>>7882491
>Samuel

>>7882616
>Beckett

He ain't your buddy, Anon. He is Beckett for you.

And I doubt that it is autobiographical as such. Sure, Beckett conveys his thoughts and feelings on the subject through the Unnamable, but he certainly isn't the Unnamable, nor experienced what he did.

Kind of unrelated, but hve you read any of his plays? What was your favorite? Mine is Endgame. I think it is a better, more thought-out and well-rounded play than Godot.

If it isn't autobiographical, then the voice would still have to be someone who tried to do with Molloy & Malone & the others what Beckett tried to do with Molloy & Malone & the others

>>7882689
What do you mean? Please elaborate

>>7882696
I mean that ultimately the unnameable can't fail to be or not be Beckett in the same ways Beckett's other characters have because it has failed at being & not being Beckett through these characters the same way Beckett has

>>7882753
You don't make any kind of sense. None of Beckett characters are Beckett. In any sort of sense. Ambiguity here is not a good argument.

I'm reading it right now. Since three years I haven't been able to, maybe because it was too difficult a read for me. It could provoke me in such different ways than it's doing right now, meaning that I'm having hopes of finally understanding it, and that I'm really enjoying it.

On a side not, which of his books should I read next, in order to understand his whole absurdist intention? Should I have started with Molloy, Malone Dies, or maybe Murphy instead? I've already seen Waiting for Godot as a visual piece.

>>7882790
You should have started with Molloy and then Malone Dies. Read them now. Then read and watch Endgame. Everything else, though fantastic, only expanda on these two plays and novels.

>>7882756
They would be Beckett in the sense that Beckett is the expression of Beckett and they are the expression of Beckett even when he is making them not be Beckett, for sometimes someone else will make them Beckett (hi) or for some other reason, which in turn is what makes them not Beckett as them being Beckett is not Beckett's expression (even when he is making them be Beckett to express what Beckett expresses, and so on)

>>7882790
Sorry about not contributing to the discussion.

It definitely feels like it's dealing with the fear of nothingness. However, I don't think Beckett is doing this with other purposes than establishing a feel of absurdist prose, as far as I've read. The Kafkaesque feel in it is also showing in some passages, although not in the same manner of "dreamy" as in contrast to "realistic" atmosphere, in my opinion.

If anyone here is more well read on him I'd love to be enlightened.

>>7882808
Thanks for the advice!

>>7882835
That makes more sense, but is still rubbish. It's like saying that Gregor Samsa is Kafka or Ahab is Melville. They are not. Saying "the characters are expressions of the author" is not always true nor even important. It doesn't tell us anything new about the novel, and not even about the author, mainly because no one can be for sure if the author intended them to be expressions of himself (most authors that do this use this technique as a sort of self-analysis and usually is with an ironic purpose, i.e. Werther and Stephen Daedalus).

>>7882884
Can be sure***

Typing from phone.

>>7882884
It wouldn't be important if it wasn't explicitly in the text, but the subject of his expression and what it conveys or is made to convey and how his characters relate to it and his stripping away the characters from it is so recurrent in the book I've no idea what else you could have read onto the voice having also created Beckett's characters

>>7883003
First of all, what is exactly "it"? Second of all, when I read Molloy I see Molloy narrating. The same with the Unnamable. The voice of the narrator in the Unnamable is the Unnamable himself. It is not Beckett's voice. You cannot say that the narrator of a novel is the author himself. Not even in works like Unamuno's Niebla. The narrator is the narrator, not the author, even when it is a third person narrator (which is not the case here). Even in Beckett's drama, with all it's stage directions that deliberately stand against the characters and decimate their speech, one wouldn't be able to say it is Beckett's voice. It is the dramatist's voice, rather.

You see, that is the problem when you start referring authors using their first name. You think you know them and see them in your texts as if you were talking with them, and as if they were your friends. But you are only creating a. Image of the author, and then you tru to fit and pose that image into the narration. That is a big mistake.

>>7883053
Fit and impose**

Holy shit I need to stop posting here with my phone.

>>7883142
What browser do you use? I can't even post here with mine.

>>7883150
I post from an app called Clover.

>>7883194
Thanks, dl'ing now.

>>7883053
In defense of what you say and as a fitting example of it, you are assuming I am OP,
Against what you say in the case of this book, what do you think the unnameable is doing repeatedly spinning and shedding its characters and Beckett's characters if it is not Beckett squirming in and out of being Beckett and writing himself and then squirming in and out of being the written Beckett, the poor man

>>7883283
Sorry for assuming that, but it is another matter, not an example of what I said. I was also speaking generally.

In any case, I'd say it is Beckett commenting on his own works through the voice of the Unnamable. Which does not make the Unnamable Beckett or vice-versa. The Unnamable's feelings might resemble Beckett's, but we cannot know that nor assume it is Beckett directly speaking. One should also consider how the real Beckett was. He was a very reserved man, and wouldn't talk about his feelings as if it were anything. He is also very ironic throughout his writings, so you should take everything he writes with a pinch of salt.

Of course, if you want to say that the Unnamable's voice is actually Beckett's, go ahead, I can't prevent you, as Hamm would say.

>>7882639

The only play I read was Waiting for goddot. I concentrated most on his prose. I have endgame in my to-read list :)


Goddot was OK but his novels and short stories is what reall gets me.

>>7883053

I agree that the Unnamable is not Beckett speaking, but I felt that *maybe* he used it as a way to channel his own fears of illness/death.

Why does the Unnamable refer to previous characters like Molloy or Malone? Maybe is just the writer trying to make a big trilogy? of books interconnected, but then again maybe is Beckett commenting on his work trough his character.

Definitely agree that character =/= writer, but I also think that every great genius (such as Samuel) puts their deepest feelings and emotions on the paper.
Or maybe he was more like Kafka which we know was totally humorous about his work. There is a well anecdote of him jokingly reciting the first chapter of "The Process" as a tongue in check joke. He laughed so much from reading The process that he couldn't continue (source: https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Opq7aOBtwHcC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=when+kafka+read+the+first+chapter+of+the+trial+to+a+group+of+friends&source=bl&ots=vHhP1QSenP&sig=450FSdZwtCAh52QhzIJq2YttfB4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9ys6Z7PPLAhXGipAKHYCbBpQQ6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=when%20kafka%20read%20the%20first%20chapter%20of%20the%20trial%20to%20a%20group%20of%20friends&f=false)

Maybe Beckett was like that. Maybe he just used literature to laugh and put his worries aside. Anyway he was an amazing, incredible dude.

>>7882808
Read Company and How it is when you're done with Molloy and Malone. Then once you begin to wonder how it got to that point, read Murphy and Watt.