Talk:In Search of Lost Time/Archive 1

References/Further reading
It doesn't seem as though this article references the book itself. Maybe someone could add that?--Heyitspeter 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we combine these two sections? I understand the distinction, but I don't see the difference. --Cubdriver 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the references in this article are uncited, which could lead to confusion as to where the information came from. (This is a major problem with this article, as Mark pointed out, and will have to be addressed eventually.) At least without the other books mixed in, readers will have a vague idea where the information has come from. This is why I separated out the books added by Tothebarricades.tk. Personally, I think we should do away with the recently added "Further reading" titles all together. It's just a list of books, and none of them are explicitly about In Search of Lost Time, just Proust.


 * Also, new comments should be added at the bottom of the page using the "+" tab next to "Edit this page" tab. Guermantes 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer new stuff at the top. --Cubdriver 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should repurpose the "Further reading" section to only include the relevant books mentioned (but not used as references) in the article. This would be a great way to keep the ISBN numbers from muddying up the text, and the in-article mention will give the reader some idea of what the book will be like (unlike the current list with vague Proust titles). Agree? Disagree? Guermantes 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Also, I couldn't find an ISBN for PLMA 64. Guermantes 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. No objection here.--Mcalkins 16:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of ISBNs: shouldn't every book listed have that information, assuming it was published or republished in the ISBN era? I'll undertake to do that, after the sections are reworked as you suggest. --Cubdriver 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very worthy endeavor. The information will be a very useful tool for anyone using this article as a starting point for research on In Search of Lost Time. Guermantes

First: I don't find the Prestwich text referenced in the body of the page, although it's listed in the References section. Delete? Second: Cubdriver cited the Caws article for the Virginia Woolf quote; is there any way we could cite Woolf directly (I've read the Caws piece, and it's almost pure fluff)?--Mcalkins 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Google Books shows the quote as appearing on "Woolf, 1976, p. 525". Likely that is Woolf's published diary or letters? "The Diary of Virginia Woolf" was published in paperback in 1979-1980, in two vols. Perhaps there was a 1976 hardcover?
 * I have Prestwich and it is rather sweet but hardly a basic reference. Amazon shows it as a hard-to-find and pricey volume. --Cubdriver 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Was the Prestwich text used in writing this article, Cubdriver? If not it should be deleted, methinks. As for the Woolf quote, it would be great if we could find the true source. Similarly, I tried to locate the source of the Harold Bloom quote a while back, but didn't have any luck. I agree that, if possible, we should locate the source rather than using in-line webpage references or by quoting an article quoting something else. Guermantes 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add Prestwich, no. The book is actually more about Reynaldo Hahn than Proust, since it's based on the correspondence of Marie Nordlinger who was evidently in love with Hahn. I don't find any likely 1976 publication by Woolf. The quote is cited in Modernist Women and Visual Cultures: Virginia Woolf, Vanessa Bell, Photography, and Cinema by Maggie Humm,p40, and also in Modernist Fiction by Randall Stevenson, p7. Presumably they give the citation. --Cubdriver 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Madeleine
What is the Madeleine episode? The article makes reference to it and how famous it is, but makes no attempt to explain it, or link to an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.208.82 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake, I removed the sentence in the Introduction section which indicated that the madeleine episode makes possible the recapture of the past and, therefore, the novel.

"This experiences reveals to him that the past is not irretreivably lost, and thus allows him to "revive" the past of memory and thereby launch the narrative of his earlier life."

This may be the popular view of the episode among people who have not read ISOLT, or only read Swann's, but the structure of the novel makes this interpretation impossible. There would be no need for Time Regained if this were so, and the point of the episode is that Marcel understands something of invountary memory, but not enough to sit down to write.--Ahpsp 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the sentence carefully, you might realize that you are mistaken. When I wrote the sentence I was careful to say "launch the narrative of" rather than "write the novel of" his earlier life. It's true, he doesn't begin to write his novel until after Time Regained. However, in the course of the NARRATIVE we are reading, the episode of the madeleine closes "Combray 1," in which the memories of Combray are piecemeal, and launches, so to speak, "Combray 2," in which the memories of his earlier life at Combray are now fully fleshed out. Thus, the madeleine as it functions in the narrative, allows him to "revive" the past of memory and launch the narrative of this earlier life.


 * If you can provide an alternate which accurately captures the place and function of the episode of the madeleine, not in terms of his writing life, but in terms of its place and function at the beginning of his long narrative, that might be helpful.--Mcalkins 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted, and while I understand what you're trying to accomplish with your sentence, and that Wikipedia articles should not be oversimplifications, I think that your suggestion is confusing. It isn't confusing as explained here, but within the article seems to suggest that the narrative is written in the present-tense, rather than the past tense. I've contributed quite a bit to the article, and will continue to do so, so I would certainly not rule out adding something that further describes the centrality of the madeliene episode. Certainly you should also feel free to search for a phrase which captures its place in the novel.--Ahpsp 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the narrator has already managed to "sit down and write." The proof of this is in the novel we are reading. It is not the little boy Marcel who writes the Combray section, but the ageing man of the Prince's party, with all his knowledge and weariness. He is now closer to being the Charlus of the seaside episode rather than the young man who meets Charlus there. As older and more corrupt, as well as wiser, he of course salts his text with hints of what is to come. (And here I of course am oversimplifying, since Swann's Way was published before Finding Time Again was largely written. But the miracle of Proust is precisely this: that the first volume so wonderfully foretells all that is to come, though it was written by a much younger man without the experience of "Albertine" or WWI.) The madeleine is one such hint; the steeples of Martinville are another. Then in the final volume they come thick and fast, and it is they, not the madeleine, that spur the narrator (but not Proust) to write the novel we are reading, along with other experiences that evening. (Incidentally, if we must play this professorial tic-tak-toe, note that the spoon in the library represents an auditory source of memory.) Proust, of course, began to write much earlier. Who are we to say that it was not the madeleine that set him off? --Cubdriver 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not suggesting that the madeleine didn't set Proust off, I don't know what set Proust off. It didn't set the narrator off, however.  That is very clear in the novel.  The narrator neither sits down to write after drinking the tea, nor does he begin to discuss a plan to write anything like the grand novel which he alludes to in the final volume.  In that sense the madeleine, the steeples, all of those allusive moments are failures of his (the narrator's) artistic understanding and will.  My argument about how to present the episode here is twofold:  1)  Any encyclopedia article should avoid recapitulating the standard (but mistaken) received notions of complex works, in this case that means properly situating the madeleine episode as fundamental to the narrator's psychology but not as the trigger for an artistic work which he does not in fact begin for many years after the snack; 2)  subtle understandings of the role of the episode, such as MCalkins, must be carefully spelled out to guard against possible misinterpretations resulting in 1 above.  This is not because they are incorrect, far from it, but because such subtlety is not in the nature of an encyclopedia article.
 * It's also worth noting that according to Tatie, Finding Time Again was pretty much written contemporaneously with Swann's Way, with the major expansions and revisions occurring in the middle volumes. This actually supports any arguments, with which I agree, about the centrality of the madeleine scene, as it makes that scene and the subsequent similar scenes described in the final volume much closer together in Proust's imagination.Ahpsp 15:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Narrator has not yet managed to "sit down and write" during the course of events or period of time described in the novel, i.e. actually writing what we are reading is not part of the story. The writing takes place after the events the novel describes. Joshua Landy in "Philosophy as Fiction" has proven this with wonderful attention to textual detail. I highly recommend it. It is likely a madeleine never set Proust off. There is no letter or piece of biography which confirms this. In earlier versions of the novel, his Narrator is set off by a piece of toast. In "Jean Santeuil" all the mechanics of involuntary memory are there, but it's not gustatory, it's olfactory. I agree with Ahpsp, the episodes of involuntary memory in the novel are really all examples of non-starters in terms of the Narrator actually setting down to write. And it is generally confirmed by those who do "genetic criticism" that almost all of the non War-related material in "Time Regained" was written at the same time as "Swann." In fact, the 1910-11 notebook version of the "Matinée chez la Princesse de Guermantes" is available in French. On my Web site I have posted a number of "chronologies" of the novel (including Landy's), and I invite you to visit the URL:

Grandfather and tea?

 * "[...] and evoked the house where he had spent much of his childhood, with his grandfather drinking tea and giving him a biscuit to dip in it. This is probably the novel's best-known scene, [...]"

Isn't this totally off the mark? Aunt Léonie was the person who gave Marcel the tea that the madeleine reminds him of, and whose home he often visited. In fact, I don't remember much of anything about the grandfather (M. Amédée), save for the fact that he drank cognac to terrorize his wife. Am I not remembering part of Combray properly?


 * I think the reference is to Proust and his grandfather, M. Weil, rather than the narrator and his family. It can be changed to reflect "Marcel's" experience. --Cubdriver 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. The paragraph begins by talking about the novel, and there isn't even an ambiguous transition into Proust's experience. Also it goes on to say that "This is probably the novel's best-known scene," which is misleading since the immediately preceding information is, in fact, not part of the novel at all. Guermantes

Volume titles
I find it awkward to read about In Search of Lost Time only to discover that the first volume is entitled Du côté de chez Swann. I propose that we use the British titles of the Penguin Proust, followed by the most common S-M title, followed by the French title and year of first publication. Thus:


 * The Way by Swann's (also Swann's Way, published as Du côté de chez Swann, 1913)

Does that cause a problem for anyone? Is there a better way to do it? --Cubdriver 10:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense to use the original French title, any alternate French titles, date published, and then the various English translations. Otherwise, you'll be giving precedence to the Penguin translations over the others. (Flagrant bias.)


 * Using the French titles not only resolves this problem but provides more precise information by preserving the original proper noun. When one talks about Du côté de chez Swann they are talking about the original book, not a translation. This is also one of the reasons I oppose the article's title (In Search of Lost Time) over the true French title (À la recherche du temps perdu) because the article purports to be about the novel itself, not translation(s) of the novel. Guermantes 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but:

a) This is an English-language Wiki, and the title (properly, in my judgment) is in English, so should the volume titles be Englished also.

b) As I posited earlier, by century's end more people will have read "Search" in the Penguin translation than any other iteration, including the French. Alas, my French doesn't suffice for reading the novel in the original, so I cannot compare the translations for fidelity, but as literature the Penguin Proust volumes are streets ahead of S-M's post-Victorian prose (never mind Uncle Fred's awful rendition of The Past Recaptured, as I think it was titled).
 * I don't think this is necessarily true. In American schools your chance of stumbling over Proust is slim to none because of subject matter and the stigma that the novel is difficult to read. One is more likely to encounter it at University in a French Lit program, and chances are good that it will be in French. Plus, it's still going to be 12 more years until the rest of the Penguin translations are even released in the United States. Doesn't that seem a bit nonsensical? To be looking out for the next century and neglecting the present? Guermantes


 * I agree with Guermantes, and don't quite see how more people will at any time have read the book[s] in the Penguin translation than in the French original or in the Scott-Moncrieff translation, cheaply and easily available in the USA, unless only the English-speaking world is being referred to, in which case the writer ought to say so. It is a fact that a great many people around the world who are educated enough have any interest at all in Proust will be able to read him in the original.Tantris 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

c) The most recent rendition of the S-M translation already moves toward the literal titles, e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah, and of course Search itself. With the sole exception of the wildly inaccurate (and hyper-Victorian) Within a Budding Grove, the remaining differences are trivial and not likely to confuse anyone.
 * Of course they moved towards the literal title in that case. Cities of the Plain was obviously censorship. The problem lies with titles like Finding Time Again v. Time Regained, etc. Even in the article, as of now, the English titles aren't used consistently, which will confuse readers. (And people won't be finding the newest editions of these translations in libraries; more likely they will come across older ones.) The fact of the matter is that the Penguin translations simply don't have the reputation of being the end-all, beat-all Proust translations. Guermantes


 * I'm going to second Guermantes' comments here. Among Proust scholars (I think I can count myself as one), you will never hear Vol. 1 called "The Way by Swann's." In American libraries and bookstores it will always by "Swann's Way," even though Lydia Davis tried to capture the preposition "du côté de" with "The Way by" (this was actually her second choice, her first choice was, "By way of," which was changed, however, by the Penguin UK editors). Why did Penguin USA re-render the new translation as "Swann's Way?" Because they got burned when a few years ago they published a translation of Kafka's "Metamorphosis" as "The Transformation": no-one recognized it, no-one bought it. As to the last volume, I think "Finding Time Again" is an abomination, and my sense is that, like "Swann's Way," Proustians will continue to refer to it as "Time Regained." But who knows? I thought "Remembrance of Things Past" would have more traction than it now does, but it, too, seems to be disappearing from the radar.--Mcalkins 19:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter which variant goes first! "Swann's Way, as it is best known, or The Way By Swann's in another translation." "Time Regained, or Finding Time Again." Und so weiter. The important thing is not to fright folks with a language they don't understand. (Those who do read French ought to read Proust in the original.) --Cubdriver 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Worrying about which variant goes first is missing the point: this article has a problem with its very title. "Remembrance of Things Past" is how the book has been known in the English speaking world for decades.  Other translations of the title may be more popular among Proust scholars these days, but the more familiar title by far is "Remembrance..."; mention "In Search of Lost Time" to a typical fairly well-read person, and you will get nothing but a blank stare, but they'll at least recognise "Remembrance...".  The comment in the article that "It was known in English as Remembrance of Things Past until a new translation appeared in the early 1990s," is absurd: one publisher deciding to change the title of the book does not retroactively change the recollections of every student who ever read it under the traditional title.  According to Wikipedia naming standards, this article should be titled "Remembrance of Things Past". - 66.93.200.116 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

d) To monophone Americans (the vast majority, alas) the French volume titles are an additional and unnecessary impediment to reading a novel that already seems forbidding. (Indeed, for most Americans who do have a second language, that language is Spanish, not French.) How many of us can confidently pronounce À l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs? (I suspect the same is true of Australians and most Canadians outside Quebec.) --Cubdriver 19:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote the reading of Proust, but to inform. It doesn't matter if readers can pronounce À l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs. People motivated to research or read the novel won't be dissuaded by a bit of French, for precision, before a bevy of English translations. In fact, I don't think even casual readers would find this unusual. Regardless what comes out on top in the end, I think we're going to need a table to help readers keep things straight. Guermantes 22:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, I second Guermantes and add the folowing venture: any American who would read Proust in the first place is not going to be intimidated by French volume titles.--Mcalkins 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. I am intimidated by French volume titles, and I a) have read the book three times (once aloud) and b) lived in France (at Coligny Caserne, where Proust was stationed) for nearly two years. --Cubdriver 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So someone might be "intimidated" (a rather extreme word choice, in my opinion) by the proper French title; what of it? It's not inaccessible: They'll be able to read the translated English title(s) after a few more words. Also, I don't see how your personal experiences have any bearing on whether the French comes first or second. Guermantes 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that figures. --Cubdriver 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting / "important"?
This essay is flagged "needs work". To my mind, that causes readers to dismiss what's said here as wrong or unimportant. Personally, I don't see what's so wrong with it! Would the Wikifier who flagged it please be more specific? What's the problem that won't be ironed out in the course of normal additions?

Second, a recent edit downgrades the book to "widely regarded as important." Sheez. Couldn't we give the book more than this faint praise? How about "arguably the most important novel ever written"?
 * This article certainly does need work. There's not even a mention of Vinteuil's little phrase or its possible sources. There is still much to include. And if you compare this article to the Articles of the Day, you'll see that citation, formatting, etc. leaves something to be desired. Guermantes 05:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! With a name like Guermantes, you would seem ideally suited for the task.

But why don't we go ahead and do the work, and in the meantime get rid of the Needs Work flag, which to my mind denigrates the entire article?

(I have done my bit my intensifying the importance of the novel :) --Cubdriver 19:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A plea: whenever someone does the necessary work, please, please source everything.  The Proust talk-page is a prime example of the mess we get when people spend their days discussing their own opinions. Mark1 19:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Would this perhaps be a better flag, and less off-putting to the casual viewer of the article? --Cubdriver 10:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

confusing


 * My problem with the article is not that it confuses me, it's that it consists of unattributed, sweeping statements reflecting the opinions of the writer rather than giving an account of the various interpretations. Mark1 16:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you might contribute something to the article, in that case? --Cubdriver 19:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a biography of Proust sitting on my bedroom floor, but as yet unopened, so I don't know how much critical information it has. My familiarity with the remainder of the critical literature is even less, I'm afraid. Mark1 18:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Summarized Proust Contest
Should you search far and wide, you shall not discover a more devout Monty Python fan that myself. But is a reference to their Proust sketch really significant enough to be in the introductory section here?


 * I agree, and I've moved it down to "adaptations" --Cubdriver 19:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Accents
There is no reason to remove accents from capital letters in French - indeed, it is wrong to do so unless the capital letter is part of an acronym. See citation in User talk:Tarquin.- montréalais


 * done... belatedly. -- Tarquin 16:23 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Title
This is the English 'pedia. Why is the English name redirected to the French name instead of vice versa? -- Zoe


 * The French one already existed, the English one didn't. I don't think it makes much difference which points to the other one, and if someone wants to write about the English translation rather than the original work I'd guess here's the place for it.... Anyone who want to tidy it up the other way can... Someone else


 * Because there are two (at least) different English names. -- Tarquin


 * And we don't want to start another war over the "right" English name...see Gdansk if you want an example of what happens when you go down that road. 209.149.235.254 17:45, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Using the French name effectively disambiguates the varied English translations of Proust's titles. I support leaving it as is. --Michael Snow 19:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello all - a bit of a belated remark on the move - I didn't bother to check the Talk page until Markalexander brought it to my attention. I came across the article while in IRC, checked that using the English title was general practice with present admin, and moved it with the help of one. I have also been making redirects to other articles eg La Vie mode d'emploi to Life: A User's Manual (but they don't have a discussion on it, whew) so it was rather automatic. Sorry about any offense caused. It was a lot of trouble correcting the numerous redirects so I wasn't out to trump anyone, I just wanted to make sure that Wikipedia maintained the consistent usage of English titles where they exist for foreign works. As for my choice of "In Search of Lost Time" - it is the current title for both the Scott-Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright translation (Modern Library and Vintage UK) and the Prendergast edited (Penguin) translation, the three most recent and common sets in print. -- Simonides 07:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've got better things to do than moving it back now. In future, it would be a good idea to check that things are broke before "fixing" them- that's why we have talk pages. Markalexander100 09:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Mark, it was broke, and it has been fixed. The sysops I spoke to confirmed it was general Wikipedia policy/practice to use the English title where it exists. I have also moved over Le Rouge et le Noir - it is now The Red and The Black (four of five translations in print use it - Scott-Moncrieff, Raffel, Gard, Slater) with all variants redirected there; similarly there are usually at least four variants every major Russian name, because of doubts over ei/ey, ye/ie, dj/j, ts/tz, ch/kh and so on, but we don't use Cyrillic, we use the English name and redirect variants. -- Simonides 19:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lordy. You miss the point- you pre-empted the discussion. You might want to ask your sysops about Wikiquette. Markalexander100 02:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Mark, anyone else that is opposed to the move will say so. Thanks for voicing your opinion, often. -- Simonides 04:03, 22 Ju

l 2004 (UTC)

I like it the way it is: In Search of Lost Time. I have read three of the six volumes of the Prendergast translations, and I own the other three. I am sure that they will become the standard for the 21st century. I envy anyone who can read Temps Perdu in French, but I'll bet that by century's end more people will have read Lost Time in English. (Cubdriver)


 * Like it or not, the title of this article is not in compliance with Wikipedia naming conventions. The titles of articles should be the most common name, not the most common name among Proust scholars.  This book is far better known as "Remembrance of Things Past", and just because it has become fashionable recently to call it by another name, that fact has not changed. - Tverbeek 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not an improvement!
Quoting: "Mcalkins (Talk | contribs) eliminated a lot of redundancy, tried for clarity, concision, relevance, and accuracy"


 * I'm afraid this is a big step back, with valuable information lost. I think your edit should be reverted. --Cubdriver 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Further to the central problem: is there a French Wiki page on the novel?
 * Yes: À la recherche du temps perdu. On every wiki page you should seen a "In other languages" heading, followed by a list of languages. (It may differ slightly between skins.) Those links take you to the entry you're looking at in the other language Wikis. However, the French entry really isn't much more informative than our own... Guermantes

Quoting: "Cubdriver (Talk | contribs)

I'm afraid this is a big step back, with valuable information lost"

Re. relevancy: I don't see the need to include an example from Jean Santeuil, it seems sufficient enough to state that early versions are developed later. If an example is to be included, there should be some rationale behind it, not just one example among others. Is the table-top episode of particular interest or significance? Just because something is true doesn't mean it should be included. Relevance!

Re. accuracy:

1. two unfinished NOVELS do not precede ISOLT, just one, Jean Santeuil 2. as discussed above, IN THE NOVEL, the first madeleine was with great aunt Léonie, not his grandfather 3. the Narrator is not sickly 4. he does not yearn to follow in Bergotte's footstep; he admires him, surely 5. CSB did not "provide" Proust with philosophical ideas; awkward, usually something you yourself write does not provide you with something, what you write my provide the source for something else 6. the Narrator does not "call" himself Marcel, this will be clear if you re-read that passage

--Mcalkins 15:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your idea of editing seems to consist merely of deleting others' work. Can't you contribute something of your own and move the post forward?--Cubdriver 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's have no squabbling. Instead of this puerile change and revert business, compromise. I think Cubdriver should make a new section on the origin of themes and situations (Proust's real life and the novel/essay fragments) and how they come to fruition in In Search of Lost Time. That seems to be the majority of the disputed material. (They could even be moved to/divided between a Jean Santeuil or Contre Sainte-Beuve page/stub if it becomes too extensive.) As for the accuracy list, those will have to be fleshed out with textual reference and citation, methinks. Guermantes

I'm afraid that you folks simply destroy what you see on the page, in order to get the last word. This is a much poorer article than it was a couple of reverts ago. I've seen this happen with another Wiki article, which likewise is being held hostage by people with an agenda or perhaps merely a blind faith in their own wisdom. Too bad! I have no further interest in this article, and a much smaller confidence in the Wiki project overall. --Cubdriver 22:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With every accretion, this article becomes more inaccessible and further removed from what Proust wrote, poor man, until now it resembles an M.A. thesis written by a committee of half-educated scholars, interested not in the masterpiece but in their own reputations. Indeed, the article could stand as an exemplar of the failures of academic prose--and of the Wiki concept. --Cubdriver 16:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are the one undermining the goals of Wikipedia. You repeatedly add information without citing it, forcing others you nag you to add said information. (Look at any of the featured articles, they are chock full of citations.) You put in POV comments that have no place in an encyclopedia entry. You are overly defensive when people revise your work, despite the fact that bold rewriting is one of the ideas that Wikipedia is based on. When someone deletes superfluous information that you include, you go ballistic instead of finding an appropriate place for what you've written. And of course it doesn't help that you repeatedly make personal attacks on other posters. If this childishness persists, I'm going to nominate this problem for a review by the moderators. Guermantes 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

oh, really?
"This is probably the novel's best-known scene, explored at great length by critics, and petite madeleine or madeleine has entered usage in daily language to signify an experience of involuntary memory."

Is this a joke? Never in my life have I heard someone allude to madeleines in such a way, with perhaps the exception of some literary criticism, though none that I can think of. Certainly, that has entered into "daily usage" is a stretch by any and all means. Perhaps something closer would be occasional flowery usage by completely self-conscious-about-it sillygeese.

--24.131.209.132 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admit that it caused my eyebrow to twitch just a bit. My wife does indeed use the idea, though she says "little cake" and never petite madeleine! I'll undertake to soften it. --Cubdriver 10:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, "madeleine" has entered into daily language to signify an experience of involuntary memory. Look the word up in any contemporary dictionary, it's not listed as archaic. If you think it's pretentious, that's fine, but that comment is both factual and relevant, and attests to the influence of the novel. Guermantes 00:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Madeleine" isn't even in my American Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition, 2004), and this is a dictionary "recommended" by Barnes & Noble (and as a professor at a large state university, I see this dictionary is often suggested as a "recommended" text on syllabi). However, at Merriam-Webster online (http://m-w.com) a "madeleine" is a shell-shaped cake that "evokes a memory." "Any contemporary dictionary," then, might not be the best standard of proof. Personally, while I have never heard the term "madeliene" used this way outside of a discussion of Proust, the little cakes are now routinely sold in coffee houses (e.g. Starbucks), with some kind of vague association to the refinements of sipping hot beverages. --Mcalkins 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, anything that advances Proust is to be admired; a tip of the virtual hat to Starbucks! The cake is in my Webster's Collegiate, but it isn't petite, nor of course does its presence in a dictionary mean it is in daily or even regular use. I am 74 years old and have never in my life heard bildungsroman spoken aloud, e.g. That's why I was sorry to see it here: it's a signal to the reader that what follows is probably not his cup of tisane, so to speak. --Cubdriver 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as Guermantes posted above, Wiki articles are supposed to inform (and not play to the lowest common denominator). In fact, what's so wonderful about Wikipedia is that if someone doesn't know what a bildungsroman is, well, they can just click on the link and find out! I go to Wikipedia to find out about things I don't know about.--Mcalkins 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sensory examples, character page
I'm glad "touch" has recently been added into the In Search of Lost Time article. What does everyone think about more examples of sensory stimulus (i.e. would they be useful or overkill)? I feel the article, in this sense, is "telling" and not "showing."
 * Tactile: Paving stones
 * Olfactory: Leonie's tea
 * Auditory: the little phrase from Vinteuil's sonata
 * Visual: ??? (Can't remember one off the top of my head, steeples of combray?)
 * Gustatory: petite madeleine


 * Yes. Overkill. (And yes, visual: steeples of Martinville.) --Cubdriver 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be good to show the pervasive, diverse use of the theme throughout the novel. It would introduce Vinteuil's sonata, which I think would be a rather odd thing to leave out, considering that scholars talk about it so often (second only to the madeleine).

Also, I was thinking of adding a list of the artists (Bergotte, Vinteuil, and the already mentioned Elstir) as a new sub-heading for main characters. The list is getting pretty long. I think the thing to do would be to give the list its own page, and then perhaps develop a template if individual characters eventually get their own entries. Guermantes 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Horrors of World War 1?
What "horrors" are you referring to? I'd make the argument that the bombardment of Paris is hardly described as a "horror," but is rather aestheticized. I can't think of any "horrific" description of the War, nor can I think the description of anything "horrific." What did you have in mind, exactly?--Mcalkins 16:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the raids, and Gilberte's letter about the long battle for Combray. And the visit to Jupien's male brothel. The war is important to the book. Can you think of a better word? --Cubdriver 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Later: I've modified it. --Cubdriver 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't change the the copy of the article re. Combray and the War, but the pages from "Time Regained" to which you allude total about 3, and are from letters from Gilberte to the Narrator. I'm not sure these brief pages rank the status of a major "theme" of the novel, and I would argue that they serve to illustrate perceptions of the War, rather than say something "thematically" about the War itself. The two briefs sections, for example, are separated by a meditation on how Saint-Loup talks about the War, rather than the War itself. As the Narrator remarks of the second letter from Gilberte, it presents things mentioned in the first letter, "in a very different light" (Modern Library 6.94). His theme here, I'd suggest, is about how different people view such major events, over time, what language they use, how self-serving their perspectives are, rather than the theme of the War itself. I'm not sure how important the War is "to the book," either. Certainly it only appears in the last volume. Again, the bombardment of Paris is aestheticized; the Narrator is interested in the changes in fashion that occur because of the War, he's interested in how the War affects the behaviour of those, not on the front lines, but back in Paris, in the subway, in the establishment of the male brothel, in turning Paris into an oriental city worthy of the 1,001 Nights. This seems to be something different, thematically, than the War itself, although the War is its occasion.--Mcalkins 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the war is almost a MacGuffin in that sense. Guermantes

It is not that the war is a theme, but that the hurtling changes of the 20th century are: automobile, aeroplane, telephone, war.

Style of editing banner
I agree that the introductory banner is too heavy. The thing is, it is an excellent article by well-informed people (none of whom is me!); could we just say that references need to be added, or, as I should prefer, remove the offensive banner and let wikiNature take its course - someone will add the references someday. Oh, and cubdriver, I'm glad you relented from your decision to abandon ship. This is not the ditch to die in. --John Wheater 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone desperately wants that banner gone, I suggest they do the work and not just delete it. That is how Wikipedia operates. Otherwise I think it should stay, or be changed to the (much more degrading and perhaps more appropriate) tag: Unreferenced Of the five explicitly referenced citations, I have recently made four of them. Everything else - save for a Tadié reference w/page number and a few references to books - has no source. Guermantes 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has really been shaping up over the past few weeks. I think if all of the "Themes" were as well supported as the homosexuality paragraph we could take down the banner. Guermantes 04:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reception
This section of the article is a good work in progress. I moved the information about the Bloomsbury group here because while the information is true, it's one influence among others; his influence on the Bloomsbury group is not so noteworthy among all the other writers he's influenced that it should be included in the header to the article. As I said, one important influence, among others, but not such a striking one that it deserves being set off in the header.--Mcalkins 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Until information about how it was actually received by critics when it was published is included, the heading is going to seem rather clumsy. (Also, the Yahoo! Groups comment seems silly. The Groups are very informal and there are only two of them.) We could move the note (and comment on the dissent) about Proust winning the Prix Goncourt here. It seems like a better place for it than a footnote in the French Publishing section. Guermantes 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Note however that the Bloom / Bloomsbury stuff got in there because someone (you?) objected to the flat statement that this was a great novel. In response, the quotes appeared. They were never meant as a definitive history of how the book has been regarded through time. I think the section now seems lame because it has been moved out of its intended context. --Cubdriver 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did object to just saying that "the novel is now considered the best work of any literary period." That's POV and incredibly vague. It does a disservice to the novel to be that vague. To offer some praise and attest to the novel's influence, I added in the Harold Bloom and Bloomsbury Set info. Also, I didn't move the material. The unsigned comment above is Mcalkins', not my own. Guermantes 18:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Guermantes' comments seem reasonable. I'll move Yahoo Groups to the External Links section. The "Stub" is a good solution to the anemic status of this section at the present time. The Bloomsbury information didn't have an elegant place in the header. My comments about the Bloomsbury information are not intended to criticize anyone, just provide rationale for my choices. I think there has been a good effort to include information that responds to objections, but sometimes the responses, as they flesh out information, affect the coherence or elegance of the section. The Bloomsbury info is one example; I'd also say that the current remarks about the War in the "Themes" section are, while true indeed, are not yet very elegant. I just haven't gotten around to a solution yet.--Mcalkins 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't "Reception" be moved down to follow the section on English publication? It does after all cover events following the 1992 Modern Library edition. I realize that this section is a portmanteau created to get something out of the lede, but since it has become a portmanteau, it ought to fit where it logically belongs. (Better yet, put the Bloomsbury quote back in the lede!) Incidentally, I found the Stub warning confusing; it might as easily apply to the following section. It ought to be at the top of the article, below the hed. --Cubdriver 13:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

re. POV on Moncreiff translation
I'd prefer if my original sentence was included once again. "It is considered by some" is not a point of view, but a fact describing the point of view of others. I believe that Wiki visitors should know that the Moncrieff translation is considered to be a significant work in the history of translations, ranked by some alongside Dryden's translation of the Aeneid. Whether Moncrieff is to your taste or not, it is considered by many to be a work of art in its own right, and it might be helpful for Wiki visitors to know that, eh? Impressive, I think, that one of the greatest works in the history of English translations is of Proust. It's not to my taste, but that's irrelevant.


 * As a matter of curiosity, because I'd never heard the S-M translation described in those terms, I googled "Scott Moncrieff translation" and found that most of the first page of hits took rather the opposite view. This from the Guardian for example: "One might expect Proust's translators to be sensitive to this dilemma, because translation too provides only a partial version of its original, changing its appearance according to who is looking at it, and when, and why. The team of scholars behind this new Penguin version, for instance, are largely unimpressed by the earlier translation of C. K. Scott Moncrieff (successively revised by The Observer 's Terence Kilmartin and D. J. Enright): too full of errors, they complain, and too stuffy. Based on the more accurate French text published by Pléiade in 1987, their Proust is supposed to be far more down-to-earth and up-to-date, and the figure who emerges in these pages is indeed more plain-speaking, even blokeish, than many readers might expect, with an edgy wit no longer blunted by Scott Moncrieff's purplish prose. In many respects, this is a Proust for our time." Indeed, was there ever a translation so routinely revised as Remembrance of Things Past? To say that "many" regard it as magnificent is not only POV, in my viewpoint, but inaccurate. --Cubdriver 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver's Guardian comments serve only to rebut Kilmartin's claim. As such, they are inappropriate. There is no need to reiterate the shortcomings of Moncrieff's prose when they are already acknowledged by Kilmartin quote. However, a comment about how the new translation was conceived, has been reviewed, by both admirers and detractors (see Aciman in the New York Review of Books, for example), etc. seems to be perfectly in order. Again, the point is not to present competing views of Moncrieff. The point is to acknowledge that Moncrieff's translation has significance and historical weight, despite its shortcomings. Again, my point is not to make a claim about its merits or lack thereof as a translation, but to make a claim about the importance of the Moncrieff translation in the reception of Proust in English.--Mcalkins 17:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I FIND IT ASTOUNDING that all these discussions about the various translations after Moncrieff focus on perceived inaccuracies, punctuation, and purple prose, hilariously summarised by that idiotic review in the New York Times as "a Proust for our time". Maybe he should have been translated into gangsta rap? Moncrieff, in my humble opinion, was a genius who brilliantly captured the poetic rythyms and artistic essence of Proust and the age he wrote in, much in the way Vladimir Horowitz interpreted Rachmanonov."A Proust for our time", an era where manners, style, and grace are practically extinct, would have nothing to do with the Faubourg St Germain of Proust's novel. One critical element lacking in Killmartin 's and others' far too scholarly attempts was literary talent. It's a bit like like listening to a Chopin ballade with the filligrees deleted because they're too flowery. What these new translations clearly demonstrate is not the NEW IMPROVED Proust, but the prosaic mentality and mediocrity of the translators.Trajan2050 09:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)trajan2050 October 24,2007

How about this? In 2002 a completely new translation by seven different translators adopted the literal title as well. The Guardian of London noted that "the figure who emerges in these pages is indeed more plain-speaking, even blokeish, than many readers might expect, with an edgy wit," and went on to say that, "in many respects, this is a Proust for our time." Of course, before this revision can be added, an exact reference to the Guardian article should be included. BTW, the new translation as a whole cannot be said to take "a literal approach," in particular Grieve's Vol. 2, despite the new title, bears little resemblance to a literal rendering. I have posted 2 examples at http://tempsperdu.com/bbp.html --Mcalkins 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is here. Finding the info for the print article - if it did appear in print - may involve a bit of a search. Just an idea, there may be better quotes from the Guardian and other sources on the back cover of the British editions. I only have the last two volumes on hand, so I'm not exactly sure what the others have to offer. Also, Cubdriver, the introductions to the new translation as whole/individual volumes may be a good place to look for their stance on the SM translation (in terms of why the new translation was commissioned), as the translators are directly addressing the reader. With such a quote you can finally criticize SM, albeit vicariously. ;-) Guermantes

The Guardian comment is necessary to balance the prejudiced statement of Kilmartin, who after all is bound to praise the old version if only to excuse his choice not to redo the translation. The link to the Guardian was there, but perhaps you destroyed it in your haste to stamp out all opinions different from your own. Have you even read the new translations? --Cubdriver 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver, here you accuse Kilmartin of prejudice, but in a post above you cite the new translators against Moncrieff, as if they have no prejudices. I did not express my opinion in my contribution; I report Kilmartin's. I have read the new translations, yes, and prefer them to Moncrieff, except for Volume 2. FYI, sir, I was consulted by Lydia Davis on her translation, and assign it regularly for the undegraduate courses I teach. That said, I am not going to downplay Moncrieff's contribution to the reception of the novel in English. It is not POV to acknowledge Moncrieff's contribution to the reception of the novel in English.--Mcalkins 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way: in my version I have tried to indicate the differences between the two translations, acknowledging both Moncrieff's historical importance and his shortcomings. Cubdriver's version does the same, but then goes on to underscores Moncreiff's shortcomings.--Mcalkins 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the virtue of the link to the Observer is that visitors can click on the link and read the entire review, if they wish.--Mcalkins 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver writes, "Scholars especially are likely to regard the Enright revision as the definitive English translation of the novel." Is there a reference on this? If so, could it be included? I can only speak for myself, but as a Proust scholar in regular conversation with other Proust scholars, there is no sense that any of the available transations are "definitive." Besides, scholars don't work with the novel in translation in the first place.--Mcalkins 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you not prefer Enright to other translations, e.g. Penguin Proust, Uncle Fred Blossom, etc.? Perhaps you could phrase that preference in some other fashion? --Cubdriver 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As a scholar, I don't have a preference, because I work with the original French, not a translation. As Moderator of the San Francisco Chapter of the Proust Society of America, I inform new members of the relative merits of both translations, but advise them to leaf through both translations if possible, and to read the version they find most congenial. As a teacher, when I assign Proust for the courses I teach at SF State University, I always order the Penguin translation if possible because of the Notes section. This, with the proviso that since I think Grieve in Penguin Vol. 2 distorts Proust, with that volume I always recommend the Enright.


 * Interesting. Thank you. I'll remove the sentence if you haven't already done so. --Cubdriver 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely. But I should have said a little more. I'll always recommend Lydia Davis' translation of "Swann's Way," first, because it's true to the precision of Proust's French (Moncrieff muddies things), and second, because I made some very modest contributions to her translation when she revised it for publication in the US.--Mcalkins 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You two... *rolls eyes* If only things were always this amicable. Guermantes 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Since mediation seems to be going nowhere fast, I thought I'd offer a suggestion about how to deal with the conflicts we have had in presenting the merits of the translations of ISOLT. I suggest we divide the "Publication in English" section into two parts, the first dealing with the facts, the who, when, and how of the two translations, the second, perhaps with the sub-heading, "Differences between Translations" (not very elegant, anyone have an alternative suggestion?), would identify the differences between the two translations while avoiding reviewing them. For example, the comment from the Observer would be appropriate, but Bowie's claim that the new translation is a "triumph" would not be. Keep it substantial but neutral. Thoughts?--Mcalkins 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about mediation. The mediator who was assigned to this dispute simply never responded. Just a few days ago I put in a request for a new mediator, so someone may check out this dispute... someday.
 * As for this new heading, wouldn't the same problems persist (just in a new spot)? I'd rather there were no POV evaluations of the translations rather than compromise the article's integrity with this struggle between Scott Moncrieff and Penguin. Link to a few reviews in "External links" and let readers make up their own minds. Guermantes 16:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Linking to external reviews seems like the best NPOV solution. I second this suggestion.--Mcalkins 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I third it. Including a sentence like "The new tranlsations have been the occassion for a general evaluation of Proust translations in English" with links to the reviews might be a good idea.  It's important to keep POV out of the writing, but I also think it's legitmate to acknowledge that people may come to the article looking for a way to choose a translation.Ahpsp 15:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver and Mcalkins
Above it was mentioned how someone had seen an article "being held hostage by people with an agenda." That is what is happening now to In Search of Lost Time, namely by the two of you. This little danse macabre has to end. Today there have been 40+ edits, most of them squabbling and reverting. I suggest you both use this talk page to express your positions and resolve your disputes before making more changes. If that doesn't work we'll go through the proper channels toward moderation. Regardless, this nonsense has to stop. It is destructive and prevents other users from contributing to the article. Guermantes 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to free the hostage :) --Cubdriver 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My comments above are an attempt to articulate the rationale behind my recent contributions. To date, Cubdriver has yet to respond to the substance to my rationale. Since he seems unwilling to do so, and given the history of his reponses (see immediately above), why not go through proper mediations channels at this time?--Mcalkins 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you both feel that you cannot reach a compromise without moderation, say so. You both have to give your consent for the problem to be appointed a moderator. I will file the request when/if we are all in agreement. Guermantes 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think moderation is an excellent idea. --Cubdriver 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've begun the informal mediation here. Feel free to state your case (be concise, use Wiki policy in your defense, etc.) in the area provided below my request. If this doesn't work, we'll get a formal moderator. The mediation cabal has a backlist of requests, so it may take some time to get to this dispute. Please be patient, I've been assured that they'll get to us. Guermantes
 * It looks like we've been assigned a mediator User:Soltak. I guess it should only be a matter of time before they contact us. 00:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What's to say? I only want to see the gorgeous new translations get equal billing with those of the last century. --Cubdriver 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Later: I've modified the two paragraphs to bring them into better balance, i.e. removed purple prose from Kilmartin's praise of Scott Moncrieff since it is already and more suitably mentioned in Observer review of Penguin Proust. --Cubdriver 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I got here from the Mediation Cabal where I noticed that you are requesting a new mediator because User:Soltak has not responded in two months. The Mediation Cabal is very informal so I am volunteering my services as a mediator although there is no official process by which mediators are selected as such.  If you will accept my offer, I will put my name in on this case in place of User:Soltak.


 * I will state in advance that, based on what I've read so far in your case description and a little bit in this Talk page, my approach to this case would be to focus on the Wikipedia principleWP:NPOV which suggests that multiple POV should be represented and WP:NOT which requires that articles not include "original research" but rather provide citations which are verifiable based on reliable sources. If I can help mediate a resolution based on these principles, let me know. Richard 09:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Series title?
Is there a particular reason for avoiding the term "series title"? Remembrance/Search etc are variously referred to as "overall" and "general" titles, which seems a bit of a strain, and unnecessarily, er, general. When speaking of the novel as a series of seven volumes, as is sometimes necessary, what's wrong with "series title"? --Cubdriver 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "series" makes it sound like In Search of Lost Time is not a whole, unified novel; rather, seven stand alone novels. Also, series implies that the events are chronological, which they are not. At least, that's why I avoid the term. I only think of the books as a series in terms of how we label them volume 1-7, not how the work was envisioned by Proust. Guermantes 14:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I thought that might be it. --Cubdriver 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Novel sequence or not?
I'm for removing the wiki link to "novel sequence" just added, even though Proust is referenced there as a representative author. Even by the defintion on the "Novel Sequence" page linked to, ISOLT is not a "novel sequence": each volume does not have a "free-standing storyline, and can thus be read independently or out of sequence" (à la La Comédie humaine). ISOLT is a single novel divided into several volumes, not a novel sequence. I'll remove the link unless there are well-reasoned objections.--Mcalkins 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it isa single novel, or even a novel at all; it's more a corkscrew in time. But it's certainly not a "novel sequence" with free-standing story lines. (Perhaps Proust ought to be deleted from the Novel Sequence page as well?) --Cubdriver 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that the French title of each volume is now Wiki-linked, in most cases to a blank page. Of the two that lead somewhere, one is to the alternate title of La Fugitive, in French, and the other to the film of Time Regained, in English (speaking of the language of the titles, not the text). Seems odd. --Cubdriver 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that said category should be removed. It is misleading. I think the changes that poster made were well-meaning, but sloppy. (Like the Time Regained link.) I'll remove the links, because even if someone were to make a page for each individual volume, the title should be in English according to the Wikipedia manual of style, not French. Guermantes 00:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

modern v. Modern
'modern' is somewhat synonymous with 'contemporary', or refering to something that has taken place in the modern era or period (as opposed, let's say, to the ancient world); it could be argued that the 'modern era' dates from the Renaissance; 'Modern', on the other hand, refers to something stylistic about works of art (indeed, the hyperlink points to 'Modernist literature), works of art created roughly between 1860 to 1960 (up for debate, of course!). While there are plenty of modern novels that are not Modernist, Proust's novel was written in the modern era and it is also a Modernist novel.

Madeleines (again)
a flashback similar to the madeleines episode is the beginning of the resolution of the story... I'm sorry that I never read the book, but I came by to check on the allegorie des madelaines (as the french say), and found only that sentence. It's fine, but there is no actual reference to "the madeleines episode" in the article. Oh, and the episode in question is referenced in Serial Experiments Lain, if anyone is to make a "popular references" section.--SidiLemine 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Status as 'semiautobiographical novel'...
As the relationship between Proust and the novel's narrator is keenly debated, a description of this work as 'semiautobiographical' is, perhaps, misleading when it is placed in the introduction of the article.

Might it be better to address the question of autobiography later in the piece, and in greater depth? The quotation in which Proust calls his narrator 'Marcel' leads quite straightforwardly into such a discussion.
 * The word 'semiautobiographical' was chosen to replace 'autobiographical' in earlier drafts for that very reason. Using it is not misleading, because in context it does not touch on the narrator at that point at all. Rather, it reflects the general, accepted view that many parts of the novel (Balbec, Combray, thematic issues) reflect Proust's life. I don't think there would be a more concise/precise way to say it without being verbose. Also, I think a "discussion" on the nature of the narrator is better suited to an interpretive scholarly paper than an encyclopedia entry. Major critical interpretations would be fine, but I don't think even those would add much of anything to the article as the link between the author and his narrator is purposefully left ambiguous. 68.162.148.149

Several versions ago I had written "first-person narrative," which doesn't ensnare us in autobiographical questions, and isn't verbose, but someone revised to the present version because "Swann in Love" is written in third-person. Still...the first-person speaks in "Swann in Love"...so maybe it's time to switch back?--Mcalkins 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-containment
"As it forms the self-contained story..."! The concept of a story containing itself escapes me, if not itself. Perhaps I ought to have let it go, but (like stories and concepts) I couldn't contain myself. It's simply reflexive.D021317c 09:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"We alienate ourselves from ourselves..."! If that means anything, would somebody *please* rephrase it? I could get quite verbose about the confusion this stirs up. And while I'm here, I want to object to the slash in "pink/white". Slashes ("virgules" in English, though not in French) are an abomination!D021317c 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning added
Some people *do* read this for the 1st time, and I see no reason why a shocker from the very last volume (Saint-Loup's homosexuality), for instance, should be mentioned without a spoiler warning having come first. --Andersonblog 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * À la recherche as whodonit. What an extraordinaryly pathetic mentality.Tantris 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Themes = Original research
I agree that this section is veering toward original research. I suggest it be retitled "Major critical interpretations" and the content overhauled to reflect such a title. 68.162.131.231 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture question
"The 2006 film Little Miss Sunshine contains several allusions to In Search of Lost Time and Proust. One of the characters (Uncle Frank, played by Steve Carell) is "The #1 Proust scholar in America." In one scene close to the end of the film, he describes how Proust took 20 years to write a book that almost no one reads (the assumption being that he means Swann's Way)."

I know Proust began planning the novel when he was only something like 19, but didn't Swann's Way take only three years (1909-1912) to write? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.72.182 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)