Reviewed by: Beckett, Lacan, and the Mathematical Writing of the Real by Arka Chattopadhyay Fernanda Negrete Beckett, Lacan, and the Mathematical Writing of the Real. Arka Chattopadhyay. New York: Bloomsbury, 2019. Pp. 224. $135.00 (cloth); $39.95 (paper); $35.95 (eBook). How might the writings of Samuel Beckett and Jacques Lacan respond to each other? Arka Chattopadhyay pursues this question in a cogent project that foregrounds mathematics as a common terrain for these two contemporary authors, whose work developed in separate fields despite various relevant points of intersection. Beckett, Lacan, and the Mathematical Writing of the Real begins by acknowledging the missed encounters between Beckett and Lacan, given their shared context in postwar Paris among avant-garde writers, their awareness of each other, and even the coincidence of their birthday. The book demonstrates a psychoanalytic sensibility in remarking on the missed encounters, and above all in allowing them to promptly place the investigation on the path of the textual unconscious in terms of the mathematical letter. The author offers an attentive ear to only seemingly passing comments the writers in question made about each other: Beckett mentions that Lacan's "later work tends to become unreadable" (4), and Lacan in his 1970 text "Lituraterre" invokes Beckett's "dustbins" (5), while discussing the materiality of the letter and the litter of the unconscious. Chattopadhyay follows these traces to reveal the uniqueness of what he calls mathematical writing, which is crucial to both Beckett and Lacan's creativity. Through the term mathematical writing, Chattopadhyay brings into focus the two authors' use of concepts from mathematics as well as a formal dimension of writing that is concerned with a kind of transmission that leaves behind the interest in sharing meaning. Chattopadhyay reminds us that as long as writing is understood as a technology subordinated to speech and meaning, the relation between literature and psychoanalysis remains unidirectional. In this relation, psychoanalysis is an interpretive device applied to literature. There are many critical works that establish such relations between the fields, through applied psychoanalysis that attempts to interpret—that is to say, to explain away—literary texts, or even more often, their authors. But it is fair to say that Beckett's texts refuse this sort of treatment. Attempts at enforcing it can only yield a partial grasp of what Beckett's texts put to work. While his writing stands beyond Oedipal concerns, its modes and gestures remain highly relevant to analytic thinking, especially the kind that also ventures out beyond Oedipus, as it did in Lacan's teaching. Chattopadhyay's book introduces the Lacanian register of the Real in order to approach writing from a perspective suitable to Beckett's experiments. From the perspective of the Real, Chattopadhyay demonstrates that Beckett's texts in fact contribute to better understanding the [End Page 806] relevance of the Real. The latter operates outside realist ideals and norms in literature, especially. The Real also places the psychoanalytic clinic outside normative and adaptive goals; this aspect, however, is only discussed to the extent that Lacan presents it as a logical process that seeks the end of analysis with the construction of a sinthome and the analysand's becoming analyst. In an exposition of existing commentaries on the role of mathematics in Beckett's work, Chattopadhyay declares his interest in adding to this investigation psychoanalysis, whose function he describes "as a bridge of Real inscription between mathematics and literature" (17). In his foreword to the book, Anthony Ullman instead sees the mathematical as the original bridging element between Beckett and Lacan (ix). In fact, mathematics, psychoanalysis, and literature are each set forth in chapter one to operate as bridges that enable a discussion between the two other terms, in a triad the author extracts from multiple texts by Beckett and Lacan throughout the book's other chapters. Contributing to this ambitious bridging or knotting of fields are the admirable breadth and depth with which both figures' work is embraced in the book. Its engagement with Beckett offers to Lacanian readers useful examples of the logical implications of the French psychoanalyst's related concepts of the letter, sinthome, jouissance, lalangue, the One, and above all the Real, or of...