I'm not even sure what to say about Zeroville by Steve Erickson.
I mean, I don't know. So instead I'll ask a question that's been in my head for a while and which I've just been reminded of after seeing three separate mentions of Proust in my Google Reader feeds: if I were to read Proust, which translation would be the right translation for me to read?
If I'm even going to consider, at some point in my life, reading a 3500 page (or whatever) book, I'm going to want to make sure I get some things right from the very beginning.
4 comments:
Well, I started with an OLD copy of the Moncrieff, but then switched to Kilmartin's reworking of it. Moncrieff was much more 'purple', and Kilmartin toned some of that down. I have the sneaking suspicion I would have actually preferred the original Moncrieff. That, however, may be very difficult to find these days. Plus, the original text Moncrieff worked from is apparently not the 'definitive' edition of the text, so it's hard to find AND 'incomplete'.
The new Penguin translations have gotten both praise and knocks for making Proust 'more accessible' or more 21st century, anyway. I've not read them, and each volumn is by a different translator, so I'm not really inclined, frankly.
So, I'm thinking Kilmartin is probably the way to go.
One of these days I'll read something like Swann's Way in both the Moncrieff and Kilmartin back-to-back just for grins and see which I really prefer...
I read the new Penguin translation and liked it quite a lot (although I can't say I did any comparing and contrasting with the others). I didn't notice a change in style from volume to volume in the Penguin edition with the different translators, so I don't see that as a problem.
Zeroville is fantastic.
I recently conducted an indepth interview with Erickson over at chuckpalahniuk.net
http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/features/interviews/steveerickson/
-thejamminjabber
http://thejamminjabber.wordpress.com/
I agree different translations are bad. Moncrieff/Kilmartin is good.
Post a Comment