I’ve
known several who knew Beckett, or at least met him – Guy Davenport, Hugh
Kenner, John Montague – and none left memorable accounts of their encounters.
Awe renders even the most fluent inarticulate. It also reminds us of
the primacy of the work, not the man. We read him because, at least on
occasion, his words inspire awe. The man, for the reader, is superfluous,
however much we wish we knew him.
“He
too is somewhat melancholy. `I hate nine-tenths of everything I’ve written,’ he
tells me. He has none of Madame Incognita’s theatrical pessimism. He is
personal but not egotistic. She was comical, farcical; he is humorous and affecting.
`I’m ashamed of my life,’ he says quietly. `The world’s so full of misery. And what have I done? Words.’”
A
familiar lament, and a ridiculous one. The writer’s only obligation is to write
well. He is not a do-gooder and owes the world nothing but an artful
arrangement of words. Do-gooders tend not to write well. Sometimes real shits
write like angels. When Polonius asks Hamlet what he is reading, the prince
replies, “Words, words, words.”
“Despite
a surge of fellow feeling, I think of Hamlet’s `And like a whore unpack my
heart with words.’ But of course that unpacking is just one thing you do with
words, and the creator of Godot, Lucky, Pozzo, Hamm, Malone, Murphy, Winnie,
and Watt has not only unpacked his own but millions of hearts.”
In
his introduction to All What Jazz,
Philip Larkin doesn’t mention Beckett by name, but one suspects he would have ranked
him among the artists who leave readers “mystified or outraged.” And yet the finest
critic of both writers, Christopher Ricks, enjoys and respects Beckett and
Larkin. Both are included in The Oxford
Book of English Verse he edited in 1999.
“The
words of the constant story maker keep coming: despite the misery out there,
the—what?—energy within gets to the page, and the septuagenarian inventor of
the Beckett world continues making it.”
In
art, one is not compelled to choose sides, one poet or novelist at the expense
of another. Beckett and Larkin are not mutually exclusive tastes. One feels no
pressure to be consistent. Aesthetic love is promiscuous without being
unfaithful. One loves Swift and Henry
James, Italo Svevo and Barbara Pym. Rigorous
consistency in matters of art suggests provinciality and poverty of
imagination.
[The
quoted passages are taken from the title essay in Richard Stern’s The Invention of the Real (University of
Georgia Press, 1982).]
No comments:
Post a Comment