|
|
|
|
Cuando un
sabio de clase suprema oye hablar del Sentido, entonces se
muestra celoso y obra en consecuencia. Cuando un
sabio de clase intermedia oye hablar del Sentido, entonces
cree y en parte duda. Cuando un sabio
de clase inferior oye hablar del Sentido, se ríe de
él a carcajadas. Y si no se
ríe a carcajadas es que
todavía no era el verdadero Sentido. Lao-tse |
|
What can I say to a work which more
people have talked about, only to point the most that, like others that have
read it or listen, it has catched me. And later the delightful and erriched
that have been my walk through the minds of that others though about her. Is
so interesting the most that can be to comunicate: Lucky and Christ, their
interesting paralelism with the work "Vigilar y castigar" by Michel
Foucault.... In fact, while some theorics consider the absurdity theater
died with Waiting for Godot consumed in himself; others consider that it
still influencing in the contemporary writting in the calculating
provocations of the puts in stage of texts judiciously "classics".
Some of his exponents in Europe are Harold Pinter, Tom Stoppard, Fernando
Arrabal, Vaclav Havel, in United States: Edward Albee, Sam Shepard, David
Mammet and Imamu Amiri Baraka, in Latin-America: Virgilio Piñera, José
Triana, Griselda Gambaro, in mountings like Don´t play to me this vals and
The back Cultural Yuyachkani Group and in Puerto Rico: René Marqués with The
apartment, Luis Rafael Sánchez with Our gall of each day, Abelardo Ceide with
Special sesión, Tere Marichal in Parc for two and the most important Myrna
Casas in works like Absurds in lonelyness, Impromtu in San Juan, The big
eucranian circus and Not all have it. (principal fount: The theater
dictionary by Patrice Pavis) The work has been analized almost
the satiety by differents erudits in the search of the "enigm",
even though the proper Beckett write to: Michel Polac in 1952: "In
spite of the idea to find in everything an ampler signification and more
prufound that it could bring it to home after the actuation, with the hand
programme and the stick of the trowel, i don´t see the case to do it. I
am not already involucrated in the asunt and never I will be. Estragón,
Vladimir, Pozzo and Lucky, their time and their space: if I did what I
can to familiarizating with them was only becouse I could maintain myself far
of the necesity to understand. I don´t know if they could give some
answers. Let them to regulate by themselves. Without me. They and I have
finished". And later to Desmond Smith in 1956: "The
problem with the mayority of the commentarists is that to see the trees don´t
see the forest. Try it and see things in his simplicity: the wait, not to
know why, or where, or when, or what. If there are darkness details, his
elucidation never will be done in terms of systems of symbols. It doesn´t be
a symbolic work, in any sense. The question with Pozzo, for example, doesn´t be
who is he, or what is he, or what he represents, but the fact that nothing of
this we know, so for the moments could be confunded with Godot. Inclosed we
could say that he doesn´t know who or what is himself, and seams to me the
paper can be represented satisfactorely only parting from a big abandonment.
The mental and the identity confusion are elements indispensable for the
work, and the effort to iluminate the consequents darknesses -in what seams
to be exercited the mayory of th critics since the point to stay blind in
front of the fundamental simply- it seams futile to me". Imposible more clear, so, What
should I look for hidden significations, in the work, contrary to opinion of
the same father?. I can´t speak for the others but about my experience. The
work catchs, the text, the characters, the disengaged facts, reflect like a
mirror something known, themes and questions planed bydiferents phylosophers
about the theory of the knowledge, the immortality, the ethic, the faith, the
misthyc, the life sense, God, the tecnologies of the "I". Themes
that always have been present in the human mind, revised and questioned. If
there wasn´t intention to mean (I don´t want to contradict the writer), Why
for me significated and didn´t significate?. I should have to do it case to
the author and go to the simple way: a way, like the life, full of questions
and questions that, as the same as now, still without answering nor resolve
..............or yes? ..........
why.............casualty..., isn´t this the answer?.......... there his
deafened ...... SILENCE " Wovon man nicht
sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen". Ludwig Wittgenstein |
|
|
|
Academic year 2000/2001 |
