Repetition, Re(-)presentation and Interpretation in Beckett's Shorter Plays

Résumé du document

When one reads Beckett's works for the first time, one cannot but be stricken by the overabundant repetitions the text is replete with. There seems to be a real compulsion of repetition in various forms- in Beckett' plays. This is most evident in his shorter works. During this seminar, we have tried to shape a definition of textuality, never confining the term to one single meaning. In Beckett's works, textuality transpires from every word, every pause, and every silence, and struggles not to be frozen by the text. The Beckettian text along with its reproduction as a theatrical performance or a television film, introduces the reader to the plot with the quintessence of textuality which invites multiple readings, and thus different interpretations of textuality, aimed at reaching the "it", the secret subject of each play, as well as for the sake of representation, which refuses to be caught. The two Shorter Plays under study here, entitled ?What Where' and ?Play', partake of all those features. They are perfect illustrations of Beckett's art, for they present us with a hardly ever frozen textuality, which emerges from all parts of the texts, through endless repetitions, and the so-called "différance", and through this everlasting quest for the "it".

Extraits

[...] Beckett's case is rather complicated. He wrote in both French and English in turns and translated his own works in both directions. To complicate things further, the switch between French and English sometimes even occurred during the writing process. Beckett's act of self-translation has the paradoxical effect of fixing a text by reproducing it in another language. It is only thanks to the French translation -or “target that the English version on which it is based receives the status of “original” -or “source text”. [...]

[...] Repetition, Re(-)presentation and Interpretation in Beckett's Shorter Plays When one comes to read Beckett's works for the first time, one cannot but be stricken by the overabundant repetitions the text is replete with. Indeed, there seems to be a real compulsion of repetition various forms- in Beckett's plays, which is to be found in his shorter ones more than in any of his works. During the seminar, we have tried to shape a definition of textuality, never enclosing the term into one single meaning. [...]

[...] Our second part will be dedicated to the re(-)presentation of the plays, that is to say, the repetition of the written texts through their performance. As far as Beckett was concerned, the process of revision, repetition, adaptation, and hence creation, continued –consciously and deliberately- well beyond publication, which was, therefore, not always the statement of a work's completion, a concept which seems alien to Beckett's oeuvre as a whole. Once Beckett intervened in the process of performance, had become his own in a series of theatrical self-collaborations, and began directing his own works, he took those directorial opportunities to re-read so, re-write- apparently completed texts yet again. [...]

[...] The da capo instruction would appear to undermine our suggestion that the contrast between the Narration and Meditation sections of Play implies a kind of freedom for the heads from the light. In the repetition, we are made fully aware that their speech, prompted by the light as it is, involves no creative faculty or deployment of words as anything other than abstract blocks; the humour and inconsequential details of gossip that were savoured the moment before become stale and turn sour” -Beckett. [...]

[...] “Living In: Deconstruction and Criticism. Genette, Gérard (1982). Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré. Grant, Stefan-Brook. “Samuel Beckett's Radio Plays: Music of the Absurd”. Hill, Leslie (1990) Beckett's Fiction in Different Words. Long, Joseph (2000) “Divine Intertextuality: Beckett”. McGann, Jerome. Radiant Textuality. [...]