Malséance : la mort et l'image dans le (méta)théâtre de Samuel Beckett et de Jean Genet

Both ludic and macabre, the theatrical works of Samuel Beckett and Jean Genet are a paradox to behold. Indeed, as this thesis seeks to illustrate, despite their vastly differing aesthetics, at the core of each playwright’s stage productions is a tension between the characters’ yearning for silence and invisibility, and the continual creation of an often humorous, chaotic, exaggerated or theatrical image that depicts this very longing. Seeking an impossible intersection between their image and their death, they are trapped in a double bind that guarantees aesthetic failure. In order to grasp the close, yet delicate, relationship between the image of death and the death of the image, as presented in the plays of Beckett and Genet, we will explore how the characters’ creative processes deflate the very images — both visual and auditory — that they create. More specifically, we will examine how mimesis both liberates and confines the characters; while the symbolic realm provides the only means of self-representation, it is also a source of profound alienation and powerlessness, for it never adequately conveys meaning. Thus, body, gesture, language and voice are each the site of simultaneous and ceaseless reappearance and disappearance, for which death remains the only (aporetic) cure. Struggling against theatrical form, which demands the actors’ and the audience’s physical presence, both playwrights make shrewd use of metatheatre to slowly empty the stage and thereby suggest the impending, yet impossible, erasure of their characters.

Modernist Ecology: Modernism and the Reimagination of Nature

Countering the trend in contemporary ecocriticism to advance realism as an environmentally responsible mode of representation, this essay argues that the anti-realist aesthetics of literary modernism were implicitly “ecological.” In order to make this argument I distinguish between contemporary and modernist ecological culture (both of which I differentiate in turn from ecological science); while the former is concerned primarily with the practical reform characteristic of what we now call “environmentalism,” the latter demanded an all-encompassing reimagination of the relationship between humanity and nature. “Modernist ecology,” as I call it, attempted to envision this change, which would be ontological or metaphysical rather than simply social, through thematically and formally experimental works of art. Its radical vision, suggestive in some ways of today’s “deep” ecology, repudiated modern accounts of nature as a congeries of inert objects to be manipulated by a sovereign subject, and instead foregrounded the chiasmic intertexture of the subject/object relationship. In aesthetic modernism we encounter not “objective” nature, but “nature-being” – a blank substratum beneath the solid contours of what philosopher Kate Soper calls “lay nature” – the revelation of which shatters historical constructions of nature and alone allows for radical alternatives. This essay looks specifically at modernist ecology as it appears in the works of W. B. Yeats, D. H. Lawrence, and Samuel Beckett, detailing their attempts to envision revolutionary new ecologies, but also their struggles with the limited capacity of esoteric modernist art to effect significant ecological change on a collective level.