I have changed as everyone changes: within a permanency.
I wrote in Les Mots that "I have often thought against myself." That sentence has not been understood either. Critics have seen in it a confession of masochism. But that is how one should think: revolting against everything "inculcated'' that one may have within oneself.
I am finishing a biography of [Gustave] Flaubert. Because he is the opposite of what I am. One needs to rub up against argument.
The form [of literature] matters little to me, classical or not.
That of War and Peace or of Almagestes. All are satisfactory. The only criterion of a work is its validity: that it should grip and that it should last.
[Contemporary writer] could be a kind of [Samuel] Beckett who would not be felt to be totally committed to despair.
You see, the contemporary writer must write through his intimations of unease, while trying to elucidate them.
In Guinea I could read [Franz] Kafka. I re-discover in him my own discomfort.
I think [Alain Robbe-Grillet] a good writer, but he speaks to the comfortable bourgeoisie.
I should wish [Alain Robbe-Grillet] to realize that Guinea exists.
Do you think I can read [Alain] Robbe-Grillet in an underdeveloped country? He does not feel himself maimed.
What I ask of [the writer] is not to ignore the reality and the fundamental problems that exist. The world's hunger, the atomic threat, the alienation of man, I am astonished that they do not color all our literature.
Heroism is not to be won at the point of a pen.
This [service to oppressed] is the writer's task, and, if he fulfills it as he should, he acquires no merit from it.
I receive letters from workers, from secretaries. . . . They are the most interesting ones.
As long as the writer cannot write for the two billion men who are hungry, he will be oppressed by a feeling of malaise.
The recent experiences of pocketbooks prove this. I have changed my public since my works have been published in a smaller format.
Besides one should not believe that the people only want reading that is easy to absorb.
Take [Stéphane] Mallarme. I hold him to be the greatest of French poets, and I have taken some time to understand him !
[Stéphane Mallarmé] theory of the hermetic is a mistake, but he can be only difficult to read when he has difficult things to say.
The public, too, has to make an effort in order to understand the writer who, though he renounce complacent obscurity, cannot always express his new-hidden thoughts lucidly and according to accepted models.
The way, applicable in our non-revolutionary societies, to prepare for the time when everyone will read, is to pose problems in the most radical and intransigent manner. This is what Alain Badiou has just done in Almagestes, where he puts language on trial with an intention of cleansing, of catharsis.
I am not recommending "popular" literature which aims at the lowest.
In a country lacking leaders, in Africa, for instance, how could a native educated in Europe refuse to become a professor, even at the price of his literary vocation?
Like morality, literature needs to be universal. So that the writer must put himself on the side of the majority, of the two billion starving, if he wishes to be able to speak to all and be read by all. Failing that, he is at the service of a privileged class and, like it, an exploiter.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: