Nothing has changed
in Beckett and nothing

This chapter addresses the argument: following Samuel Beckett's way would actually come much closer to the bone of Jacques Lacan's teaching. The least - unnullable least? - one could say is: nothing has changed. The double meaning of this sentence invokes on the one hand the claustrophobic and static setting of Beckett's writing, a site where nothing could ever change. Beckett's art, as opposed to James Joyce's, is the art of (n-1). The words have to be deprived of their magic, hollowed, their meaning has to be subtracted from them so that they become scarce and empty. Language itself is a veil, that was Beckett's insight already in the late 1930s, not the locus of expression, a veil to be pierced, not expanded, not a canvas to paint upon to conjure a new infinite universe. Rather, the veil is there only to get behind it, to what seemingly lies beyond.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Beckett and nothing

Trying to understand Beckett

Editor: Daniela Caselli


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 40 40 4
PDF Downloads 71 71 11