/lit/ - Literature

I'd go modern library. Usually I don't care too much, but I actually sat down in the book store and read a few pages of one, and then the same few pages of the other.

The modern library translation was SO much better to read. But you could just do what I did and compare for yourself.

Wich one is translated as "In Search of Lost Time"? Pick that one, not the one translated as "The Remembering of Things Past"

>>1016484
They both are. I think it's the much older translations that are titled differently.

Also, this seems like a pretty good deal;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Lost-Time-Proust-Complete/dp/0812969642/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF
8&qid=1281207059&sr=1-1

Should I go for it?

>>1016513
If you're interested in it, why not? Though I'd suggest you not to buy it if you've just heard of Proust vaguely and only wan tto read him because he seems to be a good writer.

>>1016521
It's a friend who recommended him to me, though he couldn't say which translation as he no longer has his own copies. I've loved all his past recommendations, and even if it turns out not to be my cup of tea, they can serve as a gift for him.

Get the Modern Library one.

By the way, are the last two volumes of the Penguin one even available in the US?

>>1016513

The Moncrieff translation was originally titled Remembrance of Things Past. It was revised by Terence Kilmartin and named the same thing. Then it was revised by D. J. Enright and renamed In Search of Lost Time. That revision is the current Modern Library edition.

why would anyone want to read a long book like that?

700 pages tops is what all books should be

>>1016590

Yes, this is officially the max. length of all novels.

>>1016587
Get the revised Moncrieff/Kilmartin.

Get the Modern Library one. Penguin made that obnoxious decision of giving each volume a different translator. So that effectively kills the whole "one contiguous novel" feeling.