Introduction
Samuel Beckett wrote at the time when the world was suffering from a lot of modern problems that it did not see before like the horror of the Great World Wars. Beckett is said to have revolutionized the theatre through his innovative dramas. His innovative dramas extended the scope of already established theatre. His plays are not meant to be read, but to be performed so that the ideas within a play can be transmitted nicely to the intended audience. Beckett used the essential dramatic machinery to establish a modern and complex unity that could not be found in the plays written before him. Such a tremendous use of dramatic machinery can be called a "Total Theatre" that involves the ears, eyes, emotions and Intellect simultaneously. Let's discuss the chief features of Beckett's plays:
An Exhibition of Beckett's Art
The plays sketched by Beckett show his distinct art. For instance, the characters drawn in his plays do not indulge in philosophical discourse. Neither they use elevated diction to heighten the effect. His characters use simple and colloquial language that can be easily understood by a layman. They are seldom noticed soliloquizing. They do not preach something. Their action may not be elegant but it is a part of the experience of the whole play. For instance, in Act 2, we see Pozzo turned blind and is begging for help. The same Pozzo that was the master of (the unfortunate) Lucky and the one who gave Estragon a bone to "relish" is unrecognizable by one tramp. Thus, the present condition of a character like Pozzo can be linked to his personality in Act 1 to get the most out of the symbolic significance of the play. This is the art of Beckett that is spell-bounding.
Minimal Characterization and Plot
A striking but different feature of Beckett's plays is the occurrence of plot and characterization to a minimum. It is not suitable for a reader or the audience to look for a story in his plays. The time, as well as characters, are static. They do not move from one place to the other. So, the setting is almost static. The time does seem moving but it is static. The plays end at their beginning. Of course, there are problems in his plays but those problems remain unsolved in the end as if they were in the beginning. Winnie, a character from Happy Days asserts the concept of plots in Beckett's plays as thus,
Yes, something seems to be occurred, something has seemed to occur, and nothing occurred, nothing at all.
We see the same phenomenon in Waiting for Godot in which two tramps wait for a mystical figure, Godot to solve their problems but he does not arrive. In Endgame, a blind tyrant tells a story to "wait" for his servant to leave or for death. So, the plot (and characterization) in Beckett's Plays is non-existent.
Speaking of characterization, the characters in Beckett's plays are presented without their past. It will be correct to say that the characters live as long as the play is performed. Although they may tell the audience bits and pieces of their past. Their future is uncertain. They remain unchanged throughout the play. For instance, the stage direction of Waiting for Godot during its ending reads as thus,
Viladmir: Well, shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.
(They do not move)
Chief Topics of his Plays
Beckett's plays centre around Man. While the topics revolve around the role of man in the universe, his limitations and his identity. In Waiting for Godot, we find the pair of tramps as well as Pozzo, Lucky pair, suffering from an identity crisis. Estragon and Vladimir are uncertain about the identity of Godot. Lucky has lost his identity completely. Through Beckett's plays, we assume that the role of man in the universe can be as insignificant as it can get. For example, in the same play, we see tramps associating their hopes to a being they are not acquainted with, instead of doing work on their own.
Beckett as an Absurdist
Beckett is misleadingly compared with Ionesco for being a dramatist of the Absurd. Ionesco is the Romanian champion of the Absurd Plays which are farcical in nature, only meant for spreading laughter. But Beckett is an Absurdist through the declaration of what Camus had said. By "Absurd", Camus meant a life spent completely for its own sake in a universe that made no sense because there was no God to resolve the contradictions. The waiting is also absurd in the sense the tramps' expectations make no sense unless they begin searching for Godot.
Another thing that separates Beckett's absurdism from Ionesco's is his rational world as compared to the abrupt and unpredictable world of Ionesco. A fine example can be given from Waiting for Godot in which a tramp questions that why can they throw the idea of waiting?
Estragon: Let's go.
VLADIMIR: We can't.
ESTRAGON: Why not?
VLADIMIR: We're waiting for Godot.
This is a rational questioning and a rational answer that is in accordance with the title as well as the expectations of the readers
Conclusion
Conclusively speaking, Samuel Beckett, as a playwright, has introduced plenty of themes as well as concepts to inspire more writers through his minimal caricaturing of meaninglessness and meaningfulness of life.
Sources and Suggested Readings
- Waiting for Godot - Critical Studies by Famous Products - Page 29
- Lectures of Sir Hassan Akbar
- http://www.askliterature.com/drama/samuel-beckett-as-dramatist-playwright/
- https://neoenglish.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/beckett-as-a-playwright/
