Sunday Morning! “The Book of Disquiet” by Fernando Pessoa
In his posthumous Book of Disquiet, Bernardo Soares meditates on some lines by the Portuguese poet Alberto Caeiro:
“I am equal in size to whatever I see.
Not hemmed in by the size I am.
After he reads these lines, Soares tells us:
“I go to my window that looks onto the narrow street. I look up at the great sky and the many stars and the beating of the wings of a splendid freedom shakes my whole body.”
And we believe it. * Soares was a meager assistant bookkeeper in Lisbon who wrote these words in 1930, and for him, the night was the time of freedom and art. He was an isolated man, by choice and character; much of the book is about this isolation. Yet, reading the words 90 years later- and there’s no doubt more of his writing will be available when we’ve reached the centennial- I feel connected to the little man in Lisbon who refuses to be hemmed in by his small size. In truth, neither of us is very large. In truth, none of us are.
The 20th century was great for producing this sort of epic hero- the tiny and anonymous man who contains multitudes within him, and who can only exist and fight his meager battles within the smaller scale frameworks that were increasingly hard to come by in that century. For this was a century in which tiny men were slotted into unthinkably massive and inhuman frameworks: the Nation, the Market, the Race- and then sent off to do battle for men other than themselves. The heroes of this era turned inwards: instead of the Religious Crusader heading off to the holy Land, we get Kafka heading off to the insurance office, Eliot heading off to the bank, Vivian Maier cleaning others’ homes, and * Soares in his tiny office writing about the tiny people around him.
*Or, more accurately, Fernando Pessoa writing, but hey what’s in a name?
Bernardo Soares was Fernando Pessoa; Alberto Caeiro was Fernando Pessoa. In fact, when he died in 1935, the freelance correspondence translator Pessoa was only remembered, slightly, for a book of poems published under his own name the year before. It was already understood though that he had published poems under three other names, including Caeiro. It was then gradually realized he had published three other books in English and done quite a bit of writing for various journals under alter egos he called “heteronyms”- more than pen names, they had biographies, imagined lives, philosophies, and distinct characters. In fact, Pessoa had, at least, seventy-two distinct heteronyms. Much of his posthumous reputation comes from their work. Like so many solitary creators, after his death, a trunk was found; inside, there were approximately 25,000 written works.
And writing on every topic under the sun. As one of Pessoa’s translators summarizes, he had, at least, started: “dozens of short stories, twenty or more plays, detective novels, philosophical treatises, sociological and psychological studies, books on Portuguese culture and history, a tour guide of Lisbon, pamphlets about sundry political and economic issues, astrological works, essays on religion, literary criticism, and more.” Many of these were admittedly unfinished at the time of his death, including the Book of Disquiet. And often, his heteronyms commented on each other: one description we have of the introverted Pessoa comes directly from Soares, in the Book of Disquiet. At one point, one of Pessoa’s heteronyms was writing to literary professors to gossip about another heteronym’s work. This was a man with a very busy imaginary schedule.
But, maybe, the Book of Disquiet, a very personal journal of a very private life, is Pessoa’s true testament. He confesses:
All I’ve ever done is dream. That, and only that, has been the meaning of my existence.
With such an active imaginary life, he did not need close friends, and apparently only had one brief and unreturned love. Nevertheless:
I had a whole world of friends inside me, each with his or her own real, defined, and imperfect life.
There is a type of person who can sit for hours in isolation dreaming of imagined worlds. Indeed, the main appeal of my own job as a university cleaner is I can spend hours per day alone, often in a tiny closet, reading books and writing stories. The work is socially-isolating and, my friends, that is pure bliss. Other people are nice, in theory, but in reality most of us, I think, feel a pull towards others that oscillates between loneliness, when we’re fully isolated, to boredom, when we’re not. So, I can relate to this man who has great affection for the barber and the tobacconist, and the stars and roads and houses around him, but would rather keep them at a distance. I think I understand Pessoa.
But, maybe it’s not Pessoa, and this is Soares’s confession. Identity is a tricky thing. At the least, Soares is considered the most autobiographical of Pessoa’s characters, and this novel, written as a memoir, is considered his prose masterpiece. There are plenty of examples of thinly-veiled autobiographies in literature; probably the most notable being the narrator “Marcel” in In Search of Lost Time, who Proust tells us cheekily he’s only called “Marcel” the one time the gives the name because that’s what we all expect to hear.
And this is something we all do with our lives isn’t it? We tell ourselves largely fictionalized stories about imaginary characters we name after ourselves. To fiction is to fashion and we make our lives out of whatever we find around us, even if those things are meager. We stick to our stories, no matter how unreal they are.
These imaginary lives are steeped in and birthed from tedium. At points, Soares claims tedium as his real topic, saying he’s the first one to write about it this way, which is somewhat hilarious. Tedium, or its close companion ennui, has probably been the great theme of the last three centuries of literature. And Pessoa is not the first to take pleasure in the sensuous quality of tedium, the way that sticking to simple, boring, repetitive schedules can bring out the luminous qualities of the smallest things around us. But he’s perhaps the best at it.
When the world around us is flattened out and made repetitive, and our will is limited to what color tie we might put on in the morning, it is very easy to go into the dreamland. Pessoa often alludes to the Romantics, whose literature came most often from the tension between reality and the imagination that yearns to transcend reality. Like them, he sees modernity as a time in which actual spiritual transcendence is impossible:
“I was born at a time when most young people had lost their belief for much the same reason that their elders had kept theirs- without knowing why.
He would transcend his life by faith, were it still available to him, but it is not. A man of his generation, he cannot believe. This was, of course, the major theme of the Romantics: the tension between yearning for transcendence and never achieving it.
The difference between Pessoa and the Romantics of the 19th century, exalting in their imagination and wallowing in ennui is a matter of finances. He admits: “I imagined myself another Chateaubriand but brought myself up sharply with the realization that I was neither a viscount nor a Breton.” The dispossessed noble can sit in his empty chateau, dreaming, or travel the Orient, but a modern of lesser means dreams in drabber surroundings, like Walter Mitty, or better yet, Emma Bovary, that tragic believer in romantic chimeras. Or us. There is a tragic, melancholy quality to Pessoa’s writing, a sense that, underneath it all, the world really is quite small.
Or, as small as our imagination. The greatness of Soares’s writing is in taking the small things and insignificant people around him and making them much grander. In reality, it’s not that he is equal to their size, but he raises them up to his.
So, what are YOU reading, pondering, playing, imagining, or watching this weekend?
I tried watching the Queen’s Gambit on Netflix because it got good reviews. I gave up after a few minutes. Even though it is based on a novel, the whole thing felt like it was designed based on an algorithmic cliche of Prestige TV. The formula seems to be:
1. Mid 20th-century setting for glamour and gorgeous design;
2. Somewhat dysfunctional set sympathetic anti-heroine with drop dead gorgeous looks. In this case, she is a young woman in her early 20s who is a chess genius. Her tragic backstory (revealed in the first few minutes) is that she was orphaned as a young child when her mom committed suicide via car crash. She was sent to a kind of weird orphanage where the girls are given “vitamins” for their deportment/character development but these pills seem more like stuff to drug people out. Now as a young women, she is a hot mess who pops pills and chases them down with booze and then runs to her matches.
3. Improbable yet trendy casting. One of the teachers at the orphanage is a trans actor. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this but it is obvious and I am not sure to what end of commentary. On the other hand, the Orphange is integrated and one of the three people in charge is a Black Man. There is no way an orphanage in 1950s Kentucky is going to be integrated. There is also no way an orphanage in 1950s Kentucky would let black people be in charge of white girls. I actually got into an argument with people about whether historical vermisilitude like this matters or not. I took the unpopular stance that it does.Report
From what I’ve read point three is also problematic because they are going with a warts and all approach to the mid-20th century. This is something you can’t really have your cake and eat it to with. If you want to depict the bad parts of the past like misogyny, racism, homophobia, and sexual repression then you can’t do trendy colorblind casting. If you are doing the SCA approach to the past, the past as it should be rather than it was, you can do this type of casting. When going for a warts and all approach, this type of casting seems to miss the point.
Nearly all historical fiction or fiction set in the past has this problem. People like historical settings but don’t like the things that make modern audience queasy. Nearly every period piece dealing with Queen Elizabeth I ignores the fact that she like many of other subjects found sports involving animal cruelty really good clean fun. Nobody wants to deal with a Good Queen Bess that liked herself some bear-baiting and cock fighting. So naturally, all productions try to blunt the past. The wider the audience, the more rough edges will be smoothed down. Making the protagonists more modern than typical seems to be an unavoidable temptation.
Visual media has a much tougher time with this than novels because of a wider audience. There is a very cheesy Canadian police procedural I like called the Murdoch Mysteries that is a pretty good example of this. The early seasons really try to pay close attention to the past is another country aspect of late 19th century Canada. A season one episode involves the protagonist investigating the gay male community in Toronto. The cops at the station he works with, these are recurring characters, are shown to be really homophobic as one would expect. In more recent episodes, you have gay cops and non-Whites working at the police station and everybody is fine with it. That would be all well and good in a SCA approach but not when they depict the extras and minor characters as having the prejudices of the early 20th century. The idea that this one police station in Toronto is more enlightened than everywhere else stretches thew willing suspension of disbelief.Report
” If you want to depict the bad parts of the past like misogyny, racism, homophobia, and sexual repression then you can’t do trendy colorblind casting.”
Who made these rules?Report
You can do it, as there are no “rules” about it.
But it is racist white-washing.Report
So it violates the No Racist White Washing rule.
Now I hate that show.Report
I have actually read The Queens Gambit. Walter Tevis, whose other books include Mockingbird, Man Who Fell To Earth, and The Hustler.
Not a bad book, but not great either.Report
I’m not a big series watcher because I don’t have the attention span or patience. I did watch Lovecraft Country and enjoyed it. Looking at your list, I’d say it has #1 for sure. The 1950s clothes are fantastic. Yeah on #2, the heroine’s a bit dysfunctional and definitely gorgeous. #3 is harder to say. Racism is a huge theme and I’m not sure the trans subplot worked. But I’m still a sucker for real life history meets multidimensional monsters, so it was okay. But, again, I don’t watch series, so it could have been one cliche after another and I wouldn’t have known.Report
This is a delightfully written essay, Rufus, about a fascinating person. Thanks for sharing it.Report
Thanks so much!Report
I started watching a show on PBS called Roadkill. It stars Hugh Laurie and a junior minister in the British cabinet who has a corrupt secret. The first episode made me want more.
Also, we’ve been devouring the Great British Bake Off. It’s so genteel. It makes a great antidote to all the political nonsense that continues to saturate our airwaves.Report