My starting point with Beckett is the Grove Press centenary edition, which brings together a large portion of his work. It includes the three novels of the Trilogy: Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable, as well as dramatic works, short prose, poetry, and a few pieces of criticism. It is not complete, but it offers the necessary core. I have returned to the Trilogy, this time reading it alongside a friend. Shared reading, when it works, alters what is seen.
Beckett’s distrust of biography is well known, and much of the critical writing around his work is either overly reverent or descriptive. Still, I find myself drawn toward the surrounding texts. There are writers who resist context. Beckett is not one of them. The difficulty is not whether to read around the work, but what to read.
I have begun with James Knowlson’s biography, which seems to hold its place among the others. There is also Disjecta, which collects some of the marginal writings and fragments Beckett did not fully gather. And then there are the letters, which I plan to read in sections. They form their own kind of narrative, not coherent, but carefully chosen.
Beyond that, I have noted a set of critical and biographical works that might be worth reading. These are not guides, and I am not looking for interpretation. I want those few works that help thinking remain close to the text. Not works that explain Beckett, but those that allow the reading to continue.
Among them: Hugh Kenner’s studies, particularly the early ones. Maurice Blanchot’s short essay. Christopher Ricks on the late prose. Essays by Martha Nussbaum and Simon Critchley that briefly touch Beckett through other concerns. Books that study the writing without enclosing it. The list is long, and it will take time to refine. I expect many of the titles will prove unnecessary, but it is still useful to see how others have approached the same questions. At this stage, the aim is not to assemble a library but to avoid narrowing the work too quickly.
Christopher Ricks – Beckett’s Dying Words is a full length book worth adding.
Beckett himself said that Blanchot’s “Where now? Who now?”, a review-essay of the trilogy, was for him (quoting a letter from memory) “the biggest thing”. It’s in various editions but “The Book to Come” is the standard location.
Thanks, Steve, both look fascinating.
This is likely to be such a useful resource for me, Anthony – thanks for getting the conversation and list started! Revisiting Molloy is getting me curious to know more (anything) about Beckett’s life, and I like Kenner’s criteria of encouraging thought rather than providing explanation.
I’m torn between reading all the primary work first, or Knowlson’s biography. Normally I won’t read secondary sources until I’ve read the essential works. I may read the biography after the Trilogy.
I like Knowlson a lot, he is a great source for anyone studying Beckett.
Here are some additions to your list:
1. Saying I No More, Daniel Katz
2. Samuel Beckett, photographs by John Minihan
3. Samuel Beckett, Gerry Dukes (Overlook Illustrated Lives)
Thank you, Sigrun, for the suggestions and for visiting my blog.
Katz takes a similar position to Simon Critchley arguing for the view that ‘that the expression of voicelessness in Beckett is not silence.’ Sounds essential.
The chapter on Beckett in Martin Esslin’s ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ is worth reading. While it does make the association of Beckett and the Absurd which Beckett would reject, this chapter does, in the words of SB himself ‘raise many hares without pursuing them too far’; almost paraphrasing Hugh Kenner.
Also of merit – I think – is J.P. Little’s guide to En Attendant Godot and Fin de Partie, which is part of the Grant and Cutler Critical Guide Series. It’s an incredibly short text and seeks too to simply flag up the various antagonisms in Beckett’s work without overworking them.
While both of these texts principally focus on the plays, there is a lot of cross contamination, with both Little and Esslin exploring how themes present in the plays are often more explicit in his novels.
Hope this helps (awesome blog by the by),
Thanks, Josh, for the kind words and suggestions.
I have the Esslin on my list to check out, so good to have confirmation that the Beckett chapter is enlightening. The Little book also looks interesting.
What about Gontarski, Badiou, Levy and Gibson? I’ve not read any of them, but many are those praising them. Badiou and Gibson’s readings strongly differs from those of the poststructuralist and deconstructionist readings.
As far as the last approaches are concerned there’s Begam’s “The end of modernity”, Uhlmann’s “Beckett and poststructuralism” and S.Connor’s studies on Beckett. Boulter also seems to point in that direction.
A good book on Beckett – both a readable and enjoying one – is Boulter’s guide for the Perplexed on Beckett.
I’m looking forward to read Ricks’ book as it was mentioned by many to be one of the best – if not the best – critic study on Beckett.
Another interesting book seems to be Adam Piette’s.
Thank you very much, Luigi, without exception all great additions to this list.
Rick’s book has a wonderful reputation. It is still on my to-read stack.
Piette’s book looks fascinating, and I really ought to read Badiou’s book.
Ricks’ book’s reputation is well-deserved, Anthony. A marvelous book.
Kenner’s A Reader’s Guide to Samuel Beckett is superb. incidentally, Kenner is the only author of The Stoic Comedians. Davenport is listed as illustrator. Also an excellent book.
Thanks, Richard, for the correction. Since writing the original list a couple of years ago, I’ve read both and agree they are both outstanding.
oh, you’ve read the Reader’s Guide? I didn’t see it on the list, otherwise I wouldn’t have said anything… it is good though, isn’t it?
O, no, sorry, I thought you were referring to Grove’s critical study, also by Kenner and excellent. I now see the difference. I’ll add it to the list. Thanks, Richard.
I’ve read Kenner’s Guide and part of his Critical Study and I have to say although the first one is an overall good introduction to Beckett, his critical study seemed to me much more interesting, focusing on specific topics.
As for the rest I would be interested in reading Connor and Gontarski’s books. Have you read “The intent of undoing in Beckett”?
No, I haven’t, but from what I can see of Gontarski’s work, it looks very interesting.
Don’t snooze on Adorno’s essay “Trying to understand endgame.” I’ve been working on Beckett for about a year and it’s the best piece of commentary on Beckett I’ve found to date.
Thanks, Patrick, Adorno is very insightful on Beckett, though Beckett didn’t always agree with his analysis, which, of course, doesn’t make it wrong.
Mark Nixon, Daniel Albright (the latter for for Sam’s aesthetics). Mark Nixon’s work is exemplary and full of good things. “Beckett’s Books” by Matthew Feldman is also well worth your time, working the same ground as Mark Nixon. Albright’ deployment of theory is judiciously synthesised and never allowed to overburden or derail in to greedy opportunism and vacancy. Badiou,s Beckett is wonderful and full of love, whilst his philosophy is for me wholly irresponsible, his book is energised in a way that Gibson’s is not. These along with the letters of course, and the Cronin bio isn’t to be overlooked, but saying again, after Ricks and Piette, Mark Nixon.
Thanks, excellent suggestions, all of which I look forward to following up (eventually).