After reading and discussing Endgame in class, I found myself questioning the label "Absurd" that is associated with the works of Beckett, Ionesco, Pinter, and others... Since it was critic Marin Esslin that created the term "Absurd" to describe these works, I find it unnecessary to link it closely to our notions of the plays. What one sees as absurd, another finds to be completely accurate. This was the case for me with Endgame, for in it, I saw as much if not more truth than I've seen in any of the plays we've read this semester.
Absurd by definition means utterly or obviously senseless, illogical or untrue, or contrary to all reason or common sense. I do see the obvious senselessness in the way the play is staged: Nag and Nell being in trash cans, the minimal set dressing, etc... but in the subject matter and relationships between characters I see reason, truth, and human nature. It would be presumptious of me as a young man to presume to know how I might act upon approaching old age and death. "Lord, we know what we are, but not what we may be." (Ophelia in Hamlet: Act IV, Sc. 5) Absurd does not, for my part, come close to describing the entirety of this play. In Hamm's constant picking and ordering of Clov I observe an old man trying to maintain some level of humor and fun in his life, as well as a sense of control.
HAMM: Clov!
CLOV: Yes.
HAMM: I'll give you nothing more to eat.
CLOV: Then we'll die.
HAMM: I'll give you just enough to keep you from dying. You'll be hungry all the time.
Hamm's threat to starve Clov shows a man who has no control trying to exert control, and it also displays Hamm's sense of humor. Obviously he would not starve Clov becuase he likes having someone to take care of him (not to mention Clov isn't blind and could walk around and feed himself!). Hamm is used to being the master, and it is within his nature to act the way he does. Clov on the other hand maintains the order of things and satisfies his role of servant.
HAMM: What are you doing?
CLOV: Putting things in order. (He straightens up. Fervently.) I'm going to clear everything away! (He starts picking up again.)
HAMM: Order!
CLOV(Straightening up): I love order. It's my dream. A world where all would be silent and still and each thing in its last place, under the last dust. (He starts picking up again.)
HAMM: What in God's name do you think you're doing?
CLOV(Straightening up): I'm doing my best to create a little order.
HAMM: Drop it! (Clov drops the object he has picked up.)
Here we see again Hamm's desire to order and control while Clov is simply going about his duties. Clov is not acting without sense, but rather he is trying to make sense of the world and environment around him. The actions and desires of the characters within Endgame do not deserve to be labeled absurd... however absurd they may seem. They are real, believeable, and truthful characters, even though their situation is absurd. Maybe I'm too hard on Esslin; maybe he was just trying to describe the "situation" of the play. Regardless, I still stand firm on the notion that calling these works "Absurd" as a style completely boxes in the limitless capabilities of truthful human expression these works contain. I'd like to have a production of Endgame and have a sign at the door marked: "Theatre of Truth".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Okay Conrad:
How many people do you know who keep old people in a trash can full of saw dust? I think the energies of the characters represent much of what goes on in each and everyone of us. Hamm has a desire to be controlling and yet he will ask if he is loved and ask for forgiveness. He does this while mistreating Clov, Nell and Nag. I think that's something we all have experienced. There's a tug of war of pulling people close to you and pushing them away but still wanting to keep your control over them.
I would definitely classify Endgame as theatre of the absurd because there is no plot, the characters have nonsensical diaologue and there is confusion about what is going on. Despite all the usual conventions that are thrown out of the window in this play Endgame still resonates with us. I believe this is why you may see it as not absurd because how could something that speaks to us be absurd? Well, I contend that there is truth in absurdity and that is why Endgame works.
Absurdity is such an implicative term though. Part of the definition of absurd is "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation." This definition does to a certain degree fit this play, but not in its entirety, and not in a very respective light. There is indeed common sense in the character's motives as Conrad stated, and regardless of the plays intentional comedy, it is by no means laughably foolish. The term absurdist seems offensive, and stereotypical. If the lack of plot makes it absurdist, then does "The Catcher in the Rye" fall into the same category? If it's events that are not normal within in the course of an average human life, than I state that "Being John Malkovich" (though strongly plot driven) must be an absurdist work as well.
It's a title we use to define a style we cannot understand. When we can grasp on to something and attempt to easily make sense out of it we are more accepting of the concepts within a work, but when we are baffled, it becomes absurd. It's like a misc category of our mind almost. This is but a mere justification for our lack of comprehension. I say to hell with the misc category, and take such plays as this one for what they are. Take the events as different/ confusing, and see the beauty, coherency, and logic (seen in the ways you can predict how characters will act because of their depth and rational thinking within an irrational setting) that threads them all together.
Post a Comment