Babel en Breytenbach: Kwessies rondom die ‘verstaanbare’ in die Afrikaanse dramas van Breyten Breytenbach / Concerning the “incomprehensible” in the Afrikaans dramas of Breyten Breytenbach

Abstract

Since the performances and publication of Breytenbach's Boklied at the KKNK (1998), the dramatic writing of Breytenbach has been described as incomprehensible, banal and pornographic (McMinn, 1998:10). The subject material in the texts of Breytenbach is not new for the Afrikaans stage, but few performances have dealt the issues of politics, sex, god and politics in such a ‘difficult’ fashion. Breytenbach's use of poetic language and his wide frame of reference for intertextual references alienated South African audiences. The problem of understanding the text was pushed to an extreme where characters in Boklied and Die Toneelstuk spoke in languages not understood by many or any of the audience members. Different possible ways of creating meaning/understanding of the ‘incomprehensible’ dialogue will be discussed in the article. The main focus will be on the characters of Farenj in Boklied, Dostoejefski and Martiens as interpreter of the incomprehensible in Die Toneelstuk. The problematic issues of representation and the function of the author in postmodern drama will form a theoretical framework for the discussion of the two characters in the mentioned plays. Breytenbach emphasises the false nature of representation by using meta-theatrical elements in the text. These elements are then further accentuated in the production. The written text also undermines the traditional language references and the relationship between signifier and signified. This destruction of the bond between signifier and signified assists in the generation of visual symbols and metaphors as manifested in the performances. The author's traditional responsibility for the creation of meaning in a play text is parodied in both of Breytenbach's Afrikaans texts. Many characters in Boklied are writers. The same situation can be found in Die Toneelstuk. The subversion of logosccentric thought in connection with the absence of the body, the single authoritative author and text resulted in the emphasis on the director's role in the theatrical production. The director (Marthinus Basson, in the case of Breytenbach's texts) becomes the co-creator by giving a specific interpretation and image to the text. This function becomes even more important where the characters cannot be understood. The audience is used to understanding the dialogue spoken by characters on stage. The incomprehensible dialogue spoken by Farenj and Dostoejefski leads to confusion in the audience. The only way the audience could create meaning from these characters' dialogue is the preceding and subsequent dialogue spoken by the other characters. The events depicted on stage also give a context within which which the audience can create possible meaning. The lack of communication (between the characters on stage and between the audience and the characters) not only illustrates the ineffective nature of communication, but forces the audience members to look for non-verbal signs of communication and the actors' bodies as major sources of meaning. Breytenbach uses the lack of communication to enforce the role of the characters on stage. This role can only be understood if the audience is aware of the specific role of the character on stage. A language-based approach to the creation of meaning is subverted, since the audience does not need to understand what is said. In the context of the theatre and with the emphasis no longer on the spoken word, indirect language actions and physical action (and even the presence of the actors on stage) becomes more important.