Search

Starting from Nicholas Zurbrugg's dismissal of the negative 'B-Effect' in postmodernism, which he associates with 'Benjamin, Brecht, Beckett, Barthes, Baudrillard, and Bourdieu', this essay examines the common rationale behind convergent affirmations of a neutrality or minimalism, often mistaken for nihilism, at key junctures in the works of Samuel Beckett and Roland Barthes, adding Maurice Blanchot as a critical link. The argument unfolds along a double axis: it first considers the formal role of 'chatter' or 'idle speech' and the fragment(ary in writing) in the three 'B-writers' before relating them to different constructions of temporality, such as the 'future anterior' and the après-coup, in their thematizations of 'catastrophe' and 'disaster' as indirect responses to personal or historical trauma and death. A brief concluding paragraph highlights how time's suspensiveness leads to different forms of waiting across Barthes, Blanchot and Beckett. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article brings together Roland Barthes and Samuel Beckett into a dialogue devoid of hierarchy, with Jacques Lacan as mediator. Both writers were intent on escaping the sway of the image considered as formatted by meanings. For Barthes, the themes of love and photography point to the existence of unicity within the dispersal of meanings and the reality of loss. Rather than undoing the image like Barthes, Beckett starts from an inaugural absence of instituted reality: from an original absence of any 'that-has-been', as expressed in the motif of the mask. Both authors locate vision within speech, and the alterity contained within the latter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calm is a little-theorized but important link between Roland Barthes and Samuel Beckett. Beginning with Beckett, moving on to Barthes, and then interleaving the two, this paper proposes calm as a 'scandalous' category not reducible to kindred states like languor or apatheia. In dialogue with theorists of repose, such as Kant and De Quincey, calmness becomes less a sedated condition than an interactive process, entailing intense sensitivity to the fluctuations of what Barthes calls 'the affective minimal'. Artistically generative, this 'emotive lucidity' encourages inquisitiveness towards the natural world, and enables in both writers specific writing practices — from lists to notation to haiku. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay develops a tense relation between Samuel Beckett and Roland Barthes over their treatment of breath. If Barthes's lovers come together through a shared breath, breaths pull Beckett's couples apart. How then might breath bring Beckett and Barthes together, so they might be close but not too close? The essay first discards the idea of using a single understanding of breath by showing how the localized instances of breath in Beckett and Barthes do not scale up to a coherent, synthetic concept. Then, by turning to works that play with the problems of metanarrative, Beckett's How It Is (1961–4) and Barthes's A Lover's Discourse (1977–8), it shows how breath becomes a possible means of reading these two texts together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the world of theatre from within and beyond the stage and brings together Roland Barthes as a critic and Samuel Beckett as a playwright via a third character, the Romanian-born playwright Eugène Ionesco, who anathematized the former and admired the latter. The article starts from Martin Esslin's The Theatre of the Absurd (1961), which defined Beckett's and Ionesco's art, pointing out that whilst Esslin showed why their works produced 'bewilderment' in England and the US, he ignored the Paris debates of the 1950s to early 1960s. It then covers the intricate history of Barthes's polemical articles on avant-garde theatre and focuses on Barthes hailing Bertolt Brecht as an innovator who redefined theatre as belonging to a community. The next section engages with Beckett's and Ionesco's ideas on staging and their relation to Brecht and the Brechtians. The epilogue proposes a reading of Ionesco's satirical play Improvisation or the Shepherd's Chameleon (1955), which features Barthes and two other representatives of nouvelle critique as characters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article stages a dialogue between Roland Barthes and Samuel Beckett by characterizing and comparing their tendencies to indulge in doodles and drawings, both of which have been the subject of increased critical interest (and even public exhibition) in recent years. Surveying such recent criticism, the article begins by connecting Barthes's and Beckett's respective ways of drawing to theoretical and aesthetic concerns of their writing. Then, developing the complementary manual metaphors of legerdemain (sleight of hand, manual skill) and gaucherie (left-handedness, awkwardness), the article draws from currents in genetic criticism, New Materialism and 'weak theory' to suggest ways in which reading doodles might inform ways of reading texts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Roland Barthes never wrote a play, 'theatre' or related terms such as 'scenario' or 'theatricality' recur throughout his oeuvre from the 1950s to the late 1970s. He wrote many reviews of theatre, but theatre and performance also became integral to much of the theoretical concerns of his later work. During this same period, Samuel Beckett's dramaturgy was evolving from his first full-length play, Eleutheria, to the later 'dramaticules' such as Not I, which premiered in 1973. Barthes did comment on Beckett a few times in his theatre criticism, mainly in relation to En attendant Godot or avant-garde theatre, but there is little overt interchange between them. However, this essay creates a series of 'dialogues' by juxtaposing selected plays from different moments in Beckett's dramaturgical evolution with different moments in Barthes's writings about theatre: firstly, the reaction against and deconstruction of post-war mainstream French theatre; secondly, theatre's engagement with history; and thirdly, performance as a paradigm and site for staging multiple versions of the self. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Writers, readers, critics all have strong personal preferences. Roland Barthes was a case in point. Many were the texts he chose to affirm. Others he rejected, while some were left to hover in the margins of his thinking. Still others barely feature at all, among which, conspicuous by their absence, are the novels and plays of Samuel Beckett. This article examines the political, theoretical and affective reasons for Barthes's apparent indifference to a writer who, despite early hostility on the part of the literary establishment, came to be seen as the abiding embodiment of late modernity. It contrasts Barthes's limited response to Beckett with that of another leading critic of the period, Maurice Blanchot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the ethics of Samuel Beckett's humour. It takes issue with the dominant reading of Beckettian humour as the redemption of a negativity occasioned by humanity's finitude. The paradigmatic case in point is here taken to be Simon Critchley's account, wherein ethics is cast as a process of coming to terms with disappointment ensuing from the inaccessibility of the Kantian Thing-in-Itself. This article takes up a Lacanian psychoanalytic perspective to recast Beckett's humour as, far from offering solace for finitude, highlighting instead the excess or remainder that insists, and resists philosophy's attempts to sublate it into a version of the Good. As such, the ethical demand evoked by Beckettian humour is not the attenuation of the disappointing lack implied by finitude, but rather a coping with the egregious excess of inhuman infinitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]