According to Andrew Chesterman, “Translator Studies covers research which focuses primarily and explicitly on the agents involved in translation, for instance on their activities or attitudes, their interaction with their social and technical environment, or their history and influence” (Chesterman 2009: 20). For a couple of decades, studies on this subfield of translation studies have flourished, with interdisciplinary perspectives ranging from literary criticism, sociology to psychology and so forth. However, a scarcely charted territory is the translation practice of writer-translators. As a result of their dual status, there tends to be no clear-cut demarcation between the translation and writing products of writer-translators. Jonathan Evans’ The Many Voices of Lydia Davis: Translation, Rewriting, Intertextuality sits on the fuzzy boundary of translation studies, incorporating insights from comparative literature. It delves into the literary practices of writer-translators and sheds new light on the writer-translator duality. Through a close reading, Evans finds that Davis’ works challenge the separation between writing and translation, and thus forge “a reverse of the usual hierarchy of writing as primary and translation as secondary” (p. 3). Derived from his doctoral dissertation, the book consists of seven chapters with discrete intertextual subthemes, all aimed at answering the following research questions: how do Davis’ translational and authorial writings interact with each other? how problematic is the place of a writer-translator’s oeuvre? Chapter 1 gives an outline of the whole monograph and is followed by four chapters that explore Davis’ interaction with four authors, Blanchot, Leiris, Proust, and Flaubert, both in her writing and her translations. Davis’ works bear affinity with Blanchot, construct dialogues with Leiris, rewrite Proust, and share authority with Flaubert. The key words in the title of each chapter clearly indicate the core findings. The sixth chapter deals with Davis’ short story on Marie Curie, which, though constructed from translated elements, is more of a parody. The last chapter offers a comprehensive appraisal of Davis’ short stories, examining techniques such as collage, quotation, pastiche, and other means of grafting material from other authors, which further blur the boundary between translation and writing. Evans’ ground-breaking contribution results from a shift in research perspective. He was dissatisfied with previous researchers’ assumption of the unidirectional influence of writing on translation, as is the case with Marjorie Perloff and Beverly Haviland, which he considers “too simple an idea to describe the relationship between Davis’ work and her translations” (p. 5). Thus, Evans explores the reciprocal relationship between Davis’ translation and writing. Applying research methods from both descriptive translation studies and comparative literature, Evans closely examines selected texts from Davis’ oeuvre and concludes that, although translation has indeed shaped Davis’ fiction, overall her writing and translations maintain a textual dialogue marked by reciprocity; this is also the case between her writing and that of other authors. Seminal works such as George Steiner’s After Babel (1975) and Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility (1995) do not explore the relationship between a writer-translator’s translational and authorial works. Evans’ research thus counterbalances the tendency in translation studies to view translators as “mono-professional” (Pym 1998: 161). The concept of oeuvre is central in this book. It underlies all essential discussions and links all of Evans’ key discoveries together, which range from intricate authorship and dialogic relationships to intertextual dynamics like graft, collage, and montage. For Foucault (1969/1998: 207, 213), an oeuvre posits a unity across an author’s different texts. It is an expectation of the reader rather than a demonstrable textual quality: readers expect a certain coherence and uniformity across an author’s body of work. Readers will not accept just any text as part of an oeuvre: there …