/lit/ - Literature

Just learn French

This question is so fucking stupid, but it's even worse when applied to proust. You literally have one option unless you are willing to accept different translators for different volumes

>>10943314
>translation

>>10943314
I think the French translation does a good job at capturing the original.

>>10943348
it's weird that proust doesn't have like a dozen different translations

>>10944406
I don't think so. It would be expensive to pay a translator to do a good job with such a long work and I doubt many people would pick it up. Most people who have read the whole thing probably aren't going to read it all again because of a new translation and it doesn't have much mass appeal to bring in many new people.

>>10943314
Moncrieff

There is literally only one answer to this question and it's not fucking Lydia Davis

>>10944436
i would have expected a bunch of translations of swann's way by itself and maybe just a few for the rest, but i guess not

>>10944436
This. Proust doesn't need a million different translators mainly because so few people read him. His work is long, extremely slow-paced, cerebral, "nothing happens!", and almost the entire cast of characters is made up of upper-class buffoons. Its the exact opposite of what most modern lit readers are interested in, so why bother translating him for every different publishing house like Flaubert?

>>10944955
Care to extrapolate?

>>10945416
gay jokes or something

>>10945416
>extrapolate
Lol

>>10947306
>Lol
extrapolate

I've read both the Moncrieff/Kilmartin and Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright. The Enright one has the edge, since it's based on a slightly more complete French edition, but you won't really see much difference until you get to the last two books. Which most people don't unfortunately.

Next time I read it, I might try the newer edition, but yeah... different translators for each volume doesn't excite me.

>>10945410

but upper class buffoonery is the best part of life