We accept

Absurdity Of Living Illustrated In Dumb Waiter

'There are no hard distinctions between what's real and what is unreal, nor between what's true and what is false. Something is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and bogus'. I believe these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of fact through art. So as a copy writer I the stand by position them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What's true? What's wrong?' ( Harold Pinter ) The theme of nothingness is one of the major themes talked about in existentialism, which, while pervading the activity, shows a typical affinity between the Absurd and Existentialism rejecting every one of the philosophies, sciences, political theories, and religions which neglect to mirror manёs fact as a mindful being. Existentialism discovers and discusses the styles and topics which present a living crueler, darker, and more hopeless when compared to a naturalistic or modern one. Existentialism got a great affect on the thinkers and musicians and artists of that time period, an impact which led them to the revision of the insight pertaining to man and his position in the world. Pinter, like existentialists is mixed up in discord of living. His characterization discloses the same anguish visible in Existentialism. The vast majority of the freelance writers who had influenced Pinterёs dramaturgy (involving Dumb Waiter, Pinterёs work is intensely inspired by Samuel Beckett) were either founders or forerunners of the avant-garde Theatre of the Absurd. Pinter considers the funny area of the absurd. Since there may be nothing at all for Pinter that's not funny, he employs a comic way of manifestation to have fun at everything, even at the tragic elements of existence. In a very Pinter play, the apparently funny picture (considering Dumb Waiter, the picture in which Ben rushes toward Gus in a very threatening way) is concurrently terrifying and inhumane in terms of the particular heroes are experiencing.

The Dumb Waiter, like many other Pinter plays, uses the relationship by which the type of the man-to-man interconnection is analyzed. In it nothing is ever completed through dialogue. Most individual connection in day-to-day life accomplishes nothing more than passing time. Therefore when reading, or indeed watching the play we could confused by the futility of life. Most conversation that occurs between Ben and Gus are pointless, and each character has trouble coping with one another, and therefore, world. The heroes are located in a world where wish and the real are mixed up, tragic and comic are interwoven, the choice

becomes a real catastrophe, and disconnected situations are what determine the individualsё potential client into the future life. The two killers in The Dumb Waiter are locked up in a room before they carry out their getting rid of. Pinter contrasts the assault of their jobs with the commonplace terms and concerns; on the surface we've a bare plot associated with a complicated implication underneath it. It reveals a far more complex reality that's not comprehensible when observed superficially; such styles as loneliness, lack of communication, fear of the world outside the house, and the terror of future end up being the major matter of the absurdist article writer. It probes into the fact of manёs position in the world and his inquiry for knowledge. Both characters on the stage, though obviously limited and undeveloped, take a look at a deeper and wider level of human lifestyle where man is a play-thing utilized by some superior beings (here someone called Wilson whose personal information is unclear) that can be played their functions on the level like puppets of no importance. Unaware Gus asks many questions, inquiring for knowledge, wanting to step beyond oneёs limits, an effort which is futile in existentialism. Gus is the one who commits the criminal offenses and wants to transcend and discover the cause-and-effect romantic relationship throughout the events, while, because the result in existentialism precedes the cause, reasoning can be an absurd thing. However, Gusёs desire for knowledge is discernible from the beginning of the play: Ben. Kaw! What about this? Pay attention to this! He identifies the paper A man of eighty-seven wanted to cross the street. But there is a great deal of traffic, see? He couldnёt see how he was going to squeeze through. So he crawled under a lorry. Gus. He what? Ben. He crawled under a lorry. A stationary lorry. Gus. No? Ben. The lorry started out and ran over him. Gus. Continue! Ben. Thatёs what it says here. Gus. Escape. Ben. Itёs enough to make you want to puke, isnёt it? Gus. Who encouraged him to do a thing like that? Ben. A man of eighty-seven crawling under a lorry! Gus. Itёs astounding. Ben. Itёs down within black and white. Gus. Incredible. Or considering another part of the play: GUS I asked you a question. BEN Enough! GUS (with growing agitation). I asked you before. Who transferred in? You said folks who acquired it before migrated out. Well, who moved in? BEN (hunched). Shut up GUS I advised you, didn't I? BEN (ranking). Shut up! GUS (feverishly). I told you before who had this place, didn't I? I advised you BEN strikes him viciously on the shoulder. I advised you who ran this place, didn't I? BEN strikes him viciously on the shoulder As it sometimes appears in this starting conversation, It is clear here that Gus is no more the uncertain and subservient spouse. Gus questions the probability of that event in the population. He is looking for the cause, the origin or drive by asking, "Who suggested him to do a thing like that?" Meanwhile, Ben accepts it as it is without questioning its opportunity. "Itёs down here in black and white", he simply declares. Gus wants to know more about his job, about the disorders he recognizes in the basement or those who are on the top floor. It is this perpetual questioning that entrants him as the sufferer of the final scene. He's Benёs Labrador, doing exactly as told as if he were unable to think for himself. Gus questions everything: Oh, I needed to ask you something?. . . Gus. What time is he getting back in touch? Ben reads. What time is he getting back in touch? Ben. Whatёs the problem with you? It could be any time. Any time. . . Gus (moves to the foot of Ben's bed). Well, I was going to ask you a question. Ben. What? Gus. Perhaps you have noticed enough time that tank will take to load? Ben. What container? Gus. Within the lavatory. Here Gus is after knowledge in order to decrease the fear of unidentified in himself while, Ben by preventing the thought of danger, does not allow the dread to imprison his head. This, of course, makes the complete difference. Thus, the desire for knowledge itself causes the ultimate catastrophe (the murder of Gus). If Ben possessed the data to respond to Gusёs questions, there would be no discord by any means, and Gus could react more easily, or expire knowingly. But life in Pinterёs view, like all other absurdist-existentialist freelance writers, is a huge game in which everything happens arbitrarily, and the gun that you have aimed at the other, may suddenly turn back at yourself.

In all, the desire for knowledge and the inability to obtain the necessary knowledge have become real disasters in the world of existence. That's the reason the existential absurdity dominates the mind and spirit of the present day life. If people in our time fall in to the void of desperation and loneliness, it is because they find nothing at all. The thing to that they can cling as a shelter from the worries of the earthly living is a tiny room, a room which, in most cases, fails to protect its own dwellers. Gus and Ben stay in the basement not knowing when and who they are bought to wipe out; so towards the end with the Dumb Waiter when Gus goes to drink one glass of water, Ben is given the order to wipe out him. Ben is the older spouse. He utters expressions such as: You'd better eat them quick; There is a job to do; You need to wait; You'll have to do without it; You'd better prepare yourself anyway; You mustn't shout like this; and so on. It is obvious, then, that Gus is subordinate to Ben. But a more interesting difference is their view and frame of mind towards the work they are about to complete. Ben is evidently secure in his knowledge that the objective will be through as standard. For him, it is merely another job to be performed. Gus on the contrary, is puzzled and hesitant. Expressions like: time is he getting back in touch? Why does you stop the automobile this morning in the middle of that highway?; Who it will likely be tonight?; Who's first got it now?; If indeed they moved away, who's migrated in? will be the evident of his hesitancy. Ben handles Gus evasively, as though reluctant to reply or discuss the mission. To Gus's questions Ben claims other questions such as: What's the matter together with you?; What do you indicate. . . ?; or an intimidating What? Gus is the one who always surrenders. Ben by responding to Gus derivatively makes him to improve the span of the dialog and speak about unimportant things such as the crockery, the lavatory, the bed linens, etc. Gus's oddity makes him question and think about about Wilson (the unseen authority) on a regular basis. Wilson is the third persona, not present on the level, who delivers the orders as any waiter would do and who might in fact signify the "higher specialist". At the end of the play, it is this unseen character that shows vitality and control not only on the occurrences but also over Ben. Which means that Ben is not the "all-knowing" participant as we may believe initially perception. Instead, his perspective is one perfectly defined in: Stop wanting to know. You've got a job to do. The trend is to just do it and shut up? Gus on the other hand is wary and uneasy. Such uneasiness is shown through his expressing: expectation he's got a shilling, anyway, if he comes; I'm going to be glad if it is over tonight; I hope the bloke's not heading to get exited tonight or anything; that's what I want to know. '

Orders receive to Ben, who accepts and repeats them in a usually mechanical way. This notion of mechanization in Ben's behavior is also shown in the passage where he provides instructions to Gus and makes him replicate them one at a time. And unlike Gus, he's ready to brutally follow instructions without requesting questions. Actually, Ben is involved with a situation where he is an unconscious sufferer. In The Dumb Waiterё action or even conversation is not that significant, Pinter uses great detail in his stage guidelines: Gus ties his laces, goes up, yawns and commences to walk slowly and gradually to the entranceway, left. He halts, looks down, and shakes his footё. Although Ben and Gus seemingly have nil to say to each other, Pinter shows how monotonous meaningless conversation can quickly change into disturbing and unnecessary assault that waits underneath suburban contemporary society: Ben: Light the Kettle! Itёs common use!ё Gus: I think youёve first got it wrongThey say put on the kettleё Ben: (getting him with two hands by the throat, at armёs size) THE KETTLE, YOU FOOLё Ben's most visible reaction to Gus's frequent questions about the nature of their careers is silence. Pinter has said that silence is a form of nakedness, and this speech can be an attempt to cover this nakedness. What is unspoken is often more important that what is spoken. The works begin in a light, often comical tone that steadily changes to 1 of anxiety, discord and fear where the risk of an anonymous, powerful, often omniscient risk prevails. This dark presence controls everything, including the peopleё lives. The heroesё a reaction to this threat is the foundation of turmoil and action in Pinterёs play. Like in many modern takes on the climax and the quality will be the same moment. INSIDE THE Dumb Waiter this climax is at the final moment in time when Ben realizes he must turn his gun by himself spouse. Ben overcomes this obstacle very easily when he turns the gun by himself spouse and we come to understand that Gus was right to question and believe that something was incorrect.


www. literature-online. com

www. bartleby. com.

www. sparknotes. com www. londontheatre. co. uk www. elliteskils. com Martin Esslin, the Theatre of the Absurd, New York: Doubleday, 1961. The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter. Edited by Peter Raby, Cambridge University Press Lavine, T. Z. (2002). Modern Existentialist and Phenomenological Studies, TeknoSurfAdWave http://www. teknosurf3. com, accessed 2002. Audi, R. (1995). Ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Viewpoint, NY: Cambridge University Press. Blackham, H. J. (1961). Six Existentialist Thinkers, London: Rutledge. Buck, R. A. (1997). Pinter's the Dumb Waiter, Explicator, 56 (1), 45- 48. Corrigan, R. (1961). Theatre in the Twentieth Century, NY: Grove Press.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment