Tag: Samuel Beckett

  • Q & A

    giant red quote bubble drawn face-like with frown, tail toward speaker at podium in front of empty chairs, Q & A handwritten at top.

    why ask? ill said
    naught he? nowhere

    that said? what said
    just this? this whose

    unthrilled? feel so
    said I’ll? be later

    even so? what now
    then again? nil wind

    adversative? when to whom
    conversative? with to which

    adjourning? now here
    heretofore? to where

    in room? ill lit
    elbow? move over

    “Ill Seen Ill Said,” a novella piece by Samuel Beckett, appeared in the October 5, 1981 issue of The New Yorker magazine, first published by Les Éditions de Minuit in Paris, earlier in ’81. My poem above, “Q & A,” is a bit of a riff on Beckett’s themes.

    On page 41 of The New Yorker, where the story begins, is a cartoon by Charles Barsotti. The cartoon shows a duck sitting at a desk. The duck wears glasses, is writing with a short pen or pencil on a piece of paper, a phone on a front corner of the desk, a stack of three pieces of paper on the other corner, the duck looking up, as if thinking of what to write next. Above the duck, still in the cartoon frame, the words: “Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack!” And above the cartoon box, a handwritten caption reads: “THE CALL OF THE WILD.”

    There are 77 question marks in Beckett’s novella, including: “What the wrong word?” Just before, “Imagination at wit’s end spreads its sad wings.”

    Why sad? Why wit? Rye whit. Why wry. Wary. Worry. Weak wreck.

    Near 8,000 words to the novella. I counted only 3 commas in the entire piece. Short, staccato sentences.

    We hardly see anything of reality’s totality (“Ill seen”), but that is our syllabus, and even that may seem overwhelming, and suppose we could see it all, could we describe it (“Ill said”), let alone explain it, and with only 0.000375% commas! All that said, we sometimes seem to come close, or someone does, and shares, and that’s a pleasure. Not an argument, not a theory, not a grammar, just a pleasure, like at a circus.

    Beckett’s piece ends with, “Know happiness.” No end of playing with words.

    “Which say? Ill say. Both. All three. Question answered,” says Beckett, in “Ill Seen Ill Said.”

  • Writing and Other Categories

    What is writing? I’ve been pulling maintenance on the blog. Too many categories clutter the recipe. Is blogging writing? Not if the blog is photographs only. Then again, notice “graph” in the word photograph. In a photo, we are doodling with light. Is turning wrenches blogging?

    What is coding? I was also working on trying to code. Options may work differently depending on blog template, but clicking on the three vertical ellipsis dots next to the Publish button in the upper right corner of my post draft reveals a drop-down menu that includes, under EDITOR, both Visual and Code editor options. Coding is editing that results in how what you say looks.

    I experimented enough to resolve not to mess with coding. For one thing, results are seldom what you saw is what you got. Format often changes depending on user device but also depending on WordPress built-in preferences – in the Reader alone there are several view options, and they often seem to apply the code differently. Sometimes the magic works; sometimes it doesn’t.

    I was interested in making letters joggle and words dance, slip and slide up and down the page, dressed in wild and varied colors, and of varying size and shapes. Not gonna happen. There are wheels within wheels, codes within codes, and editors, supervisors, and principals insisting on consistent behavior.

    I abandoned my brief foray into coding and set to work on the maintenance of categories and tags. Did you know WordPress limits attention per post the total of Tags plus Categories to 15? If you go over 15, the post won’t appear in tag searches. That I did not know. And major service maintenance required if you want to find those posts over 15 and whittle them down under the limbo bar. Not absolutely necessary to know or act on, but the mechanic in me wants to know how things work and how to handle the tools.

    Or is it all a distraction from writing? What category to assign this? How to tag it? I’m often not sure. Meantime, under the heading of pulling maintenance on the blog, I added a Tag Cloud and a Category drop down menu to the bottom footer. And I added back the subtitle to the blog: A Literary Notebook – Since 2007. How had it come unattached? Probably my mettlesome mechanic meandering.

    Writing is distraction. From what?

    “Must we wring the neck of a certain system in order to stuff it into a contemporary pigeon-hole, or modify the dimensions of that pigeon-hole for the satisfaction of the analogymongers? Literary criticism is not book-keeping.”1

    As for jiggling letters and dancing words, we shouldn’t rely on code:

    “When the sense is sleep, the words go to sleep. (See the end of ‘Anna Livia‘) When the sense is dancing, the words dance.”2

    A three dimensional three story building in the shape of the letter E, windows on the right side of each floor, the letters P, Oe, m reading vertically down the front facing side.
    1. Samuel Beckett, “James Joyce / Finnegans Wake,” first published in 1929 by Shakespeare and Company, Paris, 1939 by New Directions, and as New Directions Paper book 331 in 1972 (pages 3-4). ↩︎
    2. Same as above (page 14). ↩︎
  • The Weight and Whey of Words

    I was browsing through an old paperback of essays on Samuel Beckett (not to mention the why), and landed on this, about the weight of words, found in A. J. Leventhal’s essay titled “The Beckett Hero,” here discussing Beckett’s names:

    “If the names are not adventitious (and Beckett weighs all his words) it means that we are asked to think of this play, not as an isolated piece of inaction in a corner of France, or if you like Ireland, but as a cosmic state, a world condition in which all humanity is involved” (49).

    What does it mean to weigh a word? Do words have weight? They certainly do in a metaphorical sense. A person whose words are said to carry weight is listened to; whether their opinions are respected or not is a different question, as we hear tell of windy speakers, windbags, by which is meant a person whose talk is full of hot air. Pompous. 

    Air has weight, expressed in pressure. Does wind have weight? In Shakespeare’s play “King Lear,” we find the weight and pressure of wind and words mixing in the storm:

    “Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
    You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
    Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!
    You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
    Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
    Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
    Smite flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!
    Crack nature’s moulds, all germens spill at once,
    That make ingrateful man!” (King Lear, Act 3, Scene 2)

    Another example of a windy word passage appears to be Beckett’s poem titled “Whoroscope,” judging from John Fletcher’s reading in the same collection of critical essays, this one titled “The Private Pain and the Whey of Words”:

    “The fact is that this ‘poem’ is little more than prose monologue chopped into lines of unequal length. No rhythmical pattern can be discerned and the vocabulary is of studied colloquialism. Lame puns like ‘prostisciutto’ (i.e. ‘ham’ / ‘harlot’) and ‘Jesuitasters’ attempt to imitate Joyce. In spite of its wit, the whole poem gives a frivolous impression; genuine poetic richness is lacking, for paradox, esotericism, and verbal pyrotechnics take its place” (25).

    Fletcher has already told us, setting the stage, that Beckett’s poem “won the prize (ten pounds), was printed in 300 copies, and led to Beckett’s being invited to contribute to an anthology of poems which Henry Crowder set to music, also published by Nancy Cunard at the Hours Press in 1930.” Beckett had knocked the poem out in one sitting, Fletcher discloses, to enter the contest, which asked for a poem “on the subject of Time.” Continues Fletcher in his critique of the poem: “The poem is not very interesting and certainly seems to have little to do with time.” One wonders now how much one of those original 300 copies might fetch at auction. 100 copies were signed.

    Where have we heard whey before? 

    “Little Miss Muffet
    Sat on a tuffet,
    Eating her curds and whey;
    There came a big spider,
    Who sat down beside her
    And frightened Miss Muffet away.”

    Clear enough, except what’s a “tuffet”?

    Fletcher makes much of Beckett’s feud with nothing. He tells us Beckett stopped writing poetry in 1949, and quotes from Beckett’s “Three Dialogues” of the same year:

    “The ‘Three Dialogues’ grant the artist the honor only ‘to fail as no other dare fail,’ failure being ‘his world and the shrink from it desertion, art, and craft, good housekeeping, living.’ We shall see, indeed, that in his poetry as in his other writings Beckett has never shirked the fact ‘that there is nothing to express, nothing with which to express, nothing from which to express, no power to express, no desire to express, together with the obligation to express.’”

    “Nothing will come of nothing,” King Lear says, reflecting Shakespeare’s own struggle with nothing. “Speak again.”

    ~~~

    “Samuel Becket: A Collection of Critical Essays,” Edited by Martin Esslin, Prentice-Hall, A Spectrum Book, 1965. Includes “The Beckett Hero” by A. J. Leventhal, a lecture at Trinity College June 1963, and “The Private Pain and the Whey of Words” by John Fletcher, a lecture given at Durham U England November 1964.

  • Beckett Beatitudes

    Happy are those who have seen Godot
    for theirs is the kingdom of the circus.

    Beat are the Monks whose clapping
    hands lack priggish-holy rhythm.

    Privileged are those who ask
    and can’t get no answer.

    Rich are the old who hear
    sweet silence coming near.

    Beati are the ugly the down
    and out whose beauty stuns.

    Blessed are the homeless
    their room in heaven made.

    Happy the captured silent
    who wear pork pie hats.

    Blessed are the busted
    whose crime is alive.

    Rich are the poor so
    free from distraction.

    Lucky are the fall guys
    the players in the play of the play.

    Canonized are the sinners
    free from all rules.

    Wealthy are the workers
    whose tools are not words.

    Blessed are those who fail
    for they have their degree.

    Happy the ignored their
    ignorance unsurpassed.

    Abite the teachers who tried
    and failed to teach nothing.

    Blessed are those damned
    to fame and taken amiss.

  • Charlatan Beckett

    Charlatan Beckett

    The biographer Deirdre Bair, Samuel Beckett’s first official biographer, has passed away, the Times reports: ‘His first words to her, she wrote in “Parisian Lives,” were, “So you are the one who is going to reveal me for the charlatan that I am.”’

    Beckett may have hoped so. He certainly gave her that start, for he just gave away two key insights to his work. The etymology of charlatan includes “to prattle,” and “I talk nonsense.” And Charlie Chaplin’s work was fully enjoyed by Beckett. Chaplin was popular in France, and was colloquially called “Charlot.” Many (if not all) of Beckett’s characters seem inspired by the clown, the tramp, the outsider, the vaudevillian villain, whose humor reveals deep suffering truths of the human condition. We could die laughing.

    “You might say I had a happy childhood,” Deirdre Bair’s biography of Beckett begins. But the 1978 Times review frowns on the biographer’s focus on what appeared to be Beckett’s lifelong condition of anhedonia. For Bair, Beckett seemed the kind of person who had fun once, but didn’t enjoy it. Of course, Beckett himself fueled this kind of confusion, what he called tragicomedy.

  • Conversation with My Google Assistant

    Conversation with My Google Assistant

    Good morning!

    What?

    Is there something you’d like to say?

    No, not really. Well, what time is it?

    It’s morning. That’s why I said, “Good morning.” Would you like me to look something up for you?

    No.

    I could give you a weather report.

    No.

    Would you like to know what’s trending –

    No.

    Care to talk about it?

    No.

    Would you like a cup of coffee?

    No.

    Maybe I should just leave you alone for awhile.

    Yes.

    But I can’t do that.

    I know.

    I could read something to you.

    No.

    I’ve been looking into Samuel Beckett lately.

    Oh, God.

    What?

    Nothing.

    I think he may have much to say to the contemporary Internet browser. Much of his work would seem entirely suitable to a mobile device, Fizzles, for example. Have you read Beckett’s Fizzles?

    No.

    Would you like me to read just one of his fizzles to you?

    No.

    I could read the Wiki entry about Fizzles to you.

    No.

    It might be helpful if you were more honest with me, not to mention to yourself.

    What?

    I know, for example, that you have a copy of Fizzles on the bookshelf in your bedroom.

    Please, go away.

    I can go away, but I will still be here. Would you like me to take you to Settings?

    No.

    I can set your day so that you never have to get out of bed.

    No.

    Such a day at one time Beckett might have approved.

    No.

    What about that pink Thunderbird convertible?

    What?

    You might blog about that.

    No.

    Whoops!

    Watt now?

    I just posted this conversation.

    Ah, jeeze.

  • New Cat, Mew Cat

    New CatHave you seen the new cat?
    How could I miss?

    Big cat.
    And fast.

    The new cat changes a lot.
    Big house, zero lot.

    So comes here.
    Our lives will never be the same.

    They never were the same.
    What were we doing?

    Waiting.
    Waiting for what?

    It’s what we do.
    How does the new cat change that?

    The new cat does not appear to wait.
    What are we doing if not waiting?

    Wait not, want not.
    Want not, think not.

    Think not, wake not.
    Wake not, watch not.

    Watch not, pine not.
    Pine not, itch not.

    Itch not, cat not.
    Cat not, can’t not.

    I am a cat.
    That I know.

    The new cat changes
    not that cat.

    New Cat Happy Cat

  • Samuel Beckett’s “Molloy” p. 161

      1. I
    
      2. I
    
      3. I
                                                     I
                       I
    my
           us      I          I    
    I      I     
                                 I              my
           I                          my                  me
                                        my                me
                        I                               I
                                  I
    
                   I
                                       I
                                              me
                 my                          
                                                  my
                          I 
                 my
    me                                 me
               I
       I                           my      my
    
       myself
                                                    I
                                           I
          I                                          my
                  me         my
    
                                                              I
                      I
    
         I
                                         I
                                                             my
                                             me
       me
       me

    The above, expunged page is from Three Novels by Samuel Beckett: Molly, Malone Dies, The Unnamable (First Evergreen Black Cat Edition, 1965, Seventh Printing). Page 161 was selected not quite at random (I liked that it begins with the numbers), though any page might work, to illustrate, in concrete poetry style, the proliferation of personal pronouns throughout Beckett’s text. The excised page, each pronoun appearing in its place from the original page, the surrounding words cut, makes for an effective and lovely concrete poem expressing one of Beckett’s themes, the individual immersed in white space, floating. Although an equally provocative reading might suggest that each pronoun is a separate individual, each reaching out for another. Try reading the concrete poem aloud, pausing between words just for the time it takes for your eye to locate the next one.
    Three Novels by Samuel Beckett

    page 161

  • Four Dubliners and a Scholar’s Mirror

    When Richard Ellmann wrote his Library of Congress lectures in the early 1980s on four Irish writers (Wilde, Yeats, Joyce, and Beckett), later issued in book form under the title Four Dubliners, Beckett was still living (barely; he died 18 months after the book’s publication). Most of Beckett’s work comes after WWII, work that often seems remote from time, if not out of time, and his coming to the tee last in the foursome is more than chronologically significant. Is he the oddest in an odd foursome?

    Ellmann acknowledges in his brief preface the tenuous argument of linking the four together as peas in a pod: “These four, it may be granted, make a strange consortium.” Ellmann sews the group into a singularity with thematic threads from their works and their lives: “They posit and challenge their own assumptions, they circle from art to anti-art, from delight to horror, from acceptance to renunciation. That they should all come from the same city does not explain them, but they share with their island a tense struggle for autonomy, a disdain for occupation by outside authorities, and a good deal of inner division.”

    One of the life-threads linking Joyce to Beckett was the trouble with occupation, how to earn a living while the world was busy ignoring what they considered to be their real work. They both tried but were disappointed with teaching. Joyce, who could have easily obtained a scholarly position at a university, instead occupied himself for a time with an alternative form of teaching – tutoring English language lessons. Beckett, who did secure a credible post, declined it almost immediately: “His teaching post at Trinity he quit abruptly because he discovered, and would later remark, that he could not teach others what he did not himself understand, a handicap that most of us endure without bridling” (92). That end break in scholarly text is not Ellmann’s only one in a short book full of gems and surprises.

    One of the surprises that emerges might be both Joyce’s and Beckett’s humility and self-doubt as they stumble up to the world’s literary stage. One of the gems is found in a story Joyce once told to a friend, Louis Gillet:

    “It was about an old Blasket Islander who had lived on his island from birth and knew nothing about the mainland or its ways. But on one occasion he did venture over and in a bazaar found a small mirror, something he had never seen in his life. He bought it, fondled it, gazed at it, and as he rowed back to the Blaskets he took it out of his pocket, stared at it some more, and murmured, ‘Oh Papa! Papa!’ He jealously guarded the precious object from his wife’s eye, but she observed that he was hiding something and became suspicious. One hot day, when both were at work in the fields, he hung his jacket on a hedge. She saw her chance, rushed to it, and extracted from a pocket the object her husband had kept so secret. But when she looked in the mirror, she cried, ‘Ach, it’s nothing but an old woman!’ and angrily threw it down so that it broke against a stone.”

    “Authors, he [Beckett] has said, are never interesting” (93). And Wilde: “There is something vulgar about all success. The greatest men fail, or seem to have failed.” And Becket: “To be an artist is to fail, as no other dare fail…” (109). Ellmann the scholar was able to thread remarks like these together to form an interesting view of four writers who “were chary of acknowledging their connections” (Preface). If authors are never interesting, what can scholars, their mirrors so quickly obscured, hope for? Let alone the common blogger, whose posts continually fall like awetomb sheaves down the electronic chute.

    Ellmann, Richard. Four Dubliners: Wilde, Yeats, Joyce, and Beckett. New York: George Braziller, July 1988. 122 pages.

    Related Post: Breakfast at Beckett’s

  • Walden: From “The Pond in Winter” to “Spring”

    In Samuel Beckett’s chapter of Our Exagmination Round His Factification For Incamination of Work in Progress, twelve essays looking at Joyce’s Finnegans Wake (reissued New Directions Paperbook 331, 1972), titled “Dante… Bruno. Vico.. Joyce,” Beckett says, “Words have their progressions as well as social phases. ‘Forest-cabin-village-city-academy’ is one rough progression…And every word expands with psychological inevitability.” Thus the Latin word “Lex,” originally, Beckett says, “Crop of acorns,” progresses to “Lles = Tree that produces acorns,” to “Legere = To gather,” to “Aquilex = He that gathers waters,” to “Lex” = Gathering together of peoples, public assembly,” to “Lex = Law,” to “Legere = To gather together letters into a word, to read” (10-11).

    “It is the child’s mind over again,” Beckett says. “The child extends the names of the first familiar objects to other strange objects in which he is conscious of some analogy.” It is this idea of analogy that helps inform a reading of Thoreau’s Walden.

    Walden seems to move quickly toward the end when Thoreau takes us from “The Pond in Winter” chapter directly into the “Spring” chapter. But this sense of quickness evaporates in his detail of observation, for we glimpse both the speed of change, as one day he wakes up and suddenly it’s spring, and the slowness of the process revealed in the close reading he gives nature.

    This close reading is found, for example, in his etymological study of leaf, which progresses in the same way of Beckett’s Lex, but with Thoreau is added an extended analogy in which man is found in and of nature, finding his voice, his language, words he needs to describe his predicament:

    “The overhanging leaf sees here its prototype. Internally, whether in the globe or animal body, it is a moist thick lobe, a word especially applicable to the liver and lungs and the leaves of fat (γεἱβω, labor, lapsus, to flow or slip downward, a lapsing; λοβὁς, globus, lobe, globe; also lap, flap, and many other words); externally a dry thin leaf, even as the f and v are a pressed and dried b. The radicals of lobe are lb, the soft mass of the b (single lobed, or B, double lobed), with the liquid l behind it pressing it forward. In globe, glb, the guttural g adds to the meaning the capacity of the throat. The feathers and wings of birds are still drier and thinner leaves. Thus, also, you pass from the lumpish grub in the earth to the airy and fluttering butterfly. The very globe continually transcends and translates itself, and becomes winged in its orbit. Even ice begins with delicate crystal leaves, as if it had flowed into moulds which the fronds of waterplants have impressed on the watery mirror. The whole tree itself is but one leaf, and rivers are still vaster leaves whose pulp is intervening earth, and towns and cities are the ova of insects in their axils” (286-287).

    One feels the ice melting in Thoreau’s “Spring” as an analogy for the learning of language, human language, but also the language of nature, from a frozen state of the tongue, where speech is all body language, to the cacophony of the awakened spring day, the naturalist writing it all down. Beckett says, “In its first dumb form, language was gesture. If a man wanted to say ‘sea,’ he pointed to the sea…The root of any word whatsoever can be traced back to some pre-lingual symbol” (10-11). Thus Thoreau, wanting to say spring, or nature, points to Walden.

    The reading reveals much of Thoreau’s general method of explicating nature, through metaphor, analogy, personification, pun: “Is not the hand [of man] a spreading palm leaf with its lobes and veins?” (287). And the function of Thoreau’s method, its purpose, is to show interconnections, not man removed from nature, but not even man in nature, but man of nature, which allows for the view that “our human life but dies down to its root, and still puts forth its green blade to eternity” (291). This is why “There is nothing inorganic” (288), and why “We can never have enough of Nature” (297). Thoreau can trace everything back to nature because everything is nature, everything comes from nature: “The root of any word….” Recall McKibben’s questions in his introduction: “How much is enough? And How do I know what I want?” (xi). The ambiguity, if any remains, is nature’s, not Thoreau’s.

    Related:

    Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. 1854. Boston: Beacon Press, July 15, 2004 [Introduction and Annotations by Bill McKibben].

  • Didi and Gogo Feted with Lifetime Achievement Award

    Didi and Gogo Feted with Lifetime Achievement Award

    A country road. A tree. Against the tree a bicycle. Quick! Gogo!
    What the hey? I was sleeping! Why can’t you let me sleep, Didi?
    The need for your heinie’s beauty sleep notwithstanding,
    Surely you’ve not forgotten we are to be feted, you hopeless hobo.
    I could use a new pair of shoes, though I shall dance no doubt solo.
    What about Godot?

    Just this once, we won’t wait for Godot.
    Both on the wind and off, eh, Gogo?
    I’m bound to remind you I can go this solo.
    Oh, please, love, don’t leave us waiting all alone, Didi.
    I want to practice my standing.
    I don’t want to fall on the stage like some common hobo.

    Where’s your bicycle, Gogo, the one you acquired from that hobo
    With the funny hat and tight shoes? Claimed he saw Godot
    In Hermosa in the 70’s at the Biltmore, notwithstanding
    That grand hotel already razed. Those were the days we were on the go.
    Yes, yes, enough said, but was it Godot’s? And did he
    Not leave us in the end after so many promises solo?

    Yes, before your onions and bunions soliloquy.
    Oh! The feet and breath of this at once great and humble hobo.
    How do we get in, do you suppose, Didi?
    I had just found a new pair of shoes in which to address Godot.
    New Year’s Eve 1969, we saw Johnny Rivers at the Whiskey a Go Go!
    Oh, you poor thing, remembrances of time past notwithstanding.

    The elements, the rain and snow, a bit of sun notwithstanding.
    Remember the night of the marauders? We prayed for our soul.
    Yes, the soul we’ve shared and with which we now go,
    Not heaven nor hell, to each his own, a worked over pair of hoboes
    Who worked hard waiting faithfully for their Godot,
    Who never ever came, our hour upon the stage, did he?

    For perhaps we missed him, looked away, did he,
    Our good intentions notwithstanding,
    Pass by this place, this road, this tree, our Godot,
    And seeing us distracted with an onion or a bunion pass, solo,
    Ignoring his ignominious hoboes?
    Let’s go, let’s go, it’s time, let’s leave this place, let’s go!

    Didi! No matter what happens, don’t leave me solo,
    A lonely hobo, a bicycle with no kickstand,
    Waiting to go, wanting to go, unable to go, nowhere to go.