It is an observation culled from a note that carries over from one page to the next and in its spilling over displays some of the processes at work in the description.
It is perhaps worth noticing that as soon as a different text is brought into the discussion […] it acts as an opening of the floodgates and admits a host of other related texts. This is in part testimony to certain continuing concerns in Beckett’s work which almost become motifs, yet it also proses problems for the critic. If one were to follow every associative link across a large array of texts one would be closer to providing a concordance than an interpretation. As a critic, one feels that one either writes too little or too much, and never, simply, enough.
Of course associative links require interpretation to be established. Would a concordance be a simple listing of the location of markers for the interpretations? Aren’t interpretations built up from concordance? The arrow may work the other way. How else to identify motifs? Never single. Always multiple. Sometimes simple.
Quotation from Paul Stewart Zone of Evaporation: Samuel Beckett’s Disjunctions. Who in my reading writes simply enough to elucidate the complexities of flood control.
And so for day 1353