‘STANLEY. I didn’t sleep at all’
‘MEG. You didn’t sleep at all? Did you hear that, Petey? Too tired to eat your breakfast, I suppose? Now you eat up those cornflakes like a good boy. Go on.’
This is a typical example of what a mother would tell her sixteen year old son who partied all night long and is too exhausted to eat his breakfast. Especially the line ‘Now you eat up those cornflakes like a good boy.[,]’ really emphasises on her feelings towards him. Moreover, another good example of mother and son relationship between Meg and Stanley is when Stanley has finished his breakfast:
‘MEG. Do you want some tea? (STANLEY reads the paper.) Say please.’
‘STANLEY. Please.’
‘MEG. Say sorry first.’
‘STANLEY. Sorry first.’
‘MEG. No. Just sorry.’
‘STANLEY. Just sorry!’
This is another typical example of a mother trying to teach her son manners while the son is just playing on the double meaning of the words she is using. However, Meg is not only as friendly and motherly as she appears in the first section of the book. When Goldberg and McCan appear in the play and have organised Stanley’s birthday party, she gets sexy and starts flirting with them:
‘MEG (bringing the glasses). Here they are.’
‘GOLDBERG. Good Mrs. Boles, I think Stanley should pour the toast, don’t you?’
‘MEG. Oh yes. Come on, Stanley. (STANLEY walks slowly to the table.) Do you like my dress, Mr. Goldberg?’
‘GOLDBERG. It’s out on its own. Turn yourself round a minute. I used to be in the business. Go on, walk up there.’
‘MEG. Oh no.’
‘GOLDBERG. Don’t be shy. (He slaps her bottom.)’
‘MEG. Oooh!’
In this part of the scene, it is very obvious that Goldberg and Meg are flirting. She is fishing for compliments from everyone, especially from Goldberg and when he ‘slaps her bottom[,]’ she replies with ‘Oooh!’ in such a way that she lets him know that she really enjoyed that. This way it’s going back and forth between Meg and Goldberg. In short, Meg has a definite two-sided personality; the tender, loving mother and the sexy flirty seducer.
Furthermore, the dialogues spoken in Pinter’s play are very extraordinary. On the one side, they are very childish: ‘MCCANN (to STANLEY). Sit down.’ / ‘STANLEY. Why?’ / ‘MCCAN. You’d be more comfortable.’ / ‘STANLEY. So would you.’ These are the kind of sentences and conversations primary school children would have with each other. On the other hand, however, some dialogues are so extremely confusing that we no longer have any idea what they are on about. In this scene, Goldberg and McCan are interrogating Stanley:
‘GOLDBERG. Speak up, Webber. Why did the chicken cross the road?’
‘STANLEY. He wanted to- he wanted to- he wanted to…’
‘MCCAN. He doesn’t know!’
‘GOLDBERG. Why did the chicken cross the road?’
‘STANLEY. He wanted to- he wanted to…’
‘GOLDBERG. Why did the chicken cross the road?’
‘STANLEY. He wanted…’
‘MCCAN. He doesn’t know. He doesn’t know which came first!’
‘GOLDBERG. Which came first?’
‘MCCAN. Chicken? Egg? Which came first?’
These dialogues don’t tell us anything at all, except for the fact that nobody in the play actually is very aware of what they are saying. Harold Pinter’s narrative technique is actually based so that both youth and older people can read the book. One thing Pinter did beautifully is that he wrote the book in such a way that the introduction and the ending are almost exactly the same. Both groups of audiences can fantasise about what the characters are actually telling each other and what they are thinking.
Thirdly, Pinter’s themes are very closely related to real life situations. An example of this is the scene where Goldberg and McCan are trying to get Stanley to talk about his past by completely confusing him (and us):
‘GOLDBERG. Is the number 846 possible or necessary?’
‘STANLEY. Neither.’
‘GOLDBERG. Wrong! Is the number 846 possible or necessary?’
‘STANLEY. Both.’
‘GOLDBERG. Wrong! It’s necessary but not possible.
‘STANLEY. Both.’
‘GOLDBERG. Wrong! Why do you think the number 846 is necessarily possible?’
‘STANLEY. Must be.’
‘GOLDBERG. Wrong! It’s only necessarily necessary! We admit possibility only after we grant necessity. It is possible because necessary but by no means necessary through possibility. The possibility can only be assumed after the proof of necessity.’
Harold Pinter writes some dialogues in this kind of way because it shows us that many people try to talk their way out of problems or get information by intimidating the person that they are opposing. A big theme here is people use big words to intimidate others. Many people are seriously faced by this problem and can not defend themselves from situations like above. Another big theme in the book is the fact they Meg has two very different sides. This leads to a broader theme, including nearly (if not) all the play’s characters, nothing is what it actually seems. Another big theme in the play is that man can not avoid fights. You can never be sure of what’s coming at you next, and for all you know, it’s someone looking for fights…
In conclusion, looking at Meg’s double-sided character, Pinter’s way of writing dialogues which nobody but himself understands and the main themes of the book, it can be said that Pinter has written a play which can be very closely compared to normal every day life. People don’t appear what they seem (Meg), people use big words to intimidate others (Goldberg + McCan) and the fact that man is not able to avoid fights all sum up to one statement:
Harold Pinter’s play ‘The Birthday Party’ is based on real life situations and can not but be called one of the realest plays of modern times.
