OUT of the blue corner, the surrogate daughter of the philosopher
Wittgenstein, Alma. Out of the red, her husband Arnold Celine, a
fascist, but not the fascist Celine. Round two will feature Beckett, and
again not the Beckett, but the boxer Beckett, former lover of the
aforementioned Wittgenstein. Are you following?
The ghost of Wittgenstein will turn up during the course of this new
play by Dic Edwards, his exhumed skeleton will provide a necromantic
diversion, and we will have a flashback involving Alma's mother
Victoria, but Alma is revealed as not the daughter of Wittgenstein at
all, though disciples of the great man thought it might be a good idea
if some kind of child could be attributed to him so that the image of
philosophy would not suffer from homophobic prejudice. This is
Cambridge, after all. Alma ends up giving birth in her non-father's
grave.
Beyond that, I'm not sure I can be of much help. The language of the
piece is largely, and possibly wilfully, dislocated from the action, and
such residues of it as refuse to escape attention are tedious in the
extreme. Whether it is a philosophical comedy, a play about the end of
history, about language itself, or about Alma's quest for identity, is
by no means clear, and as far as this reviewer is concerned, it will
remain a matter of total indifference.
Last night I bought a copy of Mr Edwards's play, and since I cannot
comprehend even his 13 notes which preface the work, I am resigned to
the conclusion that we inhabit separate and irreconcilable orbits of
intelligibility. I therefore claim sanctuary in Wittgenstein: ''Whereof
one cannot speak one must remain silent.''
Designer Rebecca Loncraine's boxing ring and surrounding bill-poster
collage, based on the treatises and equations of the philosopher, is an
unusual and arresting idea. The performance by Anne Marie Timoney as
Alma, doubling as the mother, is courageous, and she is supported by
Robert David MacDonald (who directed), Patrick Hannaway, and Daniel
Illsley. Theirs was a difficult and unenviable assignment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article