This 200 pages book hides inside a 10 000 pages literary text. How is this possible one could ask? I have no freaking idea! This is why Sartre is Sartre I guess. Erratum, that sentence should have stated this is why Sartre the Great is Sartre the Great as I have decided to "literary" refer to him from now on. Reviewing "the words" could lead to the writing of a 100 PhD dissertations and a lot more essays. I have been struggling to write something about it for long and finally decided to take that leap of faith to see where my thoughts (nothing more) would take me so here it goes.
«J'ai commencé ma vie comme je la finirai sans doute : au milieu des livres. Dans le bureau de mon grand-père, il y en avait partout ; défense était de les faire épousseter sauf une fois l'an, avant la rentrée d'octobre. Je ne savais pas encore lire que, déjà, je les révérais, ces pierres levées : droites ou penchées, serrées comme des briques sur les rayons de la bibliothèque ou noblement espacées en allées de menhirs, je sentais que la prospérité de notre famille en dépendait...»
"The words" is an autobiography written by Sartre the Great and we (him and I) have never been properly introduced before. It wasn't until a dear friend kindly offered me this book that I got the chance to discover Sartre the man and Sartre the writer. I have separated the two because I have clear distinct feelings for each. I do believe the man had a lot to do with Sartre becoming the Great author/philosopher he is and the aim of the autobiography itself was to show how one lead to another. Written at the age of 59, Sartre retraces back the first 10 years of his life, claiming that he knew back then that he wanted to become an author because of the influence of his grandfather and everything he read as well as his first attempts of writing. The influence of the family and the grandfather is present in the whole book which is divided in two parts entitled "reading" and "writing", respectively. From the organization one can tell that this book is logical and well structured and clearly shows the importance of family more than anything else in Sartre's decision because of its presence in both parts of the book. However, I found this autobiography to be too well organized and clear for my taste which made it hard for me to believe that it was genuine and honest as autobiographies should aim to be. Besides, I believe that Sartre was lying on two major issues one of which is more clear and evident than the other.
First, it is quasi impossible for someone to remember all the books read during childhood or at least as much books as those mentioned in this autobiography. I mean seriously, the other day I tried to remember the books I read the past month alone and I just couldn't remember anything! It was only after I consulted Goodreads that I was able to answer this question. So claiming that one recalls the book read 40 years ago is total bogus to me. No doubt about it!!!
Second, I am pretty sure that no one has an idea about what he/she wants to become when they get older. Let's assume some do, I am sure the idea would not be as clear and extremist (oh yes we'll get back to this) as that presented by Sartre. A child is a vessel for a thousand and one ideas a day while here Sartre presents himself as a one idea/goal/aim child. He also awkwardly views literature as a religion, his grandfather as a Priest (sometimes also God) and himself, the miracle child that has to write because literature needs him, because the world needs him. Said by a child, this might sound kind of cute, but you just feel that this arrogance cannot be that of a child but rather that of a successful intelligent yet obnoxious and shallow kind of a MAN.This further hints that the story we are reading is a fake one.
I am not evaluating the literary value of this book or Sartre the Great. It is absurd as I mentioned before. All the successes and intelligence in the world do not however justify the arrogance and pretentiousness of a man. Sartre the man, was full of that! He tries to dissimulate it in the child in him but I think he failed to convince me at least. Writing an autobiography by itself tends to stem in many cases from arrogance. The art of autobiography can also stem from other needs such as trauma or historical recording of events etc. In fact, it is for these reasons that some of my favorite literary books are autobiographies. However, Sartre was 59 when he decided to write about the reasons that made him become an author. Put into context, this book is the fruit of an arrogant big shot who feels the need to let people know how he became the successful man he is. To this aim he invents or reformulates his childhood story because one can just feel him lying as mentioned before. He fails however to overcome his arrogance at many instances starting from the moment when he starts detailing his genealogy. Seriously, what's wrong with men and family trees!!! Nothing justifies his choice of elaborating on his family tree at the very first pages of this book except extreme arrogance. The other major arrogant point was him believing he had to write to save humanity. Can someone be any more delusional than that? Please!
I am not sure if Sartre was self aware of the image he was giving of himself. But I believe that probably he was and he found nothing wrong in being arrogant. One cannot judge a literary masterpiece based on the character of its writer I agree, but I still believe that modesty in addition to the intellectual capacity makes the most captivating writers ever and probably the smartest (those who brag on the opposite fall in the annoying category).
In conclusion, reading this book made me discover two Sartres, Sartre the man and Sartre the Great. One I loved and one I hate. Sartre the Great will never become one of my favorite authors because of the man I discovered behind. I cannot dare to deny Sartre the Great of his rightful literary and intellectual value. Then again some books' influence on you just cannot be detached from their authors' influence. But one thing is sure, I will not forget the Sartres.
First, it is quasi impossible for someone to remember all the books read during childhood or at least as much books as those mentioned in this autobiography. I mean seriously, the other day I tried to remember the books I read the past month alone and I just couldn't remember anything! It was only after I consulted Goodreads that I was able to answer this question. So claiming that one recalls the book read 40 years ago is total bogus to me. No doubt about it!!!
Second, I am pretty sure that no one has an idea about what he/she wants to become when they get older. Let's assume some do, I am sure the idea would not be as clear and extremist (oh yes we'll get back to this) as that presented by Sartre. A child is a vessel for a thousand and one ideas a day while here Sartre presents himself as a one idea/goal/aim child. He also awkwardly views literature as a religion, his grandfather as a Priest (sometimes also God) and himself, the miracle child that has to write because literature needs him, because the world needs him. Said by a child, this might sound kind of cute, but you just feel that this arrogance cannot be that of a child but rather that of a successful intelligent yet obnoxious and shallow kind of a MAN.This further hints that the story we are reading is a fake one.
I am not evaluating the literary value of this book or Sartre the Great. It is absurd as I mentioned before. All the successes and intelligence in the world do not however justify the arrogance and pretentiousness of a man. Sartre the man, was full of that! He tries to dissimulate it in the child in him but I think he failed to convince me at least. Writing an autobiography by itself tends to stem in many cases from arrogance. The art of autobiography can also stem from other needs such as trauma or historical recording of events etc. In fact, it is for these reasons that some of my favorite literary books are autobiographies. However, Sartre was 59 when he decided to write about the reasons that made him become an author. Put into context, this book is the fruit of an arrogant big shot who feels the need to let people know how he became the successful man he is. To this aim he invents or reformulates his childhood story because one can just feel him lying as mentioned before. He fails however to overcome his arrogance at many instances starting from the moment when he starts detailing his genealogy. Seriously, what's wrong with men and family trees!!! Nothing justifies his choice of elaborating on his family tree at the very first pages of this book except extreme arrogance. The other major arrogant point was him believing he had to write to save humanity. Can someone be any more delusional than that? Please!
I am not sure if Sartre was self aware of the image he was giving of himself. But I believe that probably he was and he found nothing wrong in being arrogant. One cannot judge a literary masterpiece based on the character of its writer I agree, but I still believe that modesty in addition to the intellectual capacity makes the most captivating writers ever and probably the smartest (those who brag on the opposite fall in the annoying category).
In conclusion, reading this book made me discover two Sartres, Sartre the man and Sartre the Great. One I loved and one I hate. Sartre the Great will never become one of my favorite authors because of the man I discovered behind. I cannot dare to deny Sartre the Great of his rightful literary and intellectual value. Then again some books' influence on you just cannot be detached from their authors' influence. But one thing is sure, I will not forget the Sartres.
i don't recall the last time i read such a refreshing, smart and frank review. i think it is your sharp frankness that makes your reviews so fresh, humane and lovely to read.
ReplyDeletei could imagine the following title of an imaginary article in some literary magazine commenting on your review as this: Izzy attack Sartre the Great :)
it wasn't hard to be convinced by point of view as your arguments are logical and solid. add that your style is really great, with some pearls scattered here and there. BRAVO!
S.
Thank you Simon! I am glad you liked the transparency in this personal input :)
ReplyDeleteI hope I get more time to write all the reviews I have in mind