Syliviel (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

I was Nagg in a college production of this play. If you think it's trippy to watch or read, try being immersed in it for weeks. It is not a kind play.

dinnerbucket9 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

Brilliant choice. A long moment I have over looked and the most sorrowful in the play and beautifully acted and presented. That said, I still believe Beckett was serious [ and he is not always so] when he said his work is mainly constituted by 'fundamental sounds'. The complexity is, I suppose, structural and informed by his love of chess. But the heart of the matter is not distant from HAMLET or vaudeville.

rezeski (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

This is Endgame: "The transition from bare minimum to nothing." Read Theodor Adorno, "Trying to understand Endgame" in The Adorno Reader. After you read this, you will have a much better idea of what Endgame is (and is not). [Reading the play twice, as you say, isn't going to fully enlighten you... it is, as you rightly state, a difficult play, and Beckett himself would not explain it. ]

stephendedlus (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

just what i thought

EyesoreII (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

This is the most abstract play I've ever read, probably even moreso than Old Times, Victims of Duty, The Chairs, etc... I really need to re-read it, I didn't digest it right the first time through. Thanks for posting it.

therearenoothers (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

amazingly good.