{"title":"贝克特,巴特和布瑞斯","authors":"Arthur Rose","doi":"10.3366/para.2022.0398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay develops a tense relation between Samuel Beckett and Roland Barthes over their treatment of breath. If Barthes’s lovers come together through a shared breath, breaths pull Beckett’s couples apart. How then might breath bring Beckett and Barthes together, so they might be close but not too close? The essay first discards the idea of using a single understanding of breath by showing how the localized instances of breath in Beckett and Barthes do not scale up to a coherent, synthetic concept. Then, by turning to works that play with the problems of metanarrative, Beckett’s How It Is (1961–4) and Barthes’s A Lover’s Discourse (1977–8), it shows how breath becomes a possible means of reading these two texts together.","PeriodicalId":44142,"journal":{"name":"PARAGRAPH","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beckett, Barthes and Breath\",\"authors\":\"Arthur Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/para.2022.0398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay develops a tense relation between Samuel Beckett and Roland Barthes over their treatment of breath. If Barthes’s lovers come together through a shared breath, breaths pull Beckett’s couples apart. How then might breath bring Beckett and Barthes together, so they might be close but not too close? The essay first discards the idea of using a single understanding of breath by showing how the localized instances of breath in Beckett and Barthes do not scale up to a coherent, synthetic concept. Then, by turning to works that play with the problems of metanarrative, Beckett’s How It Is (1961–4) and Barthes’s A Lover’s Discourse (1977–8), it shows how breath becomes a possible means of reading these two texts together.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PARAGRAPH\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PARAGRAPH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2022.0398\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PARAGRAPH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2022.0398","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay develops a tense relation between Samuel Beckett and Roland Barthes over their treatment of breath. If Barthes’s lovers come together through a shared breath, breaths pull Beckett’s couples apart. How then might breath bring Beckett and Barthes together, so they might be close but not too close? The essay first discards the idea of using a single understanding of breath by showing how the localized instances of breath in Beckett and Barthes do not scale up to a coherent, synthetic concept. Then, by turning to works that play with the problems of metanarrative, Beckett’s How It Is (1961–4) and Barthes’s A Lover’s Discourse (1977–8), it shows how breath becomes a possible means of reading these two texts together.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1983, Paragraph is a leading journal in modern critical theory. It publishes essays and review articles in English which explore critical theory in general and its application to literature, other arts and society. Regular special issues by guest editors highlight important themes and figures in modern critical theory.