notion of becoming does not simply refer to the fact that the self does not have a static being and is in constant flux. More precisely, it refers to an objective zone of indistinction or indiscernibility that always exists between any two multiplicities, a zone that immediately precedes their respective natural differentiation. A multiplicity is defined not by its center but by the limits and borders where it enters into relation with other multiplicities and changes nature, transforms itself, and follows a line of flight. The self is a threshold, a door, a becoming between two multiplicities.
The relation between she and words is neither an limitation or mimesis nor a lived sympathy, nor even an imaginary identification. Rather, she becomes word and silence, she enters a zone of indiscernibility where she can no longer distinguish herself from word and silence. In a becoming, one term does not become another, rather each term encounters the other, and the becoming is something between the two, outside the two. This something is what Deleuze calls a pure affect which is irreducible to the affections or perceptions of a subject. Indeed, affects are not feelings, they are becomings that go beyond those who live through them (they become other). In Not I, she loses her texture as a subject in favor of an infinitely proliferating patchwork of affects and percepts that escape her form , as one sees that she is just a mouth. Gradually, she passes into the words like a knife through everything to the point where she herself becomes imperceptible. In short, she is no longer a person but a becoming. The word as a percept and what the percept makes visible are the invisible forces that populate the universe, that affect us and make us become. As Deleuze and Guattari put it “we are not in the world, we become with the world”(Anti-Oedipus 89).
For Deleuze, it is only by passing through the “death of the subject” that one can achieve a true individuality and acquire a proper name. It is a strange business, speaking for yourself, in your own name, becoming it does not at all come with seeing yourself as an ego or a person or a subject. Individuals find a real name for themselves only through the harshest exercise in depersonalization by opening themselves to the multiplicities everywhere within them, to the intensity running through them, experimentation on our self is our only identity. In fact the basic thing for having identity is having name, without name identity ends up nowhere. Thus, the same thing is detectable in Not I where the woman does not have any specific name and identity. Besides she ignores to use the pronoun I
and she found herself in the— . . . what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . . [Pause and movement 1.] . . . found herself in the dark . . . and if not exactly . . . insentient . . . insentient . . . for she could still hear the buzzing . . . so-called . . . in the ears . . . and a ray of light came and went . . . came and went (789)
and only uses she over and over, a textual hint that can accentuate her negation of identity.
Chapter Four
Introduction
It is generally acknowledged that Endgame originated in Beckett’s mind in 1953 to 1954 and was written in French between 1955 and 1956. This well known play is one of the most controversial plays, and it is perhaps favored by Beckett’s critics as well as himself, and many have written very well on it. Knowing that it is awkward, or maybe impossible, to explicate Endgame, still lends itself to further analysis because of some reasons: First of all, Endgame’s thematic undertow is about the insistent obsession with dying or ending, which is the basic anguish of man related to his condition. Moreover, Beckett’s characters in this play do not employ sufficient language; and therefore, their dialogues always depend on what has already been uttered for a meaningful sense of wholeness. As a combination of these characteristics and the pessimistically-drawn picture in terms of both the characters and the language, it offers no more than nothing to its readers and spectators.
Samuel Beckett in Endgame primarily focuses on the importance of depicting an existence with few words in an era when the importance of existence is incessantly challenged by the recognition that man’s life can end anytime, which means the lives of men are mere insignificant no-thing-nesses. Although it includes comic elements, what Beckett shows the audience is that the play is parodying a residual quest for meaning with ruthless glimpses of ‘nothingness’ beyond the surface puppetry. Besides, this play is an example of the Beckettian universe in which the characters take refuge in repetition, repeating their own actions and words and often those of others in order to pass the time. It is necessarily required that Beckett should have some means to convey his hell to the audience, and to force everyone to reckon his own existence and the meaning of life while watching and being exposed to the cruel and irritating situation. Some of those means can be setting, time, situation, and primarily the characters and the language, which are the elements used by the playwright to bring about the harmony of nothingness to Endgame.
4.1.1 Endgame and Language 1
Reading a text is never an act of interpretation, it is never a scholarly exercise in search of what is signified, still less a highly textual exercise in search of signifier; rather it is an act of experimentation a productive use of the literary machine, a schizoid exercise that extracts from the text its revolutionary force. In fact, it is the writer who becomes a stutterer in language. So the writer makes language as such stutter, an affective and intensive language and no longer an affection of the one who speaks. In fact, for reading a text is never a scholarly exercise in search of what is signified, still less a highly textual exercise in search of a signifier. Rather it is a productive use of the literary machine, a montage of desiring-machines, a schizoid exercise that extracts from the text its revolutionary force. As for ideology, it is the most confused notion because it keeps us from seizing the relationship of the literary machine with a field of production, and the moment when the emitted sign breaks through this “form of the content” that was attempting to maintain the sign within the order of the signifier. Yet it has been a long time how an author is great because he cannot prevent himself from tracing flows and causing them to circulate, flows that split asunder the catholic and despotic signifier of his work, and that necessarily nourish a revolutionary machine on the horizon. That is what style is, or “rather the absence of style-asyntactic, agrammatical: the moment when language is no longer defined by what it says, even less by what makes it a signifying thing, but by what causes it to move, to flow, and to explode-desire”( Anti- Oedipus 230). For literature is like schizophrenia: a process and not a goal, a production and not an expression. In other words, at the level of the literary machine it means how to produce, how to think about fragments whose sole relationship is sheer difference-fragments that are related to one another only in that each of them is different-without having recourse either to any sort of original totality (not even one that has been lost), or to a subsequent totality that may not yet have come about? It is only the category of multiplicity, used as a substantive and going beyond both the One and the many, beyond the predicative relation of the One and the many, that can account for desiring-production: desiring-production is pure multiplicity, that is to say, an affirmation that is irreducible to any sort of unity.
Besides the weird characterization that is close to nothingness since it lacks detailed depiction and clues related to the characters, language is a complementary to the characters in order to achieve and reveal the meaningless tendencies of the playwright in Endgame. Very similar to the characters on the stage, language is peculiar since it looks paralyzed, immobile, purposeless, and filled with repetition, which is sometimes absurd. Despite its possession of little function of communication, and thus engendering difficulty in interpretation, it is a fact that a lack of action in Endgame intensifies the interest in and forces concentration upon the dialogues between the characters. Beckett seems to be communicating in an essentially symbolic language, one which is quite capable of communication while seeming to say nothing and of going nowhere. This is what Beckettian language is: telling some-thing in nothing-ness.
The fundamental characteristics that reflect Beckettian use of language are the extensiveness of the stage directions – compared to dialogues -, repetitions, abrupt exchanges of trivial talk and quick shift of subjects, lack of purpose and meaning, chains of association, short sentences, frequent use of pauses and deliberate choice of third person plural in Clov’s utterances. In addition to all these attributes employed in Endgame and clear through the text, there are basically two effects of them to the clarification of the play. The first one is that language sometimes decides what is real for the characters due to the fact that what they utter can determine the reality in which they live and the objects with which they are in contact, though it has no purpose of communication. Secondly, language has a role of affirming the existence of the characters

دسته بندی : No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید