Talk:Samuel Beckett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Featured article star Samuel Beckett is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2006.
September 25, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted

Contents

[edit] Article rewrite

This article needs a lot of work: more on his childhood, the relationship with Joyce, his poetry is not mentioned at all, more on the pre WW2 writings, adding prose to the list of works. I hope to do something over the next few weeks: anyone interested in helping? Filiocht 15:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done what I can for now. Anyone like to add anything or correct my errors? I would imagine that this is the kind of page likely to get a lot of hits from students, etc. Filiocht 11:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reverted, since my version is more accurate.

Nobody "asked" Beckett to submit a poem to Nancy Cunard's contest. MacGreevy heard from her on the last day of the contest that she was unhappy about the existing submissions, and told Beckett that he could probably do a better job, if he was interested. See Knowlson.

The translation of Molloy was not a section here by Bowles, a section there by Beckett. Bowles would do some pages, show them to Beckett, who would make innumerable suggestions by way of improvements, all of which Bowles agreed with. If I recall correctly, Bowles' own description can be found in his introduction to I Can't Go On, I'll Go On. (Beckett similarly assisted Tophoven's German translations.)--192.35.35.34 15:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nice improvements. Filiocht 15:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I expect to put in much more, as I find the time. On one point, I'll give notice now: calling Beckett pessimistic or Godot absurdist is POV, and in my opinion, incomplete to the point of error. These are common enough views, but most Beckett scholarship rejects such simple summaries. For starts, read [1].--192.35.35.36 20:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, again, but my recollection was messed up. The ICGOIGO introduction is by Richard Seaver, describing his translation of La Fin with Beckett. Seaver was then tapped for Molloy, but was unavailable at the time. Cronin says that Bowles confirms that his translation experience followed the same pattern as Seaver's.--192.35.35.34 15:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the Dun Laoghaire "dark and stormy night" myth. This was invented by Deidre Bair, more or less. For those not in the know, her biography was a miserable hatchet job. Knowlson is definitive. (Cronin is the most readable, but unfortunately relied on Bair.) --192.35.35.34 15:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reworded this for the following reason. The question of Beckett's experience is one of fact, the question of identity between an author and there fictional creations is subjective and does not lend itself to definitive statements like 'wrongly'. Hope this is clear. Filiocht 15:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
No disagreement. There is something definitive about 'wrongly' here though: Beckett's epiphany was not at DL, but the assertion that it was can be found in print. I wrote a vague enough statement, intending to explain the DL myth's existence, and didn't notice it was too general. Thanks.--192.35.35.34 16:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the statement as it now stands, with your latest edit, is as good as it is going to get. Agree the Bair is tripe and Cronin suffers from copying her errors, but Knowlson suffers from being a bit to respectful and po-faced in spots. My own favourite book on SB is Mercier's Beckett/Beckett. Not a bio, I know, but fun to read, like the great man himself. I'm off home now, but will check in again tomorrow or the next day. Filiocht 16:17, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think the current version reads a bit clumsily, but I won't fiddle. Knowlson really suffers from the fact that it's just half the original. Grove Press is decidedly commercial nowadays. It was funny to read in JOBS that the title (which had been chosen by Beckett) was a rather pointed allusion, but so totally obscure that Knowlson did not get it.
It's from the Dunciad, isn't it, quoting T. Cibber to the effect that the writer may be accursed while the man is happy? Filiocht 09:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
As for favorite reads about Beckett, I could go on forever, but let me single out three. Christopher Ricks Beckett's Dying Words is a very close and very funny look at Beckett's language, revealing and reveling in the finest of nuances. John P Harrington The Irish Beckett is something I expect you would like. I for one knew nothing of "Irish literature" beyond the big names, Swift, Moore, Yeats, Joyce, etc., and to learn that there was a whole Irish genre of "Big House" novels that Watt technically fits into was uproariously eye-opening. And Eoin O'Brien The Beckett Country is one of the most beautiful books I've ever seen.--192.35.35.35 16:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the o'Brien is rather wonderful, I managed to pick up a remaindered coy a few years ago for half nothing. As for your points below on the bibliography, my own view is that as this is the English wikipedia, only the first english-language publication needs to be listed. Filiocht 13:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Patrick Bowles translation "in collaboration" issue. I located a Bowles' comment on his work on Molloy (it's in his translator's introduction to Friedrich Dürrenmatt The Visit). He says he and Beckett translated Molloy together, that Beckett's fundamental view regarding translation was it necessitated re-invention, and that he applied this philosophy to the given text.

As it is, the American editions of Molloy, both alone and as part of Three Novels, list Bowles as translator, "in collaboration with the author". Seaver, the one I summarized above, gets identically worded credit for The End. Curiously enough, the British editions of the trilogy (I have a John Calder hardcover apparent first edition, and a much later Picador paperback) list no translator whatsoever. I have not seen a British edition of The End.

I must apologize regarding Grove Press above. Yes, they've gone downhill when their emphasis changed to commercial. But they only did the paperback edition of the Knowlson biography. --192.35.35.36 21:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography issues

I've fixed a few dates and spellings (for example, it's Unnamable without the 'e' inside). I pushed The Lost Ones into a separate entry, for uniformity with other double entries. But a major rewrite is what's necessary. There are generally three editions of interest for each work: French, British, American, and there were cut-and-paste rearrangements for several of the collections. In short, it's a mess.--192.35.35.34 17:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Beckett's Legacy

Might someone list the musical works inspired by himself? Merci.--shtove 23:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a CD of music by Morton Feldman on Beckett pieces, and I read in a Beckett biography that someone jade an opera of Krapp's Last Tape. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Luciano Berio's 'Sinfonia' also uses text from the The Unnamable. Oldhamlet 19:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Go raibh míle.--shtove 15:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Company for string orchestra by Philip Glass. Glass also wrote music for Endgame, but I don't believe there are commercial recordings, possibly because Beckett had a real problem with it.Scottandrewhutchins 21:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins
Philip Glass' first composition was apparently music based on Play. No recordings as far as I know, but I'm fairly sure this is mentioned on the Philip Glass website. --Yossarian 11:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost quote

About 15 years ago I made a note of a short passage of Beckett's writing (I think it was from a 1930's book review he wrote) which went something like, "To know what one's value is, so as not to ....I don't know if the first is possible; I know the second certainly..." Having lost the note and with my memory failing me, I can't judge if the passage is as good as I thought it was (does that make sense?). Please assist. If you fail, I'll advise you to fail better.--shtove 15:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Was wondering if anyone knew about Becketts association with the University of Reading. According to the University website it has the largest collection of Beckett works in the world. They also recently presented a gala event of Becketts works, starrin many British stars, in accordance with the 100 year anniersary of Becketts birth ( rdg.ac.uk)

  • Profs. (Emeriti) Jim Knowlson and John Pilling were the original links between SB and Reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belacqua Shuah (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another close call

I would like to add this man to the narrow category of Category:Natives of Dublin, but it is not clear to me if being so proximate to the City had an influence on how notable this man eventually became. -- Mosa123ic 17:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Beckett was born in Ireland but lived for much of his life in various places around Europe. The first versions of many of his famous plays were written in French and as such the Irish influence is debatable. Martin Hinks 09:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Irish influence is, in fact, hardly debatable at all: it is, in fact, very clear. Look, for instance, at anything in his earliest work (e.g. More Pricks than Kicks, Murphy), at the landscape in a novel like Molloy, the crack in Waiting for Godot and even, to a lesser extent, Endgame, at Krapp's Last Tape. Of course, this all starts getting weeded out from about How It Is (1961) onward, but it is definitely there up till that point. So, I'd say put him in the category, as he categorically belongs there. —Saposcat 09:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pessimism v. optimism in Beckett.

I have an issue with the statment "Beckett's work is . . . deeply pessimistic about the human condition" as found in the first paragraph. I changed "deeply" to "deceptively," and it was immediately changed back. I don't know how to contact the subsequent editor directly, so I'll post this here by way of discussion.

Perhaps replacing “deeply” with “deceptively” is not the best fix, but as it stands the quoted statement puts forth, as fact, an opinion that is widely open to interpretation.

Beckett’s writings aren’t just about the journey. If they were, “deeply pessimistic” would be nearly undebatable. They’re just as much about the destination, or at least the goal. And while he frames life’s journey as a slog through shit, his ultimate implication is that the slog is worthwhile. As everything from the Greek and Latin classics to the greatest of Hollywood’s pro-war propaganda movies have proven again and again, the more monstrously you portray the obstacle, the larger looms the hero who overcomes them. The same is true in Beckett: the obstacles are unrelenting and nearly insurmountable, but the journey continues, heroically. The Beckett hero may be standing in the dark, but he faces towards the light, distant—and unattainable—as it may be.

The essential Beckett quote isn’t “I can’t go on”—full stop; it’s “I can’t go on. I’ll go on.”

Now, I may not have convinced you, personally, that Beckett’s work is more optimistic than pessimistic. But perhaps I’ve made a case that a flatly factual statement like “Beckett's work is stark . . . and deeply pessimistic about the human condition” is a bit overstated for an article that strives to remain free of bias.

Beckett himself would be the first to disagree with you. He once said that if he were a pessimist, he wouldn’t write. Although I know that the artist is not always the most reliable source for understanding his work, that ought to count for something. --lissener 19:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a good case. I've thought I should chnage that "deeply pessimistic" line myself a few times...it's definitely inaccurate. Existential theatre, like Beckett's, is so much more than just pessimistic. I don't think changing it to "deceptively" pessimistic would work either, though. Both "deeply" and "deceptively" seem somewhat POV. Thoughts? -- Yossarian 22:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Logically and historically, pessimism is a foil for optimism promoted by Leibnizian theodicy, as in claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds. In the context of Beckett, it is preponderantly beside the point. I am suspicious of criticism by imputed adjectives. I further question the need for this sort of embellishment in an encyclopedia article, particularly one dedicated to a subject distinguished by fine gradations of arid diction. Notions of heroes standing in the dark, but facing towards the light, belong in term papers. In this instance, less is more. Larvatus 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Um, I know you think you're arguing with me, but you're actually agreeing with me. I was not looking to add adjectives where there were none, but to at least qualify the unqualified ones, which served more to limit than elucidate. As far as your criticism of my metaphor and its appropriateness for an encyclopedia article, note that I did not include it in the encyclopedia article: I included it in a note on the discussion on the article. My contribution to the article itself was brief and concise, and has been allowed to remain in place by all subsequent edits. Your disdain is terribly intellectually impressive, but you're not really arguing with anyone.--lissener 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph interpretation, not consensus (?)

I mostly take issue Lissener's above interpretation of Beckett, but more significant (but less egregious) is the modification of the idea of Beckett's pessimism in the opening section. This is an interpretation of Beckett. I would think a more useful thing to include in an encyclopedia entry is a summation of the rough consensus of opinion on Beckett (something that might ring true if introduced, "Critics believe"), not an interpretation like this. The phrasing "worth the effort" seems most out of place to me. From what I've read, Beckett's perspective was more like, "All we can do is make the best of what we have." You can make the case maybe that he was not entirely pessimistic, but you can't really make the case that he was an optimistic person. I think his optimism lies in that small window of making the best of the terrible situation you've been given. I also take issue (and this may be my interpretation, but I feel it falls roughly in the consensus) with the implication that one of Beckett's primary considerations was the social world; that last sentence sounds more like Ionesco than Beckett. Beckett was more interested in the internal world. I admit I may be off base about that.

"The perceived pessimism in Beckett's work is mitigated both by a great and often wicked sense of humour, and by the sense, for some readers, that Beckett's portrayal of life's obstacles serves to demonstrate that the journey, while difficult, is ultimately worth the effort. Similarly, many posit that Beckett's expressed "pessimism" is not so much for the human condition but for that of an established cultural and societal structure which imposes a stultifying will upon otherwise hopeful individuals; it is the inherent optimism of the human condition, therefore, that is at tension with the oppressive world."

Also, I can't help but address Lissener's argument: First I have to point out the contradiction. You say, "They’re just as much about the destination, or at least the goal." But then you say, "while he frames life’s journey as a slog through shit, his ultimate implication is that the slog is worthwhile" and "the obstacles are unrelenting and nearly insurmountable, but the journey continues, heroically." The second and third statements are relatively accurate, but the first statement has very little to do with Beckett's philosophy or the themes expressed in his work. Beckett expressly said on many occasions that the goals and destinations are meaningless. Sure, he believed the journey should continue, but he believed there was no other choice. As I said above, the important thing to Beckett is making the best of what little you have: thus, Didi and Gogo try to make the best of waiting. If the goal had any importance to Beckett, Waiting for Godot would really be about Godot. Instead it's about waiting. I would also argue that "hero" is the wrong word to use in relation to Beckett; the idea that humans are capable of heroism, I believe, is antithetical to Beckett. To make the best of what we have is not a heroic act; it's a necessary act. Beckett believed human beings were pitiful failures whose only recourse was to laugh at their own terrible situation. If you have any evidence that Beckett cared about goals or heroism, please let me know. Otherwise I'm afraid you're quite mistaken.

F. Simon Grant 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: On the main page ...

Just a quibble now (as I suspect it may a bit late to do much about it at this point), but this article—though decent—hardly seems to me to be featured article material, and certainly not main page material. It became a featured article with a surprisingly small number of votes, thus slipping through the cracks onto the main page. Rather unfortunate, since the man—surely among the most significant authors of the 20th century—deserves a better page, such as for example his friend and compatriot James Joyce. —Saposcat 09:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the article being the main article on the front page even if more is to be desired. The 13th April will be Beckett's centenery, surely no fitter time for it to be the featured article... maybe in these last few days an improvement drive? Martin Hinks 10:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree about there being no fitter time, and am all too happy to "expose" the man and his work to a wider audience by means of a Wikipedia main page article; I am just a bit saddened that this ever-so-slightly shabby article is all we've got to show.
An improvement drive would be well in order ... this, however, would have to be an emergency improvement drive (the clock is ticking, 3 days and counting), and I wouldn't know where to apply for such a thing; any ideas (or better yet, knowledge) in that department? —Saposcat 11:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

Since I've registered something of a grievance with the fact that this article will be on the main page, I may as well also register what I see as the article's problems.

  1. The lead section is rather skimpy, though this is perhaps not so serious as the major things to be expected in a lead section are touched upon.
  2. There is no separate section labelled "Work" or "Works"; I see this as the major problem with the article insofar as the biography itself and the works are all meshed together, making for something of a sloppy read and detracting, ultimately, from the article's comprehensiveness
  3. The "Beckett's legacy" section is a bit messy, though perhaps not excessively so
  4. There are inaccuracies in the "Selected bibliography" section (i.e., just at a quick glance, "Eh Joe" and "Quad" are not for radio)

Anyhow, them's the grievances. I'm probably going to try and correct problem (4), but I think that (1), (2), and (3) will take more time than the 2 days and counting till it's on the main page to correct. So it goes. —Saposcat 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the inaccuracies in the bibliography, but I think it may be worthwhile to also list there the original language of each piece (French/English/German) and also the date of translation into, at least, French and English, and possibly German as well (insofar as, as far as I know, Beckett assisted with the German translations of a few of the plays). —Saposcat 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section proposal

So as to make this article, frankly, better, and ready to be on the front page, I'm thinking of starting a new section about Beckett's works, to come before the section "Beckett's legacy". I think the "Works" section could be divided basically as follows:

  1. Early works (i.e., More Pricks than Kicks, Murphy, Watt, etc.)
  2. Middle period (i.e., the "biggies": Waiting for Godot, the "trilogy", Endgame, How It Is, etc.)
  3. Late period (i.e., post-How It Is; roughly the 1960s and 1970s)
  4. Title to be announced, but something about Beckett's "renaissance" of longer late works (i.e., Company, Ill Seen Ill Said, Worstward Ho—the so-called "closed space" novels)

With this in mind, is anyone willing to help out and thus get this article actually ready to be on the main page? It needs it, and would be much appreciated. —Saposcat 06:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Saposcat, have been v. busy with work/illness and am going on holiday today. I would certainly have helped otherwise; sincerest apologies. Martin Hinks 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the new section is done (Early works; Middle period; Late works), with appropriate adjustments made in the biography section. God willing the article is still of featured article quality, and will be somewhat more informative to any Wikitravellers what stagger across it on the main page on the glorious centenary day. And to any who might think I somehow ruined the article, let me give the words to the final sentence ("no symbols where none intended") of Beckett's fine French translation of Watt: "honni soit qui mal y pense". (No citations, dammit, this is just a talk page.)

Now I'm off for a tumbler of whiskey. —Saposcat 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A good call. Which brings me to a denominational issue. My local pub was all out of Bushmills, causing me to opt for the "Catholic" alternative, Jameson. Do you think our honoree would mind? Larvatus 09:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
I believe he would not. As I recall (anecdotes, anecdotes), Beckett sometimes kept a bottle of Jameson's in the wicker wastepaper basket near to his writing desk. I doubt that he was averse to partaking of it. So, bottoms up! Sláinte! —Saposcat 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN inclusion?

I believe that ISBN information should be omitted from the bibliography. Since these numbers correspond to particular editions that vary for each title, assembling a comprehensive listing for each bibliography entry would be counterproductive, and most likely, impossible. Larvatus 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Good point. I'm going to take care of that in the Reference section, and cite things good and proper. —Saposcat 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More quotations?

I have added some programmatic material culled from the essay on Proust and elsewhere. I am hoping to achieve editorial consensus on beefing up the article with further quotations drawn from all stages of Beckett’s work. Larvatus 03:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Less quotations. Especially the one from 'Proust'—it's too long, and we need to remember that this, as an encyclopedia entry, is to a great extent designed to give an overview of Beckett for the uninitiated. The big 'Proust' quote, being so long, is simply going to scare folks away. —Saposcat 04:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
N.B. I have removed the Proust quotation and commentary. I am not averse to its inclusion in a truncated (and unobscurely explicated) form—nor, indeed, to "beefing up the article with further quotations drawn from all stages of Beckett's work" (provided it is done in a smoother fashion); however, for at least the centenary day—when the article is on the main page—we should keep the article streamlined and, as it were, to the point. —Saposcat 06:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
So be it, at least for the time being. Meanwhile, I have created a stub for Proust as a separate article. A lot remains to be written, and I am hoping that my betters will write it. For starters, if memory serves, Beckett submitted Proust as his Master’s thesis at the École Normale, and got it accepted as such. Perhaps someone can support this hazy recollection with a proper reference.
Happy Beckett centennial to all my sodden confederates worldwide. Larvatus 09:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus

[edit] "We're used to it!"

Damn, man, you put Beckett on the front page, and everybody (Even willy on wheels) plays nicely along and helps enrich the article. Put something like Hip-hop and every single GNAA/KKK Troll comes out of the woodworks with a bone to pick :( I'm making this statement as a general statement of disappointment torwards people and humankind, not wikipedia or you guys. Fits nicely along with the spirit of the works of S. Beckett. :( :( :(

Project2501a 08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So it goes. —Saposcat 08:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suite/gloss

Saposcat, you killed my gloss of "suite" as "sequel". What exactly was the play about? I was presuming that it was called "sequel", with the next one called "the end". If that was in fact the meaning, I think retaining the gloss is important - "suite" as an English word means things like "collection of pieces". If I'm wrong, just shoot me. Stevage 13:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite my head off, please. I appreciate the effort you made.
The situation is this: the story (it wasn't a play) was originally entitled "Suite" (in French; a difficult word to translate—it could, indeed, be "sequel", or "consequence", or "effect" ... we don't really know since Beckett didn't ever translate the title himself), but was unfinished as it appeared in Sartre's magazine, and the second part never got printed in the magazine due to a misunderstanding. Later, the whole story got retitled "La fin" (translated straightly by Beckett as "The End").
Even with the shift in meaning of the word "suite" from French into English, it's best—I think—not to second-guess a title translation that Beckett didn't do himself, especially since the point is not, to be honest, highly important.
So, there it is. Please don't bare your teeth. —Saposcat 14:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant my edit summary to be ironic. I don't know why I even pursued this. Keep up the good work :) Stevage 12:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry: I took your summary as being ironic, and my "don't bare your teeth" spiel was meant in the same spirit. So, no need to apologize. Thanks for the compliment, by the way. And again, I appreciate your attempts to clarify the "Suite" issue. —Saposcat 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Leap

I can't believe this article doesn't even mention Quantum Leap! Powers 13:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am ashamed to admit that's the first thing that occured to me also. I vaguely wonder if a disambig (otheruses4 maybe) would be appropriate. *sob* ~kylu
Me too! Where's the reference to Quantum Leap! I saw this article and thought "fine, I guess I'll learn about the 'real' Sam Beckett" (rolls eyes). Mithridates 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

He won this famous French award for foreign writers together with Jorge Luis Borges in 1961. I can't remember the award's name right now, if someone does please add it.--Rataube 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

He, I found it in the article on Borges, "Formentor Prize".--Rataube 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish name

Does anyone know it? Brand 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't really have an Irish name (assuming that, by that, you mean the Irish language); his "Irish name" is Samuel Beckett. A whole slew of circumstances, of course, goes into why certain people of the same or roughly similar generations have "Irish names"; ultimately, however—and pace to those who might need a pace on this matter—these "Irish names" amount to little more than spelling conventions. The Irish language is, of course, wholly different to English; "Irish" names, however, are another matter (e.g. the writer Flann O'Brien: Irish name Brian Ó Nuallain, English name Brian O'Nolan). —Saposcat 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Somhairle ('Summer Wanderer') Beicéid would be Beckett's name in the Irish. El Gringo 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations to everyone who's worked on this article to date. It's a very cogent, clearly-arranged piece. --Chips Critic 01:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concentrism

I have translated Beckett's mock essay Le Concentrisme, hitherto unavailble in English. All comments are welcome. Larvatus 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus


[edit] Stephen Leacock

I have removed the line "One of Beckett's early influences was Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock." as it was in the wrong place (Early life and education) and is without any citation or reference. If a citation or reference can be provided, it would best be put back under Early writings, and expanded. --Wastekiller 06:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in the official biography, Damned to Fame, but, yes, I couldn't find a terribly appropriate place to stick the information in. Maybe if there was an Influences section. It's not terribly important, really. Just a bit of trivia. -- Krapp 09:50, 3 August 2006.

I think the influences section would be fine (assuming you mean the infobox). Trivia, true, but interesting nonetheless. --Yossarian 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed that in the infobox before. I am just learning my way around here. I added a few other influences in there, because Stephen Leacock's influence is surely behind that of Joyce, Proust and Racine. I'm not sure how to put in a footnote, but the reference to Leacock is Knowlson, 41-42, specifically: "[I]ntriguing parallels emerge betwen Leacock's humorous, extravagent toying with logic and reason and Beckett's later novels, Murphy and Watt." I always feel the humour in Beckett's work is often overlooked, so I was pleased to find this out, just as I was fascinated to learn he knew much of Gilbert and Sullivan by heart... -- Krapp 01:25, 4 August 2006.

[edit] Magnum Opus

It isn't neutral POV to say Waiting for Godot is his magnum opus, surely? Some critics say it's Endgame, some the Malone Dies trilogy, some probably think it's something else. I don't see why Wikipedia should say what anyone's magnum opus is; it's enough to have longer articles for some works than others. 195.93.21.68 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One of many reasons why those dratted boxes should be killed. HenryFlower 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, that "influenced by" and "influenced" stuff is a bit silly for someone like Beckett. It would be easier to list dramatists who weren't influenced by Beckett. --Ryano 08:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket infobox

I haven't removed this but I personally feel that it looks untidy to stack infoboxes in this fashion. He is obviously more notable as an author than a cricketer, but at the same time the cricket infobox does give more information on Mr. Beckett. Anyone else have any feelings about whether this should stay or go or could be presented in a better way? Martin Hinks 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Photographers

Are we sure that John Minihan was Beckett's "official" photographer, a claim made both in the body of the article and in the link to his website? Given Beckett's clear dislike of being publicly visible, I find it hard to imagine he would have granted anyone any such status. There seems already to have been some discussion of this between 81.132.85.234 and Saposcat, but I'm afraid I can't find it. Furthermore, John Haynes's photographs, both of Beckett himself and of many London productions of his work, may well have the better claim to be the more significant body of work (if anyone was interested in making such a claim). Julian 11:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If anyone sees him around could they please get a photo...

This whole copyright thing with photos is crazy. There used to be a really good picture on this page and now it's gone. What are we meant to do? Did him up and get a photo?

Well, I'll bring the camera if you bring the shovel. But yeah, that deletion was insane. It was perfectly legitimate. How, pray tell oh Fair Use Gods, are we supposed to get a picture of this man? --Yossarian 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Looks like someone has actually dug him up and taken a photo. I waas only joking!--Moonlight Mile 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The picture on there at the moment looks terrible as it is badly pixelated- I tried to reduce the resolution to match what it says on the image page but that doesn't seem to work. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK I made it work- you need to use an "imagesize" field to change the resolution not "size". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beckett's geneology

Does anyone know where I can find the article that talks extensively about the story of Beckett's parents, grandparents, etc.? It discusses thoroughly the situation with the mom as a nurse and the dad as a patient, and travels back quite far in Beckett's geneology. Also, what are the results of the so-called tests on Beckett's DNA?

French Huguenot, like Joyce. Look the biographies, if you want. Or get a bibliography, and see what you can find there.-FM (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)FM

[edit] Replaced irrelevant POV interpretation in header with more relevant info

This stuff about pessimism and optimism is more like a quibble for the talk page or for a section about how Beckett is interpreted, not for the header. There should perhaps be some more indication of his style in the header, but this stuff just doesn't work (besides, there's plenty of evidence that this interp is seriously off base -- see my comments above which got no response for a fuller detailing of how wrong this paragraph is). I replaced it with more relevant header-type-stuff -- though I question now whether "follower of Joyce" is the best way to put it, and I'll think of a better way to put it soon, it's way more relevant than this:

"and, according to some interpretations, deeply pessimistic about the human condition. His work grew increasingly cryptic and attenuated over his career."
"The perceived pessimism in Beckett's work is mitigated both by a great and often wicked sense of humour, and by the sense, for some readers, that Beckett's portrayal of life's obstacles serves to demonstrate that the journey, while difficult, is ultimately worth the effort. Similarly, many posit that Beckett's expressed "pessimism" is not so much for the human condition but for that of an established cultural and societal structure which imposes a stultifying will upon otherwise hopeful individuals; it is the inherent optimism of the human condition, therefore, that is at tension with the oppressive world. Peter Brook says in The Empty Space that if you believe that Beckett is pessimistic, then you are a Beckett character trapped in a Beckett play; Beckett was not saying "No" because he wanted to but because he was searching for the "Yes"."

F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trilogy citation

I can't find evidence anywhere that indicates that Beckett had any problem with calling Molloy, Malone Dies and The Unnamable a trilogy, contrary to what appears in the section on the novels. The text in question is as follows "sometimes referred to as a "trilogy", though this is against the author's own explicit wishes". I've tagged it as uncited. Could anyone enlighten me as to where he dismisses the title? DarkWedge (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You must not have looked very hard for the evidence. Beckett was extremely adamant that it not be called "trilogy". See here:
When John Calder asked ... to use "Trilogy" on the jacket with the three books listed beneath, [Beckett] replied: "Not 'Trilogy', I beseech you, just the three titles and nothing else." ... He took a similar line with Grove Press, telling Barney Rosset that he couldn't bear the thought of "trilogy". He would consistently refer to the "so-called trilogy".
Them's pretty strong words, and make it obvious that using the word "trilogy" was indeed "against the author's own explicit wishes". I'll remove the uncited tag. Add the citation if you please. —Saposcat (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks for the help. DarkWedge (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That quote is for the "second Trilogy" not for Molloy, Malone Dies and The Unnamable but for the series of "Company", "Ill Seen Ill Said" and "Worstward Ho". I'm going to change this.-FM (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)FM
There. Changed it. Also changed a number of other things that didn't make sense. Argue against me here, if you wish.-FM (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)FM
It's not for the Company, Ill Seen Ill Said, Worstward Ho "trilogy". Beckett's reply ("Not 'Trilogy', I beseech you", etc.) is dated 6 January 1958—20-odd years before Company was even begun, and not coincidentally the same year of the initial publication of Three Novels: Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable. The quote is most assuredly for the first "trilogy", and I am changing the sentence back. —Saposcat (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The statement has now been referenced as well. —Saposcat (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, I'm guessing that the reason for your confusion about which "trilogy" that quote was referring to comes from S.E. Gontarski's ever-so-slightly awkward transitioning in his introduction to Nohow On (page xi):
Although [Company, Ill Seen Ill Said, and Worstward Ho] were written in sequence and bear a close kinship to one another, Beckett himself resisted using the word trilogy to describe them, as he had with his first collection of novels. Although "trilogy" has since become their sobriquet, Beckett consistently rejected it. When British publisher John Calder, for instance, asked him on 29 December 1957, "May we use a general title 'Trilogy' on the jacket with the three books listed underneath?" Beckett replied on 6 January, "Not 'Trilogy', I beseech you, just the three titles and nothing else."
The transition there is quick and (perhaps) a bit easy to miss at a cursory reading, but a closer look (especially at the dates) makes it obvious that it is the first "trilogy" Beckett was referring to. —Saposcat (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)