In what ways do the language rituals in "The Homecoming" and "Waiting for Godot" suggest the play wrights' respective perceptions of the human condition?
In what ways do the language rituals in "The Homecoming" and "Waiting for Godot" suggest the playwrights' respective perceptions of the human condition?
Introduction
The role of language and communication is a central issue in both plays on a purely theatrical level, serving to advance the plot and enhance characterisation, yet it achieves far more than simply forming an entertaining piece of drama. Throughout the plays there are periods where dialogue between the characters manages to display human language's most powerful capabilities, yet others where its shortcomings are dramatically exposed. Behind the conversations, hidden in the silences, both plays offer far more to the audience than can be gathered from the words alone. What is stated, what is implied and what is left unsaid are all of equal importance, as each simple line provokes thoughts on a series of deeper issues. The use of language and language rituals offers an insight into wider thoughts than simply those concerning the characters in the play. Both playwrights' ideas and suggestions concerning the human condition may be interpreted from these rituals; the interaction of the characters and the way they choose to communicate with one another present perceptions of our very existence as human beings.
When seeking to compare the ways in which this is achieved by the playwrights, a fundamental difference between 'Waiting for Godot' and 'The Homecoming' must first be observed. Whilst both work on many levels, and are successful when regarded simply as face-value theatrical works, they are approached from different perspectives by the author. The characters in 'The Homecoming,' whilst at times possibly tending towards exaggerated behaviour, are essentially rational and realistic characters. Their setting, their actions and their dialogue do indeed raise deeper issues in the minds of the audience, yet simultaneously they function as a regular collection of humans. In 'Waiting for Godot,' however, the characters are more enigmatic and less credible as normal people. Although the play may work when taken purely at face-value, it is far from a depiction of realistic characters. In addition the language rituals developed, the areas of communication explored are all less clearly-defined than in 'The Homecoming.' 'Waiting for Godot' is concerned with suggestions and concepts, as oppose to the presentation of these ideas through more detailed and accurate social observations shown in 'The Homecoming.' Despite the fact that these differences are immediately obvious upon observing the plays, it is essential that they are considered at all times whilst they are contrasted; for it is through these different approaches that the thoughts and ideas of the playwrights reach the audience, and as such their influence upon how these suggestions are received is great.
Language rituals and Beckett's perception of the human condition in 'Waiting for Godot'
The ideas contained in 'Waiting for Godot' are largely of an existential nature, with a bleak perception of the human condition and preoccupation with the basic futility of life. Despite this pessimistic outlook, there is much within the play concerning hope. The story is of two elderly tramps, named Vladimir and Estragon, who wait by a tree each day for the arrival of a M. Godot. Each day he fails to arrive, and this news is made official by his messenger boy who comes to the pair and says that M. Godot will come 'surely tomorrow.' The character of Godot is left deliberately unclear, with Estragon claiming 'we hardly know him' and 'Personally I wouldn't even recognise him if I saw him.' As time passes, Godot becomes symbolic of a salvation which will seemingly never come. Vladimir and Estragon come to represent the futility of human existence, and the ways in which man seeks to distract himself from the disturbing reality of his predicament. The dialogues between the characters, and the rituals of their speech are the major vehicles for the expression of Beckett's perception of existence.
The existentialist writer Albert Camus suggested, notably in 'La Peste,' that human beings relied on the creation of habit or routine in their lives to keep them contented. Inactivity, he reasoned, led to boredom, and then on to a contemplation of one's identity and position in life. It can be seen that from this situation arise two fundamental problems. Firstly there is the likelihood that the individual will discover things about himself and their life which are not to their liking. Secondly there is the worry that the attempt to answer the great riddles and rhetorical questions of life may torment one almost to the brink of insanity. Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot' is a presentation of humanity's struggle against this position, and of the distractions and alleviations that we search for in order to keep ourselves both happy and sane.
This quest for entertainment and distraction is quickly introduced as a major theme in the play, with the opening lines setting the mood.
ESTRAGON:
Nothing to be done.
VLADIMIR:
I'm beginning to come round to that opinion.
Although the phrase 'nothing to be done' is used here regarding Estragon's boot, the hopeless tone is picked up by Vladimir who continues 'All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle.' We see the line reappear later in the act, used by Vladimir this time as he examines his hat. From here on the two embark on a series of conversational 'games' designed simply to pass the time. Their desperate struggles to keep conversation going are punctuated by Estragon, as he cries 'That's the idea, let's make a little conversation.,' and later 'That's the idea, let's contradict each other.' Also, as Vladimir prepares to relate to Estragon the biblical parable of the two thieves, he encourages his companion to listen with 'It'll pass the time.' As Estragon refuses to participate in the discussion, Vladimir's plea for his assistance in killing time whilst they wait for Godot is almost desperate 'Come on, Gogo, return the ball can't you, once in a way?'
There are also several references made by Vladimir and Estragon to the fact that these meaningless exchanges not only help pass the time but also do prevent their thoughts sliding towards a contemplation of their hopeless circumstances.
ESTRAGON:
In the meantime let us try and converse calmly, since we are incapable of keeping silent.
VLADIMIR:
You're right, we're inexhaustible.
ESTRAGON:
It's so we won't think.
This supports the notion that the activities we pursue in our lives our nothing but a deliberate smokescreen to divert ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
There are also several references made by Vladimir and Estragon to the fact that these meaningless exchanges not only help pass the time but also do prevent their thoughts sliding towards a contemplation of their hopeless circumstances.
ESTRAGON:
In the meantime let us try and converse calmly, since we are incapable of keeping silent.
VLADIMIR:
You're right, we're inexhaustible.
ESTRAGON:
It's so we won't think.
This supports the notion that the activities we pursue in our lives our nothing but a deliberate smokescreen to divert our thoughts from our existence. Beckett suggests that it is in pondering the human condition that we arrive at truths we would rather not face. It is as though Godot represents the element of chance in life, the outside force which shapes our lives and over which we ourselves have no control. In waiting for these to take effect, we find ourselves discovering the alarming reality of our situation. To avoid this Estragon and Vladimir find two benefits from a continued and yet fundamentally meaningless conversation.
A second key aspect is the way the play is structured. It has a cyclical format in terms of the action, and this is assisted by a series of repetitions of language rituals in the script. Each day the two men meet to wait for Godot, and each day a boy is sent to tell them he shall not come until the next day. There is no specific reference to how long they have been doing this, nor how long it will continue, yet there are suggestions that the passage of time goes unmarked by the two. Primarily there is their failure to recall past events clearly, and as such when their meeting with Godot is supposed to be.
ESTRAGON:
You're sure it was this evening?
VLADIMIR:
What?
ESTRAGON:
That we were to wait.
VLADIMIR:
He said Saturday. (Pause.) I think....
ESTRAGON:
(very insidious). But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday? (Pause.) Or Monday? (Pause.) Or Friday?
They go on to discover that they do not even know when they last came to wait:
VLADIMIR:
But you say we were here yesterday.
ESTRAGON:
I may be mistaken.
Their muddled conversations concerning the passage of time, as Estragon states they have been 'blathering about nothing in particular... for half a century,' again show more about Beckett's thoughts on existence than is at first realised. The leaves on the tree appearing in a single night, and Pozzo's turning blind equally as suddenly, all combine to reveal links between chance and time. For if human existence is governed by chance, then for us as powerless objects time has no meaning. Once time has no meaning human life is also stripped of significance, and indeed Pozzo describes himself as 'blind as Fortune,' underlining the hopeless lack of control Beckett perceives humans to have over their destinies. The issue is underlined during the discussion of the parable of the thieves, where Vladimir claims that one thief's having been saved is 'a reasonable percentage.' Here the element of 'percentage' and chance is pointed out in a sacred text to which the Western world has turned for definitive answers for millennia.
Repetitive monotony is a central device in the play and is, perhaps, best symbolised by the ballad that Vladimir sings at the opening of Act II. This ballad echoes the circularity of the entire play in its structure, and as well as being of a suitably gloomy nature it is symbolic of the repetition of the characters' actions and interactions. The finest example of this, where a repeated section in the dialogue encapsulates almost all of what Beckett attempts to transmit with his play, is in the final moments of each act.
Act one ends thus:
ESTRAGON:
Well, shall we go?
VLADIMIR:
Yes, let's go.
(They do not move.)
Act two ends thus:
VLADIMIR:
Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON:
Yes, let's go.
(They do not move.)
They end the play as they began: having made no progress, and at the back of their minds unwillingly having accepted their hopeless situation. Many times they make to leave, and refrain themselves as they are 'waiting for Godot.' It is well known to the audience that Godot will not arrive, and that their refusal to leave is really an acknowledgement that they have no destination. The same is true of Pozzo and Lucky, as Pozzo cries 'On!' though they have nowhere to go, and nothing to carry but sand. In the world of 'Waiting for Godot,' 'on' is the path to nowhere.
Language rituals and Pinter's perception of the human condition in 'The Homecoming'
As discussed previously, 'The Homecoming' provides a more specific and detailed view of human interaction, and how this relates to the human condition. Whilst perhaps not offering so broad a suggestion of the playwright's view in general of existence as a human being, the play explores crucial aspects in greater depth. Once more it is language rituals, the specific ways in which the characters communicate with one another, which serve to outline Pinter's ideas regarding this issue.
In essence, Pinter seems to be examining the true value of linguistic interaction. In order to fully test the power or verbal communication, a setting is created where emotions are at their peak and there is nowhere to hide. The testosterone-fuelled household of Max, the volatile patriarch, and his brother and sons is confined within the play to a single room. Tensions between the members of the family are already uncomfortably high when Teddy returns from his six-year absence in America. With him he brings his wife, and the introduction of this intelligent and coolly manipulative woman into such a female-starved environment is the key to bringing the festering resentments and bitterly-suppressed angers bursting out into the open. Here is the perfect scenario in which to observe exactly what language and language rituals can tell us about being human. As part of its study of communication, 'The Homecoming' includes numerous examples of all three major ways of sharing knowledge with others. These are direct statements of fact, implication through sarcasm or unfinished sentences, and simple omission: silences. Each can be as telling as the next, and it is the way these are used by the characters which forms not only an overall image of their personalities but also a comment from the playwright.
The characters, through ignoring each other and through (often deliberate) misinterpretation of what people say to them, create a picture in which everyone is talking but nobody actually seems to be communicating. The characters are dishonest and inconsistent, they refuse to answer questions, and it is through this that Pinter forms the notion that we as humans, for all the talking we do, are very much more alone than we like to admit. At times we share our emotions, whether knowingly or unknowingly, yet to what extent these are detected by others we cannot tell.
This issue of honesty is a very important one within the play. Max, supposedly at the head of the family, is so unstable and inconsistent in his comments that his words almost seem absurd. His devious attempts at manipulating those around him cause his opinions and even his memories to swing wildly back and forth. Of his wife's relationship with his boys he recalls:
MAX:
...She taught them all the morality they know. And she had a heart to go with it. What a heart.
Within seconds, as he is gripped by anger concerning Sam's leaving late for work, she has become his 'slutbitch of a wife.' This volatility even occurs at times without provocation, as he remembers her once more:
MAX:
...Even though it made me sick just to look at her rotten stinking face she wasn't such a bad bitch.
A second example of how Max is willing to totally contradict himself in order to support what he is saying at a specific moment is with regard to his age. As the male struggles for supremacy, notably between Max and Lenny, become apparent, it is clear that Max's age is a sensitive issue. As Lenny refuses to give him a cigarette, he tries to make him feel guilty by displaying his one crumpled cigarette and saying 'I'm getting old, my word of honour.' In his next sentence, infuriated by Lenny's silent stubbornness, he remarks 'I could have taken care of you twice over. I'm still strong.'
The same characteristic is displayed by Ruth upon her arrival with Teddy in the night. She requests permission to wit down, remarking 'I'm tired.' A while later, when asked if she is tired by her husband, she changes her mind to: 'Just a little.' By the time she is asked a third time, she has altered her opinion completely and replies 'No.' She behaves in the same way with Lenny, declining to accept his offer of a drink, yet by the end of their encounter she drains the glass and states 'Oh, I was thirsty.'
The same sort of unpredictability is displayed by the register of language the charatcers choose to use. Lenny conducts himself with such a lack of respect towards his father, calling him a 'daft prat,' that the very idea of a courteous manner towards Max is viewed as insulting.
LENNY: (rising and moving to L of Max)
Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? (He pauses) I want to ask you something....Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.
This comes as a totally isolated insult, refusing to follow on from his father's lengthy speech on his experiences with race-horses. His politeness is a deliberate distortion of his intended meaning, which is very telling of the the real way in which he perceives his father. Max, however, also alters his vocabulary and phrasing continually. As he mocks his brother Sam and his chauffeur business, he teases 'What, you been doing, banging away at your lady customers, have you?' This crude expression makes way for a more euphemistic style as he discusses Ruth's arrangements when she decides to stay on.
MAX:
...the last thing we want to do is wear the girl out. She's going to have her obligations this end as well.
This slightly embarrassed and cimcumlocutory way of defining the terms of her employment seems almost to come from a different person from the one who so recently wished to know whether the arm-rest was up or down as Sam has 'a good bang on the back seat.'
Lenny, who talks almost non-stop during his first meeting with Ruth, allowing her only time to make short remarks, is virtually silenced as she lays out her demands if she is to stay with them. From the quiet woman she arrived as, she has developed into a ruler of the household with some extremely precise requirements.
RUTH:
I would want at least three rooms and a bathroom.
LENNY:
Two would do.
RUTH:
No. Two wouldn't be enough. (She pauses) I'd want a dressing-room, a rest room, and a bedroom.
She knows her desires very well, and soon comes to dominate the conversation.
RUTH:
I would naturally want to draw up an inventory of eveything I would need, which would require your signatures in the presence of witnesses.
LENNY:
Naturally.
RUTH:
All aspects of the agreement and conditions of employment would have to be clarified to our mututal satisfaction before we finalized the contract.
LENNY:
Of course.
Through these shifts of both personal opinion and the register selected by the characters to make their points, Pinter creates a situation in which it is very hard to attribute any real value to anything the characters say. Does Max really think of himself as old, or does he truly believe he is 'still strong?' Following Lenny's numerous snide comments and sarcastic sneers, what is to be learnt by his apparent submission to Ruth's flood of demands? Either the characters are not to be trusted as they constantly switch between lies and truth, or they themselves are unsure of their own minds. In both cases it is clear that of all that is said, only a very small amount can really be of any value to the others.
This sense that large amounts of the time the characters are talking without really saying anything useful is consolidated by the sheer number of times when a total lack of understanding or interest is displayed. The incident of Ruth's tiredness on her arrival, used earlier, also displays this clearly. Not only does Teddy not notice that he has asked her the same question three times, but he doesn't spot that each time he gets three different answers. He is so caught up in the excitement and anxiety of returning home that he asks questions and thoroughly fails to heed the reply.
TEDDY:
...Are you cold?
RUTH:
No.
TEDDY:
I'll make you something to drink if you like. Something hot.
TEDDY:
...Are you tired?
RUTH:
No.
TEDDY:
Go to bed. I'll show you the room.
TEDDY:
...Are you nervous?
RUTH:
No.
TEDDY:
There's no need to be.
The play is full of incidents such as this, involving almost all of the characters. Max and Lenny have a similar exchange over the horses in the paper.
LENNY:
...What do you think of "Second Wind" for the three-thirty?
MAX:
Where?
LENNY:
Sandown Park.
MAX:
Doesn't stand a chance.
LENNY:
Sure he does.
MAX:
Not a chance.
LENNY:
He's the winner. (He ticks the paper)
POSSIBLE NEW HEADING HERE
This failure to interact successfully has numerous parallels with the meaningless chatter of Vladimir and Estragon in 'Waiting for Godot,' and the suggestions which are offered to the audience regarding the wider meaning of these language rituals also have similarities. Indeed the very same absence of attention paid to the words of the other speakers is also common in 'Waiting for Godot'.
VLADIMIR:
Ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story?
ESTRAGON:
No.
VLADIMIR:
Shall I tell it to you?
ESTRAGON:
No.
VLADIMIR:
It'll pass the time. (Pause.) Two thieves, crucified at the same time as our Saviour...
Here Vladimir ignores the answer of 'no' from Estragon entirely, and on many other occasions conversation is slow to begin as neither is fully concentrating on what the other is saying.
POSSIBLE NEW HEADING HERE
CONCLUSION BEGINS HERE: Whilst it would certainly be difficult to claim that 'The Homecoming' offers such a general and abstract depiction of mankind's existence as 'Waiting for Godot,' comments about human life are made in both which merit comparison.
Returning to Camus' supposition that humans require habit and routine to give their lives the illusion of meaning, there are aspects of the language rituals in both plays which would lend support to this idea. In 'Waiting for Godot' it is clear that Vladimir and Estragon have their 'waiting' routine, but in addition to that they have the company and conversation which they provide for each other. They seem to show very little affection towards one another, with Estragon asking for help three times to get his boot off. On the third he receives this totally useless response:
ESTRAGON:
Why don't you help me?
VLADIMIR:
Sometimes I feel it coming all the same. Then I go all queer...
MUTUAL DEPENDENCE
Despite this lack of affection they do seem to need each other. To begin with they have special names for each other, 'Didi' and 'Gogo,' which have an air of tenderness. There is also the time they have spent together, which they claim to be 'half a century,' and the many nostalgically-told tales from their shared past.
ESTRAGON:
Do you remember the day I threw myself into the Rhone?
VLADIMIR:
We were grape harvesting.
ESTRAGON:
You fished me out.
VLADIMIR:
That's all dead and buried.
ESTRAGON:
My clothes dried in the sun.
They are still together although they show few signs of enjoying each others' company, and conversation runs desperately dry:
(Long silence)
VLADIMIR:
Say something!
ESTRAGON:
I'm trying.
(Long silence)
VLADIMIR:
(in anguish). Say anything at all!
Such is also the case with the family in 'The Homecoming.' Given the fact that so many members of the family clearly dislike others, they talk almost incessantly. Although their conversations lead nowhere, often they do not even respond logically to what the other says, they feel the same need to talk as Vladimir and Estragon do. Both plays advance an idea that to converse with other humans is a necessary part of our existence. This diversion from the contemplation of our true predicament often allows for a total lack of meaning in what is said. To de distracted is enough. It is also revealing of a fundamentally selfish nature inherent in the characters in both plays. Vladimir's refusal to help Estragon with his boot, their dual hesistance to aid Pozzo to his feet, and the way in which the family in 'The Homecoming' seek Ruth's services all betray egotistical outlooks. This is reflected beautifully in dialogues like those above where the express wishes of a person are totally overlooked. It is as though these characters are protected from a true sharing of knowledge and emotion by a shield of self-interest which inhibits their ability to really 'communicate.'
Both plays, however, manage to include their use of language rituals to present slightly more optimistic ideas. All the characters are essentially searching for something to bring happiness into their lives. In 'Waiting for Godot' for example, the repetition of the following exchange may be seen to have a second interpretation:
ESTRAGON:
Let's go.
VLADIMIR:
We can't.
ESTRAGON:
Why not?
VLADIMIR:
We're waiting for Godot.
BATHOS AND BLACK HUMOUR TO COME BEFORE CONCLUSION (major relocation)
As has been discussed earlier this is commonly seen to symbolise a wait for some form of salvation or diversion, to add meaning to or rescue their lives in some way. As this never arrives it certainly has an air of pessimism, yet the fact that they cling to this routine does indicate hope. A hope based on a belief that there is something worth waiting for, that their reward will come. In 'The Homecoming,' though the end scene is a sad one, with Max dethroned and reduced to a wimpering figure seated at Ruth's knees, his passion as he pleads 'Kiss me' demonstrates the immense yearning he has for a positive alteration to his life. There is almost a form of balance struck between man's isolation as conversations achieve nothing, and his solidarity as he persists in conversing. Likewise we see man's unhappiness with the present balanced by hope for the future.
A second way in which the use of language succeeds in lifting the mood and adding a more optimistic touch to the playwrights' perception of the human condition is through humour. Bathos and comic undercutting of particularly pessimistic scenes are used to great effect to achieve this. In Act I of 'Waiting for Godot' Pozzo makes a particularly dark and gloomy speech, ending:
POZZO:
...But- (hand raised in admonition)- but behind this veil of gentleness and peace, night is charging (vibrantly) and will burst upon us (snaps his fingers) pop! like that! (his inspiration leaves him) just when we least expect it. (Silence. Gloomily.) That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.
Finishing this, and inviting to further discussion on the content, he is solely concerned about the manner in which he delivered the speech.
POZZO:
How did you find me? Good? Fair? Middling? Poor? Positively bad?
This comic bathos is remarkably similar to areas of 'The Homecoming,' such as Max's outburst at his brother Sam. After insulting him and dragging out painful memories of the past, such as their father's death, Sam coolly responds: 'Do you want to finish the washing-up? Look, here's the cloth.'
CONCLUSION TO START HERE
Allowing for the differences in the presentation of these ideas, the abstract approach of Beckett compared with the detailed and disturbingly realistic world created by Pinter, the playwrights' thoughts and suggestions concerning the human condition do not seem to differ much in essence. Language rituals in the plays embody man's need to talk. In light of the furious emotional outbursts of 'The Homecoming' and the nonsens exchanges of 'Waiting for Godot' the word 'converse' is not appropriate; for though at times characters in 'The Homecoming' attempt to raise serious issues, they are shot down by a selfish refusal of their listeners to share in the emotions of others. Yet they persist, driven by a need to divert their attentions from the truth of their lives and existence. This failure to connect fully with others, this inner knowledge of the true reason for the desire to talk, isolates the individual yet further.
However there also seems to be an agreement between the playwrights that to crumble in the face of these bleak ideas is futile. One's position is unalterable, and the introduction of humour into both plays makes it clear that we must not totally despair. Laughter reminds the audience that, in spite of our isolation and hopeless predicament, life must carry on as we are powerless to change our circumstances. It provides the glimmer of hope we require to continue. Though we may be condemned to suffer and to waste our lives with conversations leading nowhere, we must try to smile as we do so as there is 'nothing [else] to be done.'
(Laughter in the play does not mean we should seek laughter in life. It is symbolic of anything which gives us hope and motivation.)
[My conclusion is a bit rubbish because I find it hard to write about both playwrights' ideas simultaneously whilst also distinguishing bewteen them. As I see it, any ideas which come through 'The Homecoming' are directly concerned with human interaction. This can be extended to tie in with thoughts about existence itself, but there is nothing so obviously in the text itself as there is with 'Waiting for Godot.' Beckett gives both a view of the human condition as a period of waiting filled by meaningless distraction, but I find it hard to find any such broad and general perception within Pinter's work. I keep mentioning how people need to talk, build routines and seek distraction from thei hopeless existence, but the actual mentioning of this hopeless existence appears only in 'Waiting for Godot.']