Scott McLemee may bite his thumb at Valentin Temkine, the French schoolteacher who claims to have cracked the Godot code, but I think he’s onto something:
Godot, whom Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for, is a Resistance smuggler, who is supposed to smuggle them out of occupied France into the Italian zone. The two of them are Jews on the run who come from Paris’ 11 arrondissement. They are probably waiting to be rescued in the spring of 1943 on the dry, limestone heights of the Southern Alps, somewhere like the Plateau de Valensole.
My French is terrible, but here, roughly, is what Temkine says:
Waiting for Godot is very nearly a fable of the occupation. People sleep in ditches and aren’t surprised to be beaten. A man and his servant, laden with possessions, are in flight from somewhere to somewhere. Everything was different “a million years ago, in the nineties.” And two people are to meet a third whom they know only by a single name, a code-name as it were; they don’t know why they’re to meet him, but it matters. If the assignation fails they’re to try again in 24 hours, meanwhile hanging about as inconspicuously as possible. It takes little insight to recognize details from some tale about Resistance groups[.]
Like I said, my French is terrible … which is why I quoted Hugh Kenner recapitulating the argument he first made in 1973′s A Reader’s Guide to Samuel Beckett. Few understand the compulsion to “make it new” better than Kenner — his best work embodies the ethos it describes — but enlivening moribund themes, forms or arguments entails more than mere repetition.
Because, as we all know, repetition breeds zombies. (The unenlivened dead arise, chase away the interlopers and hold mandatory office hours, &c.) Grouse away about Google eating brains, it should have a beneficial effect on the duplication of scholarly arguments. See?
[I planned on writing about someone declaring they can prove Homer was a woman, complete with links to Samuel Butler's The Authoress of the Odyssey (1897), but it turns out someone has already staked claim on my insufficiently absurd example. I'm not sure whether I feel chastened or depressed, but I do know that I don't know how to finish this post now. I should just stop. I can't go on. I'll go on. Or not.]


14 comments
June 20, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Vance Maverick
It struck me the other day that the classic monster movies of the ’50s might have embodied our political anxieties of the day.
June 20, 2008 at 2:20 pm
SEK
Much as I’d like to initiate some serial snark in which we all discover conventional wisdom — who am I kidding?
When I was writing my London chapter, I realized that Call of the Wild and White Fang are complimentary novels — one’s about the socializing power of civilization, the other the rapid degeneration that happens when society disappears.
This boldly novel reading will win me tenure.
June 20, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Fontana Labs
I was about to snark, then I recalled that my dissertation succeeded in putting an old debate from the 50s into contemporary terms without any additional content. I think DARPA invented a machine for that a few years ago.
June 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The Rothschilds
SEK:
Based on your novel reading of Jack London, we’re pleased to inform you that you’ve been granted tenure and promoted to the rank of super-duper-fullest-professor-ever. We trust that your future work on this subject will delve deeper into questions of anti-Semitism.
Yours,
The power behind the committee on conventional wisdom and academic success
June 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm
ari
Wow, that was fast.
June 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Vance Maverick
Strange, when I look at the upper left-hand column, I see two comments by Ari. And they say there’s no conspiracy!
June 20, 2008 at 3:00 pm
urbino
Every time an American uses French, the terrorists win.
June 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm
bitchphd
Well, it was new to *me*.
The London thing, though, I figured out when I was like 12. Sorry, SEK.
June 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm
SEK
Sorry, SEK.
No problem. Now that I have tenure, I don’t need your approval.
June 20, 2008 at 6:58 pm
John Emerson
Samuel Butler, like the vast majority of wrong-thinking people, was right. He made a fortune in New Zealand on sheep. He was sort of a gentleman, but not really. He was a confirmed bachelor. It was often or usually impossible to tell whether he was serious, for example about Homer being a woman.
June 20, 2008 at 8:00 pm
jim
Scott, I’m afraid, is right. There is a massive difference between the statements: (1) “Conditions under the occupation inform the mise en scène.” and (2) “The tramps are two Jews from the onzième waiting in the Southern Alps to be smuggled into Italy in 1943.” The first is unexceptionable; the second over the top.
Note that Kenner weasels: Godot “is very nearly a fable of the occupation.” Which means, I take it, that it isn’t actually a fable of the occupation, but that if one wanted to write one, one could use the characters, many of the scenes and even some of the language more or less unchanged.
June 20, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Kári Tulinius
Why the antagonism? Beckett was a member of the Resistance. That two scholars, decades apart, reach the same conclusion based on this well known biographical part. This seems, in retrospect, like a fairly obvious reading (though I never thought of it myself) but just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean that the merits and implications shouldn’t be examined. I mean, should Macbeth not be read from the theory that it was written to curry favor with the new Stuart monarch? More obscure interpretations aren’t necessarily better.
June 21, 2008 at 5:54 am
drip
Anti-antagonism (protagonism) and Anti-obscurantism will get you nowhere here, especially in a comment about a Beckett play.
June 27, 2008 at 10:03 am
Because I Wish To Go… « Accismus
[...] Iceland, Hotel Everland in Paris, surfing in the Amazon, Artists’ Playground at Sudeley Castle. [...]