In the final sentence of my analysis of Worstward Ho, after reading the manifold complexities of being, subjectivity, and language, and after tracing those complexities into and out of the text's representation of spatiality, I was able, at least, and at last, to say this: ‘if this is not space, it is the affect of space; if this is not world – “in dimmost dim. Vasts apart” – it is an affect of world. This is an impossible, agonising world, but it is always, and still, a world’. Beckett's second trilogy places particular pressures on our understanding of the subject, presenting it as enmeshed in a spectrality that cancels the viability of its own discursive production even as those productions insist on asserting limits. Even as the subject seems to fade into a space of being beyond subjectivity – this perhaps is the state that Blanchot refers to as ‘subjectivity without any subject’ – a trace of an affect of the subject, as such, remains: ‘Nothing to show a child and yet a child … One bowed back and yet a man’. Even if these images in the dim void are only that, only images, the image still carries the potential to be a reminder of what was, even as the lost object – a child, a man, a memory of a past life – fails to achieve a hold on this groundless world. And even as these images fail to cohere, yet insist on bearing on this world in that incoherence, the language that transmits, or translates, that failure to cohere similarly marks itself as decentred, groundless, and yet uncannily insistent: ‘On. Say one. Be said on’.