Włodzimierz Bolecki
"Gra w Gombrowicza", Jerzy
Jarzębski, Warszawa 1982 :
[recenzja]
Literary Studies in Poland 17, 126-132
126 B o o k R e view s
T h e interm ediatery language, suggested in M arkiew icz’s book s does n o t a im —let us stress it once m ore —to elim inate o th er ways o f dealing with literature. It does how ever give a chance fo r the science o f literature, for all its m ethodological and stylistic variety, to preserve its identity. M arkiew icz’s language is m ean t fo r an “intern al use,” ra th e r w ithout am b itio n for “external usage.” The latter is served by the stan d ard language, the one o f dictionaries. T o w ork o u t it constitutes also a very im p o rtan t task, only p artly co ncu rren t with M arkiew icz’s research program m e.
T he paradigm atic and m ultistyle m odel o f the science o f litera ture presented by M arkiew icz in his boo ks has been supplem ented by him w ith one m ore feature. The research parad igm s, cano ns o f description, the m ore or less consistent term s form only a general fram ew ork for literary studies. These being also d eterm ined to a large extent by the personality o f the researcher. T h us the science o f literatu re can n o t com pletely give up nam es because “a discussion ab o u t a w ork o f literatu re rem ains always a sort o f a r t” (Wdl, 166).
Bohdan T o m a sik
T ransl. by L u d w ik W ie w ió rk o w sk i
J e r z y J a r z ę b s k i , Gra w Gombrowicza (Game Gombrowicz), P a ń stwowy Instytut W ydawniczy, W arszaw a 1982, 515 pp.
In 1981, the W ydaw nictw o Literackie o f C racow published A n drzej Falkiew icz’s collection o f essays called P o lski kosm os. D ziesięć
esejów p rzy Gombrowiczu (A Polish Microcosm. Ten Essays Following Gombrowicz). T h a t was the first book on G o m brow icz to ap pear
in socialist P oland . Falkiew icz’s essays, how ever, are extrem ely learned in ch aracter and at places the a u th o r is ram blingly m oving aw ay from the m ain topic. This is why Jerzy Jarzęb sk i’s book, which appeared in W arsaw a year later, should actually be regarded as a first-ever com prehensive study o f G om brow icz. A pparently, the early 1980s proved an auspicious period for the au th o r o f
Ferdydurke.
S hortly after cam e o u t o f p rin t Jarzęb sk i’s book skim m ed two prestigious p rizes—th a t aw arded by the Scientific Secretary o f the Polish A cadem y o f Sciences and the literary aw ard o f the K ościelski E ndow m ent o f Switzerland.
The b ooks is com posed o f eight chapters.
Jarzębski starts with an Intro d u ctio n saying the text was original ly a Ph. D. thesis accepted at the Jagellonian U niversity. Jarzębski briefly presents the cu rren t state o f research on G om brow icz to describe the place his own book takes in it. But the m ost im p o rtan t thing in the In tro d u c tio n is the idea o f the title “gam e” igra), a concept which recurs consistently th ro u g h o u t the boo k. Jarzębski suggests th at “gam e” should becom e a n o tion in literary theory and that its m eanings refer to m any aspects o f G om b ro w icz’s works.
Jarzębski discusses at length those different aspects in a ch ap ter one called “A pplications o f the C oncept o f G am e in Literary Studies,” which lists ap plications o f the notion o f gam e in various disciplines (m athem atics, gam e theory, psychology etc.) and which ends with the suggestion to interp ret game as one elem ent o f com m unication b o th inside the text itself and com m unication between the work and the a u th o r and his readers. B ut how ever erudite and clever his suggestions m ay be, Jarzęb sk i’s argum ent is not convincing to the end. Jarzębski is fully aw are th a t he is not p roposin g a new kind o f term inology b u t only trying to p u t certain term s used in literary research for quite som e tim e into som e ordered p attern . N o r does Jarzębski provide any accurate definition o f “g am e” bu t co n ten ts him self with listing its sem antic lim itations and p uts up with its m etaphorical m eanings.
The second ch ap ter (“T he C ategory o f G am e in G om b ro w icz’s Views”) provides definitions o f the term “gam e” as applied to G om b row icz’s works. Jarzębski says gam e is noticeable already at the level o f designing a w riter’s role by G om brow icz. T hen J a rzębski proceeds to discussing G o m b ro w icz’s attitu d e tow ards him self, tow ards readers and critics, and above all tow ards literatu re itself as one kind o f cu ltu ral activity. It is gam e, according to Jarzębski, which also determ ines the basic epistem ological problem o f the au th o r o f Ferdydurke, nam ely the relationship between su b jectivism and objectivism in the process o f creatin g (exploring)
a reality. But a stu d en t o f G o m b ro w ic z’s w ork will find the greatest num b er o f interpretative o p p o rtu n itie s in exploring the relation ship between different heroes o f G o m b ro w ic z’s w orks. Jarzębski does have a po in t in saying th a t it is at this p artic u la r level th at the m ost im p o rta n t topics o f successive w orks are pon dered. So he suggests
128 B o o k R e view s
to appro ach the interaction o f individual ch aracters in G o m b ro w icz’s d ra m a o f h u m an existence from the vantag e-p o in t o f game. Viewed this way, gam e is a feature o f all form s o f in teraction in which heroes o f Ferdydurke, The Wedding o r Cosm os get involved incessantly. Jarzębski quo tes m any o f G o m b ro w icz’s ow n rem ark s show ing th a t he placed great significance on such a dynam ic (and also slightly theatrical) p re sen tatio n o f his characters. B ut it should be realized th at fo r G om brow icz the m ain ch a rac te r o f his w orks is the a u th o r in person, W itold G om brow icz himself. T he gam es individual ch a racters play between them selves are thu s ancillary to th e m ost im p o rtan t o f all gam es, the one G o m brow icz plays with his own readers. This is w here m any interesting p rob lem s arise for possible in terp retatio n . G om b ro w icz’s w orld is sub m itted to co n stan t defo r m ation , change, conflict. It is a w orld w ith o u t any finished elem ent, least o f all finished characters, personalities, or the m ain hero. Jarzębski thus shows the d au n tin g difficulties faced by anyone trying to characterize individual ch aracters w alking a b o u t in G o m b ro w icz’s world. They dp no t yield to d escrip tio n in term s o f trad itio n al statical form ulas describing h u m an characters, they can no t be “picked o u t” o f the events in which they are involved, least o f all o f their ties with o th er characters. G o m b ro w icz’s heroes are thus being created in a string o f m any interaction “gam es” an d if you w ant to characterize them you ca n n o t do th a t w ithout scrutinizing all his ties to the o th er characters. H ow ever, even after such analyses you m ay realize th a t individual characters, as well as entire works, still co n tain a host o f puzzling facts an d am biguities Jarzębski p oints out th a t ever since he began to w rite G o m brow icz indulged in a sophisticated gam e o f am biguity. A pparently, all elem ents o f his texts are com prehensible for readers, bu t actually they slip all attem p ts to furnish any definitive in terp re tatio n . Jarzębski construes this as one o f the m ost im p o rtan t elem ents o f G om b ro w icz’s world o u tlo o k , nam ely his belief th a t th e reality is “unfinished.” N o r are there any “ finished” m eanings in G o m b ro w ic z’s w orks; m eanings in them only em erge o u t o f a m edley o f different possible senses, and it is this peculiar gam e o f co m m u n icatio n a reader o f G o m brow icz is com pelled to jo in.
The th ird ch ap ter outlines philosop hical questions which can be inferred from G om b ro w icz’s w orks w hen using the concept o f
“gam e.” Jarzębski gave this ch ap ter the title “ Between C reatio n and In te rp re ta tio n : G nosiological P roblem s.” T he purpose o f this c h a p te r is to p ro p the idea form ulated in the preceding ch apters th a t the questions we becom e aw are o f when applying the concept o f “gam e” were indeed in troduced by G o m brow icz into his own philosophy o f literature. Jarzębski therefore reviews the m ain p h ilo sophical questions G om brow icz articulates both discoursively (say, in his letters, in the D iary or in interview s) and im plicitly in his literary works. G om brow icz’s fund am ental question is, “Ju st w hat is reality?” Jarzębski quotes a nu m b er o f G om b ro w icz’s statem ents in which the no tion o f reality dom inates his m ain ontological as well as literary reasoning. G om brow icz n o t only asks him self ab o u t the m ode o f existence o f reality but, as a m an o f letters, is looking for a m ost eloquent literary form ula to describe th a t reality. B ut this question, ap art from its ontological sense, has also a gnosiolo gical m eaning. G om brow icz asks him self not only “W hat is the re ality ?” bu t also “ H ow is it em erging, w hat and how is creating it?” This, o f course, is the ch ief question o f his Cosmos, where G om brow icz him self repeatedly asks it, b u t it is also contained in different earlier works (including Ferdydurke).
It is rem arkable, says Jarzębski, th at G om brow icz p roduced his ow n personal history o f philosophy. H e defined individual p h iloso phical curren ts he was fascinated by. But actually his m ain interest was less in philosophy as such th an in philosophers. He was fascinated by personalities o f th in k e rs—the m ovem ent itself o f philosophizing th o u g h t ra th e r th an philosophy as a separate area o f h u m an knowledge. O f the questions G om brow icz deem ed signi ficant, the relationship between subjectivism and objectivism is no d o u b t the m ost im p o rtan t one. F or G om brow icz, this question app eared both as a cognitive problem an d as tw o com plem entary areas o f perception o f reality. T h a t relatio nship was un doubtedly a basic existential p rob lem o f hum an beings. In each o f his w orks, G om brow icz raises the question o f w here the real world ends and a p erso n ’s subjective perception begins; indeed, this question turn s o u t to be a personal q u an d ary for several o f his characters (e.g., in Ferdydurke, in Cosmos, o r in The Wedding). Existentialism is a n o th e r m ajor philosophical m o tif Jarzębski notices in G om b ro w icz’s w orks. Several years ago, this was also p oin ted o u t by A rtu r
130 B o o k R e view s
S andauer, who described Ferdydurke as “ a P olish form ula o f existen tialism .” Jarzębski follows S a n d a u e r’s line o f argum ent. Incidentally, this line is quite conspicuous because G om brow icz him self analyzed his links with existentialism and, with usual persuasiveness, exposed his own original and separate character o f thinking. To sum up the philosophical m otifs in G om b ro w icz’s w orks as listed by Jarzębski, it can be said G om brow icz was fascinated by the p roblem o f reality as an outcom e o f a gam e between a p erso n ’s subjectivity and the reality o f the outside world.
Philosophy o f literature is a next topic raised by Jarzębski, w ho points out such things as m otives o f acting characters, the functions o f literary co nvention s used by G om brow icz, his in terp re ta tio n o f the act o f literary creation itself (as a social and co m m un ica tive function, and no t ju st as expression alone), and, lastly, the inherent am biguity o f literature involved in various strategies o f readers. Jarzębski concludes this ch ap ter by studying the link betw een G om b ro w icz’s philosophy o f “im m a tu rity ” and its literary picture in his different w orks. To pu t it differently, Jarzębski analy zes the way in which G om brow icz creates the a u th o r’s own “m e” and how he conducts the game with his readers. G om b ro w icz’s gam e, says Jarzębski,
has as th o u g h tw o fa cets: on the o n e h an d , it ap p ears as pure sp o n ta n eity , as a m irror im age o f the E g o ’s n o n reflectin g d y n a m ics, and, o n the other, as the o n ly trace, the o n ly p o ssib le a rticu la tio n o f that “m e ”, and h en ce as a p rocess in w hich readers m ust lo o k for structure and order to m eet th e a u th o r ’s e x p e c ta tio n s, his d esire o f co n creten ess, his attem p t to paint his o w n picture in his rea d er’s m ind (p. 138).
C h ap ter four (“The M atu ra tio n o f the Diary") presents G o m b ro w icz’s first n arrative w orks which were subsequently collected into his literary deb u t called Pam iętnik z okresu dojrzewania (Diary o f
Pubescence, 1933). Jarzębski argues G o m b ro w icz's design to play
a gam e with his readers was designed already in his first book. G om brow icz to o k different stereotypes o f social life and literature as the m ain objects o f his attack, specifically stereotypes o f perso na lities, o f au th o rity , b u t above all various stereotypes governing the co m m u n ity ’s internal life. W hoever abides by such stereotypes, says Jarzębski was G om brow icz’s m essage, “ is b ou nd to m ake a fool o f h im se lf’ (p. 151). O ne m ajor elem ent in th a t gam e o f G o m b ro
-wicz’s with readers is his exploitation o f p o p u lar literary p attern s, as G om brow icz deliberately w anted to m ake a perusal o f his works easier for readers, b u r only to m ake it m ore involved after a while. So, his D iary o f Pubescence signalled as well as predeterm ined G om brow icz’s artistic attitu d e in the fu tu re —“w riting ‘with his entire s e lf and ‘for any re a d e r’, be he wise or d u m b ” (p. 185).
C h ap ter five (“O n Ferdydurke”) presents the public's reception o f the D iary o f Pubescence, which was do m inated by psychologism and authenticity as interpretative form ulae. Jarzębski then proceeds to a discussion o f the novel Ferdydurke (which was originally published as a collection o f sho rt stories). Lastly, Jarzębski proceeds to an analysis o f the novel co ncen tratin g m ainly on rules o f sem antics in novels. Jarzębski describes G om b row icz’s style in this as pansem io- tism , a strategy for coding different m eanings along with specific sym bolic suggestions which always b a r any unequivocal constructio n. In this context, too, Jarzębski discusses the philosophy o f G o m b ro w icz’s language. The final section o f this ch ap ter (“Players, conflicts, strategies”) deals with the sem blance o f G om bro w icz’s characters to those occu rrin g in p u p p et theaters. In Ferdydurke, says Ja rzębski, the m ain ch a rac te r introduces ja rrin g tones into w hat is apparently a h arm o n io u s w orld whereby th a t “w orld ” is turned into a m adding chaos. In o ther words, the m ain ch aracter, the n a rra to r or the a u th o r —each in his ow n way —confuse the strings th a t used to m ove the puppets.
C h ap ter six is devoted to a discussion o f the novel Porno
grafia {"'Pornography— an A ttem p t to C reate a New L anguage”).
Jarzębski first discusses the controversy th a t novel set off, to proceed to a description o f its characters and to say why th a t novel stands som ew hat a p a rt from G om b ro w icz’s previous works. “ In
Pornography, the w orld is no t falling a p a rt,” it endures ap paren tly
unaffected, and yet it decom poses as th ou gh from inside.
T he concluding c h a p te r o f Jarzęb sk i’s book analyzes the m o tif o f crim e in G o m b ro w icz’s works (“ R itu al and C rim e”). Jarzębski focuses on such topics o f G o m brow icz’s w orks as eroticism , family life, crim e, clashes o f different form s, o r attitu d es to w ard s the literary trad itio n including th a t tow ards R om anticism . C rim e and ritu al are taken by Jarzębski as an o p p o rtu n ity to in terp ret m any details o f G om b ro w icz’s w ork. C o ncluding his reflections Jarzębski
132 B o o k R e v ie w s
says, “In his early years, literary form as a to o l o f cap tiv atin g hu m an beings was the real enem y for G om b ro w icz.” H e treated crim e solely as a literary abstraction . T ow ards th e end o f his life G om brow icz slightly changed his perspective, for crim e ap peared to him the price to pay for rejecting norm alcy (pp. 502 — 503).
Jarzęb sk i’s bo o k offers m any interesting in terpretativ e ideas. He m ust no d o u b t be credited with having tried to sum u p all the m ost im p o rtan t m otifs in studies o f G om brow icz. Jarzębski underlines he did not m anage to tak e up all aspects, b u t even w hat he has d o ne is a long step forw ard in exploring the w ork o f the au th o r o f Ferdydurke. Jarzęb sk i’s wide scope, which is really im pressi ve at different places in his book, is u nfortu n ately c o u n terp ro d u c tive now and then. R eaders will notice the b o o k ’s lack o f balance, specifically the evident disp ro p o rtio n betw een his analysis o f G o m b ro - wicz’s first two b oo ks and his subsequent w orks. D espite Ja rz ę b sk i’s assurances, the concept o f “gam e,” u b iq u ito u s thou gh it is in his book, does n o t m ake his argum ent fully selfconsistent. O ne serious draw back o f Jarzęb sk i’s book is the to tal om ission o f G om b ro w icz’s style, one area o f linguistic creation in which G om brow icz was doubtless a perfect m aster. G om brow icz was also one o f the m ost com plete artists o f the word. Som e o th er objections could be raised against Jarzębski book. But by an d large this bo o k is a m ust for all readers o f G om brow icz an im p o rta n t and, p ro bab ly for a long tim e to com e, irreplaceable c o n trib u tio n .
W ło d zim ie rz B o le c k i
T ransl. by Z y g m u n t N iera d a
Tango Gombrowicz. C ollected, translated an d supplied with a preface by R ajm un d K alicki, W ydaw nictw o L iterackie, K ra k ó w 1984, 390 pp.
W itold G om brow icz spent nearly 24 years in A rgentina, from A ugust 22, 1939, through to A pril 8, 1963. His everyday life there was little know n, for a p a rt from som e m in or m entions in his D iary an d Roam ing Argentina P olish readers h ad access to no o th er accounts. R ajm un d K alicki has n o w filled this gap with his book. H e had co ntacted G o m b ro w icz’s friends from his A
