I don't really have a strong inclination to write extensively about Beckett at this juncture. I simply wish to note that while it seems everyone adores Malone Dies the most, in my humble opinion, the other two novels are superior. Malone is不错, but the scenery is overly comprehensible - an immovable dying man left with his thoughts. It's all too easy to imagine. Beckett's trilogy is centered around the gradual emptying of "a novel", yet this middle installment in Malone discovers a rather facile pretense.
In contrast, the random paralyses that afflict Molloy and Moran are far more disconcerting. Molloy has a neat Kafkaesque surrealist ambiance, but otherwise it presents that peculiar form of Beckettian body-horror, where the body appears both as the conditio sine qua non of a man (Cartesian dualism offers no salvation here) and as an obstacle to (at least illusory) happiness. In other words, to be implies to suffer.
However, nothing can ready us for the indescribable logorrheic terror of The Unnamable. Here, we are confronted with what - an egg? A shapeless body-without-organs, an abstraction of Molloy and Moran and Murphy, an empty template for them, their transcendental condition of possibility, and an abstract machine in pursuit of total deterritorialization. Nevertheless, in the end, it's still just a man. What else could it be? And therein lies the utter horror. The thoughts gradually dissolve in acid, any pretense of being a novel or any sort of respectable literature is shed. For the last fifty pages, with its sentences stretching on interminably, it's the kind of "I-could-do-that-too" (though why would you, why would anyone) drivel. But if one allows oneself to be sucked in (why would anyone do that, though...), one is lost.
\\"…ah if only this voice could stop, this meaningless voice which prevents you from being nothing, just barely prevents you from being nothing and nowhere…\\"
\\"…like a caged beast born of caged beasts born of caged beasts born of caged beasts born in a cage and dead in a cage, in a word like a beast, in one of their words, like such a beast, and that I seek, like such a beast, with my little strength, such a beast, with nothing in species left but fear and fury, no, the fury is past, nothing but fear...\\"
\\"…I can’t go on in any case. But I must go on. So I’ll go on…\\"
And an assault on my peace of mind. Beckett's acclaimed trilogy—Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnameable—presented a unique challenge for me. It was like reading the wrong book at the wrong time. I'm certain that a few years ago, when I was delving into the works of Heidegger, Joyce, and Faulkner, I might have taken on Beckett's demands with more seriousness. However, attempting to tackle Burroughs and Beckett this past year has made me realize that my capacity lies more in the realm of the intelligible. Literature that delves into the absurd and praises insanity, like Beckett's, often leaves me lost in a forest of meaninglessness.
Even so, there is something about Beckett's approach that seems essential to the human experience. It's a perspective that is often silenced by the parameters set by the sane, the logical, and the reasonable, whether in universities or by those of high social standing or class. Ironically, these are the very people who are likely to read Beckett. In the Trilogy, the world is filled with "nameless things" and "thingless names," and the association between them is nullified by "icy meaning" that oppresses the characters in various comedic forms.
The characters moan about the flesh, fixating on bodily functions and mundane details. They suck on pebbles, pocket rocks, and stare listlessly at the sea. They openly and glumly face mortality, with a nihilistic toss of the hands. Lulled by the passing of time, they "devour the world," counting the days, the showers, and the "chatter of the sparrows at dawn." In this active wandering of thought, one either becomes mute or falls into a kind of glossolalic tourette, as I experienced in The Unnameable. Here, Beckett directly confronts the world, filled with confusion and unexplained events, which saves one from the pressure to conceptualize and totalize experience a priori.
Utterance is the primary method of writing in the Trilogy, privileging the natural sound of speech over polished language. Identity becomes fractured, ceasing to refer to a single existence. Beckett, unable to identify a cohesive self, fragments further into the naked fractals of his own disfigured phenomenology. This may be why, as a reader, I struggled to find meaning. Drowning in meaninglessness, I cursed this Irish bastard, yet could almost hear his silent laugh as I finished the final sentences, "I can't go on, I'll go on."