Early in this year of reading I made my way through Proustian Uncertainties, and now I've followed it up with Roger Shattuck's wonderful Proust's Way: A Field Guide to In Search of Lost Time. Essentially, I figure that if I read Proust's In Search of Lost Time (Remembrance of Things Past - eventually I'll train myself to use ISLT) enough times - and read enough books about Proust - I'll eventually understand it/him. Shattuck's work is a classic, and while I don't completely understand some of his more murky literary analysis, I also learned a lot about the subcurrents that run throughout Proust's masterpiece. As I've mentioned previously, last year I purchased all seven volumes of the new translation, so I guess I do have at least one more reading in me. If you've read In Search of Lost Time once, I suppose it just be that you're pretentious, but if you've read it four times (soon to be five) then you clearly love the story.
Here's a lovely section where Shattuck is helping the reader understand the relation between the novel and the actual life of Proust:
This fission-fusion process explains why it is so unsatisfactory to keep asking if Marcel or the Narrator represents Proust. There can be no doubt that the Search embodies a version - both revelation and disguise - of Proust's life. The links are too evident to discount, from the setting and action to details like the Narrator having translated Ruskin's Sesame and Lilies. But Proust's disclaimers are equally powerful. He insists that his book be read as a self-contained story and not as autobiography masquerading as fiction. It would be foolish to insist on one of these approaches to the exclusion of the other. Toward the end of the novel one comes upon an odd passage that makes a tiny step toward reconciliation. There is nothing like it elsewhere in the Search.
"In this book, in which every fact is fictional and in which not a single character is based on a living person, in which everything has been invented by me according to the needs of my demonstration, I must state to the credit of my country that only Francoise's millionaire relatives, whop interrupted their retirement in order to bring their needy niece, are real people, existing in the world." (III 846/vi 225)
Here, I believe, Proust is pointing out to us a kind of vestigial navel cord, a detail which proves that his vast work does not coincide with actuality but was born from it. Images of slow gestation and final parturition do greater justice to the novel's origins than concepts of literal imitation or of complete autonomy. (Shattuck, 17-18)
These observations from a true scholar of Proust (as compared to a pseudo-scholar of Proust such as myself) are invaluable. Shattuck's work might not appeal to everyone, but if you're one of that small legion of true Proust-lovers then it is essential.