Endgame beginning to end文档格式.docx

1、 the solitary red-faced figure, Clov, stands motionless by the door （1）. It is a rather peculiar alteration, this displacement of Clov from the fauteuil to the door. Hardly enough to suggest a substantial revision on Becketts part. But then why make such a focused revision at all? Theres no dismissi

2、ng it as mere authorial whimsy, especially given Becketts reputation for directorial fastidiousness-after all, this is the same Beckett who rallied his bewildered actors with the phrase there are no accidents in Endgame （McMillan 212）. That only brings us back to the initial dilemma: such a tiny adj

3、ustment is surely too small to warrant attention, and yet it wasnt too small to warrant Becketts attention. This sort of thing always poses problems for interpretation （does it matter that Oscar Wilde held up the proofs of Dorian Gray to change a minor characters name from Ashton to Hubbard? Lawler,

4、 93n）. But it is a particularly pointed problem for Beckett, if only because his is the fictional universe that seems least susceptible to meaningful change. Why should we pay attention to where Clov is standing if the world he inhabits is hopelessly desiccated? What difference could it make whether

5、 his descent into inexorable despair begins beside the chair or next to the door? If Fin de Partie unfolds in a universe of irremediable entropy-and Hamm certainly thinks it does-then Clovs re-placement can mean only the difference between decaying here and decaying there, which is to say not much o

6、f a difference. But then why did Beckett so particularly attend to the question of Clovs initial placement? Quite simply, because it matters in the end: because ultimately Clovs placement tells us something crucial about the trajectory of the play, about the limits of the hermeneutic of fatalism, an

7、d about the possibilities of Clovs end. What the minute alteration of the beginning reveals is the hesitant ambiguity of the end. After all, as Hamm says, Latin est dans le commencement the end is in the beginning （91, 69）. The very first line of the play is already an ending: Fini, cest fini, ca va

8、 finir, ca va peut-etre finir Finished, its finished, nearly finished, it must be nearly finished （15, 1）. We have just begun and already it is over, or perhaps only nearly over-Hamm seems the only one who can tell. It is finished, it will finish, it will perhaps finish: three quite different ways t

9、o imagine the end. And perhaps more than three, thanks to Becketts loose translation （which allows ca va finir, ca va peut-etre finir to become nearly finished, it must be nearly finished.） Just how the end develops-and how it relates to the beginning-remains an open question, indeed the obsessive q

10、uest（ion） of the play. Though the question of ending obsesses Becketts characters, it has not particularly interested Becketts critics. Even the literal ending of Fin de Partie/Endgame-the possibility of Clovs departure-has received only occasional attention, which as often as not has meant occasion

11、al indifference. Following the French premier in 1957, only a paltry few reviewers even acknowledged Clovs prospective departure, and those who did treated it as either immaterial or predetermined:A la fin, Clov part. Mais part-il vraiment? Il sait quil nira pas loin At the end, Clov leaves. But doe

12、s he really leave? He knows that he wont get far （Arts-Spectacles）;Clov annonce son proche depart, encore quil le sache impossible Clov announces his imminent departure, though he knows it to be impossible （Figaro Litteraire）. No one familiar with Beckett criticism can be surprised by this insensiti

13、vity to the indeterminacy of Becketts ending. （1） Like so many of Becketts most famous and most capable critics （Adorno being only the most prominent example）, those early reviewers saw no indeterminacy in Becketts work, only overdetermination:Comme dans la plus classique des tragedies, on sait que

14、la fin viendra, on sait surtout ce quelle sera As in classical tragedies, we know that the end will come, and above all we know what it will beNous savons, des les trois premieres minutes, quarrivera rien, quil ne peut rien arriver We know, after the first three minutes, that nothing will happen, th

15、at nothing can happen （Nouvelles Litteraires）;Au bout de quelques minutes, nous savons de quoi il retourne et nous navons plus rien a apprendre After just a few minutes, we know what its about and we have nothing more to learn （La Revue de Paris）. （2） If the reviewers are right, and Fin de Partie/En

16、dgame presents a world drifting ineluctably towards dissolution, then the ending is largely immaterial, having long been determined. But perhaps it is not Clovs inability to depart that generates this sense of fatalism; perhaps its the other way around. What if the assumption of fatalism-so tempting

17、 and so apparently unavoidable in Beckett-makes the genuine ambiguity of Clovs departure simply unrecognizable? Perhaps, that is, a reexamination of the ending-as a strangely ambivalent moment in which Clov both leaves and doesnt leave-will allow us to glimpse, within the play itself, an alternative

18、 to the prevailing hermeneutic of fatalism. Alternative may not even be the right word. Its not hope were talking about, and certainly not escape-the despair is all too real and all too authentic. （3） Rather, its something like indeterminacy. Even if we cant finally decide whether Clov leaves or doe

19、snt leave, what might we learn about the play by thinking of Clovs departure as both imminent and impossible, not an either/or but a both/and? （4） After all, the play gives us ample reason to distrust the critics thoroughgoing fatalism. Doubtless it seems mortibus/corpsed （46, 30）, but perhaps we sh

20、ould give less credence to this seems. Hamm knows full well the abyss that separates seeming from being: Jai connu un fou qui croyait que latin du monde etait arrivee. Il faisait de la peinture. Je laimais bien. Jallais le voir, a lasile. Je le prenais par la main et le trainais devant la fenetre. M

21、ais regarde! La! Tout ce ble qui leve! Et la! Regarde! Les voiles des sardiniers! Toute cette beaute! （Un temps.） Il marrachait sa main et retournait dans son coin. Epouvante. Il navait vu que des cendres. （Un temps） Lui seul avait ete epargne. （Un temps）. Oublie. （Un temps.） Il parait que le cas ne

22、st . netait pas si . si rare. （62-3） I once knew a madman who thought the end of the world had come. He was a painter-and engraver. I had a great fondness for him. I used to go and see him, in the asylum. Id take him by the hand and drag him to the window. Look! There! All that rising corn! And ther

23、e! Look! The sails of the herring fleet! All that loveliness! （Pause.） Hed snatch away his hand and go back into his corner. Appalled. All he had seen was ashes. （Pause.） He alone had been spared. （Pause.） Forgotten. （Pause.） It appears the case is . was not so . so unusual. （44）Not unusual at all.

24、Hamm, too, projects a landscape of ashes onto a backdrop of loveliness-at least thats what the ellipses suggest. Like his friend, Hamm fancies himself a kind of artist （think, for example, of his unfinished story）, capturing nature with his palette of blacks and grays. （5） What we know of the outsid

25、e world, we know from Hamm: Clov may look out the window, but its Hamm who tells him what to see. And its Hamm who tells us Hors dici, cest la mort Outside of here its death （23, 9）, not just once but repeatedly and as the French stage directions add, fierement （proudly, my translation）:Loin tu sera

26、is mort. Loin de moi cest la mort. Gone from me youd be dead . Outside of here it （93, 70）. Ah les gens, les gens, he complains to the audience, il faut tout leur expliquer Ah the creatures, the creatures, everything has to be explained to them （61,43）. （6） As often as not, Hamms explanations are si

27、mply indoctrinations which is why Clov, when asked if the old doctor is dead, replies:cest toi qui me demande ca? You ask me that? （40, 25）-as if to say you, the great thanatologist, ask me if the doctor is dead? You yourself taught me that there is nothing but death.None of this proves that the wor

28、ld isnt really corpsed-it may be that the madman was deluded but that Hamm is genuinely trapped in a world of ashes. All it does is re-introduce a peutetre （as in the opening lines:ca va peut-etre finir）. Perhaps the decaying world of Fin de Partie/Endgame, like the desolate landscape of the madman,

29、 is a solipsistic projection, impressed-like an engraving-not only onto the minds of the characters but equally onto the audience. Hamms endgame is a game first and an end second. If it looks like a ritual of ending, it is really just a deferral of the end he hesitates to meet:Assez, il est temps que cela finisse, dans le refuge aussi. （Un temps.） Et cep