Lydia Davis: preference

Transcript context

…A number of readers have written me and complained that when it comes to reading Proust, the secondary literature is of no use to them, or very little use. Do you think that’s a fair characterization? Or, if one wants to read something on Proust that’s useful, where does one start? The fact is that I, as a matter of principle, did not read any secondary material before I started translating Proust, and even now would not want to read a great deal of it. I like the one-on-one confrontation with the text. I really think that’s where a reader should begin and maybe end. I’ll modify this in a minute, but I don’t initially like the idea of some so-called expert coming between me and my perception of the book. That was particularly true translating it. I didn’t want someone else to tell me what was important or what I should look out for. Then, I suppose, if you’ve read all of the Proust novel and read it again or whatever, and then you just want to read more about it and share the experience in a way with another person who’s written about it . . . there are people like Roger Shattuck who’ve written a great deal about Proust. There’s Beckett’s essay on Proust, which I think I probably did read that. It’s short, but in a way . . . In that case, I would be curious what another favorite writer of mine thought about Proust, although he was quite young at the time. That would be my answer. I guess the easiest answer really, or the most sensible, is to dip in and out of the different writings on Proust and see which writer you feel comfortable with. Some you’ll hate, and some you’ll love. “Oh, yes. I want to hear what he has to say.” Now, your first foreign language was German. What do you think of the German translation of Proust by Eva Rechel-Mertens?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.