Talk:Samuel Beckett

message: Born in Ireland. Irish parents. The fact that he lived much of his life in France does not make him French. Is James Joyce now Irish-Italian-Swiss? Is Oscar Wilde Irish-English? Edited to restore the facts of Beckett's nationality  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.194.208 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  French- Irish? On what basis has that claim been made 

message: I have removed a footnote stating "On his mother's side, he was descended from the Roe family." with a link to a PDF of "'My fortieth year had come and gone and I still throwing the javelin': Beckett’s athletics A paper given at the Beckett International Foundation Research Seminar, University of Reading, 18 June 2005" by Steven Connor. I don't know who the Roe family are; are they related to cricket? I couldn't find them in the linked paper in any case. A more user-friendly version of the article is this PDF at londonconsortium.com; it may contain some information worth adding to the article. jnestorius(talk) 16:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roe family, Steven Connor paper 

message: WP:Images says "You may take a photograph with your digital camera, scanner, or integrated mobile phone, draw an image or graph digitally, perhaps with a graphics tablet, or scan drawings and photos taken with a camera and then upload the image." Anyone can draw and upload an image if appropriate, the artist doesn't need to be notable. There is no doubt that this is a fair and recognisable rendering of Beckett. It is a useful addition to the article, offering a different impression. Span (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A photograph of Beckett as the main image serves the article better than the so-called "fair and recognisable" sketch of SB that is hardly reconizable to the majority of readers. (And just how many amateur sketches are going to be uploaded here if anyone can do so? Question of self-promotion.) The sketch in question may possibly be included in the body of the article but the decision to do so should await consensus. --Jumbolino (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like self-promotion to me, as it was initially placed as replacement in the lede for the photograph. I don't think it should stay...Modernist (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with Modernist: the sketch was first used to replace the photograph here and whoever made the sketch also has unsuccessfully tried to post it at Wikipedia français as the main image. You can assume good faith if you like but I'm not convinced. Moreover, I would not be too quick to assume that it is 'recognisable to a majority of readers'. But I'm happy to see it included in the body of the article as long as there's a consensus on this. --Jumbolino (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question of where in the article the image was first added is irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not it should appear in the article at all (of course a photograph is preferable in the lead). Span correctly cites the Wikipedia guidelines, which are clear on the matter. Jumbolino and Modernist, I'm confused as to why you think it is an act of self-promotion. In what way? I tried to find out who the artist is and was unable to do so. The only link provided is to a Wikipedia/Commons username with no website link. It is effectively anonymous, therefore. I see no reason to suggest that it is not recognisable as Beckett, since it's a perfectly servicable likeness. When the article is overwhelmed with amateur sketches, then it may become a concern appropriately discussed here; the article is not exactly brimming with images as it is, in its present state. Consensus is only needed to remove the image rather than to include it--I haven't read any good arguments as to why it shouldn't be and the scarcity of images recommends inclusion. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen multiple instances in which there have been self-promoting illustrations added to biographical articles - however I am in agreement that in this case in which there is an anonymous author and a reasonable article placement to the image that it does not seem to be overtly self-promotional. I object to its initial placement as the lede; however currently I am ambivalent as to its value and/or its removal, however if consensus keeps it, then I withdraw my objection...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be precise. The sketch is signed by "F. Or". It was uploaded at WP english, WP français, and WP deutsch by editor Fewskulchor. Although no one can identify the artist, it nonetheless remains a signed work (drawn probably by Fewskulchor). Trying to replace (misguided or not) the main photograph of Beckett at three Wikipedia sites with a signed work is a form of promotion - which raised the problem of "self-promoting illustrations added to biographical articles". Like Modernist with whom I fully agree, my objection was to its initial placement as the lede and its pertinence (poor likeness of SB). So far, two editors find it's a good likeness while two more doubt its value. And since the crappy little drawing has now found a reasonable placement, it should be welcomed in the article according to WP rules on images -- until replaced by a worthy caricature. --Jumbolino (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I've made some changes, which I'm detailing here. Simplified the genres in infobox - can't assume that absurdism is the best way to describe him. Changed modernist literature to modernism--broader, given his theatre-making (awaiting an article on modernist theatre). Added Gilles Deleuze and Theodor W. Adorno as influenced ones (both use B as a model for their aesthetics. Added theatre director to occupations: article needs some material on this. Expanded the list of notable works to include the big novel trilogy and some of the later work. I couldn't understand "philosophically minimalist". What does that mean, exactly? It's not "as a student etc. of James Joyce" that he's considered a modernist--no causal link should be there (it's more like the two bits of information are in the same general area). The various categorisations are less important, I feel, than the summary "most influential in c20th". I've cleaned up the text of the rest of the article, often removing all those the year possessives. Still needs decent citations throughout. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor cleanup 

message: Reading through this article recently I noticed the refutation of Beckett being mistakenly identified as an existentialist, and recalled the comments made by Adorno on this issue in his essay on Endgame. I think there is a passage to the effect of 'For existentialists, existentialism swallows history, but in Beckett, history swallows existentialism'. If we're to list Adorno in the 'influenced...' section, would it be worth finding the exact existentialism quote from the source and adding it to the text? jiesenxiaxue (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition 

message: I was re-reading the introduction to the Samuel Beckett entry and wondered if it wouldn't make sense to switch "human culture" to "human existence" so that
His work offers a bleak, tragicomic outlook on human culture, often coupled with black comedy and gallows humour.
would become
His work offers a bleak, tragicomic outlook on human existence, often coupled with black comedy and gallows humour.
My reason for proposing the change is that culture is simultaneously too vague and too specific. Are we speaking of culture in terms of high culture and low culture or are we speaking of material culture? Are we speaking about civilization? Western civilization? The phrase doesn't make much sense to me.
I recognize that the word "culture" might have been chosen to avoid the existentialist-sounding "condition" but it seems to me that, although Beckett himself was not an existentialist, he was very much concerned with human existence in general. Consider Beckett's early play Eleuthéria:
Yesterday I set forth [...] the manner in which I view the problem of human existence, for a problem it is, in my opinion, despite the efforts being made to demonstrate the contrary (111).
or
It's clear. [...] Existence so weighs him down that he prefers to cancel himself out (119).
Likewise, in Endgame, Hamm is terribly distressed by the prospect "humanity might start [...] all over again" (33). His problem is not with culture (high/low, material, or any other) but with existence generally. I am only proposing a change to one word, but I think it is a significant one nevertheless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friesenmp (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this statement and the proposed change. I, too, was a bit confused by the use of the word "human culture." While Beckett is concerned with aspects of human culture, his main focus is concerning the existence of humans at all and what this existence means (while not being an existentialist in his writings or perspective).--Farah-baleine (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human culture? 

message: In the article, periods are placed outside of quotation marks. Shouldn't they be inside?Lestrade (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a form known as logical punctuation or logical quotation that is widespread in British publishing and used frequently in Irish, British, and European-based articles at Wikipedia. --Jumbolino (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periods 

message: The reference note regarding the quote from Peggy Guggenheim claims that Beckett was "looed by apathia." What does the verb "loo" mean?Lestrade (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loo 

message: I added some links about for his one-act fragment, Human Wishes. I had no idea the work existed, and came to it while researching Samuel Johnson. However, I did include it in the list of "Dramatic Works" namely because I found it had just as good a reason to be there as Eleutheria, which is also technically a fragment. That, and there is a lot of commentary on the fragment as it relates to the tiny bits and pieces we can find about Beckett's development; namely Harold Bloom in the Western Canon as well as commentators in Grove's "Complete Works". I will add and source those later. If it is a big problem, let me know. --Artimaean (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Wishes 

message: On the article as currently written: 1) Why did he fall out with his Mother? 2)Did something in particular happen to him in Ireland that he said he 'preferred Paris at war to Ireland at peace' and stayed in Paris throughout the Nazi occupation? 3) Did he have any children? 4) Is the article implying he had a 30-40 year long affair with Barbara Bray while being married to his wife Suzanne? 79.97.154.238 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: It was unsubstantiated and, moreover, incorrect. The phrase Jung used was not "not being properly born." It was "never been born entirely." Jung, Carl Gustave. The Collected Works of Carl Gustave Jung, Vol. 18, trans. R.F.C.Hull, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966-79, p.96. The talk was never on the topic of "not being properly born." It was on the topic of complexes. The phrase comes from the question and answer session following the talk, where Jung referred to one of his former patients to illustrate a point about chilren who are unable to escape living in archetypal dreams.
Perhaps more importantly, the off-hand mention of Jung's lecture seeks to mislead the reader into attributing a greater role that encounter had on Beckett than there is reason to believe. While there is scholarship that sees parallels to Jung's theory of complexes in Beckett's works, most psychoanalytic scholarship, especially those by psychoanalysts, find Bion's influence far more salient. Moreover, while Jung's lecture may have provided Beckett with an interesting phrase, Beckett had already had exposure to Jung from reading him long before attending the lecture. Beckett's attendance at the lecture is better placed in a separate article focusing on Beckett and Psychoanalysis than as a throwaway, unsubstantiated comment that implies a host of things that one simply cannot take for granted (and that scholarship does not take for granted).
Pensiveneko (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Jung's lecture removed 

message: While there are many writers whose internal struggles with religion define their growths as an independent thinker, there is no reason to believe Beckett is such a writer. The section on Christianity seems to be thrown in with the assumption that every writer, or every Irish writer of Beckett's time, must have had a defining relationship to Christianity. Yet the quote from Beckett that was supplied to illustrate that point clearly states that Beckett saw worship as irrelevant. There is simply no reason to include a section pondering whether Beckett was an atheist or an agnostic, or whether his not being a Christian came from Anglican or Catholic sources.
Pensiveneko (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Later life and death */  Removed an uninformative section about Christianity 

message: The list of works fails to acknowledge the fact that Beckett first wrote some works in French, including Waiting for Godot. Rwood128 (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works in French 

message: The dating of Beckett's works is tricky. Furthermore some dates given here are for when the work was written, rather than the date it was first published. With plays I'm presuming that the date of the first performance should be used, and the date the text was published used only if it was earlier (though this needs to be indicated)? If I can find the time I'll try and correct dates, and I'll indicate my sources. When a work was published long after it was written it would be useful to include the earlier date.  Rwood128 (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography -- confusion re dates 

message: What is the criteria for the works selected for inclusion in the 'Beckett editions' section, and how does this section relate to the earlier 'Selected works'? Is it needed?  Rwood128 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading: Beckett editions --should it be deleted? 

message: Redirected the page on "Worstword Ho" to this one since it does not seem to notable on its own and the article had almost no unique information. SarahTheEntwife (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect note 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Samuel Beckett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cuttingball.com/endgame/essay.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105111137/https://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/manuscripts/beckett.html to http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/manuscripts/beckett.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606044700/http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/060807crbo_books to http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/8083700/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Samuel Beckett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140817072126/http://www.themodernword.com/beckett/beckett_biography.html to http://www.themodernword.com/beckett/beckett_biography.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140817072126/http://www.themodernword.com/beckett/beckett_biography.html to http://www.themodernword.com/beckett/beckett_biography.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019090006/http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/060807crbo_books to http://www.leseditionsdeminuit.fr/f/index.php?sp=liv&livre_id=1518
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is good to see that this article mentions Beckett's collaboration with James Joyce. I have heard that Beckett tried to translate part of Finnegans Wake into French  - if anybody knows anything about this, it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Joyce 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I’ve recently been trying, through some online research, to gain good ideas of the levels of reception for Beckett’s plays. I noticed that Long Wharf Theatre lists Play as one of his well-known plays along with Waiting for Godot, Endgame, Krapp’s Last Tape, and Happy Days — but what I’ve read in some other sources about Beckett’s literary career does not lead me to think that this is a renowned work of his. AndrewOne (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the critical reputation of ''Play'' (1963) 

message: I noticed that Samuel Beckett by Edmund S. Valtman ppmsc.07951.jpg in "works" was not displayed correctly and tried to fix it. But I could not. It works in the preview. But when published the image is not shown.--NisansaDdS (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the image in Works 

message: Opinions on mentioning Waiting for Godot in the lead? I suspect it's his best-known work by an order of magnitude and it surprised me not to see it. 2607:FEA8:86DF:ADD0:B831:9C8B:613C:77ED (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waiting for Godot 

message: In Later_life_and_death the 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph is "Beckett seems to have been immediately attracted by her and she to him.". Looking at various siteshttps://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/attracthttps://textranch.com/c/attracted-to-or-attracted-by/https://blog.virtualwritingtutor.com/what-is-the-difference-between-attracted-to-and-attracted-by/https://www.italki.com/en/post/question-132629https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/attracted-to-or-attracted-by.1167887/ I wonder if "by her" should be "to her". Mcljlm (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  attracted by ... to