need help regarding absurd theatre.its characteristics, major authors, notable works al tat u cn gv as help

Last island has posted a nice brief intro which u can check out at

http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-optio...re-absurd.html

__________________
"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin".

It is very clear from the very word “Absurd” that it means nonsensical, opposed to reason, something silly, foolish, senseless, ridiculous and topsy-turvy. So, a drama having a cock and bull story would be called an absurd play. Moreover, a play having loosely constructed plot, unrecognizable characters, metaphysical called an absurd play. Actually the ‘Absurd Theatre’ believes that humanity’s plight is purposeless in an existence, which is out of harmony with its surroundings.

This thing i.e. the awareness about the lack of purpose produces a state of metaphysical anguish which is the central theme of the Absurd Theatre. On an absurd play logical construction, rational ideas and intellectually viable arguments are abandoned and instead of these the irrationality for experience is acted out on the stage.

The “Theatre of the Absurd” is a term coined by Hungarian-born critic Martin Esslin, who made it the title of his 1962 book on the subject. The term refers to a particular type of play which first became popular during the 1950s and 1960s and which presented on stage the philosophy articulated by French philosopher Albert Camus in his 1942 essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, in which he defines the human condition as basically meaningless. Camus argued that humanity had to resign itself to recognizing that a fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be seen as absurd.

Esslin regarded the term “Theatre of the Absurd” merely as a "device" by which he meant to bring attention to certain fundamental traits discernible in the works of a range of playwrights. The playwrights loosely grouped under the label of the absurd attempt to convey their sense of bewilderment, anxiety, and wonder in the face of an inexplicable universe. According to Esslin, the five defining playwrights of the movement are Eugène Ionesco, Samuel Beckett, Jean Genet, Arthur Adamov, and Harold Pinter, although these writers were not always comfortable with the label and sometimes preferred to use terms such as "Anti-Theater" or "New Theater". Other playwrights associated with this type of theatre include Tom Stoppard, Arthur Kopit, Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Fernando Arrabal, Edward Albee, N.F. Simpson, Boris Vian, Peter Weiss, Vaclav Havel, and Jean Tardieu.

Although the Theatre of the Absurd is often traced back to avant-garde experiments of the 1920s and 1930s, its roots, in actuality, date back much further. Absurd elements first made their appearance shortly after the rise of Greek drama, in the wild humor and buffoonery of Old Comedy and the plays of Aristophanes in particular. They were further developed in the late classical period by Lucian, Petronius and Apuleius, in Menippean satire, a tradition of carnivalistic literature, depicting “a world upside down.” The morality plays of the Middle Ages may be considered a precursor to the Theatre of the Absurd, depicting everyman-type characters dealing with allegorical and sometimes existential problems. This tradition would carry over into the Baroque allegorical drama of Elizabethan times, when dramatists such as John Webster, Cyril Tourneur, Jakob Biederman and Calderon would depict the world in mythological archetypes. During the nineteenth century, absurd elements may be noted in certain plays by Ibsen and, more obviously, Strindberg, but the acknowledged predecessor of what would come to be called the Theatre of the Absurd is Alfred Jarry's "monstrous puppet-play" Ubu Roi (1896) which presents a mythical, grotesque figure, set amidst a world of archetypal images. Ubu Roi is a caricature, a terrifying image of the animal nature of man and his cruelty. In the 1920s and 1930s, the surrealists expanded on Jarry’s experiments, basing much of their artistic theory on the teachings of Freud and his emphasis on the role of the subconscious mind which they acknowledged as a great, positive healing force. Their intention was to do away with art as a mere imitation of surface reality, instead demanding that it should be more real than reality and deal with essences rather than appearances. The Theatre of the Absurd was also anticipated in the dream novels of James Joyce and Franz Kafka who created archetypes by delving into their own subconscious and exploring the universal, collective significance of their own private obsessions. Silent film and comedy, as well as the tradition of verbal nonsense in the early sound films of Laurel and Hardy, W.C. Fields, and the Marx Brothers would also contribute to the development of the Theatre of the Absurd, as did the verbal "nonsense" of François Rabelais, Lewis Carroll, Edward Lear, and Christian Morgernstern. But it would take a catastrophic world event to actually bring about the birth of the new movement.

World War II was the catalyst that finally brought the Theatre of the Absurd to life. The global nature of this conflict and the resulting trauma of living under threat of nuclear annihilation put into stark perspective the essential precariousness of human life. Suddenly, one did not need to be an abstract thinker in order to be able to reflect upon absurdity: the experience of absurdity became part of the average person's daily existence. During this period, a “prophet” of the absurd appeared. Antonin Artaud (1896-1948) rejected realism in the theatre, calling for a return to myth and magic and to the exposure of the deepest conflicts within the human mind. He demanded a theatre that would produce collective archetypes and create a modern mythology. It was no longer possible, he insisted, to keep using traditional art forms and standards that had ceased being convincing and lost their validity. Although he would not live to see its development, The Theatre of the Absurd is precisely the new theatre that Artaud was dreaming of. It openly rebelled against conventional theatre. It was, as Ionesco called it “anti-theatre”. It was surreal, illogical, conflictless and plotless. The dialogue often seemed to be complete gibberish. And, not surprisingly, the public’s first reaction to this new theatre was incomprehension and rejection.

The most famous, and most controversial, absurdist play is probably Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. The characters of the play are strange caricatures who have difficulty communicating the simplest of concepts to one another as they bide their time awaiting the arrival of Godot. The language they use is often ludicrous, and following the cyclical patter, the play seems to end in precisely the same condition it began, with no real change having occurred. In fact, it is sometimes referred to as “the play where nothing happens.” Its detractors count this a fatal flaw and often turn red in the face fomenting on its inadequacies. It is mere gibberish, they cry, eyes nearly bulging out of their head--a prank on the audience disguised as a play. The plays supporters, on the other hand, describe it is an accurate parable on the human condition in which “the more things change, the more they are the same.” Change, they argue, is only an illusion. In 1955, the famous character actor Robert Morley predicted that the success of Waiting for Godot meant “the end of theatre as we know it.” His generation may have gloomily accepted this prediction, but the younger generation embraced it. They were ready for something new—something that would move beyond the old stereotypes and reflect their increasingly complex understanding of existence.

Whereas traditional theatre attempts to create a photographic representation of life as we see it, the Theatre of the Absurd aims to create a ritual-like, mythological, archetypal, allegorical vision, closely related to the world of dreams. The focal point of these dreams is often man's fundamental bewilderment and confusion, stemming from the fact that he has no answers to the basic existential questions: why we are alive, why we have to die, why there is injustice and suffering. Ionesco defined the absurdist everyman as “Cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots … lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless.” The Theatre of the Absurd, in a sense, attempts to reestablish man’s communion with the universe. Dr. Jan Culik writes, “Absurd Theatre can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age, by making man aware of the ultimate realities of his condition, by instilling in him again the lost sense of cosmic wonder and primeval anguish. The Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is mystical experience in confronting the limits of human condition.”

One of the most important aspects of absurd drama is its distrust of language as a means of communication. Language, it seems to say, has become nothing but a vehicle for conventionalized, stereotyped, meaningless exchanges. Dr. Culik explains, “Words failed to express the essence of human experience, not being able to penetrate beyond its surface. The Theatre of the Absurd constituted first and foremost an onslaught on language, showing it as a very unreliable and insufficient tool of communication. Absurd drama uses conventionalised speech, clichés, slogans and technical jargon, which it distorts, parodies and breaks down. By ridiculing conventionalised and stereotyped speech patterns, the Theatre of the Absurd tries to make people aware of the possibility of going beyond everyday speech conventions and communicating more authentically.”

Absurd drama subverts logic. It relishes the unexpected and the logically impossible. According to Sigmund Freud, there is a feeling of freedom we can enjoy when we are able to abandon the straitjacket of logic. As Dr. Culik points out, “Rationalist thought, like language, only deals with the superficial aspects of things. Nonsense, on the other hand, opens up a glimpse of the infinite.”

What, then, has become of this wonderful new theatre—this movement that produced some of the most exciting and original dramatic works of the twentieth century? Conventional wisdom, perhaps, suggests that the Theatre of the Absurd was a product of a very specific point in time and, because that time has passed, it has gone the way of the dinosaur. In a revised edition of his seminal work, Martin Esslin disagrees: “Every artistic movement or style has at one time or another been the prevailing fashion. It if was no more than that, it disappeared without a trace. If it had a genuine content, if it contributed to an enlargement of human perception, if it created new modes of human expression, if it opened up new areas of experience, however, it was bound to be absorbed into the main stream of development. And this is what happened with the Theatre of the Absurd which, apart from having been in fashion, undoubtedly was a genuine contribution to the permanent vocabulary of dramatic expression…. [it] is being absorbed into the mainstream of the tradition from which … it had never been entirely absent … The playwrights of the post-Absurdist era have at their disposal, then, a uniquely enriched vocabulary of dramatic technique. They can use these devices freely, separately and in infinite variety of combinations with those bequeathed to them by other dramatic conventions of the past.” In a New York Times piece entitled “Which Theatre is the Absurd One?”, Edward Albee agrees with Esslin’s final analysis, writing, “For just as it is true that our response to color and form was forever altered once the impressionist painters put their minds to canvas, it is just as true that the playwrights of The Theatre of the Absurd have forever altered our response to the theatre.”

hi, i have notes on pinter, beckket and other absurd dramatists, if u want . let me knowi will mail it.

Topic:-
A Comparitive Study of the Caretaker by Pinter &
the Waiting for Godot by Backett
Outline:
 Introduction
 Themetic analysis
Comparison
• Isolation and Human Relationships
• Lack of Communication
• Meaninglessness of life
• Identity
• Waiting and Uncertainty
• Menace Exploitation and Clash between good and evil
Contrast
• Realism
• Metaphysical theme

 Stylistic analysis
• Plot
• Setting
• Characterization
• Dialogues
• Symbols

 Conclusion






Two world wars proved mega events for the entire world. They brought drastic change in all the spheres of human life and literature was no exception. Many new techniques entered in the realm of literature in order to stage existentialist glimpses of terrible moments in people’s life. The Theatre of Absurd or Absurdist Theatre is of those techniques. It is basically
“A kind of drama that presents a view of absurdity of human condition by abandoning usual or rational devices…conceived in perplexity and spiritual anguish , the theatre of Absurd portrays not a series of pattern of images presenting people as bewildered being in an incomprehensible universe.”
“Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose…cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, and useless.”
The people of that era were living in absurd condition. They had heart rendering past, tormenting present and uncertain future. So to present such condition of human life, traditional devices of romantic themes, soft imagery, coherent dialogues and plots having proper beginning , middle and end were replaced by the themes of isolation, timelessness, identity etc, harsh imagery, incoherent dialogues and linear plots.
The products of post war generation like Samuel Backett, Harold Pinter, Edward Albee, Jean Gent and many others practiced this technique of the Absurdist Theatre in 1950s and 1960s to stage the exotic, chaotic and deteriorated state of mankind. The Caretaker by Pinter and the Waiting for Godot by Backett are hailed as classical examples of the Theater of Absurd.
In both of the plays themes of isolation and lack of human relationship are very dominant. Each character of the plays is fundamentally isolated from the other. There is fear of loneliness and essential inability to connect. The characters lack family relationships. They are disconnected and even hostile.
In the Caretaker, at the very beginning of the play the fear of isolation and disconnection is very evident. Aston brings Davies, an unknown man, to his home to live with him regardless of the fact that he had his own brother, in order to overcome his fear of isolation and bad relation with his brother Mick. On the other hand in the Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon are disconnected. They are not able to communicate properly but they do not abandon each other from the fear of isolation.
The characters of both of the plays are physically together but not mentally. They are not fulfilling the basic condition of living together that is to communicate properly. Their conversation is not communication but only the exchange of words .As in the Caretaker
“Davies: You got anymore Blacks out here?
Aston: (holding out the shoes) See if these is any good?”
In the Waiting for Godot
“Vladimir: I felt lonely.
Estragon: I had a dream.”
In both of the dialogues there is no connection. The characters are not able to understand each other’s feelings. It highlights the lack of communication.
Communication is meant to give meaning to life. Here in these plays, communication is not fulfilling its purpose, resulting in chaos and meaninglessness of life. the characters engage themselves in meaningless activities to give meaning to their life, like in the Caretaker Aston engages himself in repairing an electric plug. He wants to know and explore the things. On the other hand in the Waiting for Godot, Gogo and Didi are all the time busy in games, exercise and even in calling names. Such petty activities are supposed to give meaning to their meaningless life. “Nothing to be done” is repeated many times in the Waiting for Godot to highlight the meaninglessness of the people’s life.
Another very dominant theme of the plays is that of identity. The characters are yearning for identity. They are nothing in themselves. In the Caretaker identity is linkeded with shoes to go to Sidcup to bring documents which are going to give identity to Davies. In the Waiting for Godot, the characters have no identity as individuals; they don’t know who they are? What was their past? What is there present or what will be their future? They are non identities. As at one point says,
“Pozzo: who are you?
Vladimir: We are men.”
They are nothing more than men.
The quest for identity and waiting is suspended. The characters are not certain whether this waiting will come to an end or not .As in the Caretaker from beginning till the end, Davies is waiting for weather to break, to get a pair of shoes, to go to Sidcup and to acquire his identity. In the Waiting for Godot the characters don’t leave the place because they are ‘waiting for Godot’, an unknown and unseen figure. The plays come to an end but the waiting and uncertainty continues.
Being post war plays themes of menace, exploitation and the clash between good and evil are also very dominant. In the Caretaker Mick assaults Davies both physically and verbally. On the other hand in the Waiting for Godot Pozzo is the one who assaults and exploits his servant Lucky.
Both of the plays are tragicomedies. Laughter has been brought through tragedy and suffering of the characters. Actions of the characters make the audience upset even when they laugh. Whole the speech only seems to be funny; the character in question is actually confronting some menace and fighting a battle for his life. The scene of Davies being chased by the vacuum cleaner creates a comic situation for us, but for him it is a terrifying experience. In the Waiting for Godot the activities performed by Gogo and Didi appears to be quite funny but in fact they are not.
Pinter, though being spiritual son to Beckett, is a little bit different from him. Pinter is more realistic in all regards. Intensity of metaphysical theme is not as apparent in his works as in Bekett’s works. The Caretaker revolves around property, construction, documents, electrical appliances which are more material, whereas the Waiting for Godot is based on Godot, a spiritual being.
The traditional ideas of plot, structure, action etc cannot be applied on Samuel Becket’s play the Waiting for Godot. There is both linear and cyclical structure in the Waiting for godot. The structural devices can be seen in dialogues, characterization and bringing out of the themes. In cyclical structure there is no change, no movement, developments nothing happens but linear things have their ways of changing.
The major structural devices are parallels. The two acts are bold experiments in use of parallelism, which is saved from the monotony by an admixture of contrast in it. Repetition or paradigm is dominant in the play. In each act Vladimir asks Estragon how he spent the night, in each act Vladimir offers to embrace Estragon and latter does not. Every now and then, Estragon says:
“Let’s go”
Vladimir patiently says:
“We can’t”
Estragon wants to know why not, and Vladimir replies that:
“We are waiting for Godot.”
This is followed every time by a sigh of Estragon. In each act Estragon wants to be allowed to sleep. In each act when they were at the ends of thin wit, they indulge in meaningless activities. By the arrival of Lucky and Pozzo, in both the acts the tramps are helped at a particularly tedious moment. When they feel that their situation is absolutely unbearable, the idea of committing suicide came in their mind but in each case there is a major hurdle in their way. Each time they console themselves with the thought that they will bring a piece of rope next day with which they would commit suicide.
Recognition and forgetfulness also act as structural principles in both the acts. In both the acts the tramps take the arrival of somebody else to be that of the Godot. The wait is terminated in both the acts by the arrival of the messenger. Before going away they together think of suicide. In each act they say that they are leaving and do not leave the place. The conversation itself takes a rhythmic course. In act 1 Vladimir asks Estragon about his foot and Estragon in return asks Vladimir about his kidney problem. Vladimir wants to relate to Estragon an incident in the New Testament and Estragon in return wants to relate an anecdote about an Englishman, but both are not ready to hear each other. Vladimir requests Estragon to take interest in his conversation. Similarly Pozzo asks Vladimir and Estragon to listen his speech.
In both the acts Vladimir asks Estragon whether he recognizes the place, each time Estragon’s memory fails, same is the case with Pozzo. In act 2 Pozzo is unable to recall that he met Estragon and Vladimir on the previous day. Similarly Estragon and Pozzo also disbelieves the common notion of time and place. In both the acts Estragon sleeps soundly and mean while Vladimir feels boredom. Estragon is waked up by Vladimir. Estragon has night mare every time to tell to Vladimir but Vladimir is not interested to hear it.
Both the acts end with the same pair of dialogues:
Estragon: Let’s go
Vladimir: We can’t.
Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot.
The play gains a structural cohesion because of the rhythmic repetition of certain themes, incidents and situations.
The structure of Waiting for Godot is unique. Nevertheless there are important modifications in act 2 which makes us pronounce that the pattern outside Estragon and Vladimir’s world is linear. The tree in act 2 shows sign of growth as four or five leaves have sprout on the dead branches of it. Lucky and Pozzo do arrive as in act 1. But in act 2 Pozzo has become blind and Lucky dumb. The messenger boy of act 1 looks after Godot’s goats whereas the messenger boy of act 2 looks after his sheep. In act 2 lucky does not deliver a tirade.
The Waiting for Godot on philosophical levels maintains a close relationship with the philosophy of Hera-Clatus who is of the view that “change is the crust of life.”But Samuel Beckett presents an opposite situation where he depicts “nothing happens twice”. There are anecdotes, incidents, agreements, conversations, contradictions, questions and meaningless answers.
On the other hand the setting of the Harold Pinter’s Caretaker is realistic. There is nothing strange about the room, and the house is thought by Pinter in Hackney in London. Pinter has expressed his delight in the fact that the medium of film allowed the surroundings of the house to be shown. It means he wished his audiences to be aware that The Caretaker was set in a real house in a real setting. If the setting is realistic then the narrative technique is straightforward. He uses no ‘flashback’ techniques and allows the play to develop in a chronological sequence of events.
It is doubtful whether Pinter has a philosophy or not to convey because he does not seem to put his own philosophy into the mouth of one of his characters. There are three acts in the play just like the three characters. The first is Aston and Davies the second, Mick and Davies's, the third, a complex interaction among the three. The time structure from the first to the second is almost continuous while there is a temporal rupture between the second and the third. Each act of the Care Taker builds up to a climax at its conclusion. Act 1 with Mick’s assault on Davies’s final rejection. It may be purely coincidence that each climax concentrates attention on a different character. The play’s unity is strengthened by the insertion of certain incidents or ideas that recur throughout, for example, the draught on Davies’s bed, Davies’s body odor, the shed, the journey to Sidcup, repetition in different contexts of the words ‘shed’ ‘clock’ ‘weather’ and ‘animal’. Aston’s meddling with the same plug is also a recurrent feature.
Each act is dominated by one of the characters. In Act 1, audience learns most about Davies. Act 2 introduces Mick; the entry of Mick is delayed until Act 2 for dramatic reasons. The second act is dominated by Aston and his concluding speech. There are only three characters in the play and no changes of scene. Act 3 shows Davies and Mick in a friendly mood but Aston and Mick fail to support Davies at crucial moment. So the end of the play returns the audience to the state of affairs that existed in the beginning.
The structure of the play is therefore circular and the characters in the play are part of this structure, as they find themselves in the end of the play in exactly the same position as they were in the beginning. It is as if characters are locked up in a circle out of which they cannot break and escape becomes a dream for them.
In both the plays traditional plot structure are not taken in consideration. And plot of both the plays consist of absurd repetition of cliché and routine. There is a menacing outside force that remains a mystery in both the plays. For example in Waiting for Godot both Vladimir and Estragon waits for Godot but it remain a mystery till the end of the play. Similarly Mick and Aston both promises to provide support to Davies but in the end both of them left him with inexplicable reasons. So absence, emptiness, nothingness and unresolved mysteries are central features of plot of both the plays.
Characterization is an important aspect of the Waiting for Godot and the Caretaker. In both of the literary works, the writers use characters to express their own views and enable the readers to understand the theme and the messages. It is basically a key to establish the theme of the plays as well. The plays are about loneliness, isolation, lack of communication among the people, loss of personal identities and the human nature. There are three characters which have been introduced in The Caretaker by Pinter. Davies, Aston and his brother Mick.
Davies is an old man in his sixties. His dressing shows that he is presumably dirty. He is a tramp who is actually a social victim. He has not good feelings at his low position in life and the way people treat him “like dirt”. So he expresses this resentment by an illogical hatred of “Blacks, Greeks _ _ _ _ _ _the lot of them”. He is looking for his identity because he has lost his papers. For this very reason, he wondered from one place to another.
Aston in his early thirties wears such kind of clothes that is often associated with conformity and respectability. He is less religious but more spiritual sort of the man. He cherishes a statue of Buddha and sometimes he is more generous and sympathetic towards Davies. It is obvious in the play that he rescues Davies and offers him each and everything from room to his personal belongings.
Mick, the younger of the two, is in his late twenties. In the middle of the play he seems to be a successful business man, but his frequent changes in attitude make it difficult for the readers to explore his motivation. His inconsistency seems to indicate that at least part of the time he is lying.
These characters are trying to give some artificial meanings to their lives. They are neither talking about religion nor waiting for God as the readers observe the characters Vladimir and Estragon. In the play, The Caretaker, the characters are more concerned towards their own lives. Davies central concern is talking about shoes, identity and going back to Sidcup. Aston wants to build a shed and Mick was concerned about decoration of the room.
In the Waiting for Godot, Beckett has presented four characters, to tramps Vladimir and Estragon, a cruel master Pozzo and his slave Lucky. All these characters pass their time by indulging themselves in some sort of games and useless, meaningless activities. Apparently these activities seem to be senseless but symbolize meaninglessness of human beings. In contrast with the characters of The Caretaker, these characters also try to give some meaning to their lives. They also tried to find out the purpose of their existence.
Vladimir is more philosophical while Estragon concerns more about physical needs. Another character Pozzo is God like figure, as God in the Heavens and his creature, the human beings are suffering on the earth, same as Lucky is suffering. He is being ill treated but at the same time he does not want to leave his cruel master. The reason is that his life will become meaningless and he will have to decide and think fir himself and does not want to think. His name “Lucky” is very ironic because he is a slave and not so lucky. He is being treated as a circus animal so all the characters are more clownish rather than human beings.
The very important thing is that both of the writers have not introduced any female character in their plays because woman symbolizes re-generation. She stands for giving organization and meaning to one’s life.
Language is seen as a tool of communication but there is a breakdown of communication in characters in both of the plays. Words are seen as tool of conveying meaning and give us a sense of security but chopping and non- sequitre dialogues show that man has lost his sense of talking and hearing. Their dialogues are meaningless and it shows that they presence in this universe is meaningless. They are of no use.
As in the Waiting for Godot in act 1,
Vladimir: where was I……? How's your foot?
Estragon: Swelling visibly
Vladimir: ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story?
In The Caretaker,
Davies: Listen! I don't know who you are!
Mick: what bed you sleep in?
Davies: Now look here_____
Pauses and silences are very significant in both plays which show that characters are searching for words to communicate. Articulation is not natural but requires effort and they have to think. They are critical to the plays. Pauses are used to portray the concept that language is vague and meaningless tool people use to hide their own discomforts. The pauses indicate that to fill the silent gap a person must think about what they are going to say.
“Vladimir: there's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet. (He takes off his hat again, peers inside it, knocks on the crown, blows into it, and puts it on again). This is getting alarming (silence). Vladimir deep thought, Estragon pulling at his toes.) One of the thieves was saved (Pause). Its reasonable percentage. (Pause)”
In The Caretaker,
“Davies: nothing but wind then.
Pause.
Aston: yes, when the wind gets up it……
Pause.
Davies: yes……
Aston: Mmmm…..
Pause.”
Repetition in dialogues shows that they have nothing to say. Just to avoid loneliness, they are repeating the dialogues and even on occasions they are repeating each others dialogues.
“Vladimir: from death, from death”
But in the Caretaker, Davies repeats his dialogue again And again
“You know what that bastard monk said to me?”
There is a difference between the Waiting for Godot and the Caretaker and that is that sometimes characters repeat other's dialogue in the Waiting for Godot as,
“Estragon: what did we do yesterday?
Vladimir: what did we do yesterday?”
There are also long speeches in both plays which are meaningless. As in the Waiting for Godot, Pozzo's speech is delivered in the manner of robot. It has no punctuation of any kind. Many words, phrases and sentences are repeated. As in the mid of the act 1,
“Pozzo: (with managnanimous gestures.).Let's say no more about it. (He jerks the rope.). Up pig! (Pause). Every time he drops he falls asleep……………………………………….. Lucky sags slowly, until bag and basket touch the ground, then straightens up with a start and begins to sag again. Rhythm of one sleeping on his feet.”
Then Lucky's speech that is almost at the end of the act 1.
Then in the Caretaker, Davies's long speech that apparently seems meaningless and is senseless. There is a lot of repetition of some words and sentences as he says "I said".
“Davies: can't wear shoes that don't fit. Nothing worse. I said to this monk, here, I said, look here, mister, he opened the door, big door, he opened it, look here, mister, I said………………………. So I've had to say with these, you see, they're gone, they're no good, all the good's gone out of them."
The room in which The Caretaker is set is an image of chaos. It is jumbled with multiple objects—beds, containers of nuts and screws, paints buckets, vases, a step ladder, a statue of Buddha, a disconnected gas stove, a kitchen sink, pile of newspapers, a shopping trolley, sideboard drawers, a blow-lamp, planks of wood, etc.
The title of Care Taker is itself a symbol. As a Care Taker is who takes care of home or some thing else but here in the play all characters need some one to take care of them.
Buddha is a symbol of religion, calm and serenity. As Mick breaks the statue of Buddha the organization and order is also broken. The idea of breaking is reflected in the play’s outcome’s the household was reasonably calm and ordered until Buddha was broken and Davies was asked to leave, a disturbance to harmony. The broken toaster is another fundamental component of the play.
The dripping sound in bucket symbolizes the ever present menace in the world.
The over head leak is symbolic of the unstoppable menace and harm that could strike at random.
Davies always wants shoes as he need to go down to get his papers. So shoes are symbol of desire of identity.
Xenophobia is the symbol of growing materialism. The technology was meant to be used for well-fare of humanity but now it was being used to torment them. In past Aston was given Electric shocks so now he is afraid of machinery.
Grey, Blue and Black are recurrent symbol. Black and Grey stands for ambiguity of their mind. And blue color stands for calmness. It highlights their desire for satisfaction and calmness in their life.
Shed shows lacks in their lives. To build s shed is related with future. It highlights the dissatisfaction and lacks in the life.
Dreams are related with past and. Davies in the Caretaker and Vladimir in the Waiting for Godot makes noise while sleeping. It reflects bitter experiences of their life.
Title of the Waiting for Godot is a symbol for the thirst of spirituality. The very first line of the play “A country road. A Tree. Evening” is highly symbolic. It highlights the universality of the text. Tree itself is symbol. Initially the tree was dry, which depicts spiritual bareness of the characters. But later on it sprouted three leaves. It symbolizes the desire for spiritual regeneration.
They are making fun of Bible. It shows that religion has no importance in the lives. Shoes stand for harsh realties of life. Throughout the play Estragon tries to get rid of his shoes that symbolize that man wants to escape from the harsh realties of life.
The playwrights have attempted to portray the picture of a particular society in a same but somewhat different way. The plays express elements of human conduct and in that expression lay their strength.
















References:
1. Beckett,Samuel. (1985) Waiting for Godot , Whitstable Litho Ltd.
2. Pinter,Harold.(1981) Caretaker, Fakenham Press Limited.
3. Connor ,Steven ed., New Casebooks Waiting For Godot and Endgames
4. Cotemporary Critical Essays,The Macmillan press Ltd.
5. Scott,Michell ed.(1986)Harold Pinter: the Birthday Party, the Caretaker and the Homecoming, The Macmillan press Ltd.
6. www.google.com

__________________
When you truly believe that you DEXERVE SUCCESS,your mind will automatically generate ways to achieve it...