I’m still cutting my reading of Doña Rosa Chacel; now with Beckett, and a book about Beckett, an essay that includes some biographical notes. I found it very interesting, even though essays normally annoy me. But then, I was extremely curious about Beckett, and this book shed light on a few things. I’d already read a really hilarious short story of his called ‘First Love’, and now I’m reading some other stories. Beckett can always make me roar with laughter. I know, of course, that his work isn’t only about humour, and in fact one of my disagreements with the author of the book relates to that. The author doesn’t like it when people look for particular philosophical meanings in Beckett and interpret his work in those terms; I’m entirely with him there. I too think that Art, in general, shouldn’t be judged on its content. But the author, a German, goes a bit far in claiming that the meaning isn’t important at all. He’s guided in part by what Beckett himself says, but everyone knows that authors never tell the whole truth about their work, often because they don’t know it. What I’m trying to say about my disagreement with the German is this: OK, Beckett doesn’t build his work around any meaning or message or ideology, and that’s how Art should be. Great. But my disagreement lies in the fact that having a character called Godot is not the same as having a character called something else. This Godot has a meaning, which evidently relates to God. I agree that this doesn’t explain the work, and nor does it give the work its power or justify its existence; but let’s not deny that there are also meanings in the work. What’s important about literature doesn’t derive from its meanings, but that’s not to say the meanings don’t exist or don’t matter. I’ve often said and written: ‘If I wanted to convey an ideological message, I’d write a pamphlet,’ or something to that effect. But that doesn’t mean my writing doesn’t express ideas, or that those ideas aren’t worth mentioning.