"

 Pessimism v. optimism in Beckett. 

I have an issue with the statment ""Beckett's work is . . . deeply pessimistic about the human condition"" as found in the first paragraph. I changed ""deeply"" to ""deceptively,"" and it was immediately changed back. I don't know how to contact the subsequent editor directly, so I'll post this here by way of discussion.

Perhaps replacing “deeply” with “deceptively” is not the best fix, but as it stands the quoted statement puts forth, as fact, an opinion that is widley open to interpretation.

Beckett’s writings aren’t just about the journey. If they were, “deeply pessimistic” would be nearly undebatable. They’re just as much about the destination, or at least the goal. And while he frames life’s journey as a slog through shit, his ultimate implication is that the slog is worthwhile. As everything from the Greek and Latin classics to the greatest of Hollywood’s pro-war propaganda movies have proven again and again, the more monstrously you portray the obstacle, the larger looms the hero who overcomes them. The same is true in Beckett: the obstacles are unrelenting and nearly insurmountable, but the journey continues, heroically. The Beckett hero may be standing in the dark, but he's faced towards the light, distant—an unattainable—as it may be.

The essential Beckett quote isn’t “I can’t go on”—full stop; it’s “I can’t go on. I’ll go on.”

Now, I may not have convinced you, personally, that Beckett’s work is more optimistic than pessimistic. But perhaps I’ve made a case that a flatly factual statement like “Beckett's work is stark . . . and deeply pessimistic about the human condition” is a bit overstated for an article that strives to remain free of bias. 

Beckett himself would be the first to disagree with you. He once said that if he were a pessimist, he wouldn’t write.  Although I know that the artist is not always the most reliable source for understanding his work, that ought to count for something."