지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In spite of the deluge of references to philosophical and literary traditions which Samuel Beckett relies on, it is not easy to come across comparative studies with his contemporaries. One of the first to come to mind to those studying Beckett might be Maurice Blanchot. Blanchot, as Beckett’s contemporary, was a writer in the French literary circle and critic who laid the foundation for Beckett studies. He was also one of the few critics who scrutinized Beckett, still an obscure figure in the early fifties, and hence his critical work had a fundamental effect on Beckett studies. But the reason researchers in Beckett have been fascinated with his perspective is not for his status as a major commentator of Beckett, but for the profound relation and similarity between Beckett and Blanchot as well as the significance of Blanchot as the founding father of post-structuralist literary theory.
The problem is that specific and objective proofs of their similarity are significantly lacking. The scarcity of material has been the major stumbling block in examining the relationship between the two writers in earnest. But recently, Shane Weller’s and Curt G. Willits’ studies have come up with material proof of the mutual influence that existed between the two writers. Based on their material, tracing the common logic between Beckett and Blanchot shows that they were both obsessed with the notion of ‘the logic of failure’. Beckett himself succinctly described it as “fidelity to failure” which comprises ideas such as negation of language, author without subject and reflection of literature as a general economy. Each of these ideas is consistently and coherently exploited in their literary works. In Beckett, they take the form of a passive author caught in between impossibility and responsibility and narrators who throw themselves into the abyss of non-meaning in pursuit of failure that resists the conversion into success. In the meantime, Blanchot explores these same ideas as neuter, worklessness and the death of the author. But these ideas, unlike what the researchers suggest, cannot be traced back to either of the writers. Rather, their thoughts on failure turn out to be ‘neuter’ in themselves. They are not owned or appropriated by someone. Both Beckett and Blanchot reflect on the ideas simply in response to the demand from the negativity of language. In addition, although it is true that “fidelity to failure” is one of the main features of modernist aesthetics, it is a conception that has assumed its form in the post-structuralist literary theory. Its real form can only be unveiled through an effort at digging up the intellectual layer that various writers have built up around Beckett and Blanchot.
The problem is that specific and objective proofs of their similarity are significantly lacking. The scarcity of material has been the major stumbling block in examining the relationship between the two writers in earnest. But recently, Shane Weller’s and Curt G. Willits’ studies have come up with material proof of the mutual influence that existed between the two writers. Based on their material, tracing the common logic between Beckett and Blanchot shows that they were both obsessed with the notion of ‘the logic of failure’. Beckett himself succinctly described it as “fidelity to failure” which comprises ideas such as negation of language, author without subject and reflection of literature as a general economy. Each of these ideas is consistently and coherently exploited in their literary works. In Beckett, they take the form of a passive author caught in between impossibility and responsibility and narrators who throw themselves into the abyss of non-meaning in pursuit of failure that resists the conversion into success. In the meantime, Blanchot explores these same ideas as neuter, worklessness and the death of the author. But these ideas, unlike what the researchers suggest, cannot be traced back to either of the writers. Rather, their thoughts on failure turn out to be ‘neuter’ in themselves. They are not owned or appropriated by someone. Both Beckett and Blanchot reflect on the ideas simply in response to the demand from the negativity of language. In addition, although it is true that “fidelity to failure” is one of the main features of modernist aesthetics, it is a conception that has assumed its form in the post-structuralist literary theory. Its real form can only be unveiled through an effort at digging up the intellectual layer that various writers have built up around Beckett and Blanchot.
목차
1. 사실과 정황
2. 두려움에서 언어로
3. 실패라는 일반경제
인용 문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Beckett's Players are "not there"
현대영미드라마
1992 .08
-
Beckett의 작품에 나타나는 반복의 문제 : "부재"(不在)와의 관계를 중심으로
현대영미드라마
1999 .11
-
사무엘 베케트의 『놀이의 끝Fin de partie』의 극작법 전략
외국문학연구
2001 .06
-
Visual Beckett
신영어영문학
2009 .08
-
베케트 극에 나타난 반복성의 제의적 의미
현대영미드라마
2001 .10
-
사무엘 베켓의 정치성
현대영미드라마
2006 .12
-
파스칼 카사노바의 세계문학 이론과 베케트
외국문학연구
2009 .08
-
비전에서 체화된 비전으로: 노울슨에서 맥뮬런으로 이어지는 베케트 연극미학론의 계보 분석
현대영미드라마
2019 .12
-
Samuel Beckett and Biography: ThreeBiographies and Krapp's Last Tape
영어영문학연구
2006 .01
-
사무엘 베켓의 평론을 통해 본 그의 작품세계
현대영미드라마
2005 .08
-
무대 위에 연출된 체화된 기억 : 사무엘 베케트의 기억에 관한 드라마
현대영미드라마
2010 .04
-
들뢰즈와 베케트의 이미지에 대한 사유 : 베케트의 텔레비전 드라마 . . .but the clouds. . .와 Nacht und Träume를 중심으로
현대영미드라마
2003 .08
-
Ambiguous Stage : Beckett's Scenography
현대영미드라마
2006 .04
-
All That Fall에 나타난 움직임과 언어의 무의미성 연구
현대영미드라마
2001 .10
-
Beckett의 'nothing'과 Pinter의 'anything' 비교
현대영미드라마
1997 .08
-
진리의 윤리학과 벌거벗은 생명 : 바디우와 베케트
현대영미드라마
2011 .08
-
아도르노의 미학이론과 베케트 : ‘부정사유’와 ‘자율적 예술의 정치성
현대영미드라마
2010 .04
-
Maurice Blanchot, à la recherche du chemin d'Abraham
프랑스어권 문화예술연구
2014 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-842-001929656