South Central Modern Language Association

Recontextualizing the Self: The Voice as Subject in Beckett's "Not I"

Author(s): Mary Catanzaro
Source: South Central Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 36-49
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of South Central Modern Language
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3189212
Accessed: 11-02-2016 14:58 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3189212?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

South Central Modern Language Association and Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to South Central Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 theSelf:The Voice as
Recontextualizing
Subjectin Beckett'sNotI
MARYCATANZARO
Marquette
University

Duringthemiddle1960s,thecharacter ofBeckett's stylechangeddrasti-

cally and gaveway to a new mode ofexpression whose structure wasbased
on thetransformation oflanguagedensitiesand texture, on the"statistical"
arrangement ofevents.' In NotI, Beckett breaksdown thebasic sentence
or phrasestructure and movestowardscomplexpatternsof unfixedor
randomfrequency content.Thisnewstyle,whileperplexing toreaderand
vieweralike,servesbothtodefinea newtheatrical function and,moreover,
tovisualizetheplightofwoman.
Bythetimehe wroteNot1(1972),Beckett had interiorized sounddensity
even further thanhe had in its predecessor, Play,and had formalized
is,
periodicity-that cyclical and repeatedphrases. Beckett emphasizes
structure, formalized patterns, and theundercutting
artifice, ofpathosin
ordertodevelopthethemesofrejection, ofisolation,and oftheabsenceof
love. The paradoxofwoman'spositionwithothersis thatherplace is in
factdefinedin thescattered, spasticvoiceofthetext.
The centralsignificance ofcouplesforBeckettis thattheyshiftamong
interpersonal, grammatical, and conceptualvariants.Beckett groundshis
notionofthecoupleinan increasingly theoreticalfoundation ofthevoice.
Thisis a voicethatdoes notcommunicate orinform as we ordinarily think
ofit,butisgovernedbyitsrelationship withthesubjectspeaking.Thevoice
pointsoutwhatis beforethesceneofMouth'sinnergaze ratherthanwhat
is visibleto hersenses. In otherwords,thevoicerelatesto whatis inside
thesubjectall thewhile.Themostproductive approachherewillbe to look
athowBeckett reevaluates thecouplethrough Mouth'snarrative voiceand
herinnervoicespeakingofitself.In eachcase itis necessarytoforget the
usual meaningofthewordvoice, which in thiswork is defined as external
toMouth.MuchofBeckett's exposition ofthevoicecanappearforbidding-
ly abstract on a superficial reading, thosewho devotesomeeffort
but to
his
penetrating language often findthis work tobe intensely emotional as
well. Accordingly, Beckett neverlosessightentirely ofa quitetraditional,
humanistic viewofthecoupleintermsoflossandsorrow.Bothapproaches
are indeedat workin NotI, hencethegreateremphasison justhow and
wheretheyintersect and evolvein Mouth'sstory.

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MaryCatanzaro 37

Perhapsthemostimportant conceptualcontributions madebythevoice

and thepeculiarlydenseconstructs oflanguagein thisworkis thatthey
mirror theradicallycircumscribed space of thefigurein NotI. The play
takesplace in a blackvoid,in whichtheaudiencesees an elevatedred
mouth,brilliantlylit,witha nearlyimperceptible robedfigure,theAuditor,
standingto one side. The mouthspeaksrapidly,therecitation detailing
certaineventsin the lifeof an old woman who has suffered.As the
recitation
progresses, Mouthperceivesthathertextis a sequenceofwords
and memoriesthatspeaksinvoluntarily. Like the subjectspeaking,the
viewer's memoryalso driftsformparticularity to wholeness;hence,
Mouth'sstoryis understood inall itsontological
ramificationsinthetext's
shiftfromspecificabandonment touniversalabandonment.In thisway,
theviewersubconsciously followsthe"score"ofNotI, whatHerbertBlau
remindsus is a legacyof NormanO. Brown's"participation mystique."2
Enoch Braterarguesthispointsimilarly, notingthatself-perception is
experienced directly bytheaudience:

AlthoughNotI focusesour attention on Mouth,noteye (costarring

Auditoras ear),thepieceis a farmoreambitiousexerciseindramatic
perceptionthanthisunrulytrinity mightseemto imply.Although
Mouthspeaks,Auditor hears,andaudiencesees,Beckett for
establishes
theviewerofthisworka visualhorizonas wellas an auralstimulus
closelyapproximatingthe"matter" ofthemonologueitself.3

The voice in NotI is used as an instrument thatperforms thedetritusof

memory, but the instrument does not fullycomprehend what it voices.
Comprehension is divided among severalparties-the selfwho voices and
theAuditor(andalso theaudience)whohears.NotI"forcestothedrama's
surfaceourownsensory inseeing,inperceiving,
deprivation forthisis our
annoying situationas members of Beckett's
audience."4 The audience thus
"participates" with Mouth's incoherent
breathlessly speaking, the disor-
deredsequencingofevents,and thegeneralized confusion thatpunctuates
Mouth'sinability totellthestoryinan organizedfashion.
In placing the troublesof woman in the realmof the innervoice,5
complicatedby theproblemofinvoluntary speech,Beckettdislocatesthe
body from ordinary languagepreciselytoshow thatcommunication as we
commonly know it is an inadequatebonding device to preservetogether-
ness in partnerships. Thisidea mustofcoursebe understoodin termsof
Beckett'sseeminglack of faithin ordinarylanguageto conveyeven the
mostminimalpersonalfeeling.Gontarski's studyoftheevolutionofthe
play,firsttitledKilcool,clarifies
thatthenarrator is a victimofconscious,
human rejectionand notof chance. Thatwords failto expressis a fetishof
Beckett's;he realizesthatcouples stilltalk. His workshave in various ways
transformedand explored this premise relentlessly.Auditor's presence
may be interpretedas constitutingMouth's elsewhere:the "other,"having

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 SouthCentralReview

escapedher,is elsewhere, outside,butnevertheless withinAuditor'shear-

ing. (Beckett did, however, eliminate Auditor from boththefirstParis
production and the BBC production.)6 Gontarski suggests thatMouth's
conflicts nonetheless remainessentially thesamewithorwithout Auditor's
physicalpresence, for "the function of the Auditor-whether one is physi-
on
cally stage or not--can be seen as basic to the dialectical
conception of
the drama and to the conceptionof the selfdevelopedin the play. It
suggeststhatsilencewithoutwhichspeechis notpossible. As Jacques
Lacan put thematter, 'thereis no speechwithouta reply,evenifitis met
onlywithsilence,providedthatithas an auditor."'7
Becketthas been able to push theformalist demandforabstractmini-
malismto an extreme limitfirst ofall by conceiving regularcouplesas he
did in "Enough,"forexample,and thentransmuting thatconceptto a
subject/object dialecticas he does inNotI. Butthereareprobablyno clear
limitsas to what constitutes thecouple. Perhapsthemostproductive
approachto thisproblematic is to reflecton the transformation which
makesa verycomprehensible couplepass overintoan abstract one. Ever
sinceMurphy, Becketthas been obsessedwithminglingand separation
withinthesubjectas well as betweensubjectand object. And whenhe
repeatsthiscircleoverand over,fromworkto work,we can see definite
changesfrompieceto piece. Thedisplacement ofthewomanin a couple
intoformsofabsence,nonbeing, negativity, silence,oremptiness does not
essentially matter, so longas we can determine theleap thatBeckett takes
in boththesoundand formofa piece,and gatherourmeaningthere.
After all hiswordyoutbursts inTheUnnamable, whatelsewas leftexcept
linguistic shrinkage and devastation?WithNotI, Beckett daredtowritea
playofshortstaccatoswhoselanguagedoes violentthings.Here,where
therearenolongeranyrecognizable couples,a patentinability tocopewith
lossis manifested ina singleentity. Theconflict is nowpurelyinternal; and
since the voice speaks involuntarily, her suffering appears unrelieved.
SaintAugustine'sfamousmotto,firstused in Waiting forGodot:"Do not
despair, one of the thieves was saved; do not presume,one ofthethieves
was damned,"is thedialecticupon whichNotI is built. It preservesthe
symmetry of hope and despairthatis at the veryfoundationof every
couple.
Thereis in NotI, however,a kindofreverseoptimismaboutthecouple
whichseeksto internalize all possibleexperiencein an endlessstasis,as
thoughexperience and time werethemselves theequivalentsofpain. The
"statistical" of
arrangement language and structures in thispiecesuggests
thatthevoice,spokenwithrapidbutdeliberateprecision, likeopen piz-
zicato strings, exertsitselfto securea replacement forMouth'smissing
memories,particularly her unassimilated"other." StevenConnor,like
Blau, writeson theproblemsofcouplingin thisplay in termsofvoyeuristic
participation:

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Catanzaro
Mary 39

Themostelaborate form ofcollusion

betweenthefigure ofthewoman
andtheanxiety ofselfisinNotI. Here,theextreme dismemberment
ofthewomanmakesthespectator in an uncomfortably
participate
aggressive voyeurism, whileat thesametimeitis deprived ofthe
meansofitsseeing, evenofseeingitself beinglookedat. Butthis
uncomfortable nakedness ofthemouth, especiallyintheTVversion,
and itsfailureto return theviewer'sgaze,is itselfa threat.The
dismemberment ofNotI isnotonewhich allowsanunequivocal'male'
celebrationofthepowertomutilate anddispersethefemale body,for
it is a dismemberment whichfailsto confirm thepresence ofthe
watcher, andthereforechallengeshisunity.8

Fragmentation and loss of an easilyperceivablecenterhave marked

modernistcontemporary literature worldwide,to be sure. But it seems
even
especiallyprominent, exaggerated, inNotI. Mostviewersofthisplay
experience a sense ofbombardment of disconnectedenergyand impulses.
Suchknotty often
complexity, thought (by of as a productofBeck-
critics)
ett'spenchantforsystems and linguistic compositional techniques, shares
muchwiththedeliberateapplicationofrandomness-tossing thedice to
lettheI Chingmakedecisions,forexample--andproducesa dissociation
ofeffect.Thenarrative dissemination ofNotI,however, allowsviolenceto
occurwithina chosenframework.
The use ofa kindoftheatrical voodoo--dominated by theincantatory
styleofMouth'svocalization-isa further meansofdisplacingtheconven-
tionalselffromthe centerof actionand replacingit with"scenes"of
disgrace.Itis significant
thatthemythorreligion intowhichMouthenters
is nota feminine alternativeto a masculineGod butrathera decentraliza-
tionofselfinwhichgendercanbe confused.Thesescenesarefree-standing
sectionsor "movements," indicatedby Auditor'sgesturesorbyhersilen-
ces,laughs,and screams.Mouth'sambiguousrelationship withthesilent
Auditorto thetotalschemeofthetextis intentionally builtintoBeckett's
conceptofthecouple,whichpresupposestheexistence ofan other.NotI
opposesthelogic ofintegration to thelogicoftotality,whichis based on
exclusionand specialization:inthisrealm,therearenoabsolutelimitations,
onlylinguistic variations.
Thevoicefeedsthenarrator's appetiteforwords.
Wordsare"objects"Mouthcallsup inordertovisualizethem;one"object"
becomesanother"object"and theydo nothaveabsoluterelations toeach
other.The playofchancegovernstherelationsoflinguistic "objects"to
eachother.
NotI fitscloselywithintheframework offeminine writingdefinedby
Christiane Makwardas "fragmented, polysemic, attempting to speakthe
body,"and in thismannertheplay avoids a fixedrepresentation offemale
embodiment.9 Beckett'stextasserts Mouth's storyas a cryof un-know-
ledge, isolated and unassimilable. It must be rememberedalso that the
stagedirectionsstatethatAuditor's "sex[is] undeterminable,"
and therefore,

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 SouthCentralReview

refusestoprojecta generalized
female,butthefigure also refusestomirror
themale.' ThatAuditor'ssexis indeterminable shouldconcernus. Am-
biguoussexualitythusfigures powerfully in thisworkand preservesthe
richnessof thesubject/objectdialectic.Mouth'stextis notfantasy, it is
desire,the surplusunaccountedfor. ThatMouthmixesmemorywith
herown ambivalenceaboutthesuddenchangewhichshe
desirereflects
sayshas takenplaceinthefield;accordingly,thevieweris confronted with
theconvolutedturnsthatcoupling,and relationships ingeneral,share.
At thesametime,Mouth'sspeechis markedbyturnsofthought which
indicaterevolt,rebellion,frustration,
resignation,all of whichturnon
doublemeanings.Thestriking symptom ofNotI is thata figurewas once
able tomanagein spiteofherspeechlessness, withonlythethreat (lurking
aboutforyears)thatherlackofvoicemightcreateviolenceor an abrupt
changein hernotionofselfand herrelationships to others.The embrace
oftheotherinMouth'sdiscourseaccountsforhersomewhatandrogynous
merging ofherselfintoher"other," thevehement thirdperson"she!" Just
as H6l6neCixousobservesthatthemergedselfwithan otherseeks"the
ofextending
possibility intotheother,ofbeingin sucha relationwiththe
otherthatI moveintotheotherwithout destroying theother,""so toodoes
Mouth's desire seek an "otherthatI am and am not . . . but thatI feel
passing,thatmakesme live-that tearsme apart,disturbsme,changes
me."'2 Indeed,fragmentation ofMouth'sselfproliferates everywhere into
thetext,wheremetamorphosis, lackofstability,
degradation,and violence
areno longermerethreats buthardrealities.
The voicein NotI discourseson herpastlife,filledapparently,withsin
and uncertainty. The firstsequence,forexample,is a responseto her
dilemmaand is stylistic and tactical:stylistically,
we findsimultaneous
contrasts,
extravagancies, incoherence, half-formed misshapedthoughts.
Whatis thetacticalsecretofthischaos? Sincethereseemstobe no possible
way out,there'salwaysthevoice. Elegantpityand sexualinnuendofit
together:
out . . intothisworld... thisworld.. tinylittlething... before
itstime. . in a godfor- . . what?. . girl?. . .yes . . tiny...
littlegirl. . . intothis.. out intothis. . . beforehertime.
godforsaken hole . . . called.. .no matter... parentsunkown...
unheardof ... hehavingvanished.., .thinair... no soonerbuttoned
up hisbreeches. . shesimilarly . . eightmonthslater. . almost
tothetick. . so no love. (14-15)

The most frequentfocusof Mouth'squestioningis her birthinto a

malignantsociety,and her critiqueis expressed in termsof the particular
ratherthan the general-most oftenin the repetitionof her core narrative.
In his analysis of the formationof self, "Lacan substitutesthe phallic,
Oedipal fatherwith the Name-of-the-Father, thatis, the fatheras repre-
sentativeof language, culture,and authority."'3Throughlanguage, then,

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mary Catanzaro 41

thesubjectinternalizes therolesofpatriarchy, oftheLaw. Becauseoftheir

different positionsin theOedipalcrisis,menand womenenterlanguage,
whatLacancallsthesymbolic order, AttheOedipalmomentof
differently.
separationthechildentersintoa symbolic system governedbythePhallus.
The speakingsubjectis thusa genderedsubject:whilethe male easily
identifies withthe parentalauthority of the Logos and painlesslycon-
stituteshimselfas a phallic"I," the femalemustidentify herselfwith
negativity.It would seemthatMouth'sdifficulty withspeechtherefore
dwellsat thelevelofphallicpowerand authority. Theimplication is that
theveryidea ofthefeminine is derivedfromsomemasculinevoicespeaking.
Itis inthecontext ofpatriarchy thatJuliaKristevatellsus thattheravings
ofa seventy-year-old womanaresurrounded "witha paternalaura,ironi-
cally but obstinately raisingher towardthatthirdperson-God-and
fillingherwitha strange joyinthefaceofnothingness."Gontarski argues
froma slightlydifferent standpoint, notingthatthe "conflictbetween
contrary aspectsofself-thehumandialectic,so dramatically realizedin
ofcouples . . . -is developed in thevoices withinthe
theincompatibility
narrator." His feelingis thatthereis a "senseofprosopopoeia, bothas the
speakingdead andthepresenceoftheabsentone."15In thissense,Mouth's
ravingsare directedtowardthe otherwho is absent;herresentment is
elicitedby a feelingof verbalauthority thatit appearsto hold overher.
WhatBeckett seemstobe sayingis thatthereis nowayoutoflogocentrism
and phallicpower.Thisis mostoftenexpressedinMouth'sinappropriate
laughterthatprecedesand followsthementionofGod,that"God is love"
(21). "To loveis to survivepaternalmeaning,"16 assertsKristeva.Ifone
acceptsthisnotionoflove,thenMouth'scrisisaccordingly wouldinvolve
an ambivalencetowardthephallicLaw and a simultaneous desireto be
acceptedand incorporated intosucha systeminordertobe loved.
Thereis also the pressurethatthereis "perhapssomethingshe had
to . . . had to . . . tell"; whatever the "something"is, she is respon-
sible,"guiltyornotguilty"(21). HershZeifmanclaimsthatit"is clearthat
the Mouth'smonologueis subjectto some kind of corrective process,
internalor external,and it seemsto me thattheAuditor. . . comesto
represent,fortheaudience,thevisualsymbolofthatcorrective process-
theattemptto maketheMouthadmitthetruthaboutherself-aswell as
beinga witnessto itsfailure."17The nightmarish recurrenceofwhatever
she feelsshe musttellappearsto be Mouth'srejection(or fear)of-the
phalliccourtroom?Judgment Day?-we don't know forsure. Mouth
focusesherattackon a personalguiltshe feelsforhavingbeenbornand
herconstant, neversurpassedproblemis herattempt toliberateparticular
incidentsin herlifethattroubleherstillat age seventy.This,accordingto
Kristeva,is accomplishedthroughthedeathofthefather."Fatherand Death
are unitedbut stillsplitand separate. On theonehand,Death-the ideal that
provides meaning but where the word is silent;on theother,the paternal
corpse, hence a possible thoughtrivialcommunication,waste, decay,and

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 SouthCentralReview

excrement mobilizing pleasureand leisure."18

Mouthuses herrepetitions to startover,as itwere,toreachfora secure
place forherselfin thepresent.In goingbackto beginnings ("tinylittle
thing. . . no love,"and so on),Mouthis returning to theoriginalscene
ofsocialization.Thatsheatleastis awareofa distinct selfputsoneinmind
ofLacan,butsheis other, and shehas beencondemnedto silence.It is as
thoughshehad notbeenfora longtime,as ifshewerethatverysubjectof
whichLacan once spoke: "Womandoes not exist."19Mouthidentifies
herselfwithlack,withabsence.Mouthis outofitsbody,accordingtoPaul
Lawley,whosuggestsotherwaysinwhicha fragmented bodyis produced
by the textand performance. Particularlystrikingis his discussionofthe
way that "thetext the
runstogether mouth and theeye,makingus see the
mouthas an eye,and theeyeas a mouth-like orifice."20
We must,however,distinguish betweenbiologicalfemalesand a fem-
ininelinguistic
position."Woman"ought,therefore, tobe putinsidequota-
tionmarks. Mouthexploresherjouissanceso as to bringdown phal-
logocentricdiscoursewithherrepetitive, insistent
questioning and denial
of the thirdperson feminine:". . . not knowing what . . . what she
was- .. . what? . . . who? . . no! . . . she! . . . SHE!" (23).
Mouthphantasmicallywriteshervoiceas nightmare,havinginternalized
and explores
the(absent)mother, hervocal from
terrain whichto speak
herselfin the space reminiscentof the (m)other's body: ". . . out . .
. into this world . . . this world . . . tinylittlething"(14). Mouth's
tothesceneofbirthis bothan exorcism
return and a reenactmentina spirit
That
ofexcessand refusal. she repeats herbirthis herpower, itis also
but
thedoorwayinto madness. She tellsus she hasa body,but laterin life,
tryingto make sense of it, her "whole body [is] like gone . . . just the
mouth . . . like maddened . . . and can't stop" (21). The implication
hereis thatsheproposesand deploystheso-called"freeplayofsignifiers"
ofpoststructuralist
thought methodthatcontinuestoquestion
in a critical
evenitsown devicesand motives.She refusesmastery.In thiscase,itis
the"vehement refusaltorelinquish thirdperson"(14).
Like the avant-gardewriterscelebratedby Frenchfeminists-Joyce,
Kleist,Genet-Beckettalso courtsa poetic,ruptured discourseextending
intothenon-encore-14.Mouth'spoeticimageryofthelarks,thegrass,the
April morning,and her tearsdistancesher discoursefromlogic,and
providesherwitha space ofradicaldecentering and change. The poetic
accordingly both
functions and
aesthetically politically,foritpointstowhat
theLogosdenies. "A missing(grammatical ordiscursiveobjectimpliesan
not
impossiblesubject: I," according to Kristeva.
"Here, thismeansthatthe
actofwriting, withoutme oryou,is in factan obstinate refusaltoletgo of
thethirdperson:theelementbeyonddiscourse, thethird,the'itexists,'the
anonymous and unnamable 'God,' the 'Other."'21 In Not I, Beckettpro-
motes a notion of a femininelibidinal affectiveeconomy of abundance,
waste, and uselessness. A breakdown of the sentenceis a breakdown of

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MaryCatanzaro 43

in short,a movetowardsdisruption.
structure,
of
Thus thereis a confusionofverbtenses,a disorganizeddescription
events,and an abundanceofcontrariesin Mouth'stext.Ambiguity here
servestoemphasizeJameson's remarkthat"allhumanrelationsarebound
tohavesomething vaguelyominousabout them; and themoreheightened
momentsof scandalor violenceproveto be nothingbut theconvulsive
WhenMouthtriestofree
tofreeone'sselffromone'sinterlocutor."22
effort
herselffromthe"buzzing . . . so-called . . . in theears" or fromtheray
as "justall partof the
of lightfromthemoonbeamwhichshe interprets
same wish to . . . torment"her,she feelsso numbed thatshe feels "in-
clined . . . [to]scream"and thendoes so (16-17). She apparently feels
some pleasurein screaming; heronlyothersensoryexperiences are the
openingand shutting ofhereyelids.In heroneiricstate,itis as thoughshe
nowdreamsof havinga body. Mouthfeelsherselfto be almosta mote
imprisoned by theshaftsofmoonlight, as iftosay,likePirandello, "There
is someonewhoislivingmylife,andI knownothing abouthim."23Charles
LyonscontendsthatBeckettremovesthepresenceof his characters "by
eliminating the character'sawareness of both location and Yet
self."24 itis
memory, history, and relationships that combine to form an individual;
whenanyone oftheseis absent,thesubjectdrifts in a limbobetweenthe
selfand theother,betweentimesand places,nightand day. Thebroken,
disjointedprose in whichthisstateis describedby Mouthconveysa
confusion, an absenceofmind,as in sleepand dreaming.Onlyit is not
temporary; itis notsomething fromwhichMouthwillawake. Andas we
realizethis,we ponderwithnew anxietyjusthow herstoryis a blendof
painand ecstasy.
It could be arguedthatMouth'soutburstresembleswhatBartheshas
called the domestic"scene." Scenes,he says, "lay bare the cancerof
language.Languageis impotent tocloselanguage."Butevenmoreimpor-
tantly, it is the of
violence the most civilizedscenesthatBarthesfinds
terrifying: "violencealwaysorganized itself intoa scene:themosttransitive
ofbehavior(to eliminate, to kill,to wound,to humble)was also themost
theatrical. . . . [I]n all violence,he could notkeep fromdiscerning,stran-
gely,a literary
kernel:howmanyconjugalscenesmustbe classified under
the label of some greatgenrepainting:thewifecastout,or,again, the
repudiation!"25In NotI,Mouthrefers
toherhumiliation atherown speech-
lessnessat thegrocer's,but moreover,she feelsshe is goingto "die of
shame" when she doesspeak "once or twicea year . . . [and] . . . then
shesaw . .. nearestlavatory"
rushoutstopthefirst (22). Atfirst
shedoes
not want to admit that it is her voice that speaks: "she . . . to give
up . . . admit hers alone . . . her voice alone . . . but this other
awful thought"(19). This otherthought"thatfeelingwas coming back"
permits"the whole machine" (shades of Deleuze) of her body to "piece it
together"(20).26
Braterhas also referredto "the whole machine" of the speaking mouth,

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 SouthCentralReview

makingour eyesfocuson theimagefroma multiplicityof angleslikea

camera'slens. Thedifferent
angleson MouthandAuditorpose onceagain
theissueofthecouple. Braterargues:

Thevisualrelationship
between
MouthandAuditor
therefore
makes
outofwhatwouldotherwise
bea one-woman
showanunforgettable
dramaticconfrontation.
... . Mouthmixesmemorywith desire,
herownambivalence
reflecting aboutthesuddenchangewhichshe
sayshastakenplaceinthefield.With
her"faceinthegrass,"
perhaps
"she" has been raped: "just at that odd time . . . in her
life . . . whenclearlyintended tobe havingpleasure . . . shewas
in fact . . . havingnone . . . nottheslightest."27

Thereis a blankbetweentheAprilperiodand Mouth'spresentreawaken-

ing in anotherselfas she tellsus oftheexperience;
thequestionis, what
happenedduringthisblackperiod?Theanswer,itseems,has todo with
Mouth'sextremeambivalenceabout sex, morespecifically her intense
fascinationand shameaboutit. Mouthis deeplyconflictedinthisarea,her
appetiteforbodilyorsexualpleasureuneasilycohabitingwiththeguiltand
revulsionshefeelsaboutit. Thisdisturbance maybe therootand cause of
Mouth'sbreakdown, thoughitmustbe saidthata breakdown maynothave
occurred.Otherreadingsoftheplayare possible. Braterwondersifthe
"'buzzing' in thehead . . . Mouth mentionsmightbe a 'streamofwords'
runningthrough Auditor'sown hoodedhead,[or]thepossibility thatthe
silentfigureofAuditoris as consistently wordlessas the'she' ofMouth's
storybeforethewhatever-it-was thattookplaceinthefield."28
It is important to recognizewhatBeckettis doinghere,forin termsof
narrativetechnique,it is both unorthodoxand frighteningly effective.
for
While, example,Mouthseems to be remembering an incidentat the
grocer's,midway into the memory we findMouth is speaking from her
of at the
point view; thispointMouth, remembering subject,becomes an
object of herthoughts, a shiftinto thesort ofradicaldepersonalization that
isfoundinacutelyschizoidconditions. ofcourse,doesnotexplicit-
Beckett,
lysuggestthatMouthsuffers fromschizophrenic breakdown, and thislack
ofsignallingcreatesin theaudiencean almostvertiginous loss ofbalance
and certainty,in effectgivingMouthan echo,a dim,faintcomprehension,
of thepanicand terror involvedin thepossibility of one's goinginsane.
Thatbody thatremembers lying face down in the grass on thatApril
morning, havingwept, makes all themore apparent Mouththinksthat
that
herbeingmightnowbe a monster.
Thisliquidintermingling ofcontraries suggestsonceagainthatthewhole
question of gender,includingthatof the voice speaking,is a centralissue.
What we have is thebedrockCalvinistinsistenceon thecompleteotherness
of God and the brokennessof humanityin the passage mentioning"that
timein court . . . what had she to say ofherself,"thatplace where there

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MaryCatanzaro 45

was "something she had to tell . . . how it was . . .[in order to

be] . . . then forgiven . . . God is love . . . tendermercies" (21-22).
Ifthegap betweenGod and humanity is tobe bridged,itwillbe donefrom
theotherside,byGod's graciousact,and notbyanything thatMouthcan
do exceptacknowledgeherown need. Beckettuncoversthecorrupting
effect,forthecouple,ofphallicpowerwhenwoman'spostureis one of
denialofself.
Thereis,accordingly, a doubleeffect betweenthevoiceand thetext:on
theonehand,itis a description ofthesubject'spast.But,on theotherhand,
thisnarration imposesa sortofblankimprint oftheconceptofthecouple.
It formstheidea of thecouple withoutchanginganything in theusual
connotation. Wecouldspeakhere,ina certainsense,ofa fiction oftheself
and thecouple,hereseeninMouth'srecollection ofherpastand whatitis
like in her presentvoicingof it,and its disturbing effects on Auditor,
apparently renderedhelplessbyit. ThewholediscourseofNotI seemsto
shiftbetweenthesetwomodes.
An integrated coupletherefore canneverbe pinpointed ornaileddown,
forthecouple,evenifunified, constantly poses the threatofdispersal.And
therandomthreat oftheother'sdisappearance is notsimplya "notion"on
Beckett'spart. It servesratherto defineeven ordinarycouples. This
situationof courseleaves open thepossibility of instabilityat all times.
Beckett hasworkedinthistensionthrough thevoiceinNotI topointtothe
insufficiency oflanguagetobondand harnessthecouple. Thisdeviceis
unsettlingbecausethevoiceis notmerely a device.Toseetheproblem, one
needonlylookat thenarrowspacethatthestageareainNotI hasbecome.
Thismakesthecouple'sfallingapartevenmoreevident.
Atthesametime,whatever orwhoeverthesubjectbecomesas a singular
identityisnotas important as therealization thatherrelationships toothers
seemtoremainand providea stablesystem ofcoordinates towhichtheidea
ofpermanence maypossiblybe cemented.ButpartofwhatcausesMouth's
is hercombative
instability stance,incollisionwithothersinherconscious-
ness and in herlanguage,forboth,almostwithoutexception, have built
intothema polarity, a veertowardssubject-centeredness. The creationof
Auditor, a corporealimageoftheother, does offer a visualrepresentation
oftheinternal conflictwithinthenarrator, and also as a concrete manifes-
tationofMouth'sconfessional voice. "ButAuditor," as Gontarski notes,
"remainsonlya physicalrepresentation ofan internal forcethatis devel-
oped clearlyin dialogue,and thefundamental discoursewiththeother
existsequallywellwithouttheadditionalicon.""
In one sense,all of Beckett'sworkshave been based on a seriesof
developmentsabout sound and new ways of voicing. NotI is markedby
the voice which controlsits own fluctuatingmasses, colors,densitiesand
intensitiesof sound. This technique is used not to projecta faithfulor
distortedimage againstlive sound, but to extendand projecttherelatively
fixedand discreteactionsand speech ofa live performanceonto a broader

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 SouthCentral
Review

continuum whichcomments ona subject'sinability

indirectly tocommuni-
cate simplyto an other. Lyonsconcurswiththe notionof incommun-
icability:"Beckettremovesthe imagesof the basic consciousnessand
presentsonlythetextthatrepeatsitselfwithinit. Thesewordsembodyno
immediateawareness. . . . Beckettdoes not show thattheconsciousness
ofthecharacter towhomMouthbelongseitherlistenstothatrecitation or
has anysenseofit."30
At thesametime,NotI suggeststhecompleteotherin thenegativity of
the title;indeed,it impliesan (absent)otherwho is notnotI. Beckett's
gesturesofeffacing thecouple,and yetkeepingitinand outoffocus,are
his own idiosyncratic meansofarticulating it. Theperceivedself,as well
as theselfperceiving itself,is shapedbyabsence,bywhatis not-there; for
condensation, concealment, anddisplacement-like thedream-constitute
thecouple.Thecoupleseemstobebornoutofa purgatorial andanguished
nothing.Gontarski statesthatthefirst episodeofKilcool was directlyused
fortheopeninginNotI. "A couplehas evidently reachedan impasseinits
relationship: 'tohearheroutwouldbe onlytohearagainwhathehad heard
a thousandtimesalready.Andtoexplainwouldbe onlytosayagainwhat
he had saida thousandtimesalready.'"31 Thisopeningsignalsa significant
transition to thenarrator's beinga consciousvictimofabandonment.
Thisdistancing oftheotherdemonstrates Beckett's verydeliberateshift
fromthephallocentric to thehymeneal.Whyelse would he dareshowa
mouththatresemblesan isolatedfemalesexualorificespeaking? The hy-
menis theinvisibleand foldedspaceinNotI, in whichMouthpoursforth
its utterings.Metaphorically, the hymenmeans the consummation of
marriage.Literally, its
however, presence reveals theabsence ofconsum-
mation.Thisstructure is whatbringsforth theplayofabsenceand pres-
ence.
NotI becomes,then,a kindof"theater oftheunconscious"in whichwe
finda "constantrelationbetweena dream-element and its translation
which, ifthe were
censorship absent, couldonly be describedas symbolic."32
Whatthissuggestsis thatNotI comesas closeas mightbe possibleto a
theaterwithoutrepresentation whichArtaudhimself oncedreamed.The
need fordramaticcontextand formand the concernwithverbaland
languagepossibilities-soundas language,languageas sound,thecou-
plingofmeaningtosound,ofcontent tosound,evenoflinguistic tomusical
structure-isillustrated in all Beckett'sworks,butis strikingly evidentin
NotI. Herelanguageis drivenout oftheconcreteworldofthesubject's
mouthintothe(silent)discourseoftheAuditor.The text,spillingout of
Mouth,objectifies heras subjectand yetchainsherdown. ThoughMouth
functions withinthe realmof languagedominatedby the Phallus,she
inscribesher languagewithmusic,repetition and variation,voice and
laughter. Her (feminine)textknows no boundaries (no punctuation,no
strictcodes of the written),no beginningsand endings. The resultis a
cyclic, repetitiveoverflow of multiplicityand rupturesthat defy phal-

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MaryCatanzaro 47

logocentric notionsofcoherenceand meaning.

How so? The deliriousoutpourings ofMouthin factunifythesubject.
ThatBeckett usesthevoicehereas hallucination
recapitulatestherepetition
compulsion,whichis sometimes a healingdevice. NotI is quiteclose to
beinga replicaofthe"uncanny"which,forFreud,was therepetition ofan
olderfantasyin whichtinytracescan be feltonlyin thereleaseduncon-
scious. Heretheredgarishmouthachievestwodramatic resolutions:
first
ofall,itallowsBeckett further
tonarrowdownhissubjecttoa singlebody
part.Connorarguesthatthisnarrowing downofthebodycan be seenas
a powerfuldevice,sinceitrequirestheviewertofilloutthemissingbody.
Thisexerciseinaudienceimagination thenchangesthestatusofthevisible
portionofthebodyintothatofa sign. "Thebodycan neverbe witnessed
in itspalpablewholeness;ratherthatwholenesswillalwaysbe theresult
ofa retrievalorreconstitution,
lyingsomewhere betweenwhatthestageor
screenmakespresent, andwhatitleavesout.Theframe whichthespotlight
or the TV screen draws around the segment of the body . . . always
remainspartofthereconstitution, as an interiordeficiency in itswhole-
ness."33Thisnarrowing down mightserveto symbolizeforBeckettthat
thereis a kindoffreedomin relinquishing our strivingbutillusorygian-
tism.Our ambitiontobe different-richer, brighter, healthier-appearsto
vanishin themidstofsuffering.
Secondly, thisnarrowingdownpointstothe"return oftherepressed" in
thefollowing way. The mouth,derealized because ofthe enormous focus
onit,unmaskswhatwe ordinarily do notdwellon. Evenordinary personal
humiliations are notstudiedas tokensoffeminine repression in general.
Buthereshe speaks;thisde-oralizedand frustrated mouthis held to its
trivialsearchof who,and what,sheis. Beckettwantsto show thatthe
dualisticfuryand insufficiency
oflanguageis an intrinsic, evennecessary,
feature ofpartnership.
Whatdoesall thismean?NotI unfoldsa gradualprocessofdegradation,
a kindofstuntedviolenceofthesoul. We realizethatMouth'sdisplace-
ment-bythecamera'szoomingin on itinthetelevision production, orby
thesubject'stotalconcealmentonstagewiththeexception ofthemouth-is
oneofisolation.Themouthis botha presenceand an absence;itis notan
organwhichexistssolidlyin space,butis itselfthespace inwhichsolidity
and vacancyare produced.And ifthismouthsuggestsa vagina,thenit
also suggestsa phalluswhenwords"literally seemto piercetheaperture
through which are
they emitted."3 For Mouth, thelocusofall thatis other
and sinistercan onlyfunction withina phalliceconomyand Beckettis
sensitivetothisfact.Hergenderthusshapesourreading(andviewing)of
thework. In a specialand remarkable way,NotI has a veryparticular
appeal, for,ratherthan imposing a totalvisionof thecouple,it seeksto
rationalizetherelationshipofa subjectto herexperienceofa painfulworld.
Thus, itis thedebrisoflifethatwe see in NotI. The workis a deceptively
plain, two-trackvoicing,in which the consciousness of the speaker sifts

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 SouthCentralReview

through heryounger,fragmented consciousnessevenas sheis stilltrying

hermemorieshereandnow.Herbodyis displacedbecause
to reconstruct
thereseemstobe no placeorspaceforit. Mouthhasfilledthetextualspace
withherimaginations and memoriesoftimepast thathave now hyper-
trophiedthroughtime.Timestopsand starts,advancesand retreats, splits
and merges.No longertheeyeoftheearlierworksofthesixties,butthe
toinfinity.
voiceitselffragments

NOTES
1 Thesystematic andapplication
development ofsuchideasappearedfirst
inmusic,andis
largelyattributableto Karlheinz
Stockhausen.Stockhausen arguedforthecontrolled use of
multiplerealizationas a new conception ofperformed musicand he also claimedin the
mid-1950s thatsuchtechniques wereinthemselves newforms.Beckett seemstobe applying
thesameconceptstolanguageand thevoiceinNotI.
2 Herbert Blau,"Due ProcessandPrimary Process:TheParticipation
MystiqueofNorman
O. Brown,"Discourse X.1(Bloomington:IndianaUP,1987-88) 3-18. Blau drawson Brown's
extensiveanalysisofGreektragedy toexplaintheoriginsofspectator Forone,
participation.
themutilatedor severedbody could onlybe healed throughreparation and a spiritual
transformation ofthesubject.Theformula forsuchcleansing demandedEros,ordesireand
love,and less strife.Quiteclearly,Mouthis severedfromherbody,feelsthepressureof
judgment forhavingcommitted somesortofcrime,and seekshealingthrough Nature(the
Aprilmorning, thelarks,and thegrass),tearsof repentance,and thelongingforDivine
forgiveness. Blau writesfurther:"ForBrown,whentheactoras exhibitionist (theone who
fascinatesby showingthe genitals)disappears,thevoyeuristic spectatorwill disappear
[and] . . . thespectator passive,orparalyzed,
nolongerarrested, subjecttothelook"willgo
as well(13). NotI,however, seemstobe arrestedat thepointoftheexhibitionistic
dreamset
onthestage.Howelseexplainthesimilarity ofMouthtofemalegenitalia, andhowelseexplain
thespectator's embarassedfascinationupon witnessing theplay,especiallythetelevision
version?
3 LateStylein theTheater(New York:OxfordUP,
Enoch Brater,BeyondMinimalism:Beckett's
1987)19.
4 Brater
20.
5 S. E. Gontarski,The Intentof Undoingin Samuel Beckett'sDramaticTexts(Bloomington:
IndianaUP,1985).Gontarskinotesthat,tofriends,"Beckett an earlier,
offered morepersonal
source,thisfromthematterofIreland:'I knewthatwomanin Ireland.. . . I knewwhoshe
one singlewoman,buttherewereso manyofthoseold crones,
was--not"she"specifically,
stumblingdownthelanes,in theditches, besidethehedgerows.Irelandis fullofthem.And
I heard"her"sayingwhatI wroteinNotI'" (132).
6 Ruby Cohn, JustPlay: Beckett'sTheater(Princeton:PrincetonUP, 1980) 69. See also
Gontarski,TheIntentofUndoing,141.
142. InMurphy,
7Gontarski however, impliesa
dualitymoreaccurately
thesubject/object
frame.
dualityanditis developedwithina Cartesian-Manichean
subject/subject
8 StevenConnor,SamuelBeckett:
Repetition,
Theory and Text(New York:Blackwell,1988) 184.
9 ChristianeMakward, "To Be or Not to Be . . . A FeministSpeaker," in The Futureof
eds.HesterEisenstein
Difference, (Boston:G. K. Hall,1980)97.
and AliceJardine
10SamuelBeckett,
NotI inendsandodds(NewYork:Grove,1974)14. Citations willbe noted
inmytextbypagenumbers.
1 H61ne
Cixous,"Castration Signs7 (1981):55.
orDecapitation?"

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MaryCatanzaro 49

12Cixous,TheNewlyBornWoman
(1975),trans.BetsyWing(Minneapolis:U ofMinnesota
P,1986)86.
'3 JaneGallopandCarolynBurke,"Psychoanalysis andFeminism inFrance,"inEisenstein
andJardine 106.
'4 JuliaKristeva,
DesireinLanguage:
A SemioticApproachtoLiterature
andArt,ed. LeonS.
Roudiezand trans.ThomasGora,AliceJardine, and LeonS. Roudiez(New York:Columbia
UP,1980)149.
15Gontarski 141. Myemphasis.
16Kristeva150.
17HershZeifman, "BeingandNon-Being:SamuelBeckett'sNotI,"ModernDrama19(March
1976):45.
18Kristeva149.
19AnnRosalindJones, "Inscribing French
Femininity: Theories
oftheFeminine,"
inMaking
a Difference:
Feminist eds. GayleGreeneand CoppeliaKahn(New York:
Criticism,
Literary
Methuen,1985)83.
20Paul Lawley,"Counterpoint,
AbsenceandtheMediuminBeckett'sNotI,"ModemDrama
26 (December1983):409.
21Kristeva149.

22Frederic Jameson, "AgonsofthePseudo-couple,"inFablesofAggression:Wyndham Lewis,

theModernist as Fascist(Berkeley:
U ofCaliforniaP,1979)38.
23LuigiPirandello,
Diaries,quotedin TheNewYork Times BookReview(17April1988):32.
24CharlesLyons,SamuelBeckett York: 155.
(New Grove,1983)
25RolandBarthes, RolandBarthes,trans.RichardHoward(NewYork:Hill,1977)159-60.
26Itis likelythatDeleuzeowes toBeckett's
notionofthebody-machine,
something which
actuallyprecedesDeleuze and Guattari'swell-known work,Anti-Oedipus: and
Capitalism
Schizophrenia. In Murphy, forinstance,the"body-machine" has itsoriginin theCartesian
mechanism and body-spiritduality;andin Watt,
inhispersonalapprehension ofthehuman
bodyas a teratologicalsystem,inwhichthebodyis matter composedoflogicalcombinations.
27Brater 32.
33,
28Brater
32.
29Gontarski148.
30
Lyons157.
3 Gontarski138.
32Blau3.
33Connor161.
as quotedinConnor163.
34PierreChabert,

This content downloaded from 193.61.135.174 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions