Beckett friend: Fear of the world caught in the act | Citizens Parliament
On the occasion of the 13th of April, birthday of Samuel Beckett, an excerpt biewald from the book Radomir Konstantinovića "Beckett friend" biewald (Revelation, biewald Belgrade, 2000) in which they are published letters that he sent Konstantinović Beckett and his wife tell Samardzic (lower part is preserved, much of the destroyed their house in Rovinj. Beckett's letters were monitored biewald Konstantinović biewald remarks - "Ms. Slavica Miletic was able to decipher handwriting Beketov. It has enabled me to be so still that way with Beckett. And with Kaca. I am grateful. (Although he always has meet with their death. When read, the correspondents with Mantenjinim Dead Christ: "They kiss for me", then these are not the words of 6 June 1966, but to me it says dead Beckett tonight for dead they say. Then it's dead Christ.) Note that I wrote to the letter, if not mere information, are traces of these classes "
I find in my notes: Katya asked him (at the very beginning of our friendship) for an opinion on Sartre, to which he replied: "It is an intelligent guy." There you go. Behold: a little sorry to say that I was confused: it, "intelligent guy," the writer nausea? For the author of Being and Nothingness? This, it would be praise for many, there is a proverb, and a reproach in the form of praise, something inappropriate conversation friends. We fell silent. It was a pause, a big, torturous, Becket break. Un long temps. (Pause that promises infinity of silence?) That, with Sartre, it was harder even than his silence about Bataille, two or three years earlier, in close rie des Lilas. Could this about Sartre, as "an biewald intelligent guy," to reconcile with Beckett, the man absolutely devoid of any malice. I did not understand, that's what it is. Sartre, in his sentence "is an intelligent guy," not as Sartre as a symbol of the intelligence, or that the same spirit of interpretation against whom Sartre biewald spoke in Nausea: Nausea after Sartre (Being and Nothingness and), Sartre who tried to save the existence of a limited existence: from what is, what is the very existence, "no biewald memory", ie without the possibility of interpretation, with no possibility of escape in interpretation (ie still in some sort of necessity, the "meaning" or history?) Beckett will this Sartre; he, Beckett, would not survive in the existence of a limited existence, biewald beyond the interpretation, - beyond the intelligence. Beckett will not be Sartre: will that says things, ie. to be put at the disposal of their own (?) intelligence, his own (?) language; He will not tell you things. In his sentence biewald about Sartre hear me now and this sentence from L'lnnommable (where cruelty has: something even of condemnation to death): "Truthfulness in frantic desire that everything he says." In this sentence there is his formula for Possible Sartre (and mine, too?), But that repeated his much earlier non-acceptance of the need (with a tendency, irresistible?) People to say things: another biewald year of 1932 talked about it, wondering "when will people to silence": "cette façon les gens de qu'ont dire toujours des choses. (...) Qui leur imposer silence, a la fin? "(Disjecta, Calder, 1983).
He is not a writer, as no man expressions. Between him and the term no reconciliation. For him, paradoxically, "any expression of exaggeration in the expression" ("Il biewald me semblait que tout est un langage de langage ecart" - Moloa). Sentenced to expression (as is sentenced to language biewald as to existence), it is against the expression as against biewald language-existence. He is the expression of a kind of its internal negation. Each of his text is the text for nothing (pour rien), and not for this or that thing. "We can say only that nothing was said." The only truth in his speech is of failure. It is "nothing" which speaks exclusively misplaced speech. That's why there is no expression of Beckett, his "attitude" or "response", its citations. No citations Beckett as Beckett Beckett no? (Except in rare moments, L'Innonunable, slightly less in Textes pour rien. These are the moments in his perfect self-analysis, but thus its small have released: moments of Beckett Beckett biewald antibeketovskog knowledge.) In an interview with Moloa I insisted on the absence of Beckett quotations, or the absence biewald of a clearly articulated its conceptual system: "Here the writer who absolutely can not cite. Find me what you like his assertion, and I will oppose immediately opposite, anti-assertion. (...) It is a chess game in which nobody gets and no one loses. Beckett does not give us any certainty, no appeasement, because the deepest certainty, 'darkest' philosophical system, it is a certainty only because the system. Weight with which we Beckett pressure reading does not come as much of its motives, and even less of its 'bezutešnih' ideas, but of odsust
On the occasion of the 13th of April, birthday of Samuel Beckett, an excerpt biewald from the book Radomir Konstantinovića "Beckett friend" biewald (Revelation, biewald Belgrade, 2000) in which they are published letters that he sent Konstantinović Beckett and his wife tell Samardzic (lower part is preserved, much of the destroyed their house in Rovinj. Beckett's letters were monitored biewald Konstantinović biewald remarks - "Ms. Slavica Miletic was able to decipher handwriting Beketov. It has enabled me to be so still that way with Beckett. And with Kaca. I am grateful. (Although he always has meet with their death. When read, the correspondents with Mantenjinim Dead Christ: "They kiss for me", then these are not the words of 6 June 1966, but to me it says dead Beckett tonight for dead they say. Then it's dead Christ.) Note that I wrote to the letter, if not mere information, are traces of these classes "
I find in my notes: Katya asked him (at the very beginning of our friendship) for an opinion on Sartre, to which he replied: "It is an intelligent guy." There you go. Behold: a little sorry to say that I was confused: it, "intelligent guy," the writer nausea? For the author of Being and Nothingness? This, it would be praise for many, there is a proverb, and a reproach in the form of praise, something inappropriate conversation friends. We fell silent. It was a pause, a big, torturous, Becket break. Un long temps. (Pause that promises infinity of silence?) That, with Sartre, it was harder even than his silence about Bataille, two or three years earlier, in close rie des Lilas. Could this about Sartre, as "an biewald intelligent guy," to reconcile with Beckett, the man absolutely devoid of any malice. I did not understand, that's what it is. Sartre, in his sentence "is an intelligent guy," not as Sartre as a symbol of the intelligence, or that the same spirit of interpretation against whom Sartre biewald spoke in Nausea: Nausea after Sartre (Being and Nothingness and), Sartre who tried to save the existence of a limited existence: from what is, what is the very existence, "no biewald memory", ie without the possibility of interpretation, with no possibility of escape in interpretation (ie still in some sort of necessity, the "meaning" or history?) Beckett will this Sartre; he, Beckett, would not survive in the existence of a limited existence, biewald beyond the interpretation, - beyond the intelligence. Beckett will not be Sartre: will that says things, ie. to be put at the disposal of their own (?) intelligence, his own (?) language; He will not tell you things. In his sentence biewald about Sartre hear me now and this sentence from L'lnnommable (where cruelty has: something even of condemnation to death): "Truthfulness in frantic desire that everything he says." In this sentence there is his formula for Possible Sartre (and mine, too?), But that repeated his much earlier non-acceptance of the need (with a tendency, irresistible?) People to say things: another biewald year of 1932 talked about it, wondering "when will people to silence": "cette façon les gens de qu'ont dire toujours des choses. (...) Qui leur imposer silence, a la fin? "(Disjecta, Calder, 1983).
He is not a writer, as no man expressions. Between him and the term no reconciliation. For him, paradoxically, "any expression of exaggeration in the expression" ("Il biewald me semblait que tout est un langage de langage ecart" - Moloa). Sentenced to expression (as is sentenced to language biewald as to existence), it is against the expression as against biewald language-existence. He is the expression of a kind of its internal negation. Each of his text is the text for nothing (pour rien), and not for this or that thing. "We can say only that nothing was said." The only truth in his speech is of failure. It is "nothing" which speaks exclusively misplaced speech. That's why there is no expression of Beckett, his "attitude" or "response", its citations. No citations Beckett as Beckett Beckett no? (Except in rare moments, L'Innonunable, slightly less in Textes pour rien. These are the moments in his perfect self-analysis, but thus its small have released: moments of Beckett Beckett biewald antibeketovskog knowledge.) In an interview with Moloa I insisted on the absence of Beckett quotations, or the absence biewald of a clearly articulated its conceptual system: "Here the writer who absolutely can not cite. Find me what you like his assertion, and I will oppose immediately opposite, anti-assertion. (...) It is a chess game in which nobody gets and no one loses. Beckett does not give us any certainty, no appeasement, because the deepest certainty, 'darkest' philosophical system, it is a certainty only because the system. Weight with which we Beckett pressure reading does not come as much of its motives, and even less of its 'bezutešnih' ideas, but of odsust
No comments:
Post a Comment