To show the relationship between devising and reporting in Molloy, we start from an often quoted passage where the fictional nature of Molloy’s report appears to be explicitly exposed:
So I saw A and C going slowly towards each other, unconscious of what they were doing. It was on a road remarkably bare, I mean without hedges or ditches or any kind of edge, in the country, in the evening silence. Perhaps I’m inventing a little, perhaps embellishing, but on the whole that’s the way it was. They chew, swallow, then after a short pause effortlessly bring up the new mouthful. A neck muscle stirs and the jaws begin to grind again. But perhaps I’m remembering things. The road, hard and white, seared the tender pastures, rose and fell at the whim of hills and hollows.44
Molloy, after having announced and delayed the beginning of his story, finally appears to start it off with the statements, ‘I saw A and C’, ‘It was a road remarkably bare’. At this stage, we do not know yet what type of story Molloy is going to tell. We do not know yet that Molloy’s story will turn out to be the report of his quest for his mother, hence, at this stage, the focus on A and C could well be the preannounced beginning of Molloy’s story. The identification of this passage as the incipit of Molloy’s story is further facilitated by other features of the passage. The initial ‘so’ gives the (misleading)
169 impression that Molloy is about to tell something connected to what he has just said and, given that he was reflecting on his present situation, the ‘so’ gives the impression that the ‘I’ of ‘So I saw A and C going…’ is Molloy, and that he is remembering an event from the past. The story of A and C is hence one that Molloy has witnessed in the past, and one which now Molloy is reporting.
However, the third and the sixth sentences provide a different view on the illocutionary acts performed by Molloy: ‘Perhaps I’m inventing a little, perhaps embellishing, but on the whole that’s the way it was’, ‘But perhaps I’m remembering things’. Molloy lists four possible options that might help the reader identifying the nature of his storytelling: (i) inventing, (ii) embellishing, (iii) ‘on the whole that’s the way it was’, and (iv) remembering. Amongst the options considered for individuating the action that the narrator is performing, three are explicitly named – (i), (ii), and (iv) –, and another is implied – (iii). Molloy, by listing these possible activities, casts a shadow on the veracity of his story and on the illocutionary acts that he is performing in telling it. What first appeared as a story that Molloy was remembering from the past, now could well be Molloy’s own invention.
The first action, (i) inventing, and the fourth (iv) remembering, at first glance, exclude one another. Take what the OED considers to be the “chief current sense” of the verb ‘invent’: “To find out in the way of original contrivance; to create, produce, or construct by original thought or ingenuity, to devise first, originate (a new method of action, kind of instrument, etc.)”.45 To invent is to create, to produce,
to devise. To remember, on the other hand, excludes to create, to produce, to devise. To remember a fact is to recall or recollect a fact, to call it back from memory, whereas if one where to create, produce or devise a fact, one would it make it anew. To invent - as used to mean create, produce, devise - might include some acts of remembering, as recollection. However, it would be only to create something different of what recollected from memory. Said in other words, if one invents x, it might do it with the help of recollecting y and z. But he would not be inventing y and z. On the other hand, remembering y cannot be done by inventing y, it might be done by way of inventing x, and x prompting to remember y. When we discussed authority, we based some of our considerations on this exclusion. For example, when in ‘The Expelled’, the narrator checks the plausibility (“that makes sense”) of what he says or stipulates the setting of some events (“I place this conversation”),46 we said that the illocutionary act
performed changed from reporting to devising. There was a twist from perceiving the story as recollection to invention. However, in Molloy, the shifts that take place at the level of the illocutionary acts are not a matter of simple twists of this type. As said there is more subtlety in Molloy: the actions (remembering and inventing), which appeared to be sharply separated, are often held together.47 In this
45 Oxford English Dictionary, "Invent, V." (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 46 Beckett, ‘The Expelled’, p. 13.
47 Christopher Rick’s scepticism against reductive interpretations of Beckett’s works, i.e. those interpretations according to which Beckett’s works are merely stating that every statements about the world is fictional, chimes with our considerations here. See Ricks, Beckett's Dying Words: The Clarendon Lectures 1990, pp. 145-152. Describing the movement in Molloy as oscillatory is to show that though reality and fiction are shown to be terms that do not exclude each other; they are not reducible
170 section, we argue that the connection between these actions could be evinced already from looking at the four options listed by Molloy. In the next section, we shall show the subtlety present in Molloy by looking at the illocutionary acts performed by passages of the text.
(i) Inventing and (iv) remembering are at the two extremes of the range of the actions that Molloy says he might be performing. The sharp divide between these two extremes fades when their relations to the other two actions in the range is analysed. As said, one other action is named explicitly (ii) embellishing, and the other is left implicit (iii) ‘on the whole that’s the way it was’.
Let us start from (ii) embellishing. On the one hand, (ii) appears closer to (i) inventing than to (iv) remembering. To remember in the context of literary works is to report something from memory. On the other hand, to embellish is figuratively used, the OED says, “with the sense to ‘dress up, heighten with fictitious additions”.48 Thus in narrative, the more one adds fiction to embellish, the less one is
remembering or mentioning the fact. Rather, one is mentioning a fictitious version of the fact. The more one embellishes x, one would say, the more one invents x.
On the other hand, (ii) embellishing and (i) inventing have some points of divergence. Whilst embellishing, as inventing, involve fictional elements (to embellish is “to beautify with adventitious adornments; to ornament”),49 the action of embellishing requires something, an object, to be
embellished: something that was already existent before the embellishment. In this sense embellishing diverges from inventing (given that when one invents, one creates something anew) and gets closer to remembering.
Whilst (ii) embellishing makes the divide between (i) inventing and (iv) remembering less sharp by looking at the fictional additions, the action (iii) ‘on the whole that’s the way it was’ reduces the divide from a different route. Let us first understand what action (iii) is describing.
In contrast to (i), (ii) and (iv), Molloy does not name explicitly action (iii). At first sight, one could take (iii) to be simply an indication that Molloy in telling the story is performing the act of remembering. If this was the case, Molloy, by saying (iii) ‘on the whole that’s the way it was’, would be saying something along the lines of ‘on the whole that’s the way it was, I remember’. In this scenario, (iii) and (iv) amount to the same action. There are, however, reasons to doubt this.
Firstly, (iv) is introduced by a ‘but’: ‘but perhaps I am remembering’. The ‘but’ introduces something that is in opposition towhat precedes it. Thus (iv) remembering is presented as an option different from those already offered, amongst which there is (iii). Secondly, that (iii) is not merely remembering can be seen if (iii) is placed back in its context: ‘perhaps I’m inventing a little, perhaps embellishing, but on
one to the other either. Our position chimes with Ricks’ commentary in his conclusion, not in his criticism of the specific critical works quoted.
48 Oxford English Dictionary, "Embellish, V." (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 49 Ibid.
171 the whole that’s the way it was’. (iii) is not given as a mere alternative to (i) and (ii). (iii) is an option notwithstanding (i) and (ii). Molloy is saying that, even if it was the case that he (i) is inventing or (ii) embellishing, the things were as he is claiming them to be. The narrator stipulates that the things were as he is saying. He decides that ‘on the whole’, what he is saying it was the case, it was indeed the case. Let us look at the relationship of (iii) stipulating with the other acts. ‘Stipulating’ is an act that involves creativity. Stipulating could be creating something, and this seems to take it closer to (i) inventing as well as farther away from (iv) remembering. However, (iii) stipulating that something is the case differs from (i) inventing that something is the case, given that stipulating involves deciding that something is the case, where inventing does not. Stipulating that x is y is different from merely devising y.
Finally, the distance between (i) inventing and (iv) remembering becomes less sharp if other meanings of the verb ‘to invent’ and ‘to remember’ are taken into account. Inventing might not be as far from remembering as we have pictured it at the beginning if one takes in account what, for the OED, is an obsolete meaning of the verb ‘invent’: “to come upon, find; to find out, discover”.50 To invent is then,
sometimes, to find out something, to discover something. Seen from this angle, ‘inventing’ loses the creative side, making it a step closer to remembering. On the other hand, ‘remembering’ could be read as re-member, i.e. as putting together components. To remember gains thus a creative, or at least crafting, side, taking it a step closer to ‘inventing’. This connection seems to be stressed by Molloy himself:
Saying is inventing. Wrong, very rightly wrong. You invent nothing, you think you are inventing, you think you are escaping, and all you do is stammer out your lesson, the remnants of a pensum one day got by heart and long forgotten, life without tears, as it is wept. To hell with it anyway.51
The ambiguity between the acts performed by Molloy are present throughout the novel. This oscillation can take place at the level of the sentence as well as at a larger level. Look for example at this sentence:
The air was sharp, for they wore greatcoats.52
This sentence contains an ambiguity which, at a superficial level, looks innocuous. The ambiguity plays out in two different readings of the sentence:
(a) The air was sharp and, for this reason, they wore greatcoats. (b) They wore greatcoats then the air was sharp.
At first glance, the original sentence appears to be describing the situation of A and C. Particularly, the pieces of information that the sentence aims to convey are two: that the air was sharp and that A and C wore greatcoats. The success of the sentence in conveying these two pieces of information does not depend on what interpretation one privileges.
50 Dictionary, "Invent, V.". 51 Beckett, Molloy, p. 29. 52 Ibid., p. 5.
172 The ambiguity is, however, more problematic if the attention is moved onto the acts performed by such a sentence. The illocutionary act of describing is not the only act performed by the above sentence. In both the interpretations, two elements (‘the air was sharp’ and ‘they wore greatcoats’) are put into a relationship and in both the interpretations these elements are linked through abduction. Thus, in both cases, Molloy is performing the illocutionary acts of describing and abducing. However, what is part of the description and what is part of the abduction differs from one interpretation to the other, as it differs from the illocutionary act that Molloy is performing. As a consequence, from one interpretation to the other, the status of the narrative changes. Let us go in order and look closer at the two interpretations. In the interpretation (a) ‘the air was sharp’ and ‘they wore greatcoats’ are both premises for the conclusion ‘the air was sharp, for they wore greatcoats’. ‘The air was sharp’ and ‘they wore greatcoats’ are both datum that prompts the abduction. Given that Molloy has said that he is witnessing the scene that he is describing, in uttering the two datum, Molloy is performing the illocutionary act of describing. By contrast, the illocutionary act of abducing consists of joining the two pieces of data in a relation where the second term (‘they wore greatcoats’) depends on the first one (‘the air was sharp’). To say it differently, the act of abducing consists of concluding that the second term of the relation depends on the first one.
Things are different when the sentence is interpreted as in (b) ‘they wore greatcoats then the air was sharp’. ‘They wore greatcoats’ is here the single premise, and the conclusion is ‘the air was sharp’. In uttering the premise, the speaker is describing; whereas in uttering the conclusion he is abducing. In this second interpretation the only datum from experience is ‘they wore greatcoat’. The information that the air was sharp, in (b) as opposed to in (a), is not part of the description, and this is at odd with what we know about the situation. Indeed, if Molloy is witnessing the situation because he is in the same environment of A and C, he should be able to see that ‘they wore greatcoats’ and feel that ‘the air was sharp’.
The position of authority of Molloy is then questioned too. Is Molloy remembering the scene he had witnessed, in which case (a) should be preferred to (b)? Or is he embellishing the scene, by adding the connection between the two relata in (a) for example? Or is he inventing (as in finding out starting from available information) the scene? Thus in (b) the conclusion would be invented starting from the available premise. Or is he tout court stipulating, in which case the premises too would be performing that action?
The elements that Molloy provides are not enough to settle these questions and provide answers for them. These different options for what Molloy is doing are co-present and, by contrast to what happens in cases of illocutionary twists, they do not appear to block one the others. Thus, although it is true that the nature and veracity of Molloy’s report (and perhaps, generalising, of fiction) is one of the themes of
173 In the next section, by challenging our set of tools with longer and more complex sections of text, we try to capture some of their pivotal elements. In particular, we draw attention to the fact that the co- presence of the different possible (and not mutually exclusive) interpretations of the illocutionary acts performed gives way to movements that we describe as ‘oscillations’.
4.4.2 Oscillations
The ambiguity between different interpretations of the illocutionary acts performed in Molloy takes place at a larger scale. In contrast to what can be seen with twists, this ambiguity is not between interpretations that block one the others. In Molloy, it is the case that sequences of illocutionary acts in paragraphs are such that elements that are later in the sequence calls for the re-evaluation of elements that come earlier on, giving to the experience of reading Molloy an oscillatory movement. Take the incipit of Molloy:
I am in my mother’s room. It’s I who live there now. I don’t know how I got there. Perhaps in an ambulance, certainly a vehicle of some kind. I was helped. I’d never have got there alone. There’s this man who comes every week. Perhaps I got here thanks to him. He says not. He gives me money and takes away the pages.53
There are two movements, at the level of acts performed, that can be described in this passage. Firstly, there is movement from describing to conjecturing and vice versa. Secondly, there is a movement from live description/conjecture to narration and vice versa.
Let us start with the first movement and look at it at the level of sentences. The passage opens with a voice describing its situation: ‘I am in my mother’s room. It’s I who live there now. I don’t know I got there now.’ Three short sentences that perform the same action - describing - and which have different subject matters. The first sentence is about the location of the ‘I’, the second sentence is about the situation of the ‘I’, and the third sentence is about what the ‘I’ knows (or does not know) of his present situation. However, this last sentence introduces some degree of uncertainty (the speaking ‘I’ claims to not knowing how he ended up in his room), giving way to a different type of illocutionary act and setting in motion the illocutionary oscillation towards the act of ‘conjecturing’. The third sentence calls for an explanation and aptly, the following sentence is a conjecture (‘perhaps in an ambulance, certainly a vehicle of some kind’). Molloy moves from the illocutionary act of describing to the illocutionary act of conjecturing. The certainty with which this conjecture ends, however, appears to set the illocutionary act performed back to ‘describing’, and, accordingly, the next two sentences have an affirmative tone: ‘I was helped. I’d never got there alone’. However, the openness introduced by the presence of a conjecture has not left the act of describing unaffected. In contrast with the certainty that closes off the conjecture, the description has become cautious: ‘I’d never have got there alone’ as opposed to ‘I did not get there alone’. The description resumes its strength at the end of the paragraph, (‘There is this man who comes every week’), and the successive conjecture (‘perhaps I got here thanks to him’) does not
174 affect the incoming description, which is based on external testimony (‘he says not. He gives me money and takes away the pages’).
The sequence of acts just described could, at first glance, be described as an alternation. The voice alternates from illocutionary acts of describing to illocutionary acts of conjecturing. Not differently from Lucky who, in Waiting for Godot, wears his thinking hat to perform his monologue,54 Molloy
would alternately wear the describing hat and the conjecturing hat. However, presenting the sequence above as an alternation is not accurate. Consider again the first conjecture: ‘Perhaps in an ambulance, certainly a vehicle of some kind’. We said that this sentence starts as a conjecture and ends with certainty, which leads to interpret the sentences which follow it as cautious descriptions. This conjecture seems to be answering the question: ‘How could one get to a room?’ The conjecture could then be read as answering that what is certain is that one gets from one point to another using a vehicle, and an ambulance, being a vehicle of locomotion, can be an option (and a comic option, not being the first that one would have thought).
But what type of certainty is manifested here? It could be the certainty that derives from facts and description of facts. In such case the certainty would depend on information that is left implied. Perhaps Molloy’s mind is not completely blank about how he got to his room - perhaps he has some memory of it. In this case what is left implied is something along the line of: ‘I am certain that was a vehicle because I remember that I got here on a vehicle’. If the certainty is of this kind, then what starts off as a conjecture