[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:In Search of Lost Time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cellmaker (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 15 October 2012 (→Article title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Untitled

Article title

This is the first time I've seen this novel referred to as "In Search of Lost Time". Surely a better article title would be either the original french tile "À la Recherche du Temps Perdu" or the more common english translation "Remembrance of Things Past". Astronaut (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been a lengthy discussion about this above. The title has remained "as is" because:
  • In Search of Lost Time is the most accurate and current translation of the title.
  • There is no proof that Remembrance of Things Past is "the more common english translation" or even the most well-known or established. That is a subjective claim.
  • Using the French title is too esotric for an English language encyclopedia. (It is Wikipedia's policy to use a translated English title - "The Plague" rather than "La Peste" - unless the work is known in English almost exclusively by the original language's title.)

The most current Encyclopedia Britannica renders the novel's title as "In Search of Lost Time". The other titles forward to this page, and they are explained and bolded in the first line. I think this is sufficient. 130.49.158.137 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question could be revisited; I was astonished when I saw the title.
  • In Search of Lost Time is an overly literal translation (I'm tempted to say absurdly so)
  • Remembrance of Things Past (right or wrong), is a conventional rendering, recognized by English speakers.
  • À la Recherche du Temps Perdu is equally recognized by English speakers - including francophobes such as myself.
  • The title should conform to WP:COMMONNAME.

Now I need to go and check on Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. --catslash (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A la Recherche du Temps Perdu may be widely recognized by English speakers, whether they're fluent in French or not, but are you sure they all know how to type it? Computer input takes no prisoners, to get a hit you have to spell it absolutely right. I'm completely fluent myself and don't have a problem but how many English who haven't got a good grasp of French know how to spell "recherche du temps"?
And okay, the old rendering of the title (Remembrance...) made more sense in English than the new one - I agree "In Search of Lost Time" sounds like a Laurel and Hardy movie where they're rummaging wildly to find a bag of time thrown away - but it's the title in the current translation and a redirect on the old one is enough. An encyclopaedia shouldn't normally be retro in its choice of spellings or article titles, unless it's a name that only a small circle of scholars use, opposed to a name with much wider currency (like, Céhov as a formally right but impossible transliteration of Chekhov). Strausszek (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You described this situation perfectly, and nothing has changed in the 2½ years since you wrote that. In Search of Lost Time is indeed "a name that only a small circle of scholars use, opposed to a name with much wider currency", but – for some perverted reason – the morons who rule here have done exactly that anyway: they have chosen a trendy new title that they love in place of the stodgy old title everybody knows.

(By the way, in any sane world, the burden of proof would be on them – to prove that the new name is the one everybody (and by "everybody" I do NOT mean every Proust scholar, but everybody who speaks English and has heard of this novel) uses now – NOT on those who reasonably argue that the old name is still the one that is familiar to most people. But this is not a sane world: this is Wikipedia, where gangs of small-minded bullies rule.)

I suppose the principle that "an encyclopedia shouldn't normally be retro in its choice of ... article titles" has been taken to its extreme, and instead the most recently used title has been chosen, disregarding the fact that the new title has a very long way to go before it is the title most people think of, if that ever happens at all.

The title by which the English-speaking world has known the novel since its publication nearly a century ago has been thrown out in favor of a trendy new title that popped up less than 20 years ago in a single translation. Is it possible that the gods of this article have a vested interest in making sure the spurious Enright translation becomes THE translation, replacing forever the far better ones that came before?

In fact, this article seems to be violating WP's hallowed "neutral point of view" doctrine, by choosing to title the article after ONE recent translation and thereby promote it as the only authoritative translation – so authoritative, in fact, that it can in one fell swoop turn upside down many decades of familiarity with the title used in previous translations.

And what if the next translation published goes back to the traditional title? Will the article then revert to its proper title, since that will then be the "current" title? I doubt it. God forbid the little nazis who run this article should ever admit they made a mistake or do anything that might cut into sales of Enright's translation.--Jim10701 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that another translation with the trendy new title was published after Enright's, but that doesn't affect the NOPV issue I raised above. The translators and publishers of the new versions have a high financial incentive to establish the new title as THE title so that they can push their new versions to institutions and individuals who already own perfectly good editions under the now-discredited original title.

It's not unlike any other business (Apple, Microsoft, etc) looking for high sales of new versions that may not actually benefit customers but are essential to keep shareholders happy. The insistence by those in power here on ramming the new title down readers' throats certainly can be seen as favoring a limited number of individuals who have books they want to sell and may be greatly assisted if Wikipedia uses their title instead of the original title.

Instead of simply recording what IS without any bias, as a non-profit encyclopedia should, this seems to be a case of trying to use Wikipedia to change the way readers think of a long-established work of literature, with no clear motivation except novelty, which equals book sales.

The fact that Britannica uses the new title is, if anything, an argument against its use here, since Britannica is NOT a non-profit encyclopedia but is very much in bed with publishers of other kinds of books as well; if Britannica can do what I just described and help push sales of Time Bandits, or whatever this new title is, to individuals and institutions who already own copies of Remembrance of Things Past, then why not? Books are books, and it wouldn't be the first time a theoretically objective publication was used to help increase sales of non-competing products.

Wikipedia is different, or it should be. We should not be in bed with the publishers or translators or writers or sellers of any books. If the new title really were the universally recognized title of this work, there would not be so many people like me here saying, "Whoa! What the hell's going on here?"

The time to change the title of a work so well recognized under its original title is when WP readers complain that they can't find what they're looking for under Remembrance of Things Past because that title truly is no longer recognized. That has not happened yet with this work.

Wikipedia should report what IS, not try to push what a few of its editors (supported by very many experts in the academic and publishing worlds) think SHOULD BE. The best gauge of the true status of this issue is how many WP readers express reasonable complaints. Relying on the academics and publishers to document something in which they have a vested interest is disingenuous. Of course they're all going to say the new title is the most widely recognized title, because their careers depend on it.

There is no source of statistics on how many actual readers identify the work by only its original title, because there is no financial incentive for developing such statistics. So we who are complaining will always lose that numbers game because we don't have powerful corporations and universities on our side feeding us whatever data we want.

The bottom line is this whole issue stinks of bias in favor of the new over the old for spurious reasons. As much as I dislike much of what goes on here at Wikipedia, we should better than that.--Jim10701 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as this page is controlled by navel-gazing Proust scholars who don't get out much, it will continue to be called "In Search of Lost Time" instead of the name that almost everybody else knows the book by. -68.76.16.14 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got this book in 2012 and my copy is called Remembrance of Things Past. I think this is still the most common name, and the name most people know it by. 69.140.69.19 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. The only people who don't know it as Remembrance of Things Past are the myopic bozos who have assumed control of this article. It's a great example of how Wikipedia has missed its goal of becoming a universal depository of information and become instead a gang clubhouse for self-declared experts to practice editorial circle-jerking and see whose sticks higher on the wall. I don't know anybody who uses Wikipedia any more as a source of information. It's just a gigantic video arcade for nerds now whose opinion matters to no one but themselves but is all the world to them.--Jim10701 (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This name change is certainly regrettable. "In Search of Lost Time," whatever its merits on accuracy (and that seems debatable), is simply unattractive compared with "Remembrance of Things Past". It's not as though the earlier translator(s) didn't know the literal meaning of Proust's title, it's that they chose a more melodic and fluid way of expressing it. "Swann's Way" (Du Côté de chez Swann) is also not a direct translation, but the translators probably didn't think "Next Door to Swann's House" rolled off the tongue. Even Wikipedia's Article Naming guidelines say Recognizability and Naturalness take precedence over Precision. Several generations of readers would stare blankly at you if you referenced "In Search of Lost Time" at a cocktail party. I would be wondering which Indiana Jones movie had come and gone without my noticing. Cellmaker (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major/minor theme

In the "Themes" section, the following words appear: "Homosexuality is a major theme in the novel…." If this is true, can someone give a few stronger examples? The ones in the current article are rather weak and are unconvincing as evidence that this topic is a major theme. To me, this is merely another example of Wikipedian bias towards making that behavior seem natural.Lestrade (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Have you read the book? A tenured professor who regularly teaches a semester length class on the book at UC Berkeley (currently tied with Harvard for the number one English department in the country) includes homosexuality as a principal theme in his cursory exegesis of the novel. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a Proust scholar who disagrees. The examples seemed perfectly fine to me, and unless many disagree, (and while I know little of the wiki by-laws) common sense suggests that the burden of proof is recumbent upon the accuser.
Good grief, Lestrade, Vol. 4 is titled Sodom and Gomorrah! How direct can an author be? Eschatologicalguy (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good point, if you haven't read the novel. But I agree that the description should be elaborated on. Charlus and Saint-Loup should undoubtedly get a mention. Also, does anyone else think that a mention of the transgender theory, in that Albertine = Albert, etc, should be included? Beardedbiblio (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish simply to add that the literal prosaic translation of Kilmartin lacks the poetic rhythm and artistic sonority of Moncrieff's brilliance. It's analogous to a mechanical performance of a Chopin nocturne. The notes may be right but the soul is missing.----

Gay Proust

I added mention of Proust's sexuality, a bit of autobiographical detail I think rather important in light of the mention of homosexuality as a theme. Particularly where the novel is (rightly) described as semi-autobiographical, it is worth noting that there are major, crucial differences between the narrator and Proust himself, some of which are very revealing about the nature of the text and the author both. Anyway, again, because both themes of homosexuality and the book's autobiographical tendencies are each mentioned in the article, this deviation is important and noteworthy as far as I'm concerned. Despite being quite resolved about this, I'm not sure the mention of Proust's being gay belongs where I put it. Comment? Assent? Disagreement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.90.100 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_16#Category:.C3.80_la_recherche_du_temps_perdu_.28novel.29 for current discussion pertaining to this page and notionally others which might be created. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of Lost Time → Remembrance of Things Past — Most common name — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose. Indeed, very strongly oppose! 'Remembrance' was always an error, and to the best of my knowledge no edition with that title has been published since 1982 except for the various rip-offs of the 1920s public domain translation by CKSM. Even in 1982, James Grieve had started a new and more idiomatic translation under the series title A Search for Lost Time. Eschatologicalguy (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response So you are not challenging the idea that this is the most common name, but that this is a poor translation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reliable sources these days tend to prefer In Search of Lost Time, though the other title is of course popular too. Please see my entry under #Discussion below. Eubulides (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. At this time there are three versions in English of Proust's novel for sale on Amazon.com. There is the Random House / Modern Library translation by Scott Moncrieff as brought up to date by Kilmartin and Enright, available in a paperback set published in 2003. There is the Penguin translation by seven different translators, published in hardcover and paperback at various times from 2002 to 2006. Both of these are based mostly on the definitive French edition of Proust's novel, and both are titled In Search of Lost Time. Finally, there is the Random House / Vintage paperback edition of 1982, which is the previous and less authoritative Scott Moncrieff / Kilmartin translation, and really represents Random House eking out a few more dollars from its investment in that transitional work. This is the only in-print edition titled Remembrance of Things Past. It harks back, really, to the 1920s version. And after all, 1982 was twenty-seven years ago. Everything since then has been known as In Search of Lost Time. Cubdriver (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The title 'Remembrance of Things Past' was lifted by Moncrieff from the Shakespeare Sonnet 30. Proust himself was unhappy with that translation. Are we reading Shakespeare or Proust? Why should we take the wrong translation by Moncrieff into consideration if we now have the right literal translation (which is used by all publishers) taken from Proust's own title 'À la recherche du temps perdu'? User:pratinavanil
  • Oppose. See above reasons. There is no precedent for "Rememberance" Beardedbiblio (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Do you have evidence that it is the more common name? ƒingersonRoids 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence:
  1. The translation portion of this article implies that Remembrance was the more common title at least until the 1990s.
  2. Google: "In Search of Lost Time" Proust - 64,200 hits and Google: "Remembrance of Things Past" Proust - 141,000 hits
  3. Amazon: "In Search of Lost Time" - 865 books and Amazon: "In Search of Lost Time" - 5,260 books (blacklist link)
None definitive, together compelling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources. These days, reliable sources that comment on the issue strongly prefer In Search of Lost Time. For example:
  • "Proust’s In Search of Lost Time (which we used to know in English as Remembrance of Things Past)" —Wyatt S (2007). "Review: making time and taking time". Social Studies of Science. 37 (5): 821–4. doi:10.1177/0306312707080044.
  • "In Proust’s opus magnum work In Search of Lost Time ... (poorly translated as Remembrance of Things Past)" —Bogousslavsky J (2007). "Marcel Proust's diseases and doctors: the neurological story of a life". Front Neurol Neurosci. 22: 89–104. doi:10.1159/0000102874. PMID 17495507.
More examples could easily be found. Eubulides (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move II

It wasn't immediately clear to me that the above section was closed, so here is a continuation section if anyone is interested in discussing this further. Cubdriver (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A title in English

To my ear "Remembrance of Things Past" is a much better title than "In Search of Lost Time" in English. Lost time. in English, means wasted time, doesn't it? Since when has it become necessary to translate titles of foreign novels literally? The evocation of the Shakespearean sonnet works in English. The new title is almost meaningless unless it it translated back into French. Shall we change all accepted titles to literal translations? Begin with Crime and Punishment and continue almost ad infinitum.Jim Lacey (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely concur. The one I really hate is the Davis translation of Swann's Way: "The Way by Swann's." I guess they figured the reader might get confused and think Swann's Way meant "Swann's way of doing things" or something...like Carlito's Way. Or else the hyper-correct, "In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower" for the perfectly good "Within a Budding Grove." Granted it's more literal...but does it even make sense? One translation revision I agree with is changing "Cities on the Plain" - a period sensitivity to mentioning Sodom? - back to the obvious "Sodom and Gomorrah." On a final translation note, sometimes the lack of literalness IS the problem. There's this great passage at the very end of "Guermante's Way" when the Duke de Guermantes yells to a departing Swann (Moncrieff translation), "You, now, don’t let yourself be taken in by the doctors’ nonsense, damn them. They’re donkeys. You’re as strong as the Pont Neuf. You’ll live to bury us all!” I always thought the literal translation "asses" would make much more sense. In English do we really call people "donkeys"? Again, maybe a period sensitivity. But the translation is still very nice. But a later version...can't remember which...completely eliminated Pont Neuf and replaced it with "strong as an ox" or "fit as a fiddle" or some such nonsense.Straitgate (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of Proust's complex and playful title is not conveyed by 'Remembrance of things past.' <<Lost time in English, means wasted time, doesn't it?>> it means the same in French. 33gsd (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd[reply]

"Temps perdu" also means "wasted time" in French, yes. There are now two translations in English that use the title "In Search of Lost Time" (Modern Library & Penguin).Mcalkins (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I read (a significant part of) this book which, at the time, had the title "Remembrance of Things Past." That is the nicest name for the book.
When I found out, in the mid-1980s, that the English name had been changed, I was shocked. Almost every review of the book I had read suggested that it was a waste of time. I never thought that they would put that into the title. I have reviewed a portion of one of the more recent translations and have read some critical reviews. I could not find anyone who likes this book or anyone who likes the newer translations. Clearly, the title should reflect the concept of "lost time" or, even better, "wasted time."
Another thing, I don't think "a search" conveys the English meaning of "la recherche." It's like the difference between view and review or search and research. They don't mean the same thing. Nor do they mean doing the same thing a second time. I would use "cherchez" to mean searching for something. I would use "recherchez" to mean investigating something.
Although my choice for a translation of the title would be "Looking into Wasted Time," the current title comes close enough to conveying the author's joke. Leave it alone until newer translations comes along. --Komowkwa (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editors that "own" this article will never allow any title but the one that they deem "correct" to be used. You could conduct a survey of all anglophones on the planet showing that "Remembrance of Things Past" is the better-known title of the book, and they would not relent. -68.76.16.14 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see Remembrance here. It is famous under that title and not some other. Varlaam (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re. The most commonly used, the favourite or commonly preferred title ;

When I found out, in the mid-1980s, that the English name had been changed, I was shocked. [I understand the following sentence as] I read several reviews, and they all said the new translation was a waste of time) (Komovkwa)

(1)For a second opinion: I read the book in French, beginning around 2001, and have subsequently only heard of it as 'In Search...' I expect there is no doubt as to whether 'In search...' is the dominant title in academia. My impression was that Montcrief's translation and title were innacurate, slightly ameteurish, snobbish and out-of date, and I had a surprise that Montcrief's title is also currently used. But I don't have any investment in it being used on Wikipedia, as they say, I ain't bothered. And:

(varlaam) I would rather see Remembrance here. It is famous under that title and not some other. I think that the number of hits from a search engine makes a good case in favour of 'Remembrance...'

(2)As for accuracy, quote for Komova: Another thing, I don't think "a search" conveys the English meaning of "la recherche." It's like the difference between view and review or search and research. They don't mean the same thing. Nor do they mean doing the same thing a second time. I would use "cherchez" to mean searching for something. I would use "recherchez" to mean investigating something. ()Although my choice for a translation of the title would be "Looking into Wasted Time(...)"

This is going backwards. It is a perfect translation, no? I already discuss '(le)temps perdu.' As for the phrase 'a la recherche de,' at age 11, were were told to buy a compact bilingual dictionary for French classes at the bog-standard state comprehensive I attended, and even that dictionary is enough to tell me the phrase can translate 'in pursuit of.' La police est A la recherche de (person or thing)= the police are in pursuit of, searching for, looking for, the police are after. (La police recherche can be 'investigate, look into.')

(3) As for the better title, (although maybe this discussion should not officially be on the Talk Page): to me, Proust's title isn't just awkward, it is mind-bending, and it is genius, I could write an essay on it. But the key thing is to prove that Montcrief's title is better known etc. than 'In Search...' (which IS Proust's title). 33gsd (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad humor

The novel is full of fairly broad humor about social attitudes and behavior. Shouldn't it be mentioned? Tsinfandel (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure has some satiric edge, Proust did have a good sense of the absurdities of social convention and of the kind of things pride and desire can make us do sometimes. Strausszek (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swan's Way redirection

Why does "Swan's Way" redirect here? The long distance path is far more likely to be the object of a search than the English translation of the title of an obscure sub-volume of a French novel. It's not even spelt the same way. treesmill (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The prominent French novel, on the syllabus of any French literature course at University, is far more likely to be the object of a search than the name of an obscure footpath in Buckinghamshire." (Corrected.)128.118.153.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Archives

Why are Archive 1 and Archive 2 the same? treesmill (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semi-autobiographical vs encrypted "roman a clef"

The narrator/lead character (who is named as "Marcel" in passing, twice, but late in the work, and this could be an oversight, written in a draft portion) has a good deal in common with Proust, and they share some stations of life and significant people around them. And Proust also, famously, used some of his real-life acquaintances as inspiration/models for people such as Albertine, Charlus, the Guermantes couple and others. But far as I know, very little that happens in the book and which doesn't involve the lead guy directly was nicked from reality. Unlike what people like Truman Capote sometimes imagined, it's not a "roman a clef", it doesn't actually recount specific events in high society Parisian life. It gives an unflattering general picture sometimes, but it doesn't bring out specific juicy stories or even anecdotes that had happened in the real salons and which were being kept off the public or even kept off the ears of most people who entered those places. I think this should be pointed out, because everyone knows the book was inspired by real life people (why don't someone start a Proust wiki online to discuss the characters, their models and the r/l families of these?)but that's not the same as being a kind of "real life novel", and today we're living in an age when "docu-novels" and blurring of the border between facts, gossip and literature are all the rage Strausszek (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article nowhere characterizes ALRDTP as a roman a clef. Are you referring to the links at the bottom? I have no problem with your removing it. Eschatologicalguy (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the article on Telegraph comparing different translations are wrong. Can anyone please correct it? Prophetoffrivolity (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I looked at the old text at web.archive.org, then searched the Telegraph's current site for that title. Ale And Quail (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Semi autobiographical novel"

Sorry to say this, but calling this a "Semi autobiographical novel" is a complete misunderstanding. Proust's novel is never about himself, nor is it about his life, it is about how the narrator presently remembers his past life. The introducition seems to concentrate on technical or otherwise unintersting details, but never introduces the novel and its originality at the time it was made. I suggest using the introduction written on the French Wikipedia, which does present the novel, and is also quite more interesting. We should rather focus on the novel from a literature and historical view point, and use sources for that. Lerichard (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Episode

This should be recounted and explained. "Proust's Madeleines" have entered popular culture, and they deserve their own section here, or even their own article. The text we already have says it is "famous" but doesn't say what it is. Spot (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

I thought this deserved to have a synopsis, so I wrote one. It is 4400 words; War and Peace has one that's 2900 words, and this novel is three times longer. So despite the length, I think it's justified, if ever a long section is. I tried to mention everything getting significant discussion over a number of pages, not just every observation. Naturally the first and last volumes are a bit longer since they introduce characters and tell their final fates. I also added some pictures that would make it look better. Lastly, I added some characters to the list, which was a little sparse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom Connoisseur (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, a synopsis was sorely lacking indeed! --Morn (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-culture references

Prousts work has been the base for monthy pythons' 31st flying circus episode (5th ep in the 3rd season) called "The All-England Summarise Proust Competition", in which, as the title suggests, a competition is held where contestants have 15 seconds to summarize Prousts epic work. The absurd of such an idea is pretty obvious. For a quick view try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5lPVgTbRQA --The drinker (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berma or la Berma?

only La Berma makes sense to me, but the question is which do translaters prefer. I don't have access to a modern translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33gsd (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Search_of_Lost_Time&oldid=517972920"