Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 In Search of Lost Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for cabal mediation 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Mediator response 2 Case closed

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Guermantes 22:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

In Search of Lost Time

Talk:In Search of Lost Time

Who's involved?

User:Cubdriver, User:Mcalkins, myself (User:Guermantes) to a lesser extent

What's going on?

• Editing/revert war related to different translations of the novel. See Talk:In Search of Lost Time and the article's history for more info. There's also some mud slinging going on on the talk page.
• Update: Now, two months later, the stalemate among In Search of Lost Time's enthusiasts has lead to stagnation of the article. The assigned moderator, User:Soltak, has not even responded to the request.
• Update: (User:Guermantes has accepted my offer to mediate. I have left messages on User_talk:Cubdriver and User_talk:Mcalkins asking them to accept my offer also.

What would you like to change about that?

The constant editing deters other users from posting. (For example, someone editing the whole article may delete other changes made while one of the people involved reverts/changes the page.) The issue really isn't a big deal/major controversy related to the topic, people are just being stubborn and refusing to communicate before editing the article. No real attempt has been made at negotiating a compromise.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Feel free to use my talk page or their talk pages. Everyone is open to the idea of moderation.

[edit] Comments by others

As I understand it then, the subject of this mediation is the lack of communication and compromise, rather than controversy related to the topic. Is that correct?--Mcalkins 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The etiquette problems stem from the disputed material, so both need to be addressed. In my opinion, the disputed material doesn't warrant such an extreme reaction on either side. Guermantes 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for the clarification. Would you like us to next address the issue of disputed material? or agree to/acknowledge some ground rules of Wiki etiquette? For my part, I have reviewed the the Wikipedia Civility policy and the prohibition on no personal attacks. I agree to heretofore abid by the Three-revert rule and to assume good faith. I will address the issue of NPOV when it is my turn to discuss the nature of the disputed material.--Mcalkins 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is my contention that Cubdriver's version expresses a predilection for one particular point of view, namely, the point of view that the Penguin translation is markedly superior to the Moncrieff translation. He quotes selectively from the Observer review, including only portions which praise the Penguin translation, and has repeatedly deleted those portions of the same review I included which balance that praise. He goes on to include a second review with ringing praise for the Penguin translation (it is "a triumph!) that borders on hyperbole (it will "bring this inexhaustible artwork to new audiences throughout the English-speaking world"). This is a claim about what the new translation will do--which it may or may not (too early to tell, particularly since only volumes 1-4 have been printed in the US)--it does not give a sense of the relative merits of the translation. The effect is not to provide a neutral point of view about the Penguin translation, but to endorse it.

For my part, I have tried to fashion a contribution that is as neutral as possible by including both criticism and praise for both translations. I have tried to communicate the fact that while not perfect, the Moncrieff translation has historical importance for the reception of Proust in English. I think the Kilmartin reference does just that. Likewise, in my treatment of the Observer reference (first added to the article by Cubdriver), I have tried to indicate how the Penguin translation nicely distinguishes itself from the Moncrieff translation, while like the Moncrieff translation, can be said to have some shortcomings. I'd like readers to get the following sense from my version: "the Moncrieff is dated, but has historical importance; the Penguin is more accurate and up-to-date, but perhaps lacks some of the beauty associated with the Moncrieff." This should put readers of the article in a good position to know which translation they might like to read, without nudging them in either way, i.e. it is both neutral and informative.

For what it's worth, 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 they like the best (except for Penguin's Vol. 2, which I cannot recommend). That said, when I assign Proust for the courses I teach at SF State University, I always order the Penguin translation if possible (again, except for Vol. 2).

In sum, my version includes a reference (Kilmartin) that praises the historical importance of the Moncrieff and identifies one of its particular yet representative shortcomings. My version also includes a reference (the Observer) that praises the Penguin translation, reaffirms one of Moncrieff's particular yet representative shortcomings, and acknowledges a particular shortcoming of the Penguin translation, with a nice concluding statement from the Observer article concisely comparing the two, with a slight edge to Moncrieff.
Affirmations of Moncrieff: 1, Reservations about Moncrieff: 2; Affirmations of Penguin 1; Reservations about Penguin: 2. Balance.

Cubdriver's version, on the other hand, includes a reference (Kilmartin) that praises the historical importance of the Moncrieff and identifies one of its particular yet representative shortcomings. His version also includes two references (the Observer and the Telegraph) that praise the new translation (the latter, twice), one of which reaffirms Moncrieff's particular yet representative shortcomings. But his version fails to identify any particular or representative shortcomings of the Penguin translation.
Affirmations of Moncrieff: 1, Reservations about Moncrieff: 2; Affirmations of Penguin 3; Reservations about Penguin: 0. That's not a neutral point of view.

Here is my preferred version:

All but the last volume was first translated into English by the Scotsman C.K. Scott Moncrieff between 1922 and his death in 1930 under the title Remembrance of Things Past, a phrase taken from Shakespeare's Sonnet 30. Le Temps retrouvé was initially published in English in the UK as Time Regained (1931), translated by Stephen Hudson (a pseudonym of Sydney Schiff), and in the US as The Past Recaptured (1932) in a translation by Frederick Blossom. Although cordial with Scott Moncrieff, Proust grudgingly remarked in a letter that Remembrance eliminated the correspondence between Temps perdu and Temps retrouvé, but he was relieved when British reviews tended to declare the translation superior to the original (Painter, 352). In his "Note on the Translation" prefacing his 1981 revision of Scott Moncrieff's translation, Terence Kilmartin, while acknowledging that it "tends to the purple and precious" (xi), states that Remembrance of Things Past, during its 50-year reign as the only translation available in English, "earned a reputation as one of the great English translations, almost a masterpiece in its own right" (ix). Kilmartin's revision retained the same general title, but a second revision in 1992 by D.J. Enright rendered it more accurately as In Search of Lost Time.

In 1995, Penguin undertook a fresh translation of In Search of Lost Time by editor Christopher Prendergast and seven translators in three countries, also based on the latest and most authoritative French text. Its six volumes were published in Britain under the Allen Lane imprint in 2002. The first four (those which under American copyright law are in the public domain) have since been published in the U.S. under the Viking imprint and in paperback under the Penguin Classics imprint. This translation has been generally quite well received; a review in the Observer of London is representative in its praise and in its reservations. It notes that "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." The review also goes on to say that "the work of the Penguin translators jars still more awkwardly with Proust's original," and that "for the Penguin translators, one feels, this version of Proust is a job well done; for Scott Moncrieff, it was a labour of love."

Thank you. --Mcalkins 07:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Case closed

This case has been closed due to inactivity. Should mediation still be required, a new request for mediation should be filed. The listing of this case has been moved to the archives. Cowman109^Talk 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)