Haunting Words, Fluid Moods: Affect in Samuel Beckett’s Mercier and Camier

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1, 97 - 114, 21.06.2024

Selvin Yaltır

https://doi.org/10.26650/LITERA2023-1397835

Öz

Originally written in French in 1946 and translated by the author himself, Samuel Beckett’s Mercier and Camier tells the story of a pseudo-couple wandering through an unnamed city. Despite the narrator’s mocking tone, this quest narrative gradually reveals a search for meaning, punctuated by crises and revealed through the nonsensical dialogues between characters. By means of the disjunctions, verbal irrelevancies, and gaps in thought found in these dialogues, the narrative registers affective transitions and passages of feeling. This kind of narrative disjunction is determined, produced, and reproduced within a particularly affective milieu where social encounters become catalysts for emotional disorientation. This paper will examine how the novel’s use of casual conversation explores affect’s infiltration into ways of acting and speaking in everyday encounters. The novel’s investment in an excessive amount of random talk solicits a host of questions around the idea of affect not only as state of mind but also as a narrative mood determining the conditions of meaningfulness. Focusing on theories of affect, I will explore the link between affective experience and verbal expression in Mercier and Camier, particularly in the absence of narrative logic and reflective coherence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Samuel Beckett, Mercier and Camier, affect theory, dialogue, narrative

Kaynakça

• Bair, D. (1990). Samuel Beckett: A biography. London: Vintage. google scholar
• Beckett, S. (2001). Disjecta: Miscellaneous writings and a dramatic fragment. (R. Cohn, Ed.). London: Calder Publications. google scholar
• Beckett, S. (2010). Mercier and Camier. London: Faber and Faber. google scholar
• Bourussa, A. (2005). Literature, language, and the non-human. In B. Massumi (Ed.), A Shock to thought: Expression after Deleuze and Guattari (pp. 60-76). London and New York: Routledge. google scholar
• Clough, P.T. (2010). Affective turn: Political economy, biomedia and bodies. In M. Gregg & G. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 206-225). Durham and London: Duke University Press. google scholar
• Colebrook, C. (2020). Cartesian affect. In A. Houen (Ed.), Affect and literature (pp. 425-443). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• Deleuze, G. (1978). Sur Spinoza. (T.S. Murphy, Trans.) Deleuze’s lecture notes on Spinoza’s concept of affect. https://www.webdeleuze.com/textes/14 google scholar
• Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2005). A Thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1980). google scholar
• Freud, S. (1963). The unconscious. In P. Rieff (Ed.), General psychological theory: Papers on metapsychology (pp. 116-150). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. google scholar
• Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In M. Gregg & G. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 1-25). Durham and London: Duke University Press. google scholar
• Heidegger, M. (2008). Being and time (Macquarrie J. Robinson E. & Carman T., Trans.). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought. google scholar
• Houen, A. (2020). Introduction. In A. Houen (Ed), Affect and literature (pp. 1-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9, 188-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/os-IX.34.188 google scholar
• Lord, B. (2010). Spinoza’s ethics: an Edinburgh philosophical guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. google scholar
• Massumi, B. (1995). The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique, 31, 83-109. google scholar
• Massumi, B. (Ed.). (2005). A shock to thought: Expression after Deleuze and Guattari. London and New York: Routledge. google scholar
• Nadler, S. (2006). Spinoza’s ethics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. google scholar
• Pethick, S. (2015). Affectivity and philosophy after Spinoza and Nietzsche: Making knowledge the most powerful affect. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
• Piette, A. (2011). Beckett, affect and the face. Textual Practice, 25, 281-295. google scholar
• Protevi, J. (2020). Affect and life in Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Bergson. In A. Houen (Ed.), Affect and literature (pp.66-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• Redding, P. (1999). The logic of affect. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. google scholar
• Serres, M. (1982). Hermes: Literature, science, philosophy. (J. Harari & D. Bell, Eds.). Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. google scholar
• Smith, R. (2010). ’It’s nothing: Beckett and anxiety.’ In Daniela Caselli (Ed.), Beckett and nothing: Trying to understand Beckett (pp.192-212). Manchester: Manchester University Press. google scholar
• Spinoza, B.d., & Curley, E. M. (1994). A Spinoza reader: the ethics and other works. Princeton: Princeton University Press. google scholar