Thesis-Time-In-Beckett.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Miriam Zbíralová Time in the Plays of Samuel Beckett Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph. D. 2010 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Author‟s signature I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D., for his valuable advice during the whole process of writing the thesis. Table of Contents: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 1 Time and the Performance ............................................................................................. 6 1.1 The Unity of Time and Fictional versus Performance Time .................................. 6 1.2 Tempo ..................................................................................................................... 8 2 Time and the Structure of the Plays ............................................................................. 11 2.1 Cyclical Development ........................................................................................... 11 2.2 Suspense ................................................................................................................ 14 3 Time and the Characters .............................................................................................. 16 3.1 The Past and the Future of the Characters ............................................................ 16 3.2 The Burden of Time .............................................................................................. 25 3.3 Constant Change or Infinite Sameness? ............................................................... 28 3.4 Objective and Subjective Time Conceptions ........................................................ 34 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 41 Résumé (English) ............................................................................................................ 43 Resumé (česky) ............................................................................................................... 44 Works Cited and Consulted ............................................................................................ 45 Introduction The focus of this thesis is the category of time, as employed by Samuel Beckett in his plays. When analysing time in a dramatic text, there is even more material to analyse than in a narrative text, because “only in drama can presented time always be clearly defined” (Pfister 246), that is that the performance time can also be taken into account in the analysis. The thesis will focus on time on three levels: the level of the performance, the level of the structure of the plays, and the level of the actual stories. The plays analysed will be Waiting for Godot, Endgame, Krapp’s Last Tape, Happy Days, Play, and also to a lesser extent radio plays Embers and All That Fall. By the analysis I will demonstrate some peculiarities in Beckett‟s use of the category of time and deduce the effects these have on the overall interpretation of the plays. 5 1 Time and the Performance First, I will focus on time on the level of the plays that is closest to the surface, that is the level of the structure of the performance itself. In this chapter, I will discuss two principal topics: the unity of time and the related relationship between fictional and performance time, and tempo. 1.1 The Unity of Time and Fictional versus Performance Time The notion of the unity of time (or closed time structure) and the relationship between performance and fictional time are closely related, because “the distinction between open and closed time structures is actually governed by [the relationship between performance and fictional time]” (Pfister 283). As defined by Pfister, performance time is “the period of time it takes to perform the play” (283), and fictional time is the time covered by the action. Regarding the relationship between fictional and performance time, it is common in drama that the performance is accelerated in relation to the fictional time covered, either by omitting something, or by the fact that “although the text announces that particular events will take a certain amount of time, the time they do take up in performance is noticeably shorter” (Pfister 285). However, this is uncommon in Beckett‟s plays. These often contain pauses and silence, as may be observed from stage directions of plays like Waiting for Godot, Happy Days, and Endgame. As Radke points out in her analysis of Waiting for Godot, “there are gaps in conversation and activity when the silence they try to cover over is revealed” (62-63). Due to the inclusion of gaps, Beckett‟s plays may often seem to be even slowed down, but as Pfister claims, long pauses in a dialogue, or scenes in which the action is reduced to a series of insignificant or irrelevant activities, may create the impression 6 that time is being drawn out, but . this impression is derived from the comparison with the conventionalised compression techniques in plays which tend to abbreviate. (286) The seemingly slowed down performance time in relation to the fictional time is therefore only an illusion, caused by the commonness of the acceleration. However, when speaking of slowing down and speeding up the performance, it is necessary to mention, that the fictional time of Beckett‟s plays is often unspecified (see also chapter 3.4), and therefore every comparison of performance and fictional time is based rather on what is suggested, not on clear data. Nevertheless, it is obvious that no significant acceleration takes place and that the time of performance and the fictional time are close to each other. In other words, the unity of time, defined as an “exclusion of all chronological discontinuity” (Pfister 249), is observed. An exception are the gaps between the acts in the two-act plays. Here again the time that passes between the acts is either unspecified (like for example in Happy Days) or uncertain (like in Waiting for Godot, where Vladimir‟s perception of the time that passed contradicts other indications), but it is clear, that some time has been omitted. Apart from the gaps between the acts, it is suggested that the performance and fictional time are very close, which has the effect that, as Cohn states, the boundaries between role and reality in Beckett‟s plays “are considerably more fluid” (Currents in Contemporary Drama 224). Apart from the closeness of the fictional time and the performance time, the blurring of the boundaries between fiction and reality is further supported by the fact that in many plays the characters seem to be aware of their performing a play. This is clearly the case in Waiting for Godot, and to an even greater degree in Endgame. In both plays the characters often allude to the performance itself, like when 7 Vladimir in Waiting for Godot shouts “Imbecile! There‟s no way out there” (74) when Estragon tries to escape from the stage. Something similar can be seen in the following dialogue from Endgame: HAMM. And me? Did anyone ever have pity on me? CLOV. (lowering the telescope, turning towards Hamm) What? (Pause.) Is it me you‟re referring to? HAMM. (angrily) An aside, ape! Did you never hear an aside before? (Pause.) I‟m warming up for my last soliloquy. (49) In the dialogue, two words that are used refer to the performance: an aside and a soliloquy. Hamm‟s awareness of performing a play is therefore clearly visible. Generally, there is no certainty concerning the relationship between performance and fictional time in Beckett‟s plays, but it is highly probable from the comparison with conventional plays that there is hardly any acceleration of the action, suggesting that the fictional and the performance time are very close, or even coinciding, which creates the feeling of fusing the fiction with the reality. 1.2 Tempo When taking into account the tempo of a play, Pfister proposes to operate on two levels: a deep structure level and a surface structure level (292). On the level of surface structure the tempo is “determined by the speed of the movement, frequency of changes of speaker, configuration and locale” (Pfister 292), whereas on the level of deep structure by “the frequency with which the situation changes in the story itself” (Pfister 292). As Beckett‟s plays can be defined as static, in the meaning that “the situation presented at the end of the text does not differ in any drastic way from the situation presented at the beginning” (Pfister 289), it is clear, that the tempo on the level of deep 8 structure is very slow, or even zero, because there is no actual change of the situation. However, the tempo on the level of surface structure does not always have to correspond to that of the deep structure. As Pfister claims, “Beckett‟s plays . are full of scenes in which the verbal utterances are delivered at high speed with the figures constantly engaged in some sort of activity whilst at the same time the situation remains completely unchanged” (292). The discrepancy between the surface and deep structure is present in every play, where the characters try to invent activities to pass the time. Out of Beckett‟s plays such discrepancy is most apparent in Waiting for Godot. The surface tempo of the play oscillates