Waiting for Godot

Spotted the continental philosopher

Thats really interesting. What purpose that serve for the art though? Is it just done as a way to urge people to derive meaning from the material and not from what the author says?

>makes a general statement
>gets upset when its trivially proven wrong through counter example
>resorts to attempting to insult

You are the true woman

Proof or gtfo

He said it because it isn't ABOUT religion as a thing but any religious comparison simply IS the play of in of itself
Its like Richard Dawkins talks ABOUT religion but the Bible isn't "about" religion. To presuppose the play under any different category would be to reduce it to merely discoursive when it aims to transcend discourse itself

Women are inferior to me

At what, sucking dick?

I value masculnity and traditional white values. Faggotry is not approved, and I am never submissive. That's for women

Didn't answer the question so I'll take that as a yes

well with Eliot i would say it was probably little more than a patrician attitude typical of the period: he was very consciously writing for a highly educated, intelligent audience who could properly understand and interpret the references to the Divine Comedy/Tiresias myths. his commentary is a affirmation of that in its refusal to "dumb down" the wasteland.

With Beckett it is more difficult to say precisely why he did it, and i would say that you're probably right in what you said. I think another part of it is that with a few of his plays - Not I, for example - you can't give an exact explanation which would reveal everything about the play. Like Gertrude Steins poetry - or, to a lesser extent Finnegans Wake - for example, its difficult to read a concrete narrative/set of references in that play (despite the fact that you are provided many particles of biography for mouth/the character is derived from one of Dante's sinners - Bocca) and an explanation would indicate that there was some kind of skeleton key which would allow complete understanding of the work. I think it is, in a way, a means of maintaining a degree of inexplicability or ineffability which is an important aspect of Beckett's dramaticules

I think you have a major (retarded) misreading here and its that you assume Beckett believes he himself has access to the real reading of the play he is attempting to hide, that it increases in value the more it is problematized. Rather the proper thing to understand is the play IS the problem itself and if it were possible for Beckett to elucidate its significance there would have been no damn reason to make the thing in the first place.

i'm not saying that Beckett had a monopoly on some kind of understanding of the true meaning of his plays; i'm saying that he did purposively refuse to explicitly talk about them because that would lead people to read the plays with the bias of his explanation. as in my example of what he said to Adorno he clearly didn't have access to precise knowledge of his plays meaning because it strikes me that very few people who actually listen/read words and music will come to the same conclusion as him. It isn't like the claim of knowledge someone like Philip Roth makes when he claims that the character of Zuckerman is not based on his life despite the undeniable biographical parallels.
my apologies if that wasn't clear

I think this is still a missreading. My belief is that Beckett was incredibly clever in this situation, he could have chosen in what you were saying to just not speak of the plays at all, when asked about them just give some stupid narcisstic posture but instead he actually DID speak about the plays and was always open to give very specific interpretations.
I believe your point about his readings somethings being absurd or misdirected is correct but its because he was a very keen Hegelian and knew that the very misdirection itself will serve better towards finding the truth than the apparent correct route, which the academics can find on their own

yeah you're probably right, i'm convinced - although the suggestion that he was purposefully giving bizarre readings seems a bit far to me; i think that artists are very rarely able to evaluate the actual quality of their own works, often writers and directors seem, at least to me, to identify as best quite inferior works.
In fact i had completely ignored his role as a director in my argument, which certainly contributes to your argument.

Very good user, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Beckett was a notorious Irish troll. His trolling is the 4th leg of the table after his prose, poetry and plays (in that order).

Don't expect answers, but expect shite and whores.

It doesn't mean anything, it's absurdism lol.