NP-Proust

[David Morris]

Wow, Bekah, Proust I've not read past two pages.  Slow, no? Maybe Western
Zen? I wouldn't know...
But I doN't want to sound like a redneck!

On Sunday, September 23, 2012, Bekah wrote:

> I'm not sure it matters -   I've read the volumes in different
> translations (LOL!)
>
> The reason is that I already had Swann's Way on the shelf in the old Scott
> Montcrieff translation but when I went to get the next three they were
> available in the new Penguin translations by James Grieve,  Mark Trehane,
>  John Sturrock.  But the last 2 volumes had not been translated for that
> series so I went back to the Scott Montrcrieff.
>
> **** THIS IS A REVIEW BY AN AMAZON READER **** (but I agree with it):
>
> Just as a general note with Proust translations, compare them in a
> bookstore before you buy any of them.
>
> There is the original C.K. Scott Moncrieff translation, which is
> beautiful, though based on a flawed edition put together shortly after
> Proust's death (especially the later books in the set).
>
> Then there is Terrence Kilmartin's revision, which is based on a much
> better French edition. You can still find editions of this used, and
> occasionally new as well. I prefer this one, as Kilmartin didn't change
> most of the truly beautiful language that Moncrieff rendered except in a
> few places to clarify confusing sentences.
>
> D.J. Enright, who worked with Kilmartin, made further revisions after the
> latter's death, whose work (so he says) was incomplete. His reworking is
> based on yet an even newer edition of the French text, though with fewer
> changes than the previous French edition had from the original. I feel that
> Enright modernized the language too much. He claims French hasn't changed
> much as a language compared to English since the early 20th Century, so to
> approximate how it would read to a French person today, it needs to be put
> into more comtemporary language. I don't care for it personally.
>
> I've read some of these other, altogether new translations, which is a
> good effort considering the potential for incoherence you might have
> reading a revision of a revision of a translation (whew!). They're not bad,
> but nowhere near as much of a "new standard" as, say, the
> Pevear-Volokhonsky translations of Dostoevsky, which give the reader a
> clearer original while still using beautiful and idiomatic English.
>
> But back to Proust. Decide for yourself! Compare an old version of
> Moncrieff's translation to his revisors, and then check out these new ones
> published by Penguin.
>
> And better yet, if you understand French at all, look at a French copy and
> just absorb the rhythm, the flow of the words, and find a translation that
> feels the same.
>
> I can't tell you how many times I've spoken to people who hated foreign
> books in translation, only to find out they read a translation that reads
> like a textbook and not like something that was meant to be enjoyed!!
>
> **********************************
>
> Me again:
>
> Bottom line, imo  -  if you're a new reader and not used to the old
> Montcrieff or Enright or something,  go with the newer Penguin Classics
> translations (2005).  If you've already started one of the old
> translations,  try the new version and see how you like it -  if not - go
> with what you like.
>
> Try them out in some bookstore or sample you find online.
>
> The Penguin translations are NOT done by the same person all the way
> through.  This means they're not all smooth like the Moncrieff/Kilmartin/
> Enright ones. Each book reads a bit differently, style-wise.
>
> Bekah
>
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2012, at 12:24 AM, Rich Clavey <antizoyd at yahoo.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Any opinions as to which English translation of Proust to read?
> > Thanks
> > rich
> >
> > http://www.macclaveyphotography.com/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120923/80cf649d/attachment.html>