Multiple Reading Personalities

Kafka’s Letter to his father was his only creative work in at the end of 1919/ early 1920; and while it is not absolutely a piece of fiction, it does certainly have some fictional traits, the most egregious being that the ostensible addressee of the letter (you’d never guess that would be Kafka’s father, would you?) was certainly not its intended readership. Kafka made sure his mother and his sister Ottla read the letter, but his father never saw it. Fictional however does not necessarily mean that he meant for the letter to ever be published: the letter was not part of the documents he entrusted to Max Brod (the story goes that Kafka asked his friend to destroy most of his papers after his death, and that Brod went against his instructions; it’s dubious whether Kafka really intended to have his manuscripts obliterated, and the fact that he bothered to keep some papers — such as this letter — in more private storage would confirm that. Never to be deterred, the good Max found the letter and included it in his biographical notes on Kafka). I do wonder what else in this letter is thought out to produce a certain effect on the reader, rather than to entirely reflect the mind of the writer. Take for instance this sentence: “Mother unconsciously played the part of a beater during a hunt“. If “Mother” was the intended reader, there’s a casual cruelty there that’s worth noting, and it’s all the more interesting for being indirect and hardly answerable. Franz might be playing a different manipulation game than his father, but he’s not exactly being straightforward himself.

The whole letter, in fact, contains plenty of evocations of the perverse power plays that Kafka wrote compulsively about. The father is a figure of distant, invasive, incomprehensible power. He is explicitly politic (“On your side there was the tyranny of your own nature“, “it is not to plot something against you“, “I might go on to describe further orbits of your influence and of struggle against it“), but to be fair the writer himself does not appear to be much less manipulative. Kafka does indeed close any possibility of an answer, not only by not sending his letter, but also by imagining his father demonstrating that his son has placed him in an indefensible position… And answering that objection by nothing less than annihilation (“To this I answer that first of all this whole rejoinder (…) does not originate in you but, in fact, in me“), followed by a “clause of evasion” applicable to anything he has written before (“Naturally things cannot in reality fit together in the way the evidence does in my letter“). This brings us back to the child Franz, who was so afraid of his father that he for a while took to only talking to him through the mediation of his mother; the adult Kafka doesn’t seem to have changed his strategy much despite its limited success at allowing him to gain his independence. This in turns recalls the pretext for the letter in the first place: Kafka’s “inability to marry” (the letter was written after he had broken marriage plans for the third time in his life… Fatherly disapproval seems to be the reason at first, but later Kafka confesses that he feels unable to marry, as it is the realm of his parents and would be a way to escape his father’s influence — and is therefore impossible).

All in all the letter is a fascinating peek into Kafka’s mental word, and reading it I felt that everything, everything I ever read from him was about his father and their relationship. Oh, that’s the Trial! Here’s the allegory of Justice! Here’s the Penal Colony! However there’s also much less of Kafka’s ‘signature’ coldness. I must confess that I don’t enjoy reading his fiction at all: it leaves me feeling cold, guilty and dirty. Judging by this letter, this is how Kafka himself was made to feel in the presence of his father. It’s not however what I experienced reading this letter. Heartbreak, certainly, every time he evoked the child he was, faced with the brute of a father he had to contend with; interest, hope, doubts, indignation… And much more. A less specific experience, but one that was easier to relate to.

Une si longue lettre, un si court roman, et pourtant si longtemps pour en noter quelques idées… Lu au coeur de la tourmente de la préparation des examens, pour faire une petite pause plaisir, que me reste-t-il en mémoire avant que de rouvrir le livre pour y vérifier mes souvenirs ? J’ai oublié les noms, l’écriture, mais ni les personnages ni leur histoire. En fait, le récit vit plus dans ma mémoire sur le plan de l’histoire personnelle que sur celui de la littérature, c’est-à-dire qu’il a pris place sur l’étagère mémorielle “biographies des amis et de la famille”, une petite place a-spectaculaire, difficilement analysable ou critiquable, car relevant de l’expérience personnelle et non d’une construction intellectuelle. C’est faux: Une si longue lettre est un roman, non un mémoire. Il a parfois été qualifié de semi-autobiographique (c’est un premier roman, après tout), mais “semi” est un terrain sur lequel mieux vaut ne pas trop se précipiter.

“Hier, tu as divorcé. Aujourd’hui, je suis veuve.”

Ces mots sont parmi les premiers de la lettre que Ramatoulaye (je viens de vérifier le nom) écrit à son amie  de toujours, Aïssatou, pendant les quarante jours de réclusion que lui impose son veuvage. Ces mots disent tout le livre. Les coeurs brisés, mais aussi l’opposition qui apparaît immédiatement entre les deux amies, entre celle qui a choisi son destin même dans l’échec et celle qui l’a accepté. Nous apprendrons en effet assez vite que les époux des deux femmes les ont soumises à la même épreuve, celle de devoir accepter une seconde épouse, et que les amies ont pris des décisions opposées. Mariama Bâ, qui avait pour sa part divorcé, fait donc un choix éclairant de point de vue en choisissant de donner la parole à la femme qui est restée. Le propos n’est pas de prendre parti, mais de comprendre.

Cette volonté d’empathie va d’ailleurs plus loin — les jeunes filles qui sont entrées, par une violence plus ou moins pernicieuse, dans la vie des maris, sont en grande partie justifiées, comprises, “contextualisées”  (Binetou, la seconde épouse du mari de Ramatoulaye, pourrait faire figure de chasseuse d’or tout à fait détestable si sa cruauté n’était expliquée : “victime, elle se voulait oppresseur”…). Il y a certes des figures féminines rien moins que positives (la mère de Binetou, la “belle-tante” haineuse d’Aïssatou) ; ce  sont systématiquement des femmes plus âgées, présentées comme des instruments de la société traditionnelle.

Les hommes en revanche manquent terriblement de profondeur dans ce livre, pas tant je pense par échec de l’écriture que comme représentation d’une incommunication réelle. Lâches et fuyants, ils sont surtout totalement incompréhensibles. Pourquoi deviennent-ils l’obstacle principal à la société plus moderne et plus bienveillante à laquelle ils aspiraient pourtant, jeunes hommes ? Pour une femme docile, jolie, et ne ressemblant plus en rien à ce qu’ils adoraient à vingt ans ? Il y a là un mystère irréductible, car Bâ n’évoque pas de simples beaux-parleurs, mais bien des hommes qui ont sérieusement consacré des années de leur vie à un rêve qu’ils “cassent” ensuite pour une manifeste chimère qui ne leur apporte évidemment pas le bonheur.

Le livre a été dédié par Mariama Bâ “à toutes les femmes et aux hommes de bonne volonté“. Cela reflète parfaitement l’aspiration désabusée, le désir de croire encore en l’homme (sans majuscule),  mais aussi la méfiance qui s’est installée, le besoin de qualifier : de quels hommes parlons-nous ? La tristesse, la déception dominent ; l’espoir a reflué de la vie de Ramatoulaye, même si elle veut encore se convaincre qu’il subsiste pour ses enfants, pour les générations à venir. Ses fils et ses filles semblent mieux armés, plus forts qu’elle ne l’était; l’amitié ne l’a pas trahie. La fin du livre est même ostensiblement positive, une décision d’aller de l’avant, de vivre à nouveau… Pourtant ce que j’en retiens c’est d’abord un profond sentiment de tristesse, les ”lacérations dans l’individu” évoquées, et une image (étrangère au livre) qui m’a accompagnée dans sa lecture, celle d’une Pénélope “inversée”, qui tenterait de tisser un ouvrage qui se déferrait sans fin. Bien sûr, la lettre écrite dans une période de deuil en a forcément une amertume circonstancielle que je ne voudrais pas généraliser. En fait peut-être le souffle d’espoir est-il cyniquement justement dans ce deuil : le vieux monde meurt, la société paternaliste meurt avec ses pères, et le deuil est possible. Alléluia?

I don’t know what is wrong with me lately — I just don’t seem able to get into a book. I did make my struggling way through Antigone and I, and I’m slowly reading the first tome of Les Mille et une nuits (Arabian nights), but I keep postponing Sophocles and… pretty much anything else. Ironic, since for the first time in almost a year (well, ten months), I have enough time on my hands that I could pretty much tackle anything I’d like. I’m allowing myself the break, though, and letting myself waste time reading blogs and articles. Perhaps the blog-thirsty part of my brain has its reasons?

What I talk about when I talk about running was however an easy read, perhaps because of Murakami’s specific qualities. I am a somewhat conflicted Murakami fan – I can absolutely understand why one wouldn’t like him very much, but I always fall under the charm of his white sentences and his flimsy tales. I was a little cautious about this specific book – I don’t run, and this is ostensibly a memoir on running, though it touches on such themes as writing, aging, self-discipline and self-image. I was interested in reading it mostly because I am making my own efforts to adopt a regular exercising discipline. My sport of choice is swimming, which I envision as some sort of active meditation. I felt there might be some things Murakami had to say which would resonate with me. There were, especially in the early pages, and I would certainly recommend that book as a motivational tool for wannabe-healthier bookworms. I also found some reading pleasure in the book, though not as much as in the Murakami novels I have read.

There are two conflicting qualities which I very much enjoy in Murakami: one is a talent for silence (what he doesn’t write or just barely mentions always seems to be the most poignant and most ferocious part of what he has to say), the other is very personal, almost surreal perception of the world, with his knack to incorporate a devious pseudo-American pop-culture touch as the magical element of the world. By “devious pseudo-American pop-culture touch”, I refer to his treatment of a certain modern American iconography from a non-American perspective (witness the use of Colonel Sanders in Kafka on the shore, the title What I talk about etc., the use of music in his work, and so on. And note that I use “American” in the loosest sense – a sense which would for instance allow me to lump in Johnnie Walker Scotch whisky with “American pop culture”). It might be an obtuse conversation to Americans, a recycling of surprisingly-chosen American clichés strung together with masking tape and bubble gum; however, this distorted, childishly-naïve vision of the “outside” and the “beyond” speaks to the distorted, childishly-naïve vision I also developed through whatever American “cultural goods” (!) reached over the ocean and came into my life before I was old enough to process them rationally. It’s a pictorial, emotional rendition of a fantasy. Of course, Murakami’s vision and mine are very different (different ages, different locations; and to make matters worse, some of the oldest lessons I learned about the US were given by manga versions of classics such as Tom Sawyers), but there is a surprising amount of commonalities.

To go back to Murakami’s silences – they are plentiful in What I talk about when I talk about running despite his trying to push himself to articulate certain personal truths. Most of the time, I’m not very convinced by these efforts. When he writes about heading “towards a taciturn, unadorned maturity” or about his supposedly unlikeable personality, his modesty feels like an intermediary truth and disappoints compared to the moments when you are left to infer your own conclusions from a one-sentence description of his wife welcoming him at the end of a race in which he didn’t do well, or when he mentions that the frame of his triathlon bike is inscribed with “’18 Til I die’, the name of a Bryan Adams hit. It’s a joke, of course. Being eighteen until you die means you die when you’re eighteen”. Killing the “joke” is an interesting way of creating a silence the reader can no longer easily fill (this is not the joke you were expecting from a middle-aged man reflecting on aging). It takes a mundane anecdote to a more interesting state of imbalance. All in all, the quiet, slightly disjointed collection of essays manages to create these empty spaces regularly.

The dreamlike quality of Murakami’s best writing, however is mostly lost here. By dreamlike I don’t mean “ethereal”, but his collage approach to fiction. That’s of course probably to be expected with a book that doesn’t want to be fictional, but I was still a little let down  – I felt Murakami had been trying to channel his writing too vigorously, that he had let go of the “use your imagination” explicitly whispered to him by his instinct. There are a couple passages when that innate fantasy is perceptible (for instance when comparing himself to “Danton or Robespierre eloquently attempting to persuade the dissatisfied and rebellious Revolutionary Tribunal, [trying] to talk each body part into showing a little cooperation”, before remembering what happened to Danton and Robespierre; or when he repeatedly refers to global warming as a “villain”); but all in all, his unique way to feel seemed diluted. The rhythm of the writing still felt right in its flair for the right detail, for snappy titles and in the dialogue feel of the argument (I know nothing about Japanese literature so cannot form any kind of definite opinion on this, but it seems to me that there is a rhythm to American-English dialogue that informs Murakami’s writing – adverbs used as a conclusion at the end of a paragraph or as a sentence introduction, a sort of concessive balance of sentences often starting in “but” or “and”, a relaxed “whatever-ness”…).

I realize what I just wrote might seem fairly negative – not that it was a bad book, but in that it was not the best Murakami… Of course! And yet the book got me thinking for a couple of days, and I even got a copy for a friend who is a runner. Isn’t it strange how the more you read and try to think about your reading, the more layered and inconclusive your thinking seems to get?

(French. English. I’ll just do anything I can moving forward.)

Première phrase: “Si on ne croit pas à la prédestination, alors, il faut admettre que les circonstances d’une rencontre, que par facilité nous attribuons au hasard, sont en fait le résultat d’une incalculable suite de décisions, prises à chaque carrefour dans notre vie, et qui nous ont secrètement orientés vers elle.”

Catherine Millet, faut-il le rappeler, à fait scandale (et succès d’édition) avec sa Vie sexuelle de Catherine M., paru en 2001. J’avais bien aimé ce livre, malgré l’effet refroidissant que produisait l’accumulation d’aventures sexuelles ; il me semblait qu’il y avait un sous-texte, une armature formelle que je ne m’étais pas donnée la peine d’identifier, mais qui donnait une certaine qualité esthétique à l’ensemble, comme une sorte de trompe-l’oeil, l’impression que sous l’amas des corps se dessinait une émotion mal racontée et que donc j’étais libre d’imaginer. La sensation de dissociation, de flottement qui se dégageait du texte n’était pas très gaie, mais elle était intéressante.

Cette impression, je l’ai retrouvée avec Jour de souffrance, mais pas intacte. Elle est raffiné dans la première partie, Résumé, qui commence par un si et poursuit sur de longues théories qui semblent intelligentes mais ne vous laissent que fumée dans les mains. Le temps y revient en arrière, s’emboîte, se corrige, de nouveaux motifs apparaissent, se précisent, se délitent. Ces va-et-vient sont passionnants, techniquement admirables, et leurs décalages constants me sont plus intelligibles après le travail réalisé cette année sur la conscience et les motifs du temps et de la mémoire. Cette partie est, à première lecture, à peine compréhensible ; elle produit cependant l’effet libérateur d’une série de questions, d’un amas de photos floues, et constituent la matière du récit.

La suite du roman, en revanche, m’a laissée plus indifférente. Catherine Millet y relate la découverte par son alter ego des aventures de son compagnon et la souffrance masochiste qui l’envahit alors, au mépris de tous ses choix intellectuels de femme libérée, puis le long parcours pour dominer tant que faire se peut cette douleur. La narration, plus classique, se distingue surtout par son écriture d’une précision “blanche” quasi-impitoyable. La tentative d’honnêteté totale est bien sûr vouée à l’échec, dissoute dans l’indicible et l’animal, et cela est accepté. Le regard, cependant, reste d’une dureté glaciale. De plus, récit d’une obsession, l’écriture garde ce caractère hermétique de l’obsession, la faculté d’exclure celui à qui on la raconte, la faculté de se passionner pour “une incalculable suite de” détails sans grand intérêt, l’incapacité de vivre quoi que ce soit qui ne soit lu en relation avec son obsession. Il est fort possible que cela soit voulu : le résultat en est la même lassitude que l’on ressent à écouter quelqu’un ressasser toujours les mêmes idées.

On le voit, il y a matière intellectuelle dans ce livre ; cependant, sans doute suis-je trop “accro” d’une lecture émotionnelle pour m’y trouver tout à fait à l’aise. Je retrouve bien là une de ces immaturités de lectrice qui me rendent le XIXe siècle littéraire tellement plus naturel que les expérimentations formelles plus récentes… Un lecteur plus “adulte” y trouverait probablement mieux son compte que moi sur le plan du plaisir de lecture ! J’ai en revanche tiré un profit tout à fait personnel de la lecture dans le cadre de mon programme d’étude de cette année : la tentative de reconstitution de mouvements psychologiques ancrés dans le corporel, la jalousie, le voyeurisme, le souvenir, le “feuilletage” de l’être, autant de thèmes très proustiens — et d’ailleurs référence explicite est faite à ce cher Marcel.

Il est donc assez amusant que ce qui m’ait le moins intéressée soit le blabla introspectif qui se glisse sournoisement dans le récit — on a tant reproché à Proust d’être psychologisant, et c’est tellement absent de son oeuvre… On voit bien ici pourquoi, car le personnage n’est jamais si distant que lorsqu’il est expliqué, nous privant de toute chance de le comprendre en nos propres termes…

Dernière phrase (dans le Temps, dans le temps !) : “De temps à autre, il m’arrive encore de déplier un papier que Jacques a laissé traîner, — par réflexe.”

Simon, like Proust, is often seen as a difficult writer. His sentences are complex, run-on accumulations of words and tenses, modulated by numerous markers of subjectivity – like, as if, I think, I’d say, perhaps, etc. It’s a sentence that works hard to rid itself of conventional patterns of speech, or more accurately, of usual patterns of writing; things are presented in their immediacy, grammar is simplified, accumulation, association and digression abound.

This attempt at a more instinctive manner of communication is, of course, hard to read. We are used to texts being neatly put together, to rational explanation, to synthesis following analysis (or vice-versa, depending on culture). Used to, in short, a modicum of linearity. It is a well known human prejudice that we over-explain, draw conclusions where there is nothing but correlations, and guess correlations at the drop of a hat. Hence astrology, reading in entrails and people thinking they can predict the stock market based on some Fibonacci, pi or moon cycle-based formula.

But I digress.

Simon has a somewhat paradoxical project with La Route des Flandres (itself only a part of a biographical-related series of books). On the one hand, he is recreating a past experience (the trauma of World War II) in a more manageable form; on the other, he is trying to preserve the immediacy of it. To do this, he presents memories not in chronological order, but by way of associations. Here I must make a few side notes:

1. Cheating #1: Simon mentioned around that time the idea that memories present themselves to use not chronologically, but depending on their importance. That would imply sometimes, it seems to me, that you would jump from one thing to another without so much as the tenuous help of objective association. The sheer force of the affect should be justification enough. Simon never does that, though – there’s always some element linking one memory to the next. That’s a very Proustian way to go about things – a clump of related things, a huge nodes of sensations emerging in an otherwise pretty disjointed perception. Simon does indeed admire Proust and refer to him quite a bit.
2. Cheating #2: the book was in fact carefully reconstructed after a period of unstructured writing: Simon wrote a number of fragments which he then color-coded depending on the characters present in each. He organized the fragments to alternate colors – and that’s how the book was born.

This brings to mind the way I will write a dissertation given a limited amount of time: desperately scramble any idea that comes to mind on a piece of paper, then isolate a few themes, color code all rudimentary ideas, and shove them in each theme. Of course I’m doing the opposite of Simon (trying to bring together similar colors instead of trying to weave them through the course of the text); I’m amused to think that my draft paper might look more like his end product that my final dissertation.

Anyway – cheating or not, what Simon does is in fact remarkably successful. There’s a sort of indulgence, a sort of hypnosis that wants to lull you while you read the book, but every time you try to stop and think – the strands of meaning come undone, and you’re left feeling uncertain of where you are, what happened, and what Big Lessons you should take away. That last sentence would certainly make Simon very happy, but of course I’ll have to struggle with this in the context of academic learning. My plan of attack therefore is to start by focusing on the obsessions, the recurring motives of the book: horses, the mud, sexual desire, friends, suicide, etc. These are not really themes, more ornaments (at least at this stage, and in my mind), but we’ll see where they’ll take me.

I’m drowning in notes like these. Half a notebook of them.

Pages upon pages, summaries, thoughts, feelings, digressions. I feel like I’m beginning to get it, to understand how it works, but I’m not sure “I’m feeling it”. The magic of Combray — the first part of the first book in the In Search of Lost Time series — is long gone.

I’ve abandoned my excruciatingly slow reading pace for the end of Les jeunes filles (Within a Budding Grove), just so I could enjoy the text more, and as the narrative itself was picking up I had a really good time with it. I feel like I intellectually understand most of what the text is telling me, be it the story or the vision of Art, the importance of writing by one’s own vision, the filtering of reality which is not the weakness but the mark of a true artist; and yet I am still ill at ease.

(My apologies for the discombobulated post; it reflects my state of mind).

La Recherche is written by a narrator (which I’ll call Marcel, though that might be up for debate) largely inspired to Proust by himself — convoluted construction intentional. Proust was however adamant that the narrator was not him, and he indeed constructed Marcel’s life with noticeable divergences from his (and attributed other aspects of him to other characters). What is more, the narrator is telling his life through the prism of memories — something one could forget in the immediacy of the narration, but which obviously (the title says it well) is at the core of the novel. Memories and imaginations are so closely related as to be indistinguishable in Proust’s world… That is yet another caveat against taking the tale at face value.

Against this foggy background, Proust and Marcel both strongly assert that their only goal is to fish for these “deep truths” which reveal reality in the light of the creator’s idiosyncratic vision (careful, I’m reaching into my 50-cent words jar today!)

My problem is, I’m not sure I trust either of them.

For an “anti-intellectual” writer, one who wants to talk from the immediacy of sensations, Proust is incredibly wordy, and so theoretical that a lot of the material for his novel originates in earlier essays (gathered for the most part in the Against Sainte-Beuve collection I read along the novel). That’s the least of my worries: Proust’s interest with homosexuality and Jewish identity, for instance, are unquestionably genuine, but the incoherent ways he talks about them make me wonder whether he is honestly reflecting his inner conflicts or more simply lacks self-awareness in these matters. Another example might be in the romantic obsessions his young hero develops for unreachable girls. Is he depicting some true aspect of his romantic self (with a substitution of a “she” for a “he”, which I would not consider deception in the world of fiction); or is he just reflecting the cover-up lie he used for many years, when he pretended to be madly in love with women he could not have, to dispel any doubts as to his real sexuality?

These are some really big examples, and once these questions breach the trust between reader and writer/ narrator, everything else follows: by the end of his vacation in a chic hotel, was the initially rude lift operator really talkative, or is Marcel rearranging facts to claim one more social victory? Did the nobleman really stare at him unprovoked, or did he do something to attract attention? Did he really miss such train accidentally, or did he never really mean to follow through with his romanesque but unrealistic move? Am I meant to wonder about all this?

I’m hoping further volumes will help, but at that stage I feel like I’m trying to find my way by the moonlight in a beautiful, “Lewis Carollien” maze. I’m still unsure whether I like the feeling or not — but these sure are interesting times.