decided Garnett was for me.

I'm building up to reading (& re-reading) Proust and suggest that husker du try a Google search "Best Proust translation". There are many comparative reviews of all versions!

For what it's worth, I've provisionally decided to go for the Kilmartin/Enright update of Moncrieff. The more recent penguin translations seem to have caught the 'pedantic exactness' plague, leading to many sentences that are more difficult to read than they need to be, compared to M/K/E. K/E were mid-twentieth century translators (like Coulson) who bent over backwards to produce readable English, and Moncrieff was already (like Garnett) very readable, just needed some updating & smoothing.

If you already have Moncrieff why not just read that? K/E only polished it, and some reviewers think they should have left it alone! If (when!) you find it hard going try looking at the other translations on Amazon Look Inside and see if they help. If you find one consistently better then you can move from Moncrieff. Certainly Moncrieff, like Garnett, gets much respect from most critics, so you can't really go far wrong by at least starting off with Moncrieff.

Very recently a backlash against foreignizing translation seems to be taking place, and translators seem to be more interested in producing readable English for the common reader - check out Ackroyd's Canterbury Tales for a great example!

[Red-Headed]

I've seen more modern translators criticised for being less accurate than Garnett in many circumstances.

There's a modern trend for translating Dostoevsky's sentence structure & turns of phrase in Russian into exactly the same sentence structure & turn of phrase into English, leading to stilted and baffling English. Garnett (and Coulson) tend to translate the sentence structure & turns of phrase & give other help - leading to more readable English.

I doubt it. A colleague of mine (an ex-RAF Captain, Russian translator & Dostoyevsky scholar) both speaks & reads fluent Russian & highly rates the McDuff translations. After all, they are the standard Penguin translations. I have not read a better translation. David Magarshack would be the nearest & he was born in Russia (Riga) but grew up in the UK. I have never rated Jessie Coulson's translations of Dostoyevsky. The plain fact of the matter is that Garnett's Russian wasn't really up to it & she glossed over or edited things she deemed either unsuitable or inexplicable for her readership.

I prefer readable English.

So do I. Preferably spelt correctly.

Caveat - I'm a 'common reader', not a scholar. A student of foreign literature might be better reading a modern, foreignizing translation - with A students reading all translations and the original!

OK. (?)

I recently read Coulsons' Crime & Punishment and the latest (foreignizing) Penguin translation of Devils and much preferred the former. I read the first few pages of the Idiot in several translations and decided Garnett was for me.

When I finally work out what you mean by 'foreignizing' I will get back to you.

Moncrieff was already (like Garnett) very readable, just needed some updating & smoothing.

Well yes, if you live in the 1920s & were a 'flapper' or something. Not having a Time Machine or knowing Dr Who (or in fact any Timelords at all) I prefer the early 21st century.

Certainly Moncrieff, like Garnett, gets much respect from most critics, so you can't really go far wrong by at least starting off with Moncrieff.

A/ Which critics are these? Are they still alive? Are they Timelords?

B/ Why not start off with a more modern & understandable translation? (see above about Time Machines).

Very recently a backlash against foreignizing translation seems to be taking place, and translators seem to be more interested in producing readable English for the common reader - check out Ackroyd's Canterbury Tales for a great example!

What 'backlash' is this exactly? You are beginning to seriously lose cogency now. I don't know whether it is because I am English or not but I prefer Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in its original Middle English. After studying it for over 15 years, like Langland's Piers Plowman, I tend to prefer the original (plus I am familiar with Langland's Mercian dialect & can both speak & understand several Mercian/Midland dialects including Black Country).

I am just a bit odd in that respect.

[mal4mac]

A colleague of mine (an ex-RAF Captain, Russian translator & Dostoyevsky scholar) both speaks & reads fluent Russian & highly rates the McDuff translations. After all, they are the standard Penguin translations. I have not read a better translation. David Magarshack would be the nearest & he was born in Russia (Riga) but grew up in the UK. I have never rated Jessie Coulson's translations of Dostoyevsky. The plain fact of the matter is that Garnett's Russian wasn't really up to it...

A little browsing on the internet reveals authorities recommending Garnett or Coulson, and not recommending McDuff. For instance, Peter France, overall editor of the Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation (p.596):

"[McDuff's] convoluted style might make the reader question the translator's command of English. More seriously, this literalism means that the dialogue is sometimes impossibly odd--and as a result rather dead... such foreignizing fidelity makes for difficult reading."

He compares passages of Garnett directly with the same passages in McDuff and praises Garnett for better translations of key phrases. For the common reader I can't see any strong reasons for not choosing Garnett, and plenty of reasons to choose her.

I find the argument that early twentieth century translators are out of date rather strange, if so why would we read Dickens? I guess one might think that a modern translator should make things easier for the modern reader, but as Peter France points out this is not always so! Many translators are in McDuff's camp of wanting to make English sound like Russian (i.e. foreignizing!) -- thereby ... er... not translating!

When I finally work out what you mean by 'foreignizing' I will get back to you.

It's a term used in translation studies, start here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zlcg29QYnqMC

[Red-Headed]

A little browsing on the internet reveals authorities recommending Garnett or Coulson, and not recommending McDuff. For instance, Peter France, overall editor of the Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation (p.596):

A lot of people prefer XP to Vista as well. It comes down to personal taste. I think a little less time spent surfing the Net & actually reading the translations themselves would be an advantage.

"[McDuff's] convoluted style might make the reader question the translator's command of English. More seriously, this literalism means that the dialogue is sometimes impossibly odd--and as a result rather dead... such foreignizing fidelity makes for difficult reading."

Well, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

'...although her versions have in many cases been superseded (& criticized in some quarters as banal & prudish)...'

Margaret Drabble (about Garnett) ~ The Oxford Companion to English Literature.

I have nothing against Garnett's translations but they are rather old hat to use a rather antiquated phrase. She wrote in a form of English that never really existed north of the Watford Gap. I personally never thought it existed anyway. I suppose it all depends on if you were born north of Watford or not.

He compares passages of Garnett directly with the same passages in McDuff and praises Garnett for better translations of key phrases. For the common reader I can't see any strong reasons for not choosing Garnett, and plenty of reasons to choose her.

I don't.

I find the argument that early twentieth century translators are out of date rather strange, if so why would we read Dickens?

Because (a) he predominantly wrote in English & (b) he was a 19th English century writer. You do know where England is geographically situated don't you? We speak English.

I guess one might think that a modern translator should make things easier for the modern reader, but as Peter France points out this is not always so! Many translators are in McDuff's camp of wanting to make English sound like Russian (i.e. foreignizing!) -- thereby ... er... not translating!

Have you actually read any of McDuff's translations?

It's a term used in translation studies, start here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zlcg29QYnqMC

I'll have to take your word for this. It doesn't mean that I have to accept it though. It sounds a bit specious & pseudo-intellectual to me. No doubt it is another one of those weird postmodern concepts that find some interest in the continental United States but have very little impact in England. After some research I can say that I understand the concept but I still think that Garnett's translations belong to a different era of English.

I suppose it depends on how you believe the English really speak or write. I have never read a good American translation of Dostoyevsky & I am not particularly that keen on the much vaunted 'Maude' translation of Tolstoy's 'War & Peace'.

There are a million theories on translation & what I said earlier about connotation, denotation & ideo-mythology with regard to semiotic polysemic signifiers/signifieds I stand by.

There will always be theories. The plain fact of the matter is that English has moved on from the early 20th century & the idiomatic language Garnett wrote in was an artificial construction. Quotidian English has moved on & Received Pronunciation was only ever spoken by a tiny proportion of the English populace. It does not represent the English idiom as a whole.

[husker du]

I picked up How Proust Can Change Your Life from the library tonight. I couldn't help myself. I'm almost halfway done with it and love it! It's very funny and I think it is exactly the sort of "guide" I need before I dive into that monster of a book. I also took out both of the translations I don't own so I can take a look and see which I prefer most.

[Red-Headed]

I picked up How Proust Can Change Your Life from the library tonight. I couldn't help myself. I'm almost halfway done with it and love it! It's very funny and I think it is exactly the sort of "guide" I need before I dive into that monster of a book. I also took out both of the translations I don't own so I can take a look and see which I prefer most.

I am glad you are enjoying De Botton, he has also made some very interesting programs on British television as well as writing some very interesting books. I think that it is very wise to look at both translations.

I stand by what I said earlier however. Unless you really understand the idiom & nuances of what is essentially an antiquated & artificially constructed form of English it is best to avoid it, & there is nothing wrong with reading Proust in a more modern translation. There are going to be instances of losing &/or gaining anything in any translation. Language is not static, this applies equally to American & British English.

[mal4mac]

I am glad you are enjoying De Botton, he has also made some very interesting programs on British television as well as writing some very interesting books. I think that it is very wise to look at both translations.

I agree with you about de Botton. I read his "Proust" guide several years ago and thought it excellent. I'll certainly re-read it before attempting Proust again. Roger Shattuck's “Proust’s Way“ also gets good ratings as a guide.

I stand by not dismissing older translators just because there have been some new translators. If they are great translators, then great writers will have pointed this out. For instance, D.H. Lawrence, Hemingway, and Virginia Woolf all highly rated Garnett's translations. Tolstoy himself praised Maudes' translations to the heights, saying no other translation of his work would ever be needed.

Lydia Davis' translation of the first book of Proust has received some bad press from André Aciman:

http://www.nybooks.com/authors/568

"Ms. Davis can certainly translate a sentence by Proust; but she still doesn't get how it works. She tells us that "it is not difficult for an experienced writer to compose a cadenced sentence." Well, seeing she claims she knows how to, why didn't she? "

"The six volumes of the new Viking Penguin translation of Proust ... punctilious and ultimately priggish commitment to word-for-word accuracy turns out not only to be a cunning way of attracting attention and of publicizing a radically new translation out to make sweeping changes, but it is, all said and done, thoroughly deceptive. Accuracy... is proclaimed, not practiced, promised, not delivered."

Has anyone read Aciman's "The Proust Project"? It has had some good reviews.

There's a superb review by Epstein here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200103022...t00/proust.htm

Which gives an account of why he jumped ship in the third volume :

"...it was not until I came to the middle of the seemingly interminable third volume, The Guermantes Way, that I suffered the doldrums and jumped ship. Proust and I parted company for a few years. That book largely concerns Marcel’s crush on the preposterously aristocratic Duchesse de Guermantes, and our young hero’s ascent into the lofty society of the Faubourg St. Germain; one of its major themes is snobbery. Marcel is not so much in love with this social paragon as he wants to be the Duchesse de Guermantes. Marcel longs to be accepted into the world of snobs, and he is an insufferable snob himself. Nothing could have been of less interest to me... so I stopped reading the novel."

This is exactly the reason I jumped ship! Note I was reading the old Moncrieff edition. Epstein goes on to say that he became becalmed in the same place on his second attempt! But switching to the updated Kilmartin/Enright edition saved him - and he finished the complete work. This has convinced me to use the K/E edition.