Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui: The Trilogy

Is the Trilogy still at the heart of Beckett's work? A new call for papers asks for your ideas
Samuel Beckett. Photograph: Mary Evans.
Call for Papers / Appel à contributions
Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui (SBT/A), vol. 26 (2014)
“Revisiting the Trilogy / Revisiter la trilogie”
Coedited by David Tucker, Mark Nixon, Dirk Van Hulle

We are soliciting 5000-word articles in either English or French for SBT/A 26 (2014), “Revisiting the Trilogy.” Submissions should conform to the SBT/A Guidelines for Contributors, available in both languages on The Samuel Beckett Endpage along with model articles. See http://www.ua.ac.be/beckett – “Beckett Journals.”

Deadlines: proposals of approximately 250 words by 31 January 2012; completed articles by 31 January 2013. The results of the refereeing process will be communicated by 31 May 2013.

The years since James Knowlson’s 1996 biography have seen Beckett studies become a considerably broadened field. With recourse to archival materials in the form of correspondence, manuscripts, reading notes, notebooks and diaries, and the adoption of new and innovative critical paradigms taking inspiration from diverse disciplines and rapidly evolving theory, scholars have explored Beckett’s creative processes and their contexts and outcomes in divergent and fascinating ways. During this period, the status held by Beckett’s ‘trilogy’ of novels Molloy, Malone meurt/Malone Dies, and L’Innommable/The Unnamable as a pinnacle of Beckett’s achievements in prose has rarely been put into question. It might therefore be expected that scholarship of the recent period would have a proportionately high focus on these novels. Yet, although there have been some striking new readings, the three novels do not feature as extensively in the critical discourse of the past fifteen years as their often-cited positions of prominence within Beckett’s oeuvre might lead one to expect. With the wealth of resources and critical approaches that are now available, a concerted reengagement with these novels seems not only possible, but also increasingly desirable.

Contributors are free to approach Beckett’s novels as stand-alone works or to situate them in the ‘trilogy’ or to tackle the issue of their place in Beckett’s oeuvre or the canon. Might the scholarly approaches that have brought much light to some of Beckett’s other works add to the new ways of reading these novels? Do these novels pose specific problems for otherwise recently successful approaches? The trilogy, a series of novels so concerned with the very nature and possibility of questions, also raises some important questions for Beckett studies at this time. “Revisiting the Trilogy” will go some way to addressing them.



Please submit queries, proposals, and completed articles via email to David Tucker:

Also at A Piece of Monologue: