92 Rezensionen greift und Fragmente des non-lieu de mémoire Kollaboration inszeniert. Jean Manuel Florensas Auschwitz de mes nuits, Jean Claude Grumbergs Rêver peut-être und Patrick Kermanns Leçon de ténèbres zeigen eine Dramaturgie der Bewusstseinsschwellen, wobei von einer Dichotomie zwischen Tag/ Bewusstsein und Nacht/ Unterbewusstsein ausgegangen wird, in der ein “nächtliches Theater der lebenden Toten” (262) die Erinnerung an den Zweiten Weltkrieg wieder als Erinnerungsspiel inszeniert. In dem die Analyseergebnisse zusammenführenden dritten Teil der Studie erkennt Felbeck neben den dominanten Schwellendramaturgien auch eine “Rhetorik des Damals und Heute” (263), da alle Stücke als erinnernde Rückblicke konzipiert sind und so den Einbezug des kollektiven und kulturellen Gedächtnisses der Rezipienten ins Erinnerungsspiel herausfordern. Dies wird durch die Aufsprengung der Fabel in disparate und dissoziative Erinnerungsakte verstärkt. Ebenso zeigt sich häufig eine Auflösung des dramatischen Antagonismus und eine zerstückelte und von Schweigen durchsetzte Sprache der Erinnerung, die als Archiv und Einschreibungsort des kollektiven und kulturellen Gedächtnisses gleichzeitig auch widerständige Diskurse eines Gegengedächtnisses birgt, die durch intertextuelle, intermediale und interdiskursive Verfahren vermittelt werden. Mit Recht verweist Felbeck darauf, dass die textuellen Strategien der Dramen die “Totalität des einen Textsinns” (268) vermeiden. Sie hätte zugleich noch erwähnen können, dass die zweite Autorengeneration somit auch das Problem der Erinnerung und Vermittlung des Zweiten Weltkrieges teilweise dem Rezipienten übergibt. Obwohl die Bedeutung der Inszenierungsbedingungen für den Rezeptionsakt beispielsweise bei der Analyse von Patrick Kermanns A durchaus schon aufgezeigt wird, hätte man sich in diesem Kontext noch gewünscht, dass dies bei den übrigen Erinnerungsspielen in Felbecks sehr lesenswerter Studie auch noch mehr beachtet worden wäre. Gießen I NA H ATZIG Eli Rozik. Generating Theatre Meaning. A Theory and Methodology of Performance Analysis. Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2008. 292 pages. This is a remarkable book. It is one of the few to have appeared in recent times that deal with all the basic theoretical issues concerning theatre, without avoiding or neglecting even the most difficult and controversial issues, such as language or acting. At the same time, Eli Rozik’s book, divided into three parts, remains scholarly in its basic methodological approach, avoiding intuitive or subjective commentary, and trying to preserve its quality of being verifiable not only by its inner logic but also by theatre practice. The latter is shown in Part III, which provides superb examples of performance analysis, based on theoretical assumptions raised and discussed in earlier chapters. Even though most of the issues and concepts presented in this volume are not entirely new, and have been discussed by Rozik in his previously published, highly original works, they are often given a new touch here, clarifying or enriching their intellectual refinement. But this is not just a collection of previously published essays. Many of the chapters included in this volume are new, such as the ones that discuss the concept of the implied direct and the implied reader (chapters 10-11). In times when theory as such has become suspect, and attempts to define or demarcate literary and artistic works are rejected on ideological grounds as ultraconservative, if not reactionary, the appearance of Rozik’s book is even more welcome as a voice that elevates the discussion to a level suitable for a serious intellectual exchange of thought. In Rozik’s book, the reader will find an abundance of information and detailed description concerning practically every aspect of theatrical performance, including the use of the new media on stage, or even the border cases of installations that under certain circumstances become theatrical (as Robert Wilson’s H.G., discussed separately in chapter 16). The possible exception is, perhaps, music, discussed only in passing (the word does not even appear in the index), but this is, I believe, the Achilles’ heel of theatre studies in general. We still have not learned how to describe music Forum Modernes Theater, Bd. 24/ 1 (2009), 92-94. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Rezensionen 93 without indulging in highly metaphoric language; even the best scholars in the area of theatre theory often neglect the musical aspect of performances. Another gap in the otherwise thorough discussion of practically all issues connected with theatre, is the somewhat insufficient attention paid to the discussion of the significance of objects (and lights), not only in their phenomenal presence on the stage, but also in the role they play in generating meaning. Theatre is substance-specific, and meaning is created not only through the creation of some fictional entity, but through the relationship of that fiction to the material substance of its signifier, which differs in every production. We evaluate the originality and artistry of a given production predominately on the basis of the selection, combination and modeling of the substances and bodies used, and not only by their ability to create fictional realms (or illusion). The same applies to the use of language on the stage, which, in theatrical transmutation loses many of its systemic features, becoming ‘stage-speech’, inseparably merged with the material substance of the performance. In this respect, Rozik’s discussion is lengthy, deep and persuasive, especially when proving the iconicity of stage-speech. Similarly, his discussion of such important issues as theatre conventions or stage metaphors and symbols is persuasive and inspiring. In a brief review one cannot deal with equal attention with all the aspects of theatre theory. Of the great abundance of issues dealt with in the book, I will mention only a few, concentrating on those which I consider Rozik’s most important contribution to our knowledge and understanding of theatre. Of these, the most essential is the proposed theory of acting, treated, quite rightly, as the quintessence of theatre, and based on Rozik’s brilliant concept of the deflection of reference (chapter 5). Even though I do not agree with every aspect of the author’s treatment of acting, I admire the depth with which all sorts of interlinked problems and issues are tackled. Rozik himself modestly admits that his book is not definitive: he closes with the comment that “this volume is a preliminary phase in the development of a sound theory of the performance-text and an effective method of performance analysis. None of its assumptions and conclusions should be taken for granted. Each new performance analysis should lead to their re-examination” (276). Thus, in the beginning of his discussion of acting, which I find most stimulating, Rozik enumerates five premises (78), which are the following: 1. Acting is seen as the “deflection of reference”, with the latter treated as the fundamental principle of theatre 2. Deflection of reference makes possible the description of fictional entities 3. Deflection of reference characterizes both human and non-human [sic! ] acting 4. The triadic distinction actor/ text/ character is more appropriate than the usual dyadic distinction actor/ character 5. The mediation of a performance-text creates two existential gaps: between the enacting mechanism and the text, and between the text and the enacted fictional world 6. Whereas the affinity between theatre and other dramatic arts is fundamental, the similarity between it and other performative arts, based on bodily experience, is marginal. In what follows, all the enumerated issues are discussed in detail. Basically, as Rozik would have it, deflection of reference means the change of the deictic axis from the actor to the fictional figure. The ‘I’ of the actor, his/ her points of temporal and spatial reference, is transposed on to the fictional being, who ever that might be. The extreme case would involve a signaled erasure or suspension of the ‘self’, as when the actor is playing an object. Deflection of reference applies, therefore, to the mechanism or the fundamental rule of the theatre, by which fiction can be created by a live actor, or, as Rozik would put it, “the mechanism that enables actors to iconically describe fictional entities, thus making possible the description of a fictional world” (80). I find the discussion of this fundamental issue fascinating and inspiring, although on several of the questions involved, I do not agree with the author. For instance, the ability of the actor to signal his/ her consciousness of time and space is absolutely essential for any attempt to transpose his/ her ego or deixis on to a fictional being; this is why I cannot accept Rozik’s claim that animals and objects can be actors in any other 94 Rezensionen sense than a metaphoric one. Naturally, they can take part in performance, and play an important part in it, but they cannot by themselves, without a human agent, signal their changed deictic axis, and pretend they are set at a different time and a different space, and that they live or exist at a different present time evolving in front of our, the spectators’, eyes. Also, I cannot agree that it is only the actor who produces a text of a fictional figure on the stage: the figure results from a whole network of relationships between many other components of the performance-text, such as the utterances and behaviour of other actors, their costumes, the stage-set, music, lights, choreography etc. All of these contribute to the mental construct we call ‘character’, which is not the creation of the actions and utterances of single actor. And the final meaning of the ‘character’ is the relationship of that mental structure to the phenomenology of the stage (theatre is substance-specific), and that includes not only the body of the actor, but also his/ her costume, wig, make-up, and all the other visible and audible elements of the staging. Apart from these minor reservations, the chapter on acting is superb, also in its refutation of widely held opinions and of the writings of such influential writers as Erving Goffman or Richard Schechner. On the other hand, Rozik reminds his readers of the important contribution to theatre research made by Roman Ingarden, which in many ways anticipates the works of other, better known writers and of widely accepted theories, such as speech-act theory. Perhaps the most controversial is chapter 6, in which the author tackles the difficult issue of the dramatic text and whether it is or is not a literary genre. Rozik is of the opinion that it is a “commonplace fallacy” to see “playscripting as a specific form of literary activity”. Instead, he suggests that “play analysis should not only be reintegrated into theatre research, but also be perceived as one of its cornerstones, of performance analysis in particular” (90). This has been an on-going critical dispute for at least half a century, and the conclusions drawn are contradictory and incompatible. I only wonder what most Shakespearean scholars would say in reaction to Rozik’s statement that the playscript (by which he means the dramatic text) is a ‘deficient text’ when compared to the performance-text, or how they would respond to the assertion that Hamlet “is only a notation of the verbal components of the eventual dialogue, lacking all the additional non-verbal components necessary to disambiguate its component speech acts” (60). Now, it may be said, for instance, that the performance-text does not necessarily disambiguate its component speech acts (not to mention the fact that one has to agree to employ the speech act theory to performance analysis); instead, it may and often does create new ambiguities. The performance-text does not necessarily fill in all the gaps (or ‘spots of indeterminacy’, to use Ingarden’s term) contained in the dramatic text, but it certainly creates new ones. Nevertheless, Rozik is certainly right when he calls for the relationship between the two texts to be studied in terms of ‘intertextuality’ (this is also presented in practice in the analysis of Georg Büchner’s Woyzeck in chapter 17). Again, space does not allow for a more detailed discussion, and I have mentioned only some of the issues discussed, only in order to indicate to the reader that Rozik’s book is not free of controversial or provocative statements. But they never fail to be the result of a serious approach and deep insight. I cannot imagine any serious theoretical discussion of theatre, without taking Eli Rozik’s impressive volume into account. Even if one does not agree with Rozik, the fascinating ways in which he constructs and directs his argumentation, both in theory and in performance analysis, are always inspiring. I admit to being one of those who, in spite of some differences of opinion, are certainly under his spell. University of Gdañsk J ERZY L IMON