Absurdity Of Existence Illustrated In Dumb Waiter

‘There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false’. I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?’ ( Harold Pinter ) The theme of nothingness is one of the major themes discussed in existentialism, which, while pervading the movement, shows a common affinity between the Absurd and Existentialism rejecting all of the philosophies, sciences, political theories, and religions which fail to mirror man‟s essence as a conscious being. Existentialism discovers and discusses the themes and topics which present a living crueler, darker, and more hopeless than a naturalistic or modern one. Existentialism had a great influence on the thinkers and artists of the time, an influence which led them to the revision of their insight concerning man and his position in the universe. Pinter, like existentialists is involved in the discord of living. His characterization reveals the same anguish apparent in Existentialism. Almost all of the writers who had influenced Pinter‟s dramaturgy (concerning Dumb Waiter, Pinter‟s work is heavily influenced by Samuel Beckett) were either founders or forerunners of the avant-garde Theatre of the Absurd. Pinter sees the funny side of the absurd. Since there is nothing for Pinter that is not funny, he employs a comic way of expression to laugh at everything, even at the tragic parts of existence. In a Pinter play, the apparently funny scene (considering Dumb Waiter, the scene in which Ben rushes toward Gus in a very threatening way) is simultaneously frightening and inhumane in terms of what the characters are experiencing.

The Dumb Waiter, like many other Pinter plays, follows the relationship by which the nature of the man-to-man connection is analyzed. In it nothing is ever accomplished through dialogue. Most human interaction in day-to-day life accomplishes nothing more than passing time. Therefore when reading, or indeed watching the play we are overwhelmed by the futility of existence. Most conversation that occurs between Ben and Gus are pointless, and each character has trouble dealing with each other, and therefore, society. The characters are situated in a world where dream and the real are mixed up, tragic and comic are interwoven, the choice

becomes a real catastrophe, and disconnected situations are what determine the individuals‟ prospect of the future life. The two killers in The Dumb Waiter are locked up in a room before they carry out their killing. Pinter contrasts the violence of their jobs with their commonplace language and concerns; on the surface we have a bare plot accompanying with a complex implication underneath it. It reveals a more complex reality that is not comprehensible when observed superficially; such themes as loneliness, lack of communication, fear of the world outside, and the terror of future become the major concern of the absurdist writer. It probes into the essence of man‟s position in the universe and his inquiry for knowledge. The two characters on the stage, though apparently limited and undeveloped, examine a deeper and wider extent of human existence in which man is a play-thing employed by some superior beings (here someone called Wilson whose identity is unclear) to play their roles on the stage like puppets of no importance. Unaware Gus asks many questions, inquiring for knowledge, attempting to step beyond one‟s limitations, an attempt which is futile in existentialism. Gus is the one who commits the crime and wants to transcend and find the cause-and-effect relationship in the course of the events, while, since the effect in existentialism precedes the cause, reasoning is an absurd thing. However, Gus‟s desire for knowledge is discernible from the very beginning of the play: Ben. Kaw! What about this? Listen to this! He refers to the paper A man of eighty-seven wanted to cross the road. But there was a lot of traffic, see? He couldn‟t 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 and ran over him. Gus. Go on! Ben. That‟s what it says here. Gus. Get away. Ben. It‟s enough to make you want to puke, isn‟t it? Gus. Who advised him to do a thing like that? Ben. A man of eighty-seven crawling under a lorry! Gus. It‟s unbelievable. Ben. It‟s down here in 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 moved in? You said the people who had it before moved out. Well, who moved in? BEN (hunched). Shut up GUS I told you, didn’t I? BEN (standing). Shut up! GUS (feverishly). I told you before who owned this place, didn’t I? I told you BEN hits him viciously on the shoulder. I told you who ran this place, didn’t I? BEN hits him viciously on the shoulder As it is seen in this opening conversation, It is clear here that Gus is no longer the uncertain and subservient partner. Gus questions the possibility of that event in the society. He is looking for the cause, the origin or motivation by asking, “Who advised him to do a thing like that?” Meanwhile, Ben accepts it as it is without questioning its possibility. “It‟s down here in black and white”, he simply states. Gus wants to know more about his job, about the disorders he sees in the basement or those who are on the upper floor. It is this perpetual questioning that entrants him as the victim of the final scene. He is Ben‟s Labrador, doing exactly as told as if he were unable to think for himself. Gus questions everything: Oh, I wanted to ask you something? . . . Gus. What time is he getting in touch? Ben reads. What time is he getting in touch? Ben. What‟s the matter 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. Have you noticed the time that tank takes to fill? Ben. What tank? Gus. In the lavatory. Here Gus is after knowledge so as to decrease the fear of unknown in himself while, Ben by preventing the thought of danger, does not allow the fear to imprison his mind. This, of course, makes the whole difference. Thus, the desire for knowledge itself causes the final catastrophe (the murder of Gus). If Ben had the knowledge to respond to Gus‟s questions, there would be no conflict at all, and Gus could act more freely, or die knowingly. But life in Pinter‟s view, like all other absurdist-existentialist writers, is a big game in which everything happens arbitrarily, and the gun that you have aimed at the other, may suddenly turn back at yourself.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

In all, the desire for knowledge and the inability to obtain the necessary knowledge have become real disasters in the world of existence. That is why the existential absurdity dominates the mind and soul of the modern life. If people in our time fall into the void of desperation and loneliness, it is because they find nothing. The only thing to which they can cling as a shelter from the fears of the earthly living is a small 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 ordered to kill; so towards the end of The Dumb Waiter when Gus goes to drink a glass of water, Ben is given the order to kill him. Ben is the senior partner. He utters expressions such as: You’d better eat them quick; You’ve got a job to do; You’ll have to wait; You’ll have to do without it; You’d better get ready anyway; You shouldn’t shout like that; and so on. It is evident, then, that Gus is subordinate to Ben. But a more interesting difference is their view and attitude towards the job they are about to accomplish. Ben is apparently secure in his knowledge that the mission will be through as usual. For him, it is only another job to be performed. Gus on the contrary, is puzzled and hesitant. Expressions like: time is he getting in touch? Why did you stop the car this morning in the middle of that road?; Who it’s going to be tonight?; Who’s got it now?; If they moved out, who’s moved in? are the evident of his hesitancy. Ben deals with Gus evasively, as if reluctant to respond or talk about the mission. To Gus’s questions Ben states other questions such as: What’s the matter with you?; What do you mean…?; or an intimidating What? Gus is the one who always surrenders. Ben by answering Gus derivatively forces him to change the course of the conversation and talk about unimportant things like the crockery, the lavatory, the bed sheets, etc. Gus’s oddity makes him question and wonder about Wilson (the unseen authority) all the time. Wilson is the third character, not present on the stage, who delivers the orders just as any waiter would do and who might in fact represent the “higher authority”. At the end of the play, it is this invisible character that shows power and control not only over the events but also over Ben. This means that Ben is not the “all-knowing” participant as we might believe at first sight. Instead, his perspective is one perfectly defined in: Stop wondering. You’ve got a job to do. Why don’t you just do it and shut up? Gus on the other hand is wary and uneasy. Such uneasiness is shown through his expressing: „hope he’s got a shilling, anyway, if he comes; I’ll be glad when it’s over tonight; I hope the bloke’s not going to get exited tonight or anything; that’s what I want to know.’

Orders are given to Ben, who accepts and repeats them in a mostly mechanical way. This notion of mechanization in Ben’s behavior is also shown in the passage where he gives the instructions to Gus and makes him repeat them one by one. And unlike Gus, he’s prepared to brutally follow instructions without asking questions. Actually, Ben is involved in a situation in which he is an unconscious victim. In „The Dumb Waiter‟ action or even speech is not that significant, Pinter uses great detail in his stage directions: „Gus ties his laces, rises, yawns and begins to walk slowly to the door, left. He stops, looks down, and shakes his foot‟. Although Ben and Gus seemingly have nothing to say to each other, Pinter shows how tedious meaningless conversation can quickly change into disturbing and unnecessary violence that waits underneath suburban society: Ben: „Light the Kettle! It‟s common usage!‟ Gus: „I think you‟ve got it wrong…They say put on the kettle‟ …Ben: (grabbing him with two hands by the throat, at arm‟s length) „THE KETTLE, YOU FOOL‟ Ben’s most prominent response to Gus’s constant questions about the nature of their jobs is silence. Pinter has said that silence is a form of nakedness, and that speech is an attempt to cover this nakedness. What is unspoken is often more important that what is spoken. The plays begin in a light, often comical tone that gradually changes to one of anxiety, conflict and fear where the threat of an unknown, powerful, often omniscient danger prevails. This dark presence controls everything, including the characters‟ lives. The characters‟ reaction to this danger is the source of conflict and action in Pinter‟s play. Like in many modern plays the climax and the resolution are the same moment. In The Dumb Waiter this climax is at the final moment when Ben realizes he must turn his gun on his own partner. Ben overcomes this obstacle quite easily when he turns the gun on his own partner and we come to realize that Gus was right to question and suspect that something was wrong.

Sources

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 Philosophy, New York: 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, New York: Grove Press.