Do you agree with Camille's assessment that Proust "was a thief, a pirate...who plundered other people's lives for his own ends." Are all writers thieves of a sort? If so, do the ends justify the means?

When Camille learns that Proust wrote down her secret, she is furious: "He was a thief, a pirate. He plundered other people's lives for his own ends." Do you agree? Are all writers thieves of a sort? If so, do the ends justify the means?

All artists are astute observers of life. I don't see this process as stealing. I see it as observing, recording and possibly explaining what the artist sees. I see that as a main purpose of art.

I didn't think he was a thief. I saw it more as taking creative liberties.

I agree with Shirley and Terrie that this is a part of the creative process for most writers and not morally wrong. There's no indication that Proust planned to publish the notebook he'd written her secret down in, and furthermore, he asked her to burn all of his notebooks and she didn't. I think Camille was partly upset with herself because it was her own negligence that put her secret at risk of being discovered.

I agree that it is an expression of art, but I also think that Camille told him the secret as a friend forgetting that he is first a writer.

Interesting question. Most art, in any form, involved some degree of imitation, thievery. Creativity is stimulated by the world around us and what other artists have done with it. Proust could not have created his novels without the input of other people's stories and lives; his gift was in the ability to translate those experiences into beauty and meaning and language. Most of us cannot do what he did, and most of us are not driven to collect stories to have the ingredients for such creative endeavor. He was particularly secretive and tricky about it it seems.

As I have learned in many aspects of my life, there are really not very many truly original ideas Most are riffs or twists on something else. She just didn't like the threat of her secret being exposed.

I remember once asking my Dad if a character in a movie was real and if the story was true. His response was that the answer to both questions was yes and no. While the person and story were not actual fact there were probably people like the character and things and events in the story or something like them probably happened many times. There are fires, people die in them, children survive disasters, children disappear and are adopted or taken in by others. There are murderers in this world who are vicious and don't care the age of their victims. Artists fail and devolve into homelessness, drug addiction, booze and mix with the wrong people. Women get pregnant and bring up children alone, Immigrants find themselves lonely and unmoored in foreign lands. And writers hear a conversation in an elevator and use it in their next terrorist plot. No thieves, just embellishers and braiding of strands of truth to create a new truth

Yes, I think I do agree but but also agree with others in that authors are often telling other people's stories. But it did feel like an act of betrayal, he should have known she was telling him her secrets as a friend and all of us are hurt when we tell a secret to a friend and they reveal it, and this was a gross sharing, not just saying something to another person.

Wow. Once one knows that Camille stole another mother's child that sentiment lost any credence with me. Did Camille not plunder other people's lives in the most profound way for her own selfish gain? Her husband was unhappy and he was bothering her - she wanted him to relax and settle down to take his mind off his troubles so she suggested having a child and she/he couldn't produce one - so.... when one conveniently came into their orbit they kept her. That to me is the real plundering of another person's life for her own gain.
Are all writer's thieves? I consider writers keen observers of life and people, and yes, they do use what they see and what they imagine as a means to their own end. If that makes them plundering pirates so be it - as long as they produce the books I love to dissolve into.

Totally agree gerrieb. Besides, if Proust used her story in his book no one would have known the source of the tale--it isn't as though he was going to write--oh, yes, my servant, Camille and her husband kept a lost baby without seeking its parents.

When Camille found her secret in Proust’s notebook she had no reason to feel betrayed because the notebook was private - like a diary. The instructions were that it should be destroyed. She betrayed Proust by not following his wishes, and by reading his private notes. The irony is that she is the one who felt betrayed! Art is an imitation of life and therefore artists gather all that they see and hear to feed their imagination and creativity.

I totally agree with milldas. I feel she was the one who betrayed Proust! It was a private journal, and she did not destroy it like he asked; had she done as he wished, she would of never read the entry. All art comes from life, experiences,observations, etc. Thieves? No Way, masters at putting things together? Definitely!

There is a saying that mediocre artists imitate others but great artists steal their ideas. This may or may not be a fair assessment, but for Camille, it rings true. If truth is indeed stranger than fiction, Camile’s personal story would have seemed like ripe, low-hanging fruit to a fertile literary mind like Proust’s.

Inasmuch as there are truly only 36 Dramatic Situations, there this a little truth in every novel. I agree with others who have said, writers are observers and that no one would probably have known it was Camille and Olivier in the story. However, Jean Paul definitely will. But then, for him to lay hands on the notebook is a bit far-fetched.

After reading the comments about stealing Camille's story, I experienced a 180 degree turn in my initial response! When reading the book I was appalled by his betrayal. He had explicitly led her to believe that her secret was safe with him. Part of me still thinks, “shame on him”. But there is the point to be made that Camille was under an obligation to destroy all his notebooks. Perhaps they deserved each other?

I agree with her on some level, but as other have commented, an artist must have some jumping off point to create. We cannot expect all artists to only write about what they have experienced- they must have the ability to write of what they do not know, but feel deeply about.

I agree with several of the responders. The notebook was to be destroyed, and Camille's secret would have been safe. I wonder why she did keep it. All fiction must in some part be based on real people and events in an author's life; life experience must generate the creative process to some extent. I'm thinking of Hemingway and Fitzgerald, for example. Also, I think Proust shared private parts of his life with Camille in turn. There was trust and collaboration inherent in their relationship which in some way they both betrayed.