Constant Reader discussion

This discussion will start on March 30. Yulia and I are looking forward to a spirited discussion, please join us!!!

What interested me most in rereading Krapp's last Tape was to see how my reaction to it at 28 compared to my reaction on first reading it at 19. At 19, my impression was, from what I remember, to mourn what Krapp had lost (someone he still clearly loved) but to dislike him for becoming bitter and stubborn and remaining proud instead of learning from his experiences who and what mattered to him and trying to change his life in the present.

At that time, I didn't think of how my own age and experiences affected my reading of the play. I assumed how I saw it was how it was "meant" to be seen and understood, that time wouldn't or shouldn't change such things.

Last night, after my initial frustration with the play (and my being baffled at how I could have understood such a muddled, obscure piece at 19), I realized that what I was reading was literally a different play from the one I'd read at 19. At first I doubted my memory (was my ability to parse out nuances so much clearer at 19?) but then on reading about how Beckett constantly edited the play for different productions, I saw that what I'd read this time wasn't the official version I'd read at 19 but an earlier version he'd written. What I read didn't have a date for when it was produced, so I don't know at what stage in Krapp's incarnation the one I just read came out or where Beckett was in his own life, but here I was getting older while the play was getting younger.

My reaction to Krapp this time? I no longer look down on the 69-year-old Krapp for not being able to change his life. Instead, I look at it with regret but see how common it is in others and know it's something I simply have to accept, that there's no use being frustrated with someone who doesn't want to change himself. I can't say if this is progress, but I know I see things differently now from how I did at 19.

How do you think your current place in life affects your reading of the play? And if you've read it before, has your reading of it changed?

By the way, there are hilarious analysis of the play on Wikipedia. It was noted on the structure, The dichotomy of light and dark … is central to Manichaean doctrine … Its adherents believed that the world was ruled by evil powers, against which the god of the whole of creation struggled as yet in vain … Krapp is in violation of the three seals or prohibitions of Manichaenism for the elect: the seal of the hands, forbidding engagement in a profession, the seal of the breast against sexual desire, and the seal of the mouth, which forbids the drinking of wine … Beckett [however:] seems to have known no more about Manichaenism than is contained in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which he possessed." Who knew we were assumed to know everything in every book in our possession, including our reference books.

And then, "Bananas contain pectin, a soluble fiber that can help normalise movement through the digestive tract and ease constipation. Bananas can also aggravate constripation especially in young children. It depends what the root cause of the problem is. They are also high in Vitamins A and C as well as niacin, riboflavin and thiamine and one of the root causes of Korsakoff's Syndrome is thiamine deficiency; eating bananas would be good for him." I feel such readings of the play are missing the forest for the banana fallen from a tree.

Yulia:

I hear your frustrations with this play. I think it might have been easier to see than to read. But you are right, there are too many people uninterested in change. This was my first reading of the play. I found it quite depressing.

There are productions of it available on youtube, but I found when i first studied Beckett and saw several of his plays on tape that I appreciated them more in the written form, though that may be sacrilegious to admit. What I hoped most to find but wasn't able to was Harold Pinter's performance of it the year before he passed away.

I didn't ind the play as depressing as I did nine years ago, perhaps because I'm fed up with an acquaintance who is always unhappy with life and can never appreciate what he has. It would be tragic if he knew who he was but couldn't change it, but I don't think he can know who he is or even what he wants. They both hide from their emotions and their constant self-examination lends them no useful understanding of themselves or others. They're disconnected from reality and can now only wait for death to ease their frustration with life. But is Beckett suggesting Krapp ended up this way because he put work before love? Can the message be so prosaic?