由言說到沉默：貝克特小說三部曲中的「減法」運算

From Language to Silence: The Subtraction Mechanism in Samuel Beckett's Trilogy

「世界的創造過程不是一勞永逸，而是每日都在進行著」。同樣地，塞繆爾．貝克特（SamuelBeckett）理想中的「虛空之境」（naught）也並非一蹴而成。小說三部曲中的世界從一開始就不完滿，而貝克特不斷掏空它，由「言說」最終趨向「沉默」。筆者認為貝克特透過小說三部曲集來探討語言困境與（人）存在狀態的關係：貝克特寫作策略是層層深入，突顯不可「言」喻，逐步瓦解我們原以為真實可信的物件。首先，為展現小說三部曲中所謂「故事」─創作傳統所明確的主題意識─如何被顛覆，筆者分別從無法再現的故事、虛假的講述、和「玩」故事三方面對作品本身展開分析。筆者認為，由於意識到語言之困境，貝克特根本無意創作出所謂「真實可信」的故事；相反地，故事的「無效性」表現則成為貝克特藝術創作的主張和歸旨，如此展現歷程在小說三部曲中是逐步深化的。其次，雖然「故事」的傳統地位被顛覆，無法成為小說所描寫的真正主題，但第一人稱敘述者「我」卻一直伴隨著詞語永遠存在著。然而當語言無法敲開外部世界的大門時，「我」發現無法退回到自認為的內部世界，一個確然且可被洞悉的「我」卻也同樣不在語言之河中，於是《無法命名的人》（The Unnamable）陷於對「我」的尋找中而無法自拔。最後，筆者認為貝克特的小說三部曲在敘事形式和內容上緊密結合：雖然隱喻的語言無法表現故事，更不能尋找到「我」，這一困境囚禁了人類，使之變得「無知」與「無力」，但正是這種困境點明了人類存在的方式。

”The creation of the world did not take place once and for all time, but takes place every day”. Similarly, as an aesthetic ideal, ”naught”-or ”nothingness, ”-is not achieved once and for all time in Beckett’s writing. In Beckett's trilogy especially, the world, both internal and external, are emptied out of its significance and eventually collapsed into silence. This suggests that Beckett’s trilogy focuses on the relationship between linguistic aporia and the predicament of (human) existence. His strategy of writing is to disintegrete and debunk the objects that we thought to be truthful.First, in order to demonstrate how the trilogy upsettles the reader's presupposition of the form/content divide of narratives, I analyze three aspects of the trilogy: first, ”stories” that do not represent any given reality; next, ”story-telling” that is delivered by an unidentifiable voice; finally, Beckett’s ”play” with language. In my view, Beckett does not intend to produce a so-called ”truthful” story because of his understanding of the linguistic aporia inherent in all story-telling. On the contrary, the failure of language, or the impossibility of representation, has become the aim and purport of Beckett's literary creations.Second, the first-person narrator ”I” in Beckett's trilogy becomes but a verbal construct whose presence in the trilogy connotes neither the existence of an external world to which the ”I” belongs nor the reality of an ”internal” world that can render ontological certainty for the ”I.” Given the ontological certainty is no longer ensured by the functioning of language, the narrative of The Unnamable is hopelessly trapped, as well sustained by, by this aporetic search for the ”I.” Finally, I argue that form and content are closely integrated in the Beckett trilogy. Despite his disappointment with the failure of language, he nevertheless makes this failure a theme of his writing to register the double bind trapping modern people, a double bind that, Beckett seems to suggest, becomes the very structural principle of his tilogy.