Westward Ho

Worstward Ho,

it seems, can be summarized, if at all (and feebly, admittedly) by:

“The void. How try say? How try fail? No try no fail. Say only-“

The text is riddled with longing, incompletion, and immobility, through fragments of thought. There does not seem to be one concrete formation of a thought even by the end of the piece, rather it acts more of a summary of thought in general – exploring the parameters of thought itself, which seem to be unending. I know it sounds clumsy, or ‘missaid’ as an analysis, but it would almost seem that any analysis of such a unorthodox text as this, must be at least ‘missaid’ if not completely irrational in its explanation in order to garner some sort of truth. 

            The initial quote above I take to be somewhat of a thesis statement of the piece. It seems as though through the rest of the text he is trying to (im)properly define ‘the void’ which I think shares many properties with the inner workings of the mind. Though the void cannot be properly defined as the mind. I think that by this quote Beckett is trying to say that perhaps in setting out on the task to define what the void is (which could be any facet of reality or unreality, or any space/non-space in-between) the person is setting off into an exercise in futility. So Beckett’s attempt to define the void is instead a show of how the void cannot be defined. As he says, ‘no try no fail’ which is to say that ‘to try is to fail’. Than, ‘Say only-‘ it is after this, in the next paragraph, that he gives us a subject: “First the bones”. But I do not think that these are related matters, only that they should seem to be related matters. “Say only-“ is the end… it is the realization that there is nothing that can be said, or anything to be said of importance that can contribute to such an indiscernible idea. Though there is always something to succeed it – an idea such as the void – though related, they may not be.

            But the idea is getting away from me. Moving on to another of the same on a previous page. “All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” This quote seems to me a relative of the previous. They both try to illustrate the same concept. But it is not in this that I wish to find meaning or relation. It is what succeeds it that I find to be relative to the beginning quote. This too, is succeeded by a subject, without any transition the text moves on to a subject with no introduction. “First the body. No. First the place. No. First both. Now either. Now the other.” This is Beckett’s trial. He ‘try’s’ just by enlightening us to a subject, a form. Which is ‘where it begins’ but what exactly is ‘it’ that has begun… well, that I believe to be one aspect of the void in which he is (failing) to describe. In failing to begin though, as he is indecisive as to where he plans on beginning (either body or place {or both}) he discovers a way to formulate the parameters of the void…without even addressing it. By not addressing the thing that cannot be addressed Beckett has formulated a discourse that in fact betters the readers understanding on exactly that which cannot be defined or addressed without failure… and succeeds?

Gnome

To avoid repetition and expound on the same rough idea that I shared in class… and more honestly, to save myself from reliving ‘Not I’ too many more times, I have decided to recognize another, shorter, funnier, more relatable Beckett piece for my inaugural Blog. I have chosen ‘Gnome’. I like this poem more and more with every read. Apparently Beckett was, like myself, suspicious (to put it politely) as to the notion of ‘higher learning’. I have even read elsewhere online that Beckett once presented to many prestigious French intellectuals a phony ‘learned paper’ by a Frenchmen that he had fabricated entirely: purely for the sport of mocking pedantry. (What a guy!)

I can’t help but to think about a wonderful quote that my buddy had pulled out earlier this day while we were conversing about our own collegiate suspicions. To quote Mr. Twain, “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” Wise words. And to quote Mr. Beckett, “that was a true saying.” Back to the poem, “Spend the years of learning squandering,” - check. Though I very seriously doubt that Beckett would give the advise of frittering away your days doing nothing. To some, in this 21^st century of ours, this line could be severely misconstrued, possibly as: ‘Spend the years of learning… in a dark room playing Call of Duty’. This is not the type of squandering that I imagine was meant in the poem. It's back to the point Mr. Twain made: school is not the only place to enhance your education. It’s the whole street/book smart binary. Higher learning, which translates almost exclusively as ‘University’, is the time in many-a lives that exposes the young to a world out from under the protective wings of parental control. It is consequently at this time that the young man or women should learn the ways of the world, and burying face to page is, as I believe Beckett to suggest, antagonistic to the perhaps more important experiential learning.

Another thing to cross my attention is the multiple ways of reading the poem due to the lack of punctuation; one of the benefits of minimalism. The line breaks indicate the end of a thought but if read continuously another fascinating reading (especially in the third and fourth lines) can be found. “Through a world politely turning From the loutishness of learning.” In this the more obvious reading is that the world is literally turning on axis (politely) as heavenly bodies tend to do. When the line breaks are missing, however, it seems that the world – as in the people that occupy it – are the ones that are turning (as in straying) from the loutishness of learning. This suggests that people are straying from learning (but which kind?), becoming ignorant to some sort of education that one must have the ‘courage’ to wander through…