Beckett’s Metarrhetoric

Abstract

There is, to be sure, sure enough about those things that one can ever be sure of, that there is no such thing as an anti-novel. This literary alogism so popular with many ‘cntitics’ is erroneous. That is to say, amurcous. Antilogous. It is a critical shibboleth, not unlike the term ‘postmodernism,’ that indicates to the reader that the writer knows the proper shibboleth even though the shibboleth is quite vacuous. John Fletcher, in writing about Samuel Beckett’s novels, defines the ‘anti-novel’ as a text that refuses to take either the world or itself seriously and generally, though not always, sets out to burlesque and debunk some contemporary or near-contemporary that does. Without mentioning whether or not Samuel Beckett takes the world or his texts seriously, Mr. Fletcher’s definition, however doesn’t define what such an anti-text is. What it looks like. In other words, is the anti-novel a novel even though it is not a novel or is it something else? If the former, the point is moot. If the latter, just what is it? Under his definition Eugene Onegin would have to be an anti-novel as would Tristram Shandy. But how would one write an anti-novel if Tristram Shandy were the model to debunk? Perhaps, one ‘debunks’ Tristram Shandy by writing a Realistic novel.