A Reading Biography

However I would tell it, my ‘reading biography’ would lead only to the point where reading fell into itself like a waterfall: where I met books whose surface lacked the left-right and top-down direction that drew the eye across the pages. It was not that my eyes stopped scanning, or that the pages stopped turning, but rather that reading was in some vital sense suspended – that meaning, as it would be born from the page, was turned into a kind of wandering, across the same pages that drew my eyes across them.

Reading and non-reading, both at once – I read, now, in response to what fascinated me in the interval into which reading, meaning seemed to plunge. It was books in which I’d find that same plunging that I sought – books as they were ringed around a waterfall, the fall of reading into itself. A reading-adventure that has continued to this day, with sudden openings – the discovery of the work of an author new to me (Ford, McCarthy) and blockages – say, my recent reading of Handke’s Crossing the Sierra de Gredos, about which I wholly concur with Steve, or the bloated circus-tent of Sebald’s Austerlitz: books gone wrong somehow – in each case, an author parodies himself; he has become grand, indulged, a prominent man of letters writing his magnum opus … What boredom! Bernhard, say always had the sense never to fall into that trap, and Blanchot never relaxed his vigilance. And think of Duras, writing all the way up to death …

Still, there is the surprise that I would never involve myself in the clash between what is called literary and what is called genre fiction (I was always a reader of science fiction) – or feel a proud vindication, seeing Ballard revered, or Dick; or Crowley receiving his due, or Wolfe (the early Wolfe, up to 1983 or so …) But also a kind of reassurance – a reading-confidence that allows me to pick up and put down a book forever whose first page I find disagreeable. Do I know what I want? I know, rather what I don’t want and can happily lead myself by my own hand past the walls of books in a bookshop.

Still, there is no question but that I should have abandoned the Handke earlier – and have given up Austerlitz almost at once. Misplaced faith – an author can go wrong, can take a wrong turn, and the worst one is into the magnum opus, the massive book, the authoratitive book, that would draw all the strands of an authorship together. Laughter: Mishima was right to make his magnum opus, if that was what it was, from four separate novels; or perhaps he’d learnt his lesson from Kyoto’s House, as I understand that book from his biographer’s accounts.

Many of my admired authors have a small pallette of concerns, of moods, of characterisation, of plot. A small palette, painting dark grey on black – but that is enough, for it is in the wearing away of plot, of character, in the exacerbation of mood that I find I can discover that kind of non-reading, the inward waterfall that draws me to its edge.

Bergman complained Tarkovsky came to make Tarkovsky films – but then the same can be said of Bergman, whose characters often have the same surname and run uneasily into one another. Bernhard writes Bernhard books, and Duras, and Blanchot … they may seem to concentrate themselves into an idiom, making themselves dense, but it is rather a wearing away that they accomplish and that is their accomplishment: idioms worn out, idioms stretched finely over nothing.

Duras characters, say, weep too much; Bernhard’s intellectuals are all exactly the same, and write the same way; and with Blanchot – like Beckett – the sense that the books, lined up, constitute one long line of research, an exercise – but in a kind of authorial disappearance. To say, ‘I’m not here’; to let writing be present, to present itself; to let language thicken and congeal there where plot and characterisation seem to wear themselves away to nothing.

A reader’s biography. Regret as I read Kundera’s The Curtain, and know the books he commends are too rich for my tastes; they show too much, these epics, these big narratives. I want the door of fiction to open only a chink; I do not want a fictional world, but only a portion thereof. Green’s Concluding, say. Echinoz’s Ravel. I don’t think much of my taste, which seems to have become obsessional. How did I lead myself into this dead end?, I ask myself. How did I come up against this closed door? But then I am glad for my obsessive’s confidence – that a bookshop, a library, is something I can navigate, that I have a faculty of judgement by which I can claim or dismiss a book, even it sometimes goes awry.

What am I looking for as I read?, I ask myself. The opposite of a mirror. A surface that refuses me. A page written as though under glass. Can I read? Am I reading? But sentences, nevertheless, that draw me with them – a kind of suspense even in the absence of intrigue. A suspended reading – not boredom, but – what? A wandering of reading in itself. A kind of plunge, Niagra’s horseshoe of water plunging, roaring. 

Dying in Death

To give life to a book – to render it vivid, exciting; to let reading rush quickly over its pages, and run breathless to its end. A book is made of words, dead things, or things that depend on a kind of death – negation, the departure from its referents. Then its life is only a simulacrum of living; its vivacity is borrowed.

The writer-virtuoso can let a fictional world quiver into life. Above the book like a hologram: a world, a plot, characters. But what of the non-virtuoso for whom nothing quivers up? What of the writer who would plunge death into a dying that never permits of the making of a fictional world?

Dying lays down in death. The words no longer speak of the world, and the book is a surface. You can read, but what is it that you read? You eyes pass over a surface, but what is it over which they pass? A frozen space; a glass. Reading suspended in reading. Reading lost in reading. Where has your attention wandered? Over what blind surface is it lost?

The Doorway

The page as a doorway. The page the gate that swings the book open. Walk with me, says the book. A rich and fleshed-out fictional world is conjured; a plot that excites you; characters about whom you care. The book is a path.

But what, now, when the doorway opens onto another door? Or is it the door that you read – the page as the door, that forbids you access? And now imagine the narrative, a fictional world, a plot, characters, that are written as against that door, who are only as real as your bright room reflected in a night-black mirror: turn off the light, and they are gone. Turn it off, and there is only the night.

Wanting-to-Say

A sentence wants to be written. Which sentence? ‘A sentence wants to be written’. What does it mean to invoke the wanting-to-say of words? ‘I would like you to write me’, say that. ‘I would like to be written’ – who speaks? Language – but as it turns from what you would want it to say. Language, now, without the ‘I’ at its centre. Unoccupied, murmuring, concerned with itself – but it asks, still to be written.

‘Write me. Let me be written, so that I can return to myself on the page’. Why does language ask for this detour? Why must it exist in order to suspend itself from existence? ‘I want to disappear. Write me so that I can disappear’.

Disappearance – there are words, to be sure. One sentence, another, that you can read, and that make sense. But is there a way of letting their meaning fall from itself? A way of turning meaning aside, of sending it on a detour? Then reading and not-reading would exist both at once.

‘Read me; but you cannot read me. Draw close to me, and I will retreat’. I would like to come close to you, say that. I would like to be able to read you. Why is it, as I read, that the page seems to turn its face away from me? Why does the page turn, gazing only into itself? ‘I am not here’, says the page. I am here and not here, both at once.

The Post-Its

‘Buy bleach’. Notes written to yourself. Notes you forgot you sent to yourself. They crossed time without you. A few days – and there they are, notes on yellow post-its, some faded, some older than a few days.

‘Buy bleach’ – did you remember to buy bleach? Did you remember to remember? Because you’ve written a second note, ‘buy bleach’. A second note on a less faded post-it.

The light falls on them there, the post-its with their bottom edges curling upwards, aslant from the window above the door. Falls and fades them like the fading of memory: did you remember to remember? Did you remember to buy bleach?

The Hallway

Catch sight of yourself in the mirrored door of the bathroom cabinet. Catch sight – there, the door opened and turned to the hallway, and you coming up the hallway (not far, a single step, a step and a half).

What did you see? A grey teeshirt, a face, and darkness behind. What time is it? Night, the depths of night. Night falling away within night. I can’t sleep. Who is it that cannot sleep?

A teeshirt and a face, unexpectedly. I am in the corridor, it’s me – it took time to see that. Coming up the corridor, one step, another – time and an interstice in time, as I forgot who it was, and who was seeing.

The Corner

In the corner of the bathroom, up to the right – the paper stripped away to plaster, and the plaster darkened from an old leak, and then the plaster too stripped away. A breeze block of some sort, and it too darkened. It’ll have to be repaired. New plaster for the corner, and then painted over.

I’m being watched from that corner, that’s what I imagine. Watched – from the wall, and from the other side of the wall. The mystery of the flat is concentrated there. The flat, falling through time, falling through me, speaks to me there in long, slow words that will not finish.

Apocalypse – when will you see things are they are? When will you be seen as you are? There before the corner. There, seen by the corner’s eye. Seen, unseen. Seen by what forgets you, and does not see.

The Fact of Language

Language cannot appear as what it is; it cannot speak itself, the fact of its own communication; it cannot reach back into its own origin. It comes in every other guise than itself – in a fiction, for example, in the form of incident, of character. But how, nevertheless, to join writing to writing? How to let a fiction speak – provisionally, hintingly – of what language is?

By doubling, in the narrative, the what-it-is of the world – for the same dissimulation rules its coming-to-appear. By affirming the erosion of the world as it would double the erosion of representational language. The origin of the world – the fact that it is, and the fact that this fact is irreducible to what is experienced – finds its correlate in the origin of language. Both origins are entwined in the passion of narrative, in the fraying of a fictional world.

What is meant by world? That contexture of relations that gather things into a meaningful whole. A contexture ordered by a sense of the possible, of the future that is possible there, even when it takes the form of a fiction. Mr Darcy can propose to Miss Bennett; it is eminently possible. Alice can shrink and grow. What of the origin of the world? The collapse of the sense of the possible, of the possible as sense. It becomes impossible even to cross a room. Can this impossibility be spoken directly in fiction? Only in terms of the possible – only as it breaks the measure of the self for whom things can be done. Narration, say. Crossing a room, say. Thus the kind of paralysis that seems to strike the narrators of Blanchot’s récits.

What is meant by language? In one sense, what enables communication; what allows things to be expressed. It overlays the possibility that governs the sense of the world. But in another, and understood as origin, it is what the first sense of language cannot communicate as its condition, as its possibility. Language, that is to say, cannot speak that it is; it cannot speak the fact of its own existence. Or if it is to do so, it is only by way of the possibility that language affords – that is, by way of that faith in sense upon which language depends.

The prose of Blanchot’s récits is clear, pellucid at the level of the phrase. But at the level of the sentence, the paragraph? Who understands what’s going on? How would you paraphrase the ‘action’ of the second half of The Last Man, or The One Who …? It is not that Blanchot abandons clarity, but he lets it speak of what is too great to communicate. And this takes the form, in his narratives, of the impossibility of action, of clear thought, of the endurance of the form of the ‘I’.

Likewise in his essays on writers. He is concerned not only with the accomplishments (and unaccomplishments) of a particular fiction, but the life of those authors who sensed the demand of the fact of language. The reading of Kafka, say, passes by way of a review of his hesitations about writing, his dreams of leaving it behind for Palestine, for marriage. The reading of Rilke of the search for the ‘proper’ death writing deprived him. These essays, like Blanchot’s fiction, speak of the origin of language – they let it speak. And in this sense, there can be no absolute generic difference between the essays and the fictions, and it should be no surprise that they eventually come together in fragmentary works.

Each time, it is a matter of the récit, of that French genre concerned retrospectively, musingly with a past event. Each time, with Blanchot’s writings, the origin of language, as it is entwined with the origin of language, of the world that takes the place of that event. The origin of language speaks by way of the origin of the world. And does it work the other way around? Isn’t there a kind of mirror play between both senses of origin, as each can only substitute for the other? It is not ultimately with reference, with the meaning-to-say with which his writings are concerned, that should be clear. Unless there is sense of reference that points to what cannot be said, and of a meaning-to-say that no longer refers back to narrator or author.

Van Velde on Painting

Painting is an eye, a blinded eye that continues to see, and sees what blinds it.

All the paintings I have made, I was compelled to make. You must never force yourself. They make you and you have no say in it.

Yes, I abandoned everything. Painting required it. It was all or nothing.

Painting is being alive. Through my painting, I beat back this world that stops us living and where we are in constant danger of being destroyed.

I paint the impossibility of painting.

In this world that destroys me, the only thing I can do is to live my weakness. That weakness is my only strength.

No country, no family, no ties. I didn’t exist anymore. I just had to press on.

All these exhibitions…. People put out their hands to you, and when you try to take them, there’s nobody there.

I do not see this world. But my hands are tied, and that’s why it frightens me.

Dead days are more numerous than live ones.

An artist’s life is all very fine and moving. But only in retrospect. In books.

I am on the side of weakness.

The artist has no role. He is absent.

Most people’s lives are governed by will-power. An artist is someone who has no will.

Painting doesn’t interest me.

What I paint is beyond painting.

I am powerless, helpless. Each time, it’s a leap in the dark. A deliberate encounter with the unknown.

When I look back at a recent painting, I can hardly bear the suffering in it.

I never try to know.

Everything I’ve painted is the revelation of a truth. And therefore inexhaustible.

I never know where I’m going.

The hardest thing is to work blind.

In the normal way, nothing is possible. But the artist creates possibilities where almost none exist.

It’s because artists are defenceless that they have such power.

Yes, he agrees, he is tending to lose all individuality.

Painting lives only through the slide towards the unknown in oneself.

My pictures are also an annihilation.

I am a watered down being.

I am a walker. When I’m not working, I have to walk. I walk so I can go on working.

Van Gogh? … He was a beacon. Not like me. I just feel my way in the dark. But I am good at feeling my way.

What is so wonderful is that all that [painting, an oeuvre, the role of the artist …] is so pointless and yet so necessary.

[On Picasso] Admittedly he was exceptionally creative and inventive. But he was a stranger to doubt [….]

Painting has to struggle to beat back this world, which cannot but assassinate the invisible.

The painter is also blind, but he needs to see.

Discouragement is an integral part of the adventure.

I am a man without a tongue.

The amazing thing is that, by keeping low, I have been able to go my own way.

Always this poverty… But I never rebelled against it. I have always known that that was my place. And anyway, I had my work.

Even failure isn’t something you can seek.

[…] I never really liked French painting. It’s often too disciplined, too elegant. It is not genuine enough. It’s as if art has got the upper hand.

I did what I did in order to be able to breathe. There is no merit in that.

When life appears, it is the unknown. But to be able to welcome the unknown, you have to be unencumbered.

So many painters and writers never stop producing, because they are afraid of not-doing.

You have to let non-working do its work.

I am held prisoner by my eyes.

Source: Juliet.

From an interview Beckett granted to a French newspaper:

– I never read philosophy.
– Why not?
– I don’t understand it.
[…]
– Why did you write your books?
– I don’t know. I’m not an intellectual. I just feel things. I invented Molloy and the rest on the day I understood how stupid I’d been. I began then to write down the things I feel.

Put Your Hand on my Forehead

Kafka says to Brod he will be content on his deathbed, providing the pain is not too great, and adds, ‘the best of what I have written is based on this capacity to die content.’ Which I interpret, remembering the bloody scenes of execution in ‘The Penal Colony’ and the banal death of The Trial, as pointing to a kind of relaxed happiness in the murder of his characters.

Their discontent mirrors his contentedness; they are his proxies, Kafka, who among all authors understands the demand of writing draws him through and beyond any tale he could tell. Let them take his place; let them die in his place – he is still alive, he lives and he suffers, but somewhere, too, he is dead; he has also brought his death to term.

In the end, of course, Kafka died a painful death. But remember the conversation slips he wrote to communicate with his friends when, towards the end, he could no longer speak.

That cannot be, that a dying man drinks.

Do you have a moment? Then lightly spray the peonies.

Mineral water – once for fun I could

Fear again and again.

A bird was in the room.

Put your hand on my forehead for a moment to give me strength.

My fantasy: now death is coming to Kafka, but slowly, so that it seems to become eternal. Did it seem, discontent, that death was as far away from him as ever? Now perhaps, it is the turn of the characters to die in his place. Wasn’t it the proofs of The Hunger Artist he was correcting on his deathbed? Perhaps death by starvation was already preferable to a dying that had lost its limit.

Now I imagine the conversation slip was written by Kafka to his characters, the ones who had always died for him.

Put your hand on my forehead for a moment to give me strength.

Die and give me strength by your death. Die and give me the limit of death. I imagine they all stand around him, his characters, woken by the coming end of their creator to assume his suffering. And then that it is what does not pass of Kafka’s passing that returns as I reread him.

I do not die content as they are brought to their deaths. Death wakes up in me; dying opens its eyes: it is as though Kafka knew he would suffer in advance: that he wrote from the discontent of dying, letting it mark itself in those stories that never came to an end. Is that why The Castle is important to me?

But what does not end in The Castle is also what fails to complete itself even in Kafka’s finished tales – this is what I tell myself, although without proof, without argument. But who will die for me? Who will put his hand on my forehead?

Erosion

No story here, write that. Nothing to begin, write that. A room – and what happens in a room? Dust floats; settles. A light shaft sometimes reaches through. Calmness. Who would disturb it by writing? Why add words to all those that have been written? To hollow them out, perhaps. To hollow them into calmness, letting them settle like motes of dust. And so will they build up a kind of reef; so will they settle the room onto the page.

Eventlessness – is that it? Or rather the sense that what has begun cannot end; that calmness is borne on the swell of an event without beginning and without end. A room adrift. Time adrift in the room. Who comes here? Who has ever lived here? Has a room ever seemed so uninhabited? No story here, write that. Nothing to tell. Untell it, then. Erode the story; hollow it out. I will not let it begin, say that. I will not let a story begin.

The Room Itself

The room itself. I am looking for it, the room inside the room. Where is it? Here; not here. Or here – and separated from this one by a single dimension. From what perspective does it watch me? From what corner of the eye will it let itself be seen?

I am falling through a room. Or is it the other way round? How long have I been here? How long has the room been unfolding through me?

I would like to cross it, the room. Would like to cross the expanse of floorboards. In a stride I could make it across. A single stride – just one, but how am I to cross?

Hollowing

The room falls into itself. Writing falls, and into itself. The monitor is on. What’s it waiting for, the blank page? What aches there, the page on the screen? What focuses itself there, at the heart of the room? What does it seek, the room, by concentrating itself into whiteness?

The monitor; the keyboard. The desk top light, the table. And the window behind them, with the red blind pulled down, nearly down. The black night like a letterbox. What do I see? This room, again, against blackness. This room filled with night.

Am I here? Am I really here? A kind of absence is pushing me aside. It begins in the centre of the room, spreading out: absence, a kind of storm. That says, you are not here. Or, you cannot approach me. As though the room itself were pushing me away.

What begins there, in the middle of the room? What spreads out to fill its corners? There is another room, away, on the other side of the glass. A bedroom – I remember it, I know how to get there. But what do I know?

The room is falling through me, say that. The room is falling through time. What was I writing a year ago? What will I be trying to write a year from now? A year, another year – what is hollowing itself out here? What, in this room, is hollowing itself out? 

The Arch

A hollow space – is that a room? A hollowing, a space that falls through you. How many rooms have I lived in? Many. No: one, just one. One room, endlessly falling.

I go from room to room. How to lose yourself in your own flat? How, over the wooden floorboards? The red blind’s almost pulled over the window. A strip of black. The night, outside. Darkness outside and the room falling. A box of light. A box of light, falling through time.

From room to room. Where are you going? What are you looking for? And what were you looking for then, all those other nights. How many nights have there been?

The monitor’s on. The screen glowing by the desklamp. There’s the work to be done, isn’t there? There’s something to get on with. But you’ve long since fallen from work. You’ve long been lost from what you should be doing.

How many years? They spread above me like an arch. One year, another – and all the same year. Hollowed out. Voided. And opened a room in the room, turning it upwards. A box upturned – to what? To the same night I see below the red blind.

Have I failed? Have I missed some clue? Am I lost in an eddy? Time lost itself here. A room got lost in itself. I wander; the room wanders. Am I a way a room is looking for itself? A way space has come alive and got lost in space?

Rooms

‘All I do is wander from room to room’ (Graham Greene in old age, from his correspondence). The evening, every evening. From room to room, lying down in there, on the other side of the bevelled glass. Reading a little. Picking a book up and putting it down. And then, leaning over the side of the bed, smoothing the wooden floor with my hand. Dust. Stray hairs.

I wander from room to room. To this room, here, by the computer, the red blind rolled down. What was it I wanted to write? What was it I wanted to say? It’s winter. It’s winter again. Last year, at this time, in this room, what was I writing? And the year before? All the years are here; all the years are present tonight.

A room falling through time. A room – this one, one of a series. There was a room before this one, and another before that. And there is the series of rooms that is this one; a room falling. A room falling through time. I will have been here before. I have not been here yet. How to inhabit this space, to live where I cannot live?

The Railway Bridge

To tell the same story, over again. To tell the same and the same of the same: in this way, telling wears itself away. It becomes valueless, issueless; it begins to lift itself from the story and say nothing. Or it is as though the story floats indifferently over itself, like a soul that has left its body. And now the story doesn’t matter; telling has outlived itself and what was told has expelled itself from the realm of narrative. A few incidents, nothing more. Some incidents, buried in writing, that remain amidst writing, that cannot be smoothed away.

Cycling through the new estates: why that image? I was unemployed, I remember that. I had an uncertain future, I remember that. I went out into the day, cycled, with no particular aim. Through the new estates, charting them, following them all the way to their edge. And then to what remained of the woodland – the brook whose banks had half dissolved; the muddy track along the field-edge. Bridleways and footpaths, that led down to the quarried river. And open lakes where the quarries once were: fenced off nature reserves. Over there, on the other side of barbed wire, wild life, kingfishers and herons. Near-still water that reflected back an indifferent sky.

No story here. Incidents without story, as though outside of themselves. Stranded events – a cyclist, the bland, wide day; the nothing-is-happening of the suburbs. Stranded life, life outside itself like the same near-still lakes spreading alongside the river. Life alongside life, ox-bow lakes and eddies, currents broken from the great flow of the city: how can narrative but break itself from the old models of continuity? How can a story but tell of what withers it as story, and places it alongside itself, an ox-bow lake, an eddy?

Through the new estates, cycling. Unemployed, off sick, one of the two. Absent from work, from life, cycling past new mothers with their prams. The omnipresence of the day, the afternoon. The vast cathedral of the sky. Later it would make me shiver. Later it would make me stay indoors. I came to fear the day, and unemployed time. Feared time without structure and journeys without aim. How old was I, then? Young enough still to retain a kind of optimism, a blindness in relation to the future. Still the hope that an estate might give unto something other than an estate, that leylines passed across the golfcourse, or that it was a barrow that rose behind the new houses. Still young – and still able to catch what happened in a story. Still young enough to believe it could be told.

Ill, unemployed – I was falling from the story; unemployed and ill, narrative lost sight of me. Whose eyes watched me? Who followed me? Writing eludes itself. The story does not move forward. The calm lakes of the nature reserve, dug out by quarrying. Birdsong; silence. But, too the greater roar of the afternoon. The sound of the day, reverberating in itself. No stories here. No narratives; one footstep does not lead to another; there’s no path along which to pass. I come to the railway bridge; I carry my bike over. Piss-smelling concrete. Graffiti. And the power station by the railway. Houses and gardens higher up, stretched along the railway. The bend of the track along which trains came roaring. Was I ill? Was I unemployed?

Tell the same story, tell it again. Tell the same non-story, the same of the same, as it places what is recounted out of the reach of the story. A cancelled day; a blank and eroded sky. Was I ill – unemployed? Unemployed and ill?

The Cyclist

Cycling through the new estates. Cycling to find their interstices, the scrappy woodland along the railway, the rivers temporarily emerging from culverts, the private road through the plantation, the golf course green beneath rotating sprinklers. What was it that eluded me? For what was I looking? But this memory is now inseparable from recounting, and the search from what is sought by writing.

Writing eludes itself – is that it? Writing loses itself in order to become real, just as it is nothing without this reality. And it is this that tells itself in every tale, or untells them, wearing them out.

I cycled through the new estates, passed the old barrows and the glade of tree stumps left by forestry. I cycled beneath an indifferent sky. And the page, too is indifferent. The whiteness of the page burns indifferently in the sky above my cycling.

The Judgement

To be sentenced – punished. To be judged and punished, but for everything to remain the same. Curious dream. Why is it I imagine the white sky to be the judge, and the judgement? Because of its indifference. Because this is the judgement: You do not matter. That is the sentence: nothing you have done matters, not at all.

A recurrent memory: cycling around the new estates. Cycling through the gaps of countryside between the new estates, light falling indifferently upon all. And the feeling of being watched, and that I could not escape. That to be watched was to be judged, the judgement falling equally upon all. How light it was, the judgement! As light as air, the gentle pressure of air.

I carry my bike over the railway bridge. The white sky that sees nothing, but that sees. That sees from a source I cannot know, a perspective I cannot access. To be watched – seen – but in blindness. To be seen by the blindness of the sky, its indifference.

And when writing opened its eyes? The same perspective, the same non-seeing. And when the page burned up through my writing? The judgement, a trial and a sentence all at once. To say, you do not matter. To say, nothing you have done has ever mattered.

White Writing

To write close to writing. To keep close. But this means, too, that you will have to write of something other than writing; a detour is required, for writing is nothing in itself. A detour: write of yourself, write stories, narrative fragments, write of this, of that – but how to let what you write come close, nonetheless to writing? How to let writing reverberate in what is written?

I am guilty, say that. I am innocent, say that. I am judged, everything written has been judged; white light falls indifferently over all of us. And white light, too, burns upwards from the page; a white writing writes within my own.

How to unwrite every word I have written? How to erase my footprints, and leave the snow pristine, trackless? Wait, wait for writing. Fall down, sleep, and send your dreams ahead. Die in the snow of writing’s indifference. Expire in the indifference of writing, its white snow-banks all around you.

Voided Sight

Writing is what looks away from you; it shows no interest. Its perspective is given from elsewhere; it sees from an angle you cannot access. Is it watching? Are its eyes open? It sees all; its eyes are open in all that is written, like light that flashes back the sky from the sea. It sees – but what does it see? What sees itself in the tide of words as it flashes light upwards and away?

The parent watches the child, but writing does not watch you. The lover’s gaze rests upon the beloved, but writing watches no one, and watches where no one has his place. I will take your place, says writing. I’m going to take your place. And so does it watch from you, by taking your place. So does it open its eyes in your own, and your eyes reflect back the sky; so do they become voided of what you might see.

Vision minus itself. Light subtracted from light. ‘I can’t see you’. – ‘But I, seer, see in you’. – ‘I can’t see you’. – ‘But I, seeing, have voided your sight’.

Trackless

To learn from what writing, from what you have written; to follow your own tracks in the snow. Until – no tracks, and no way forward. Snow without tracks, unmarked pages.

‘Was it here I disappeared?’ – ‘It was here you stopped disappearing. Here when your absence could no longer be hidden. – ‘Was it here I lost the ability to write?’ – ‘Rather that that inability spoke of writing’s own inability; that your malaise became the malaise of writing, and it spoke, rather than you’.

Writing without writing. The suspension, the droop of writing. And you fall from yourself, too. Who are you, non-writer? Who are you, unable to mark the page? But the days go forward nonetheless. Writing, without writing, continues to go forward.

‘I would like to write’. – ‘You cannot write’. – ‘I would like to begin’. – ‘But writing has already begun’.

Page-blind

Rise early each morning, prepare to write. Rise early, clear your desk and your thoughts, and begin, begin to write. But what when writing fails you? What when you cannot write a line, and the white page seems to press up against you? What when sense refuses you, and the measure of sense? But it is also writing that you meet, albeit without being able to write. It is also writing that burns beside you now, white fountain, the page within the page.

Isn’t it now that you can learn what writing is? Isn’t this the moment, the apocalypse, in which it is revealed disrobed? The page, the white page on which nothing can be written. The page without writing, and that allows no writing. What speaks, and by way of this absence? What, and by way of the absence of sense, of sense’s erosion, of writing cored out from within?

The whiteness is intolerable. The page’s white in white burns intolerably. Its indifference. Its withdrawal. A bank of snow on which you can make no impression. A pristine cloud-bank rising in the distance. You cannot mark it. Ink will not touch it.

Intolerable: have you gone snowblind? Sky-blind? What can you see except whiteness? What but the light that burned behind everything, and all along. For the page is also the sky. It is also light, light gone mad in itself, lost in itself. The page is the condition of meaning, of the opening of the world. And the going-mad of meaning, the opening that is also a closure, the too-much of bright light.

‘I can’t see’ – ‘But only now can you begin to see’. – ‘I can’t see a thing’. – ‘But only now do you see everything’. – ‘Why couldn’t I see it before?’- ‘You could see too much’. – ‘Why can I only see it now? – ‘Because you’ve given up on sight, or sight has given up on itself in you’.

To write, to make a mark: why is that impossible? A single line – why can’t you achieve that? Because writing is incapacity; writing the failure to write. It is the page-apocalypse, the pristine beginning upon which you can make no impression. And the return of that beginning, which is your non-beginning, your failure. And the billowing return of your non-beginning, the white sails that nonetheless bear writing forward.

‘I can’t begin’. – ‘But it is already beginning’. – ‘I can’t make a mark’. – ‘But writing has begun without you’.

The Page

The inability to write – how to endure it? A writer faces eternity or the lack of it each day, says Hemmingway – but how to endure it, the lack of eternity? How to endure the withdrawal of writing? ‘I’m blocked’, says the writer, ‘I can’t write a line’. So he removes himself from writing; he reads awhile, he travels. Everything but the page, the white rectangle of the page. But eventually, he’ll have to face it again.

‘I was waiting for you’, it says. ‘I lay here, waiting’. White page, the distant sky: one and the same. The absence of writing, the absence of sense that is the sky: one and the same. The same sky that watches over famine and wealth; the same that passes across battles and feastdays. The same page that is indifferent to what is written upon it, be it good or bad. The page, white rectangle, that glows with its own kind of light, that seems to illuminate itself.

‘I can’t reach you. I can’t find you’. – ‘But I’m here before you, the page’. – ‘I’ve lost you. I’m looking for you’. – ‘But I’m here right in front of you: the page’. And I know for every page I’ve written, the page is waiting. And for every page I’ve read, there will be another that refuses reading, in which I’ve lived my reader’s life. The page waits; its whiteness invades every page; its waiting aches without significance on every page.

And when I’ve tried to write? I forgot it, that’s true. Perhaps you have to forget it in order to write. The page, the absence of sense – how can you know it except via the impossibility of writing? And I think this, in the end, is why writer’s block is propitious, why it joins you to what withholds itself in writing, and not only because you cannot rise to meet it, not only because your strength has failed.

‘Stop writing. Do not try to write’. – ‘But I want to find you. I want to write.’ – ‘But you will find me only by ceasing to write. By putting your pen down. Stop writing, stop trying, and I will come close to you. Stop, and the page, the double of the day, will burn beside you’. – ‘I can’t write’. – ‘But it’s only then, in your incapacity, that writing can come close to you’. – ‘I’m blocked, I can’t write’. – ‘But it is only thus that writing rises and wraps itself around you like the day’.

Writer’s Block

Writer’s block – what is that? The retreat of writing, writing concentratedly held back in itself. How to reach it? How to draw upon the vanished strength to write? Writer’s block – but isn’t this a relation to writing, to writing itself?

You can’t face writing head on, I know that. Can’t demand writing to write, as if it were reposed in itself, waiting for a call. Writing is nothing in itself – there is nothing to writing, nothing that belongs to it; it has no subject of which to speak. But that is to say its substance is borrowed; the cloak of incident and character clothes nothing, hides nothing.

Writing can be nothing other than what is told. And yet it also other to that telling; it is what is borne in it, what suspends itself as the story rolls on. Perhaps it is the fact of a story, the surprise that it is. But what is it? Nothing other than the story. Writing itself: borrowed substance, garments clothing nothing.

On the page, writing by means of character, by means of incident, writing fails to come to itself. The approach, the non-approach: how to tell of telling itself? How to summon the failure to come? Writing is not here yet; and that is the story the tale untells. Writing cannot come close: and that is the untelling of the tale, its artifice, its imposture which, I think, allows something else to be heard.

Writing fails – is that it? But with reference to what? To what task? Nothing belongs to writing; its demand is hollow. Nothing belongs to it – but writing also hollows out writing; writing seeks also to core itself out, until, denucleated, there is nothing left but words (ringed around an absent centre). Nothing – and by way of a story that also tells of its unravelling.

Writing that is not – and never yet. Writing incapable of itself, of attaining itself, that is perpetually ‘to come’, but as what? bringing what? Its absence, its dissimulation, appearing in every other guise but its own. ‘I don’t recognise you. I can’t see you as you are’.

Writer’s block – what is it? The withdrawal of writing in writing; the telling that untells the tale. How to reach it? How to draw upon the ability to write? By drawing yourself into relation with the incapacity to write, to writing’s failure to attain itself. By passing by way of the ‘to come’ of writing, which can never arrive. ‘I’m looking for you’. – ‘You will not find me’. – ‘I want to come close to you’. – ‘But I am far away from you, in a past that has never happened, and a future that will not arrive’.

A String of Scarves

In my foolishness, it is of a kind of prose that I dream. Prose, writing, as it launched from itself, out of itself, like a magician’s string of scarves. From where did it come? From where, arising of itself, and according to what law? How to surprise writing in writing? How to let it arise, giving itself, and giving itself as giving?

Abandonment: I think that’s how writing arrives. I think it abandons itself to life, and gives itself as it is lost, and as it loses its writer. I want to be abandoned, and by writing, I tell myelf. I want that: to be abandoned, to be left behind by what I’ve written. A magician’s string of scarves; a dove conjured from nowhere: the miracle is abandonment, casualness, writing not minding itself, writing singing to itself like a lost child in the wood.

What kind of hunter are you?, says writing. What are you looking for? And I dream of a hunting that is also a becoming one with the hunted. A hunter who aims arrows at his own heart. A hunter who discovers himself as quarry. And by what bliss would you let the arrow pierce your own heart?

I think there is a self-abandonment necessary to writing. I think there is a kind of relinquishment. I want to be abandoned, and by myself, I tell myself. I want that: to be left behind by what I made, to let it go forward without me. To go forward – to search far ahead of me. To search far ahead, having lost me. How to lose myself, then? How, in writing, to forget that I am writing?

The Hunter

To have faith in writing, what might that mean? To have faith in words written blindly, without forethought – what is that? As though I might surprise writing in writing. As though I could come across it, surprising it, but by means of writing, by means of what it is. What kind of hunter am I who would hunt with the very thing he is seeking?

And now I think of the Zen archer whose target is himself. Aim for yourself. Aim writing – where? To where you are not. To what you cannot say, and of yourself. To what, in writing, has nothing to do with you. But what kind of faith is that? To have faith in writing – but perhaps it is only when faith is lost that it is gained. That it’s when you want nothing by way of writing, that it is the least important, that it might come close to you.

You have to fall, I tell myself. You have to fall from writing. Writing must become nothing at all. A wrong turn; an accident – it must be as though you accidentally brushed the page with your pen; that you accidentally began to type.

‘I had nothing better to do’. ‘I had a spare hour, and nothing to do’. Casually, happening of itself, dropping from itself, there is writing: there it is. Dropping from – what? An empty sky? A stalactite that drips down from what ceiling? You have to fall, I tell myself, and from the desire to write. To fall – just that, and without wanting to fall. But when will it be possible? When will I surprise writing by writing?

Works of Love

Gillian Rose is dying. Her cancer has spread beyond control. She has months to live, not years. Only palliative care is open to her. There will be no cure.

Love’s Work is a memoir-collage, to be categorised, according to the back of the book, as Autobiography/Philosophy. In its several chapters, this brief book recounts incidents from a life lived as a struggle to love. It is also a book about dying and those to whom death is close.

There is her friend Edna, who was diagnosed with cancer eighty years ago. At ninety six, with a prosthetic nose and a prosthetic jaw from cancer of the face, Edna still lives. There is her friend Yvette, the one with whom she was going to travel to Jerusalem, who dies in a hospice in Sussex. Cancer of the breast. There is her friend Jim, who dies of AIDS in his apartment, and his lover Lance, who also dies of AIDS. This is a book about dying, about death.

Gillian Rose is dying. But she is also writing. Love’s Work is the book she wrote as she died. That, and parts, if not the whole of Mourning Becomes Law and Paradisio. These are books, each of them, of ferocious beauty.

She is dying, but she is also loving. Love’s Work is a book, first of all, about love. About the inevitable failure of love and about the comedy of that failure. Writing, for Gillian Rose, falls infinitely short of loving. There is the erotic love which draws lovers to one another. That which allows each to recognise herself, himself, as a Lover. That which will also see a distribution of Lover and Beloved, Master and Pupil, which both become in turn.

Then there is the love of agape, of the everyday, of that shared life that erotic love can become. That love which commences in the hours the lovers spend sleeping with one another. Sleeping and then waking into a world shared. To sleep is to journey, each apart – two selves – and together. A subtle negotiation begins. Love is the third term that interrupts love’s folie a deux. Agapic love is not shared egotism, but shared adventure. The everyday is its milieu.

Love is at work; love is working. The world, the fourth term in the love affair, lies beyond. failed love affairs: Gillian Rose claims to be an expert in the failure of love. She has had two affairs with philosophers, she recalls. One lasted for ten years, one for five. In both, she was predominantly the Lover and the other the Beloved. He, the youth, the Beloved became the beautiful soul. He withdraws, depressed. She, the Lover worries she blocks his way to the world. She ends the relationship, though not the friendship. The ephebe is set free. Only now, knowing them as friends, she understands them still to be beautiful souls. She was wrong to have left them, but she left them. Did she fail love’s work?

She recounts one failed love affair in detail. It will stand in for all the others, she writes. It was with a Priest, a fellow academic. She sees him at a meeting. She doesn’t know his name, but his presence is intense, sensually knowing. He is a priest. They go one evening to his rooms attached to a church. They speak of Liberation Theology and eat oysters and turbot. She tells him to read more Hegel to bolster his Marxism; she introduces him to Rilke’s Sonnets to Orpheus. Later, she will accompany him as he officiates in church; she joins him on his parish rounds. Later still he withdraws from her. She becomes the anxious Beloved; he the withdrawing Lover, rubbing his eyes with thumb and index finger. He cannot give her what she wants.

‘Loss’ means the original gift and salvation of love have been degraded: love’s arrow poisoned and sent swiftly back into the heart.

In the past, she says, she would have pulled out the arrow, and test the wound. This time, she says, she wants to do it differently. She does not ring her sisters in order to draw upon their ‘inventive love’. She steels herself to love again. And, true, she will love again. And fail again.

At the time of writing, Gillian Rose is still loving. We know him as Steve, the one with whom she went walking in Wales before the operation that was supposed to remove her colostomy. But he, too, is withdrawing. That week of intimacy is also the last week of their love. She will woo again. She will learn again and fail again; she will grieve and she will trust. This is love’s work.

There is the love of friendship. She stays with Jim in New York after her disappointing studies as an undergraduate. It is 1970. She learns German and reads Adorno. She discovers the abstract expressionists and the second Viennese School; she learns of pop music and of homosexuality. She discovers Jim, her great friend, who we meet in chapter when he is dying of what we will discover is AIDS. Jim, tall and erudite, possessor of books of philosophy in their original languages, Jim who nevertheless is no philosopher, who cannot experience it as a stage on life’s way and who is made to leave the college where he taught without a Ph.D. Jim through whom in 1991, when he is forty-seven and dying, Gillian Rose meets the irrepressible Edna, one alive, still alive after eighty years with cancer.

Her mother, who refuses to acknowledge that she loved the two husbands she divorced, who denies the suffering of her own mother, who lost over fifty relatives to the Nazis (‘children bayoneted in front of their parents), is substituted by sixty-five year old Yvette, who speaks of her five great lost loves. Sensual Yvette with a tallboy full of pornography and three concurrent lovers, who teaches Gillian Rose ancient and modern Hebrew. Sensual, dowdy Yvette who counsels all on loving, and on not confusing the Beloved with the object of terror.

Her mother and stepfather told the young Gillian Rose of their intention to commit suicide. She develops agoraphobia. She sobs in her cold rooms at Oxford University. Her lecturers – all except one – tell her how much clever than her are the philosophers she studies. Her earlier, joyous discovery of Plato and Pascal saves her from throwing away philosophy altogether. One which reawakens in New York with Jim. And now – in 1995, writing Love’s Work – her conviction that postmodern philosophy falls short of love’s work – this is another form of love of this book. That it turns, disappointed, from what it takes to be the deficiencies of reason. Philosophy which mourns what it takes to be the end of philosophy, the end of itself. Which can speak only of ashes and the disaster. For what does Gillian Rose call in her last books? For love’s work, for the work of love. For what Hegel calls comedy:

The comical as such implies an infinite lightheartedness and confidence felt by someone raised altogether above his own inner contradiction and not bitter or miserable in it at all; this is the bliss and ease of a man who, being sure of himself, can bear the frustrations of his aims and achievements.

Rose:

No human being possesses sureness of self: this can only mean being bounded and unbounded, selved and unselved, ‘sure’ only of this untiring exercise.

The mismatch between aim and achievement elicits laughter, the laughter of the comic and the holy, not of cynicism or demonism. Laughter of the work of love, ‘to laugh bitterly, purgatively, purgatorially, and then to be quiet’.

Gillian Rose is writing in the face of death. Not tragically and not stoically, but comically. She does not laugh at death, but at the coming of what makes failures of all our works. Only to work is inevitably to fail; it is our condition. Then there is nothing about death’s coming which compromises love’s work or reveals its truth. Why write this book?

However satisfying writing is – that mix of discipline and miracle, which leaves you in control, even when what appears on the page has emerged from regions beyond your control – it is a very poor substitute indeed for the joy and the agony of loving.

Why write and not love – unless writing is another kind of loving? Jim, dying, is fetched Herzen’s autobiography. This passage from that book is what soothes his ‘problem of self-representation’:

Every life is interesting; if not the personality, then the environment, the country are interesting, the life itself is interesting. Man likes to enter into another existence, he likes to touch the subtlest fibres of another’s heart, and to listen to its beating … he compares, he checks it by his own, he seeks for himself confirmation, sympathy, justification …

Philosophers should all be made to write autobiographies as well as all those dry pages.

Why write and not love? Gillian Rose writes Love’s Work to remind herself of the work of love. To let it abide in her. To give herself faith. But to give us faith, too. She is the Master of faith and the Master of loving, she who has experienced the failure of loving so many times. She who has been reborn from love. She who surrounded by books of alternative medicine which advocate ‘edgelessness’, yielding to the world-soul, to emptiness and to the no-self, would prefer the edginess and the struggle of love.

Now I understand. I am the Beloved and Love’s Work is the Lover. Gillian Rose’s book loves me as she could not. Despair yesterday when I could not get past page 88. A kind of laughter as I finished the book and knew comedy would be the cradle in which this book would hold me.

The clocks go back an hour. You have an hour, an extra hour; eight o’clock is seven o’clock, and a whole hour has as though broken itself from the continuity of time. An hour – and what might you do with it? What as time seems to part – or a piece of time is broken into an eddy, turning around itself, fascinated with itself and with you at its heart, you its secret observer, you the one who has come across time without it knowing, as upon some wild animal in a glade. Here is the hour when time turns round itself. Here it is, the hour of time’s self-obsession. And you, what are you? The circuit that allows time to flow back to time. The secret connection between time and itself.

Unimportance

One reads a biography of an artist with a happy kind of hindsight: in the early chapters, about struggle and despair, I want to reassure the artist, it will be okay; everything will come right. You’re already pressing towards the work. And then, in later ones, when the first works appear, when the writer, say, begins to emerge as an artistic force, I want to say, be patient; your great works lie ahead of you. Your early works are juvenilia; they are worthless, really; the dust of words.

And then the years of triumph; having read a few hundred pages, I feel I’ve earned the right to revel in the reception that greets the masterpieces that stream forth from his pen. I’ve suffered with him, struggled with him, watched as the early works came out, and now the masterpieces that have given him immortality: there would be no biography without them. He would have been but a minor writer, one of the forgotten.

But now? Even the years of decline and fall mean nothing. Even the marriages and divorces, even the fallings out with old friends are insignificant; for the masterpieces survive him; it is upon them that his fame will rest. Does he know his own greatness? Somewhere, it knows itself in him. He rests, somewhere, in what he has done; in what was worked by way of him.

And later, when he can write no longer – when he can no longer ascend the plateau on which he once wrote, day after day as beneath an open sky? Ah, but he has done his work. One part of him is satisfied; his life has already been rounded off. What is he but the ghost of his own authorship? In the mirror, he sees a crumpled version of that middle aged man posed seriously on the dust jackets of his books. Crumpled: you can still see it, that assurance, that fire that licked up flames behind him. Still a remnant of a writer’s confidence, of the trust writing placed in him.

But who is he but a ghost of what was one possible by his pen, by his typing fingers? He goes from room to room in the house that he earnt from his royalties; he sits in an armchair overlooking his garden. Leaves on the grass. It’s autumn, he thinks. And tomorrow a journalist is coming to photograph his work room, in which he no longer works, not really. He is a potterer; a wanderer from room to room. 17 books – isn’t that enough? Hasn’t he written enough?

And now I wonder whether there might be a biography of this wandering, of a writer who’s written enough. A biography of the aftermath, of the one beached as after a life of writing. A writer in retirement, whose workroom is only a place where dust drifts in the afternoon air, and the house that his royalties bought is a receptacle for his drifting, for mild discontent.

Outside, the everyday. Outside, and through the window, the everyday world that he fears, obscurely. He’s earned himself time; he gave up his day job long ago. He found a kind of fame, an immortality. The newspapers phone him for his year end book recommendations; his agent secures deals for memoirs and volumes of occasional writings; isn’t it time he open the old folder in which he kept his verse?

Fame and immortality; his name is trustworthy; perhaps it will coin an adjective that will join it to a sensibility. His name crowns him, but it rides above him, and when a young writer, who’s discovered his address knocks at his door to meet him, he knows he has failed his name, and he is not prepared for the world that meets him there at the doorstep. He reaches to shake the hand of his admirer; he closes the door without admitting him.

And meanwhile, outside, the everyday. Meanwhile, the street, the cars parked under the trees. He’s escaped a workaday life, that’s true. He no longer needs to make a living, that’s true. But isn’t it now that an obscure worry can reach him, a vague fear? Doesn’t it reach him now, when he’s a little weak, as though a little ill, that same world he now feels he has written against?

He supposes he could drink. He could make a whiskey and soda, or open a bottle of wine. He could drink to allay his worries, which niggle at him, which come at him from all sides. His worries: what are those? He struggled once. He had to learn his craft, to learn to write. Writing is easy to him now. He knows how to write according to the adjective that his name has formed. He can lean on his own name, and the sensibility that drifts like a fog through his writings.

He has long since substantialised himself as an author; he stands on two strong legs. He writes; he can write, and what comes out is recognisably by him. All he has to do is pull the string that miraculously pulls up the ship in a bottle of a book. How easy it is for him to write! How easy, and for that reason, how difficult! He needs something to work against, he tells himself. To struggle again.

Life’s too easy, he thinks to himself. He should uproot himself. Go and live somewhere else. To France, perhaps. To a villa. He could live in a villa in the middle of France. But this is a dream. Still there is the outside. Still the everyday, out there on the street: mothers with three wheeled push chairs; leaves on the pavements; car after car parked along the street, wheels turned in to stop them rolling down the hill.

And now I dream of the narrative that might begin now, the narrative of the everyday. I imagine what he might write, who has the gift of writing, but nothing in particular to right. The light on a windshield. The crack on a paving stone. The trees half stripped of leaves, branches and twigs upraised to the sky. What would speak itself by way of these details? What, as it seems to wear the world away, as it seems to speak of a world worn away and murmuring to itself like a softly running stream?

I imagine him in the front room, where light falls aslant on his notebook. I imagine the whiteness of the page, and his hand as he runs it across there. And the tub of sharpened pencils he keeps by him as the light falls evenly across the page. What will he write, he who has already written enough? What to write, he who now feels only the most obscure and niggling of imperatives?

Not a story, but the wearing away of stories. Not a narrative, but its absence, its absenting, like rivers in the desert that run into the sand. A hundred beginnings; a hundred endings, his is now a work that unworks itself, a way for writing to unravel itself in writing.

He writes of the least important, the negligible. He writes by way of details, and of negligible feelings. What does he feel? He feels okay. What does he see? The world, just the world. And of what is he attempting to write? Of nothing in particular. In the end, he tells himself, writing is not important. Writing, the doubling of the day, is the least important thing of all.

His is a journal of neglect, he tells himself. It relates nothing; it bears upon nothing. Except the day; except the hours of the day which the others on the street miss because their days are filled with tasks, because they divide up time. What does it mean to have been given time thus? To let writing on the page develop like a photograph from the gentle pressure of light?

He will make an impression of time. Of the neglect of time. Of time’s malaise, the way it seems to sag from itself over the course of a long afternoon. Of time as it lengthens the afternoon into all of time, as dust motes drift and moments do not seem to last, but obscurely prolong themselves. As they might have done once when when he was a real writer, when he wrote novels with plots and characters; when it seemed those characters lived a life independently of him; when they didn’t do what he wanted. As they might have done, but what did he know of it, the gentle turning of time, the moments that seemed lost in themselves?

What could he know of it then, he who stretched out time according to his projects; who marked the days in his calender according to how far along he was with the work? Only now it is as if every errant moment returned in the steady light of the afternoon. As if he knew now what had never begun in all his days, and was still not about to settle itself into a beginning. Wasn’t it this against which he struggled all along?, he wonders. Wasn’t it from this errancy that he sought to protect himself?, he thinks to himself.

For in some sense, it is unbearable. In some sense, he cannot bear it, that nothing begins in his long afternoon, that all he can do is sit in an armchair with a notebook on his knees, and a tub of pencils. Is this how he should meet it, this nothing in particular? Is this the way to experience its demand, so that the day, the everyday, insignificant but undelimitable can spread itself onto the insignificance of what he writes?

He’s begun a journal, of a kind. He’s writing, in a way. But this is an unpublishable writing, a writing without point. This a writing that leads nowhere and leads him nowhere. It beaches him just as he is beached, in the long afternoon. It runs away from him as a river disappearing into the sand, or a cloud that evaporates over the desert.

It is not real life that waited for him on the other side of writing, but the unreality of life. Not action – a life in the world – but the impossibility of living thus in the world. The erosion of time, his own erosion. The obscurity of his own name, as it seems to unravel itself. A writing that unravels itself in writing. Might he now begin the most important of his works? Might he begin it now, as he senses, obscurely, what has obsessed him all his life?

But it begins only in his absence; it reveals itself by way of the least significant of his writings. What does it matter, what he writes now? For what does it count, when it will lead to no publication? Writing adrift; errant writing. Writing that wanders along the edge of everything. That murmurs to itself, echoing with what it is not. That speaks its own nothingness, its unimportance. Is it writing he has attained? Has he come across writing, as some animal in a woodland glade that does not know it’s being watched?

He remembers the deer he saw once at dawn, crossing a field. They didn’t see him. They hadn’t sniffed him out; the wind was blowing from them to him. He saw them and they didn’t see him, and so now with writing. Writing, at last, is allowed to ignore him. To write itself by way of him, but by ignoring him. And isn’t this what he wanted? Wasn’t that what he wanted all along: to be the way of its freedom, a way of releasing writing into the distance that belongs to it?

It doesn’t matter, he tells himself, and that’s why it matters. But who will know it but him? Who will know, from the scattered notebooks that will emerge among his papers after he has gone? A few pages written in pencil; not typed. A few yellowed pages, among all the others. Not a draft of something, not something unfinished, unless it shows that everything he wrote was a draft, or something unfinished. How will they know, his readers, perhaps his executors, who will go through his papers to assemble a posthumous volume?

I don’t think writing’s very important, he says to himself, and remembers, when he was young, debating with others what a novel was for. I don’t think it matters, and recalls the despair of a correspondent, for whom the marginalisation of fiction in favour of films and videogames was something to lament. Now is the time for an insignificant writing, he murmurs to himself. For a neglected writing that streams without meaning. It doesn’t matter, he thinks, and that’s not why it matters. In the end, it is insignificance itself, even as it cannot end. Insignificance, a kind of doubling of the world. A doubling of what does not round itself off into an event. A kind of erosion instead. A kind of withering, a wearing away.

It will not become a book he tells himself. It is not part of a project, a writing project. It’s a way for the day to know itself. A way the day can read, indifferent light on the page. Can read and not read, both at once.

What kind of biography could narrate such a project? What as its unimportance joins itself to every unimportant event in the life of a writer (in anyone’s life; in the writer as anyone)? Whose life might it recount, and with what kind of recounting?