I don't get it

i feel like this must have had a massive influence on ws burroughs

>meanless rambling

No way! You think Beckett's prose writings are meanless rambling? That's crazy.

Here's a quote from "Worstward Ho", which was written very near his death:
"The dim. The void. Gone too? Back too? No. Say no. Never gone. Never back. Till yes. Till say yes. Gone too. Back too. The dim. The void. Now the one. Now the other. Now both. Sudden gone. Sudden back. Unchanged? Sudden back unchanged? Yes. Say yes. Each time unchanged. Somehow unchanged. Till no. Till say no. Sudden back changed. Somehow changed. Each time somehow changed."

My point is that it's meant to be meaningless rambling. We're given "language" to fool with and Beckett just understands how fun it is to fool with it in a way that best reflects how difficult it is to try and actually talk about your own intimate thoughts. The title of the collection of short stories I quoted is "Nohow On". How ugly of a phrase. How improper. But it's playful. Why not toy with the language you're given as much as you can? Why rely on a methodical plot to express a "point". Expression is based in meaninglessness.

>How these are considered novels is a mystery to me.
It must be due to your complete lack of education about the form of the novel. Don't blame Beckett for your shortfalls.

(same poster)

I've read quite a bit of Beckett's prose works aloud to myself in my spare time and I'd like to encourage detractors of Beckett to do the same. If you truly appreciate how expressive language can be manipulated & molested, I think you'll find it a thoroughly profitable use of time.

>"It's shit on purpose!"

go back there

These people don't care. They want a linear #deep#meaningful story, not literature. They have their designations and limits. Anything exceeding their view is shit and meaningless. They never leave with more than what they approach with.

I know this sounds edgy of me, and trust me, I'm not one of these Stirnerist posters, but I can't understand the claim of association between "meaningless" and "shit"? Would anyone like to explain their position?

>"The dim. The void. Gone too? Back too? No. Say no. Never gone. Never back. Till yes. Till say yes. Gone too. Back too. The dim. The void. Now the one. Now the other. Now both. Sudden gone. Sudden back. Unchanged? Sudden back unchanged? Yes. Say yes. Each time unchanged. Somehow unchanged. Till no. Till say no. Sudden back changed. Somehow changed. Each time somehow changed."

I have no idea what the fuck this means.

>My point is that it's meant to be meaningless rambling.

What's the point of reading 400 pages of it then? God damn, is it really a pleb thing to want an actual story where stuff happens and things make sense? That is what 90% of readers want. Perhaps there's something wrong with you if you prefer drivel like this.

literature is a textual art

Maybe meaninglessness isn't exactly shit. It just seems like it's the sort of thing you would resort to if you just totally ran out of ideas as to how to innovate your field.

>what the fuck this means

You still aren't getting the point. What do you mean what it "means". Do you think the only point of having a language is to express anecdotes and storytelling?

>where stuff happens and things make sense
Can I ask you: based on your experience of life do you really believe that "stuff happens" and "things make sense"?

>That is what 90% of readers want.
& "Candle in the Wind" is the best-selling record of all time. Fuck off if you really are going to throw out argumentum ad populum. You're not worth actually discussing literature with.

ITT: plebs who can't understand Beckett and pseuds who think Beckett is all just purposeful "nonsense."
Fuck you guys are stupid, especially the latter. There is a lot of meaning behind Beckett's works. Try reading his essay on Proust and Schopenhauer before reading him, he's a very philosophical author.

>Do you think the only point of having a language is to express anecdotes and storytelling?
Yes.

>based on your experience of life do you really believe that "stuff happens" and "things make sense"?
Yes.

>"Candle in the Wind" is the best-selling record of all time.
And it's a good song.

Okay, I have to conclude that the only people who like this shit are either pretentious lit students, or literally insane people who are okay reading random words for 400 pages.

>experimental novel
>"why isn't it conventional"
>mfw

It is not meaningless it is an articulation of thought about the sensation of being.

Subvocalize the quote and treat it like you're own thought and you'll understand the connectedness of the written ideas.

>especially the latter
I assume this is in reference to me

>There is a lot of meaning behind Beckett's works. Try reading his essay on Proust and Schopenhauer before reading him, he's a very philosophical author.
I never claimed any sweeping claims about Beckett's entire works, I was simply talking about his opaque late prose works (The Trilogy, How It Is, Nohow On, Texts for Nothing). His early works for theater and his early prose have immense philosophic value that arrives from plot & meaning. But if you read a biography of Beckett (I have only read Cronin's "The Last Modernist") you'll know that Beckett started to loose faith in language as an adequate expression of experience. If you know of Beckett at all, you'll know he adored painting and always wished he could've been an artist rather than writer. That's all that I was saying about him writing with a tone of meaninglessness in late prose.

You're boring. I'd just rather not speak at you.

It's amazing to me that you would actually need to explain this to someone

t. Pleb

really? there are adult that read YA and people who stop a yield signs with no oncoming traffic and people who drink light beers and people that

>started to loose faith
Out of context but in context, this is hilarious

? ? ?

he's just being meaningless bro

Hi everyone Im new!!!!!!!!!!! *writes down QUA* my names Sam but I wish you would call me James!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! L0L.....as you can see I am very avant-garde, that's why I came here, 2 meet post-modern faggots like myself-... I have the mind of a 12 year old (my body is mature for my age tho!!) i like to read authors who will always be better than me and pretend that my ramblings are meaningful because art degenerated to that point just before I existed.

No

'Loose' recalls bowels, come on, this isn't hard. Besides the very appropriate airy suggestion, equating faith to fart is VERY funny.

He was gay.

t. redditor

t. baitbiter

>'Loose' recalls bowels

What backwards part of the world are you from?

Everyday this board gets stupider and more stupid by the minute.

Not OP, but I guess the logical question (which I'll ask in sincere good faith) is why works as inaccessible, nonconventional, and difficult to work through as those in Beckett's trilogy should be accorded merit.

What about the human condition do they capture that they couldn't by being written in a more "enjoyable," or otherwise traditionally accessible way?

To answer in an utterly banal and traditionally accessible way which also works as a multilayered illustration of its own point: "no pain, no gain".

(had actually typed a real answer but cat+keyboard dealt with that and I hate repeating myself even in the middle of a forest)

fuck you my man absurdist theatre is my shit

In the Trilogy's case, form follows function. Read them with that in mind.

faggot