realize itself in the body of an object any longer. Mouth appears to function autonomously, free from any bodily constraints: “whole body like gone … just the mouth (381). It moves “in darkness” with the “rest of (what can only presumably be a human) face in shadow” ( ۳۷۶). As such, Mouth’s presence is transported from the realm of the physical (a body), which “seems composed of a limited area”, to the metaphysical world of “any-space-whatever” (Deleuze, 18).
As such mouth moves from the parameters of the physical into the limitless metaphysical. Mouth is more than just disembodied entities: it is processes, movements that define the theatrical arc of the play. Deleuze notes that: “The image is precisely this: not a representation of an object, but a movement in the world of the spirit” (Deleuze, 19). This movement is integral to the objective of the play. In Not I, the threatening “mouth on fire” spews a “stream of words” (Not I, 380). In its relentlessness, Mouth inevitably takes on a strange visual quality. It becomes the single “godforsaken hole” in the void of darkness, which threatens to absorb those who witness it (381). The image, therefore, is not merely the voice or the visual, but the sinister movement of the two. The Image is the effect that Mouth produces, the process by which the audience’s nerves are disquieted in the trajectory of the monologue. Here, Beckett highlights one of the main intentions of the monologue: to have the audience endure the effect of “just the mouth” in its “maddened” progression (382). Like the “the buzzing”, Mouth’s verbal onslaught becomes a “dull roar … in the skull” (۳۸۲). As an Image, mouth embodies everything that “dies away, wastes away” (Deleuze, 19). Thus, it becomes clear how Mouth qualifies as Images in the texts: it is presences that lack subjectivity; it is without a definite form and is thus indeterminate; and finally, it reveals itself, not as objects, but as processes.
۳٫۲٫۲ Smooth Space
As mentioned earlier, there are two spaces that can be discussed here. First, one must pay attention to the major difference between striated space and nomad space in Deleuzean trajectory. While the former is the space directed to a point, the latter is the space of line. It is marked by a smooth directional movement where the point is between lines, it is point-oriented, it is a moving limited between two points on one single line. However, the nomad space finds freedom, it can go everywhere and it can flow through any part. The nomadic BWO is the very perverse. It is perverse as it is ruled by hesitation “this paw that is neither left nor right, this differentiation that is never suppressing the undifferentiated which is divided in it” (The Logic of Sense 281).
Striated space is governed by regular pattern, order, and law. Therefore, its “vertical being” (A Thousand Plateaus 43), top to bottom indicates hierarchy. This vertical arrangement represents a limiting force with its centered space of order and discipline. On the other hand, the nomadic space seems to be a space marked by ‘free action’. Deleuze goes toward these new regions where the connections are always partial and nonpersonal, the conjunctions nomadic and polyvocal, the disjunctions included, where homosexuality and hetero-sexuality cannot be distinguished any longer: the world of transverse communications, where the finally conquered nonhuman sex mingles with the flowers, a new earth where desire functions according to its molecular elements and flows. Such a voyage does not necessarily imply great movements in extension; it becomes immobile, in a room and on a body without organs—an intensive voyage that undoes all the lands for the benefit of the one it is creating. Besides, Deleuze insists on abolition of ego, so as to enable one to live as a flow and singularity. Unity and identity are useless and he sets forth the concept of becoming and immense of desire. Furthermore, unlike the striated space in which one goes from one definite point to the equally other definite points (which means teleological, linear direction) the nomad space privileges lines over points. This vacillation between the smooth and striated space is of importance in Deleuzean thinking as he asserts that the two exist in mixture, one is always traversed into the other, the smooth doesn’t remain smooth forever, it constantly returns to the striated as the striated reverses to the smooth.
This can read as the care of a nomadic state, which can be attributed to the woman who doesn’t belong to anywhere. The woman intensities that flow in excess of desire, the desire that negates wholeness, in search of meaningless words and nothingness. She divides her identity through words, in this manner from the beginning we can realize the division of identity in a nomadic state. As it is evident, there is no center in this play; the space of patchwork is a free space that follows its own particular values totally different from the unified, harmonious pattern. The place that she sits in is dark, empty and gloomy and this is the version of the nomadic space, wherein the body of nomad is indexed to the gloomy place. It’s body that moves in the intensities of gloomy atmosphere:
Stage in darkness but for MOUTH, upstage audience right, about 8 feet above stage level, faintly lit from close-up and below, rest of face in shadow. Invisible microphone. AUDITOR, downstage audience left, tall standing figure, sex undeterminable, enveloped from head to foot in loose black djellaba, with hood, fully faintly lit, standing on invisible podium about 4 feet high shown by attitude alone to be facing diagonally across stage intent on MOUTH, dead still throughout but for four brief movements where indicated. See Note.
As house lights down MOUTH`S voice unintelligible behind curtain. House lights out. Voice continues unintelligible behind curtain, l0 seconds. With rise of curtain ad-libbing from text as required leading when curtain fully up and attention sufficient into (367).
The convergence of the outside and nomad results in the destruction of subject and no trace of her deserted identity “I”. She is trying to have identity but that is the useless journey for a nomad who belongs to nothing.
The desire in striated space and smooth space circulates differently. Although the former takes desire in oedipal form, the latter takes desire in anti-oedipal and apersonal form. This depersonalized form of desire moves against the familiar direction of the differentiated, meaning-centered and familial Freudian Oedipality which Deleuze and Guattari call “sick desire” (Anti-Oedipus 334). The sickness of this desire is its very oedipality in their views, when desire is captured and patterned by a social machine. This limiting act practiced on desire brings it under severe discipline in a way that the circulation of its energetic forces is channeled toward a striated, socially accepted direction. The oedipal is the acknowledgment of man, who is the subject, the model point of being. Deleuze tries to negate the terrain of origin, self and identity in order to flow and pass through other than man. He also calls for an anti-oedipal revolution that aims at freeing desire from capitalist axiomatic. Capitalist society pushes personal motivation to be free but by its rules and legislations. On the other hand, Deleuze’s anti-oedipal trajectory is releasing desire from Freudian frets of the familial incestuous origin. The ego psychology functions like a totalitarian ideology that seeks stability and for this it needs to order things, to impose organization to bring about homogeneity. The prime task is thus to kill the circulation of desire as it is proven to be the enemy of organization. The process of schizophrenizing is a pivotal course BWO undertakes. Everything that is related to Oedipus is supposed to be under the domain of social and political rules while the process of schizophrenization is known as the plane of personal “schizo analysis is the negative of Capitalist formation… destroy, destroy Oedipus, the illusion of the ego, a complete curettage” (Anti- Oedipus 311). This process can be traced in woman’s life when she does belong to nowhere so she has potential to be grouped as a nomad. In fact, she is vacillating between the world of nothingness and her loneliness and this road fails to reach any destination.
۳٫۳ Negation of Ego- Not I
As it is clearly realized, Mouth narrates the story of an ambiguous ‘character’. In Not I, Mouth continually refers to “she” ( ۳۷۶). This fictional figure is the closest the play gets to producing a fully formed subject and so Mouth rejects that She is its own subjectivity: “what? .. who? .. no! .. she!” (۳۷۷).Before endeavoring to understand the nature of She, it is appropriate to primarily address the problem of pronouns that the play presents, beginning with its title. The phrase ‘not I’ can be read in a number of ways, two of which are as follows: She is not I; or equally, Mouth is not I. In the case of the former, Mouth would become the I of the play and She would be I’s (Mouth’s) Other. However, this seems an insufficient assumption, as Mouth never once uses the pronoun I throughout the play itself and, moreover, Beckett insists on Mouth’s “vehement refusal to relinquish third person” (۳۷۵). This can only mean that Mouth is not ‘I’. As such, whatever Mouth is, it is characterized by the fact that it is categorically not a subject. However, this is not to say that She is I, either. Indeed, the simple pronouns used here would contradict such a conclusion, as – grammatically