A Book Review on M. Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time”
By Bert Junrie B. Espina
“In Search of Lost Time” is a novel in seven (7) volumes, in which, by the way, I still haven’t finished reading it yet. I only have two (2) volumes as of now (Vol. I and VI) and I really find these copies enjoyable to read, but I must complete the other remaining volumes.
I find it quite interesting the fact that the original French title of this book, namely, “À la recherche du temps perdu,” had been translated in English as “Remembrance of Things Past.” But recently, academics found this as a less accurate translation, and instead introduced “In Search of Lost Time” as the more accurate one that would correspond more to Proust’s thought in writing this book.
If you come to think of it, the two titles would give us with different meanings, right? The first translation would imply that one is reminiscing the past. But the second translation implies not only that you are reminiscing the past but also trying to retrieve or regain what is no longer there anymore. You are searching for something, which by its very definition, is already lost or barred from you. For all we know, this can be a futile attempt.
Perhaps, one could think of that scene during the last part of the cartoon film “Ratatouille,” when Anton Ego suddenly recalled his childhood memory with his mother after he tasted the food being served on his table which was prepared by Remy who was just a rat. At that moment, Anton Ego would often come to the restaurant setting aside his disappointment when he first found out that it was prepared by a rat. But the more central question is, could it not be that the reason he wants to visit the restaurant more often is not that he only likes the food services but because he is trying to relive the memories he had with his mother before? (I use Ratatouille here as an illustration to Proust’s thought, as somehow it is also coincident that both are French inspired culture.)
Going back to the title, we can see that he would like to show to his readers that TIME isn’t something that can properly be grasped. Think about the way in which we conceptualize “the present moment.” The ‘present’ is simply a fleeting passing moment between ‘future’ and what will immediately become the ‘past’. Every moment is a coming into being and the dissolution of that moment. It is born and dies at the same time; or simply put, it is born to die.
We can also somehow relate the theme from the book to the ancient question posed by Parmenides, to wit: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer is there isn’t. There is both! ‘Something’ and ‘nothing’ are contained in the notion of ‘becoming’. Becoming always balances ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ by moving forward. Therefore, in relation to time, it’s almost impossible for us to really grasp the present moment — because in its becoming, it is already fading away.
P.S. I know that was quite a long read. But thank you for reading up to this point hahaha. I’m just happy to share my thoughts about this book.
