I think that in every book we put a lot of experience that we have ourselves lived more or less, or imagined ourselves, that there is not a single book that doesn't contain an experience. Even with Kafka. Kafka didn't live The Trial, but there is a whole universe in which he lived, which was close to him and which he translated inThe Trial, or The Castle. It's a transposition; it's a metaphor for something that he felt very strongly, and that we all feel as well.
But it seems sometimes there is a sort of mistrust of autobiography.
When it's a real autobiography. That is, one wants to display everything one has felt, how one has been. There is always a mise en scéne, a desire to show oneself in a certain light. We are so complex and we have so many facets, that what interests me in an autobiography is what the author wants me to see. He wants me to see him like that. That's what amuses me. And it's always false. I don't at all like Freud and I detest psychoanalysis, but one of Freud's statements I have always found very interesting, and true, is that all autobiographies are false. Obviously, because I can do an autobiography that will show a saint, a being who is absolutely idyllic, and I could do another that will show a demon, and it will all be true. Because it's all mixed together. And in addition, one can't even attain all that. When I wrote Childhood, I stopped at the age of twelve, precisely because it's still an innocent period in which things are not clear and in which I tried to recover certain moments, certain impressions and sensations.