Selfhood and Relation:Samuel Beckett’s Two Sets of Trilogy and Related Works

• Main Authors: Li-mei Chang, 張麗美
• Other Authors: Lin, Yu-chen
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/39430520490030152298

博士 === 國立中山大學 === 外國語文學系研究所 === 98 === Beckett celebrates the solidity of selfhood and relation in his erosive texts against the grain. In light of this, this dissertation sets out with the intention to salvage the grains lost by Beckett‘s elliptic style with a focus on the device of inversion. In Three Novels, this device is employed to deal with world cultures, Irish landscapes and the looming relations, adumbrating a selfhood enriched by these select fragments. Also, the volatile self performs rites of rebirth with a voice as witness. Under the voice‘s narration and an un-specified hearing body, two births, one problematic the other immaculate, are at narthex: the former fading out the latter in. Thus, a selfhood is in transition. In Nohow On, a phosphorescent relation between one‘s plural selves and concerned others and between the artist and art denotes Beckett‘s ideas of relation to be interpersonal, aesthetical but inchoate. In an effort to explore the scale of inversion in the two trilogies, five aspects of Beckett are highlighted. First, his self-searching by fusing cultural elites and the distinct I into the voice of ─not-I∥ delivers an oracle about the everlasting soul rather than the ephemeral individual. Second, a kinetic I that acts against time, space and the superficial self indicates a dynamic and vigorous selfhood. Third, many incompatible things are juxtaposed and displaying their mutuality. By their examples, a new occasion and a new term of relation have been introduced. Fourth, aisling, an ancient Irish genre, characterizes Ill Seen Ill Said. It niches a deformed yet beloved hag and helps dissolve Beckett‘s trouble with May Beckett, to whom he is, simultaneously, son and lover. Last and not the least, a solipsistic Beckett negotiates the haunting others with virtuosities. His creative managements make others shine like stars in the artist‘s cosmos. Not until this constellational allocation of himself and his dear ones does Beckett‘s selfhood appear to be in plenum and cornucopia. Together, these five facets feature our author‘s triumph over the besieging void. Confronting the void, which Schopenhauer warns against yet Beckett embraces full-heartedly, becomes an opportunity to relate men, art and humor. While deploying selfhood and relation as the double agent to expose the very least things and persons he can‘t be without, Beckett accomplishes another task as well. Namely, he tames the void and makes it glow simultaneously. This ploy verifies Beckett‘s vow that an art, if not also the self, well done is a consecration to the void. For his capacities to contract laughter despite woes and his determination to have fun despite despair, our author that scrutinizes selfhood and relation with unblinking eyes is rhapsodic all in all.