Is it not time for my pain-killer? - Humour & Relationships in Beckett's theatrical world

Beckett surely has a way to address his humour, and his theatrical works are no exception to this rule. In my last post I focused on how human despair plays a very crucial role in the comedy of Beckett, and Endgame most certainly delivers that same kind of cynicism. One can see these characters are in a state of disparity through looking at the symbol of the bicycle which has become a motif for happiness in many of Beckett’s works. Clov and Hamm both bring up a point that either of them would had liked a bicycle, but those days have surely passed.






As I discussed in my previous post, a lot of Beckett's humour comes from nonsensical means which is normally an exaggeration of events. This is no different in the case of Endgame, yet Beckett presents it differently through conversation between characters that appears more realistic than in Waiting for Godot. I say this because each of these characters have a sense of identity where before it seemed they were just displacements of a central character. I propose there is actually a development in the characters (character development in a Beckett work!???) which contributes to the humour from how flawed these folks are even at their best. 

Aside from the comedy Beckett explores terrifically, I found the relationship between Ham and Clov to be outstanding (A relationship amongst characters? Did Beckett really write this?). It is quite absurd Clov sticks around no matter how shitty Hamm may treat him, but there is a certain kind of love they share for each other that words cannot describe. They both act like they owe the other for whatever reason, yet it seems there isn't any particular reason they feel this debt of companionship. I believe the reason I thought this was so moving comes from some personal relationships I have had with friends throughout the years. There have been time I have wondered why I am mates with a person and why I help them with their problems, but I normally am not able to yield an answer. Sometimes this causes me to block a person out of my life since I see no reason for union to continue; although, many times I continue to befriend someone because something I can't explain attracts me to her/him. This is similar to the way I see my family since many of them are radically different than myself and it is hard many times to find any common ground, yet I know there exists a meaningful, loving relationship with these family members despite a lack of understanding.

I cannot speak for Beckett, but this relationship makes me feel that these seemingly meaningless relationships have a lot more depth than I would care to believe. It isn't just about opposite attracts or hearing both sides of the story. I think I find myself in these situations because some trait in that person makes me feel good and hopefully it is likewise for that person thus why they are still there after my bullshit.

So is there happiness in this play without the bicycle and underneath the cynical humour? Absolutely! The larger picture I propose Beckett is painting in this play is happiness does not come as an easy handout, and we must search for it in places we feel is tainted by despair, alienation and fear.

Humour in the Unnameable - Paper Topic

I have spent the past week or so trying to figure out how I will be dissecting “The Unnamable” in order to find the humour Beckett placed throughout. I am not completely sure what direction I want to take this paper in, but I have been reading Freud’s interpretation of humour since Beckett was largely influenced by him.

 In Freud’s “Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious,” he looks at how nonsense is used to convey humour. Freud believes this is executed through forms of parody, exaggeration, caricature and travesty. Before I found more humour in the stupidity of the characters, but stupidity means thinking too little whereas nonsense is thinking too much. The jar in the head is humourous through his exaggeration of the story progressing around him/her. I greatly enjoy this style of humour since it comes from human reasoning/comprehension.  Everyone has had a rough day and looked back upon it later finding the circumstances funny. One might think there could be no humour in such a tragic setting, but don’t we find ourselves laughing when someone walks into a screen door? Comedy most certainly exists in human pain especially when it is a pain we have experiences before and have come to terms with. 

I wanted to write this paper because I found “The Unnamable” to be funny, yet I was unaware how it invoked my funny bone. I have reread the novel again and wish to read it one or two more times since there were plenty of things I overlooked in my first reading and surely the second as well. I want my next reading to be done once I look more into Freud and other theories regarding how we perceive humour.  I do want a good portion of my paper to be looking at “The Unnamable” from a Freudian perspective, but I also wish to see how irony and other forms of humour are incorporated in the novel. I have just begun reading Jennifer Jeffer’s “Beyond Irony: The Unnamable’s Appropriations of its Critics in a Humorous Reading of the Text” which looks at the novel’s irony through a Romantic and Humanist viewpoint. 

Memory, Language, Godot – The Importance of Perception

         There are only two acts in While Waiting for Godot spanning over the course of two days, yet the characters (except Vladamir mostly) find a way to erase the previous day’s events including their perceptions of themselves. It seems rather odd that Pozzo does not remember he saw the day prior, but the reader should not be positive of this claim. Stage directions and the other characters’ perception of Pozzo draws a conclusion in the first act that Pozzo could see. An audience member easily presumes Lucky’s rather long tangent seems to mark some intelligence, yet he appears void of language in the second act. Are these mere coincidences between scenes or is the appearance of these characters manipulated by some source?

          It would seem obvious to the reader half way through act 2 that all the characters are insane with Vladamir having some exception; However, Beckett has taught me never trust the sanity and instead question any sliver of rationality. The other characters are imperfect in their memory and actions, yet this over exaggeration seems too surreal to be factual. Vladamir comes across as the only character self aware of the environment around him. I feel the problem with this perception is that Vladamir resembles stability in a universe distorted by Vladamir’s unconscious. Vladamir knows the whole time the two men must be waiting for Godot; although, at no point does he know why they are waiting for Godot thus rising questions to the validity of Vladamir’s decision-making. Only two days pass in the course of the play, but how long have these men been waiting for Godot? I think Vladamir has been waiting for Godot for quite some time within his mind’s void.

          This play was a refreshing ‘simple’ read since the dialogue exchange between characters led to an illusion of interpersonal conversation. I  failed to notice a lot of the deeper material in my first two reads of Godot, but I hope in this next week I can get a better understanding on parts that confused me such as Lucky’s monologue. I would also like to look deeper into this understanding of reality depicted by a single character through the other characters.