In Italo Calvino’s Il castello dei destini incrociati, various adventurers, magically deprived of speech, are forced to tell their stories using the mechanism of tarot cards. The adventurers lay cards in order, such that each card is contextualised and rendered meaningful by the others. Later narrators have to cross those cards already laid out (thus, their narrative choices become more constrained as the storytelling progresses). However, each narrator, even those who tell their story last, makes some new impression on the table with a handful of new tarots. This use of cards for storytelling is innovative but not without precedent — the Major Arcana of the tarot, can be read as the story of the path of the Fool (card 0, representing Everyman) following the sequence of the cards, ordered 1 - 21 towards the attainment of wisdom: the figures represent advisors who help him (Magician, Alchemist, Emperor), the Devil who tempts him, and finally his ascending (Moon, Sun, Stars) to understand the secret of the Universe. Tarot imagery appears in influential works such as T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland{1}and Alain Robbe-Grillet’s Les gommes. Yet, fundamental as the tarots are to Western culture, Salman Rushdie has noted the paucity of the literature of cards: once, he claims, you have taken into account Castello and a few others

This, he claims is because

Thus, it may be interesting as we examine Castello, to analyse not only play within the rules Calvino has devised but also his infringements of them. In this paper I wish to look also at Le Cosmicomiche, and in particular at this element of cheating. First however, as Cosmicomiche is ostensibly a very different work in its setting and narration, it will be useful to show the underlying similarities between the two texts, similarities which hinge on the role of play.

Indeed, on first sight, it would be difficult to choose two more different works: instead of the Ariostan medieval romances and cautionary fables of Castello, the subject of Cosmicomiche is the way the universe works, from the creation of space, the evolution from mollusc through amphibian to dinosaur, and the nature of the speed of light. Nor is any virtuoso combinatory exercise attempted in Cosmicomiche, which has a very simple structure: an italicised section demonstrates, in a dry, scientific tone, a particular fact, theory or supposition on the state of our scientific knowledge, then the narrator Qfwfq’s story follows in more playful style, a slant on the theory which manages to clarify many of the phenomena in a surprisingly accurate, even though personified, exposition. Here, predating the current buzzword, is edutainment indeed. A simple structure, as I said, but one that is followed rather like the rules of a game (and, as with Castello, when Calvino chooses, he breaks or twists these rules happily as we shall see). The language and metaphor of play infuse Cosmicomiche more, in fact, than they do Castello. Yet Cosmicomiche has, for the most part, no human protagonist, only the albeit personified molecules and organisms as which Qfwfq manifests himself: can we really be expected to believe that this text has to do with play? Jacques Ehrmann and Roger Caillois, the two greatest game-theorists after the groundbreaking Huizinga, repeatedly stress that the play-instinct precedes actual play. Caillois especially gives illuminating examples of the play of insects and animals. James S. Hans’s more recent work on the subject sums up and expands on many of their arguments:

Indeed it is not correct to say that animals also play like men, or that water and light metaphorically play, rather it is Man that also plays.{4} Hans evokes the play of an inanimate rock with the wind and the rain (similar, in its lack of purpose, to human play) but notes how as one passes from inorganic through organic to human play, "there is an increasing potential for freedom of play and a concomitant increase in the potential for risk."{5} So it could be hypothesised that the level of complexity of play in the stories of the Cosmicomiche is commensurate with the level of physical or biological evolution described: thus it is only "Tutto in un punto" that is utterly devoid of any metaphorical or lexical references to play: this because the very time and space necessary for play (as posited by Huizinga et al’s insistence on the separateness of play) is non-existent. Yet, as we cannot conceive of the end (or in this case the pre-existent absence) of play, the style of this story is as playful as the others. 

We have demonstrated that play is a quality of both Castello and Cosmicomiche, but it appears to manifest itself in utterly different ways — on the level of structure on the one hand and in content/metaphor on the other. In linking the two, Mario Lavagetto’s introduction to Calvino’s collected writings on fables, will be of use. He discusses game, combinatory narrative and scientific theory in the context of the fairy tale, and in his brief discussion of Castello, Lavagetto refers to their structuralist analysis:

The combination referred to is of course that of the tarot cards which, according to their positioning in the narrative, take on different functions, that of a character in one narrative and a symbol in another. It is significant, though, that the metaphor used is that of the Democritian universe where a few types of atoms (fixed, unchanging) freely combine (the flux and graft described by Hans) to create various molecular structures giving rise to inorganic play, (of plate tectonics, volcanoes and earthquakes) organic play, (evolution, the games of insects and animals) and so onto human play. Thus, the narrative worlds of Castello and Cosmicomiche, seemingly irreconcilable, are bridged by the concept of play, in particular by the elements of combination and of change.

Let us move onto the role of ‘cheating’, that is, transgressing the rules of the narrative game. In Castello, each narrator must lay cards which combine with others to tell his or her story. The line produced must become two lines wide, though this can be done by laying two parallel consecutive lines (fig. 1), a line which returns on itself (fig. 2), or two parallel, simultaneous lines (fig. 3) The first story, "L’ingrato punito" is of the first type, "L’alchimista che vendette l’anima" and "La sposa dannata" of the second, while "Il ladro di sepolcri" is of the third type. 

This is cheating of a sort. By beginning with the convention in fig. 1, Calvino implies that this will be the basic pattern. By introducing the new conventions in ff. 2 and 3, he is acting like the child who suddenly adds new rules to a game — the pretence is that the new rules are transcendent and legitimate. The attraction of these new rules (for Calvino) is that they open up ways of reading the story, and help avoid certain combinations that seem less attractive. At least in Castello there are only 3 well defined variations and Calvino keeps to them. In the sequel, La taverna dei destini incrociati, although the final schema of cards looks more ordered (forming at the end a filled square with blank spaces only at the centre and at two opposite corners), the narrators lay cards in any order, so that the pleasure of the virtuoso contrainte is greatly diminished. Taverna seems to represent Calvino’s boredom with the rules he had created and a desire to evade them, to cheat them. Indeed, this is signalled at in his "Presentazione", where he describes the construction of both texts and his fatigue with them. He admits "ma sentivo che il gioco aveva senso solo se impostato secondo certe ferree regole"{7} and it is for this reason that Taverna is inferior to Castello. If there is too broad a leeway in the rules, then cheating at cards becomes a lazy cheating at narration. We felt a greater sense of narrative ingenuity (of narrative freedom even) in Castello when we realised, in "Storia dell’Orlando pazzo per l’amore", that

This is cheating of masterly quality!, actuated by a character, realistic, and with consequences for the other narrations. We experienced similar wonder (and again a peculiar sort of freedom) when we understood the way in which new narrations reused cards already positioned, or in the short and vertiginous last chapter where Calvino shows how the stories can be read back to front or upside down. This chapter, "Tutte le altre storie" which narrates 6 stories, adds a new dimension to the rules we thought we had already grasped, and so seems to evoke literally ‘all the other stories’ which could be narrated. Evidently the narrators in the castle are not breaking any rules of the game; rather Calvino is deliberately breaking part of his contract with us by having explained neither these rules, nor the (mind-boggling) simultaneity of the interweaving narrations earlier. He gives a rather poor tongue-in-cheek excuse through the Narrator: {9}

The narrative contract is implicit — we had understood that the Narrator was to interpret the multiple narrations for the reader, was ‘supposed’ to tell us all the facts of the narration, not hide them from us as he does. He had, effectively, a unique and vital narrative function {11} which was to enclose all the other stories and recount them to us faithfully. This of course explains why he is unable to individuate his own story in the final spread of cards on pp. 40-41. We see here one of the principle motifs of metatext, the "story within the story" and understand that the Narrator’s story is not found in the table on p.40, rather it is the table.{12} This pleasing multiplication of infinities is vertiginous and ilinx (vertigo) is one of Caillois’s fundamental classifications of play.{13} Thus, contractual cheating is part of the narrative game. In Cosmicomiche the "contract" includes our awareness of the scientific subject, the broad lack of human characters, the playfulness of style, the separateness of the italicised introduction and the story. Calvino plays with these conventions once he has firmly established them. Thus, in "La spirale"(the last story), Qfwfq seems in his opening statement to be replying to the scientific introduction, "Come me quand’ero attaccato a quello scoglio, volete dire? — domandò Qfwfq".{14} In "I dinosauri" another of the later stories, the subject totally changes in the last paragraph with a rapid time shift and introduction of human society, "Percorsi valli e pianure. Raggiunsi una stazione, presi il treno, mi confusi con la folla."{15} Calvino’s ‘cheating’ is playful and satisfying.   

The story "Giochi senza fine" in Le Cosmicomiche, combines cheating and infinities as did Castello. Here, cheating creates a mirrored infinity of new galaxies: if cheating at cards, as Rushdie posited, was a creative act, then cheating at universes is shown to be literally creative! In this story, Qfwfq realises that his playmate, Pwfwp has been seeking out the new (more effective and more prestigious) atoms. This in itself might not necessarily be cheating but "prima di metterli in gioco, da quel baro recidivio che era, si metteva a truccarli da atomi vecchi."{16} Qfwfq suspects that "Pwfwp voleva costruirsi un universo per conto suo, nuovo fiammante." Here, he begins to cheat too: he appropriates the new atoms, and leaves fakes in their place. Pwfwp is irked by the destruction of these counterfeits and declares "Non vale, quando un atomo si guasta la partita è nulla, e si ricomincia da capo — . Era una regola inventata da lui in quel momento."{17} Their argument leads to a competition where both throw their atoms into space to form galaxies; both rapidly lose control of their galaxies: "ormai […] era la galassia che faceva volare me."{18}  Moreover, they can no longer play with each other because their universes are infinitely mirrored and separate, so that Pfwfp is constantly chasing him and being chased by him and so to infinity. Here, in Caillois’s taxonomy, the game has progressed from agôn (competitive) to another vertiginous game of ilinx.{19} In "Giochi senza fine" the game and the attendant cheating have brought a new awareness, "Di giocare a rincorrerci avevamo perso ogni gusto e del resto non eravamo più bambini, ma ormai non ci restava altro da fare."{20}  Similarly, in "Sul far del giorno", play is linked with the creation of matter:

Yet in other games, such as the aeon-spanning game of reputation in "Gli anni luce" or the bets in "Quanto scommettiamo" the play is utterly unproductive. In the latter, Qfwfq bets with the Decano (k)yK and decides that, as the universe is ordered he can predict the creation of the universe or more complicated facts:

His bets are ‘creative’ (and transgressive) to the extent that they step outside the immediate frame of atoms, protostars and galactic spirals. (k)yK cannot aspire to this level of creativity, "Invece, in questi casi il Decano puntava sempre sul no,"{23} only because he doesn’t believe in the possibility of change. But even Qfwfq’s calculations eventually go wrong:

If the Decano’s fault is his refusal to step out of the game-frame, Qfwfq’s is his belief that so-doing will fix the result of the game. This is the essence of the italicised portion on the logic of cybernetics: in a determined universe one ought to be able to predict with absolute certainty, but the universe of play in which we actually live is characterised, according to Caillois, by uncertainty: 

Perhaps this element uncertainty is the most important thing we have learnt about game and narrative. The game of combinations and that of cheating which we traced through both texts always ended with some uncertainty: consider the reshuffling of the deck at the end of the storytelling in Castello — will the narrators be able to tell variations of their story with the new cards, or will they be forced to take on different narrative roles?; Qfwfq’s realisation that he may no longer be in control of his new galaxy in "Giochi senza fine", or his uncertainty as to the reaction of the distant observers in "Gli anni luce". Play is supposedly a utopian activity which formalises the chaos of the universe. Playing with combinations seems an especially controlled activity, but Calvino himself has alluded to "la vertigine dei grandi numeri che si sprigiona da tutte le operazioni combinatorie"{26}  Caillois’s vertigo was one of surrendering control, understanding that the only certainty is that Man’s position in the universe is uncertain. The human race, Homo ludens, is one of "marvelous and miserable beings, unsuccessful toys, even when they take themselves very seriously." {27}

Start of Essay Bibliography Home

1 T.S. Eliot’s Wasteland uses tarots as a symbolic and structural principle, cf Creekmore’s article. Calvino refers to The Wasteland in La taverna dei destini incrociati, where he ironically mentions the ‘Hanged man’ (l’appeso), "(Dunque è proprio questa la carta in cui Madame Sosostris clairvoyante famosa ma di poco attendibile nomenclatura, divinando i destini privati e generali dell’emerito funzionario della Lloyds, ha riconosciuto un marinaio fenicio annegato?)" (pp.59-60)

2 Rushdie, Salman, "The language of the pack" in Imaginary Homelands (1991) pp. 322-3

3 Hans, James S., The Play of the World (1981), pp. 15-16

4 ibid., p. 7

5 ibid., p. 33

6 Lavagetto, Mario (ed) Sulla Fiaba (1988) p. xiii, emphasis added

7 Calvino, Italo "Presentazione"(1973) in Castello, p. ix

8 Castello, p.31

9 Narrator with a capital ‘N’ is used to distinguish the principal narrator through whose eyes we interpret the stories of the other narrators (with small ‘n’s)

10 ibid., p.41

11 This is implied at the beginning by his completion of the narrative table, "m’ero seduto all’unico posto rimasto libero"

12 This is also the model of Stefano Benni’s Il bar sotto il mare.

13 Caillois, Roger Man, Play and Games (1958) Caillois does not note playing with infinities in the category of Ilinx (concentrating on only physical or drug-enduced vertigos) I believe that the intellectual vertigo is valid too. Vertigo, according to Caillois, is a type of surrender — to religious ecstasy or to the control of hallucinogens: to play with infinities involves a grudging acceptance of man’s insignificance compared with the illimitless universe (a surrendering of sorts). Caillois goes on to include the "search for repetition and symmetry, or in contrast, the joy of improvising, inventing, or infinitely varying solutions" as one of the fundamental pleasures of games. (p.65)

14 Cosmicomiche, p.161

15 ibid., p.127

16 ibid., p.76

17 ibid., p.78 Note again the childish attempt at imposition of rules for which I criticised Calvino in Taverna, showing his awareness of the phenomenon. 

18 ibid., p.79

19 A game which Calvino will later return to in "L’inseguimento" in Ti con zero, where the only hope for the pursued driver is to step out of the frame, to ‘cheat’ and break the cycle he would otherwise be trapped in.

20 ibid., p.80

21 ibid., p.29

22 ibid., p.103

23 ibid., p.103

24 ibid., p.106

25 Caillois, op. cit., p.7

26 Calvino, "Presentazione", p. ix

27 Kostas Axelos, "Planetary interlude" in Ehrmann (ed), Game, Play, Literature (1968), p.6

Start Of Essay Notes Home