00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content PINTER'S NETHERWORLD; A SYMBOLICAL ANALYSIS OF HIS FIRST FIVE STAGE PLAYS by Robert Grant Smith A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (C ommuni cation/Drama) September 1982 UMI Number: DP22939 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP22939 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A TE S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PARK LOS A N G E LE S . C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 'Plr, ,T> P "SB s <ab& This dissertation, written by ........R0^RT__GJ^T__SMITH......... under the direction of h±s... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean D a te.. DISSERT. 'MMITTEE Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Significance of the Study 7 Scope of the Study 8 Review of the Literature 8 Methodology 14 Plan of the Study 18 CHAPTER 2 FROM REASON TO ALIENATION 23 CHAPTER 3 THE SEARCH FOR THE ALIENATED SELF IN POST-WAR ENGLAND 49 CHAPTER 4 DESCENT INTO THE NETHERWORLDs THE PLAYS EXPLORED 67 I. The Room 70 II. The Birthday Party 89 III. The Dumb Waiter 106 IV. The Caretaker 116 V. The Homecoming 136 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY 175 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank each of my committee members for their help during the writing of this dissertation. Professor Richard Toscan (Chairman), Professor Moshe Lazar, and Professor James McBath. i i i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When I wrote the first three plays in 1957 I wrote them from the point of view of writing them; the whole world of putting on plays was quite remote.... So I wrote these plays completely unselfconsciously....And it took me five years to write a stage play, The Homecoming, after The Caretaker. I did a lot of things in the meantime, but writing a stage play, which is what I really wanted to do, I couldn't. Then I wrote The Homecoming, for good or bad, and I felt much better. — Harold Pinter^ The vast range of Harold Pinter's writings include the areas of poetry, theatre, radio, television, and film. But his first significant impact did not come until his emergence as a playwright in 1957* During this year, in a flurry of creative outpouring, he wrote his first three plays, The Room, The Birthday Party and The Dumb Waiter. Critical reaction to these three plays was primarily that of puzzlement. As his dramatic output increased, to include such works as The Caretaker and The Homecoming, his particular style of writing was gradually being linked by these critics (perhaps because they didn't know where else to put him) with the emerging group of dramatists that later came to be known under the rubric, "Theatre of the Absurd." 1 The Theatre of the Absurd, a term coined by Martin Esslin, in his book of the same name, represents a certain kind of theatre which came into world prominence primarily with the works of Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco, writ ing in France. Besides Beckett and Ionesco, Esslin includes in this group of playwrights, among others, Arthur Adamov, Jean Genet, Edward Albee, Fernando Arrabal, and Harold Pinter. Two views, by Edward Albee and Richard N. Coe respectively, regarding what this new theatre is and is not, may help to point the way to a possible approach to an understanding of this theatre and more specifically to that of the first five stage plays of Pinter. Edward Albee: The Theatre of the Absurd, in the sense that it is truly the contemporary theatre, facing as it does man's condition as it is, is the Realistic theatre of our time; and that the supposed Realistic theatre - the term used here to mean most of what is done on Broadway - in the sense that it panders to the public, need for self- congratulation and reassurance and presents a false picture of ourselves to ourselves, is, with an occasional very lovely exception, ,really and truly The Theatre 'of the Absurd.2 Richard N. Coe: The prevailing concepts of time and space, of cause and effect, of psychological continuity - these are a few of the pre conceived notions in terms of which the rationalistic mind is accustomed to value and assess "reality." The theatre in 2 particular has "been bound to these con cepts, since they have always been, even in the centuries before the official . formulation of rationalism as a philo sophy, the "common sense" assumptions of the average man - that is, of the average audience.3 In an interview in Theatre Quarterly, Peter Hall, a director closely associated with the work of Pinter, says, "...the early Pinter is much more enigmatic than later Pinter, and can irritate."^ However, throughout the interview, Hall shows that his approach to directing Pinter is primarily on a societal, external level, with motivated characters, that is, a traditional approach. This could perhaps explain his puzzlement with Pinter. This study will look at the five early stage plays of Pinter, The Room, The Birthday Party, The Dumb Waiter, The Caretaker, and The Homecoming, in an attempt to see if a less traditional approach might shed new light and help to solve the puzzle of early Pinter. There are strong indications from various sources to justify the study of these five plays as a unit. As seen in the epigraph to this chapter, Pinter himself sees the plays as a special, fulfilling, and self-contained part of his canon. The five plays are recognized widely as being linked in their non-realistic aspects as opposed to the growing realism of his other stage plays. 4 The Homecoming is agreed by many critics to be ___________ 3 Pinter's masterpiece. The plays leading up to it would seem to be a natural part of any study of The Homecoming itself. As mentioned earlier, Peter Hall, renowned stage interpreter of Pinter, points out the puzzling and irritat ing qualities of Pinter’s early plays. Luciana Gabbard, in her Freudian study of Pinter, sees The Homecoming as a capstone of his previous work.-'* Statement of the Problem Traditional methods of dramatic criticism do not seem sufficient in explicating this new type of drama. The use of Jungian archetypal hermeneutics will be explorec. in this study as a possible alternative to traditional methods, the rationale for which is discussed below. The efficacy of the use of Jungian models in a Pinter study is not contingent on Pinter's conscious use or awareness of them. The archetype, as posited by Jung, is a creature of the unconscious realm of the psyche and hence is amorphous, puzzling, and elusive. This could help account for the perplexity of the critics who were so ready to lump the early Pinter, as unknowable, into the movement known as the "Theatre of the Absurd." An important reservation regarding the use of the heading "Theatre of the Absurd" is its almost inseparable connection, by Esslin and others, with the concepts of alienation and existential man. The concept of alienation, k in its various guises, has been with man at least since the age of reason. But the feeling here is that the concept of existential man, in his relationship to the vast indifference of the universe, may not entirely explair the direction that Pinter is taking - though . . ‘ elements of this must be taken into consideration, to be sure. To help define the early plays of Pinter and similar play wrights from what is felt to be a major preception of their movement, the tern "new drama" will be used hence forth in this study, instead of "Theatre of the Absurd." As Irving Wardle says, "...in our country we usually know whose progeny we are seeing on the stage: Freudian Man, Marxist Man, or the Absurdist issue of Existential Man. However, when Harold Pinter's characters first appeared in public in 1958, nobody knew who the. father £ was - and Pinter certainly wasn't telling." The force- feeding of Pinter into the Theatre of the Absurd, though his work shares many of its characteristics, may have been premature. To borrow from Wardle's generational analogy, the father of Pinter's dramaturgy, particularly his first five stage plays, may well have been Jungian Man. The applica tion of Jungian theory as a key in attempting to under stand Pinter's early plays is not mere whimsy or the selective extrapolation from a body of work by a devotee of Jung. There is empirical evidence of Jung's direct 5 influence on Samuel Beckett, and subsequently, by exten sion, on Pinter as well. These examples will be seen in Chapter Two, "From Reason to Alienation," page:'43- . In a more general connection, it is readily agreed that the theories of Freud, and in an increasingly important way, Jung, have had a strong influence on artists and’writers since at least the 1920*s and 30's. Angels of Darkness by Colin Duckworth is a recent example of a study of Beckett and Ionesco, with a strong reliance on Jungian theory, though the main emphasis seems to be how this O effects the "empathic percipient." Most modem critics see the new drama on a realistic, societal level, dealing with other people, trying to communicate, without being able to. They also see man as trying to cope with his fears but primarily on a conscious level. This critical approach stems from the tradition of linear theatre where there is a beginning, middle, and an end, where characters are motivated psychologically and their backgrounds justified. But the new drama is non-linear. There, is a dis integration of plot, character, dialogue, and continuity. The stage itself may be thought of as a projected metaphor of the psyche. Hence "characters," "props," and verbal images may also be,,seen as metaphors. And in this scramble of the psyche trying to right itself and to understand itself, there is necessarily a lot of ambiguity 6 and crossover of "characters," as in a dream. One "character" may be a fragmentation or extension of another. The same "character" may even be addressed by different names; they become interchangeable at times. A "prop" is not necessarily what it appears to be but it may be an allusive image of something else.^ These are not "well made plays" in the sense that all loose ends are tied neatly together. This study, by looking behind the externals, will try to determine whether or not there are patterns and consistencies that may -help1 to explicate an understanding of these first five stage plays of Harold Pinter. Significance of the Study The Room, The Birthday Party, The Dumb Waiter, The Caretaker, and The Homecoming seem to form a eontiuum or a separate, self-contained unit by comparison with the rest of Pinter's canon. Compared to Pinter's other works, these five plays appear to show more of the influences of his predecessors, primarily Beckett and Ionesco. An understanding of these five plays can contribute to an understanding of the plays of Beckett and Ionesco as well as other practitioners of the new drama. Re-definition of the emphasis and centrality of these plays can lead to a re-interpretation of the staging of future productions of these and other plays of the new drama, as well. 7 Scope of the Study The focus of this study will be the first five stage plays of Harold Pinter with references where appropriate and/or necessary to works of other writers of the new drama. The writings of Carl Jung, Erich Neumann, and James Hillman will be referred to where appropriate, in terms of archetypal symbolism. Also, ah attempt will be made to explore, in general, the antecedents to Pinter's drama in terms of the movement from "Reason" to "Alienation" and how the theatrical envi ronment in England may or may not have contributed to the emergence of Pinter's dramaturgy. Review of the Literature There is a vast literature on the writings of Pinter- reviews, criticisms, and pronouncements by Pinter himself. The initial reviews of his first three plays, The Room, The Birthday Party, and The Dumb Waiter were, with few exceptions, scathing. Revivals of these three plays in later years, received warmer reviews, though luke-warm at best. Early criticism of these plays amounted to little more than puzzlement. Gradually analogies and metaphors along the lines of room-womb-tomb began to be discerned by the critics along with the motif of terror. As Pinter's canon grew he became relatively more acceptable and plays such as The Caretaker and The Home coming met with more favorable opening day reviews. Later criticisms started to explore character relation ships and the idea of Pinter as social critic. Descriptive labels were being coined and reappearing in one critic after another as Pinter and "Pinterisms" came into vogue - among theses Comedy of Menace; supra-realistic; compress- ionistic; Poet of Silence; Pinteresque; verification and lack thereof; lack of communication; victim-victor; territorial struggle; and others. Herman T. Schroll, in his very thorough study of Pinter's reputation from 1958 to 1969* shows that few scholars as of 196 9 ha(i offered new insights into Pinter's plays - the bulk of the writing 10 being merely a rewording of what had been said. Arnold Hinchliffe and Steven Gale echo the many other critics, and emphasize the themes of menace, in ability to communicate, the problem'of verification, .and 1 1 victim-victor. Gale also espouses the themes of: the demands of society on sensitive individuals; and dialogue 12 as obstacle to communication. Martin Esslin, in a continuation of the methodology used in The Theatre of the Absurd,' describes Pinter's work from a psychological and existential point-of-view. In his book, Pinters A study of his plays, Esslin sees the ending of The Room as weak because it is illogical and Riley is "too manifestly a symbol, an allegory." And he sees the long silence at the end of The Caretaker as strong because, "The whole course of the play has organically, logically and inevitably led ______________________________________________________________-9 1 3 up to it." ^ He finds it fairly arbitrary that we never get an explanation for Bert's silence in The Room. I am indebted to Mr. Esslin for his reference to a poeiri of Pinter's, A View of the Party, which speaks of Goldberg and McCann as thoughts. This may be useful in studying The Birthday Party. But I was surprised that Esslin did not take these clues as far as, it seems to me, they deserved. Katherine Burkman, in her book, The Dramatic World* of Harold Pinter; Its Basis in Ritual, takes the theme of victim-victor, as seen in other critics, and bases her interpretation of Pinter on Frazer's The Golden Bough which, as Burkman explains, "...has as its central myth the plight of a victim-victor...."^^ Burkman, it could be argued, is taking a step in the right direction by bring ing in the element of myth in studying Pinter, but it seems to be a perhaps too literal, surface interpretation and rather forced. There may be possibilities in explor ing what's behind the myth. She also has Hiley in The Hoorn"and Gus in The Dumb Waiter being killed as part of her interpretation. It is by no means certain that they are killed. The Dream Structure of Pinter's Plays: a psycho analytic approach by Luciana P. Gabbard would at first seem to offer great potential for any study of Pinter simply because of the dream-like structure of Pinter's 10 early work. But like Burkman, hers, it seems, is too literal and forced. She takes Freud's concept of "dream- work" and applies it quite literally to an interpretation of Pinter's work. Oral, Anal, and Oedipal fantasies are seen as the primary exegesis of Pinter's plays. The hook is as much an exposition of Freud's theories as an exploration of Pinter's plays. It may he said of the ahove critics, that they at least tried to come up with some understanding of Pinter. There are at least two critics who seem to feel that Pinter can't he understood. John Lahr has said that a Pinter play is an object to he observed, not investigated. He writes, "These are the 'facts'; these are the people; these are the ambiguities,.... That is all there is; and 16 all we, as audience, should demand to know." Martin Gottfried in Opening Nights writes, "The plays of Harold Pinter are geometric planes. They are set in places that could well he the primary structures of modem sculpture... It is foolish to ask for meanings in such plays because Pinter has dismissed the idea of meanings... Words are 17 hut arbitrary symbols for intangible ideas." Some works helpful in terms of this study were: 1 ft "Harold Pinter's Dramaturgy," by Kent G. Gallagher; "A Clue to the Pinter Puzzle: The Triple Self in The Home- 19 coming," by Arthur Hanz; 7 and "Dialogue and Character PO Splitting in Harold Pinter," by Ruth Milberg. Gallagher 11 sees Mick and Aston in The Caretaker as manipulating Davies for their own purposes from the very start of the play and he cites convincing evidence to support this. The drawback, in my opinion, is that he sees them as real characters and The Caretaker as Pinter's comment on an amoral world that would tolerate such gratuitous torture. Ganz's division of the characters into groups of three proved to be very helpful and insightful in terms of this study. Milberg's study shows the antithetical nature of various Pinter characters, although her conclusion that Pinter's women are strong and whole while his men are not, is subject to question. Some critics (Hinchliffe and Esslin, to name two), noticed the similarities in the characters from play to play and how some appeared to be modifications of others. This was helpful in some particulars, but not much was made of the possibility that some of these "characters" may have been the same, but at a different stage of development. This may be seen as a neglected area for study in the literature on Pinter. Also, none of the critics could be seen as exploring the possibility that Pinter's first five stage plays constitute a unit or continuum, although, as previously mentioned, Gabbard does see The Homecoming as a "capstone" of all of Pinter's 21 previous work. There is much commentary on the silence in Pinter's 12 plays and sometimes reference is made to the ominous qualities of a silent character in selected plays. But no critic seems to trace the silent character from play to play as the possible central character or protagonist. The Room is admitted to be seminal - where Pinter establ ishes his style and his methods, but no critic has been found to date who deems the reticent Bert to be the central character. And yet Pinter is often referred to as "The Poet of Silence." Pinter, himself, gives a powerful clue as to the importance of silent characters in his plays: "And sometimes a balance is found, where image can freely engender image and where at the same time you are able to keep your sights on the place where the characters are silent and in hiding. It is in the silence that they 22 are most evident to me." It is also felt by this writer that not enough attention has been paid to setting, props, costumes, and movement in Pinter's plays. It is hoped that this study will help to fill some of these gaps in the literature on Pinter. The seminal works on archetypal symbolism are expected to be useful tools in terms of this study. Among them, the fundamental early work of Carl Jung, The Psycho logy of the Unconscious, and Jung's last book, Man and His Symbols, a compendium of his ideas written by himself and four other collaborators, chosen by him. Another V1 13 important work by the Jungian analyst Erich Neumann, is The Origins and History of Consciousness which Jung saw as a continuation of his own work. Another book found to be insightful along these lines is The Dream and the Underworld by James Hillman. Though Hillman takes issue with some Jungian theory, his reservations tend to high light what I feel to be the more salient aspects of Jung's thesis. J. E. Cirlot's A Dictionary of Symbols is also expected to be used often in this study. Methodology After a brief historical background and analysis of the trends leading up to Pinter's dramaturgy, I intend to explore the five plays themselves in terms of symbolic analysis. These five plays will be studied not only from a textual point-of-view but also, where appropriate, in terms of set; props (both in placement and usage); move ment and non-movement of characters; costumes (if mentioned or inferred); and dialogue and non-dialogue (including subtext). The study is not meant to be a plot or character analysis but reference to these elements will be made where deemed appropriate. The plays will be dealt with chronologically, with, of course, references to the other plays in the series. But each individual play will not necessarily be dealt with in terms of plot sequence. It is felt that time) cam often be seen as one in Pinter's plays - past, . 14 present, and future seem to fuse. It is. the situation, as a unit, that will he explored, and at what level of consciousness it is taking place, not always as a cause and effect relationship. Something at the end of the play may very well have affected something at the beginn ing . Jung says: A story told by the conscious mind has a beginning, a development, and an end, but the same is not true of a dream. Its dimensions in time and space are quite different; to understand it you must examine it from every aspect - just as you may take an unknown object in your hands and turn it over and over until you are familiar with every detail of its shape.23 The basis for this study will by Jungian archetypal symbolism. Jung's concept of "active Imagination" is a method the unconscious mind uses to contact the conscious mind but it differs from the dream in that the individual is conscious at the time. It is an extension of Freud's "free association" and differs from fantasy in that the images have a life of their own and that the symbolic events develop according to their own logic - that is, 2 A if the conscious reason does not interfere. Pinter has said, "I have usually begun a play in quite a simple manner; found a couple of characters in a particular context, thrown them together and listened to what they said, keeping my nose to the ground...." And further, "...So often, below the word spoken, is the thing 15 known and unspoken. My characters tell me so much and no more, with reference to their experience, their aspira- 2 < tions, their motives, their history." Some of the models that form the groundwork of Jung*s theories are mentioned here by way of introduction: The collective unconscious. The culmination and repository of all of man's experience as well as the prior condition of this experience, that is, the animalic and beyond. This image which has taken eons to form has crystallized certain archetypes or dominates throughout the course of time,26 Mother. The archetypal mother in its Good aspect is nourishing and helpful to the psyche's rise in consciousness. "It is the mother,..., who is the first to bear that image of the anima which the man must project upon Woman passing from the mother to the sister and finally to the beloved."27 In its Terrible aspect, the mother archetype is possessive and regressive, and constitutes a hindrance to the developing psyche. When referred to as the "Great Mother" it may be thought of as representative of the collective unconscious itself. Father. Symbolic of the masculine principle, and a higher level of consciousness than that of the mother archetype. A father archetype with feminine attributes may be seen as negative and having an affinity with the mother archetype. Thus it may be discerned as an agent of the mother, or the mother in disguise. Shadow. The "negative 'double' of the body, or the image of its evil and base side. Among primitive peoples, the notion that the shadow is the alter ego or soul is firmly established.... 'Shadow' is the term given by Jung to the primi- • tive 'and ins tine ti y e . . ; ; side ' of the individual. "28 Anima. Represents all of the feminine aspects of a man's psyche. Night-sea journey. A plunge into the unconscious. 16 Individuation. The process by which the psyche rises in consciousness until wholeness of Self hood is attained. Hinchliffe cites Wilson Knight's discussion on the vitality of contemporary drama coming from below, "...either what we call the subconscious mind (or 31 'instinct') or from some lower social stratum...." Both Jung and Hillman liken projections of the psy che, and the drama, to the theatre.'^3 The converse of this might liken these five plays of Pinter to the drama and they may be approached from the point-of-view of dream interpretation. Jungian archetypal symbolism makes use of the pre dominant myths of man, not as an end in itself, but as a framework and demarcation to find the archetype behind the myth. One of the predominant myths since the conscious ness of man, as seen in his ritual and literature, is the hero's fight with the dragon in order to gain "the treasure hard to attain." This myth, applied to this study, on a surface level, may be helpful in unlocking an understanding of the archetypes behind it. And it may be roughly equated to the psyche's rise in consciousness. This study is not, by any means, meant to be a psychological study of Pinter himself nor an espousal of Jungian theory. But Jung's precepts may help to contrib ute to an understanding of the transpersonal qualities of 17 these five plays of Pinter. These qualities may, perhaps, he shown to be at the very heart (or soul) of Pinter's effectiveness as a dramatist. Recent trends in more traditional, scientifically empirical, research areas also indicate an, at least partial, disenchantment with cause and effect explanations of human behavior. A case in point is an article in the Spring 1980 issue of Science Digest which poses the question, "Which is the cause and which is the effect in reference to mood aberations and cancer?"^ Plan of the Study The following chapter will explore, in general, the t movement from Reason to Alienation. It will try to be determined how this movement manifested itself in terms of the theatre and whether or not any patterns may be dis cerned that may shed light on subsequent theatrical developments leading to the new drama, especially the work of Pinter. Chapter 3 will compare the dramatic expression of this alienaLtion before Pinter with that of his own time and place. Tied-in with this will be an exploration of the change from conservatism in the English theatre and its influence, if any, on Pinter's plays. Chapter 4 will be an analysis of the five plays with the help of Jungian archetypal symbolism. There necess arily will be overlapping reference in the study, from 18 one play to another. It will try to be determined if this methodology offers a consistency and satisfaction in terns of interpretation and explication. The concluding chapter will try to determine if the goals set forth at the beginning of this study have been met. Based on whether or not a viable methodology has been found to help explicate an understanding of the five plays, it will attempt to determine any possible applica tions of this. 19 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER 1 1 Lawrence M. Bensky, "Harold Pinters An Interview," in Pinter: a Collection of Critical Essays, ed. by Arthur Ganz (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.s Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 32. 2 Edward Albee, "Which Theatre is the Absurd One?", in American Playwrights on Drama, ed. by Horst Frenz (New York: Hill and Wang, 1965)* P- 172. 3 . Richard N. Coe, Eugene Ionesco - A Study of His Works (New York: Grove Press, Inc.', 1970)» P • 3* A Catherine Itzin and Simon Trussler, "Peter Hall - Direct ing Pinter," Theatre Quarterly, Nov.-Jan., 1975> PP* ^-17■ c ^Luciana P. Gabbard, The Dream Structure of Pinter's Plays: a psychoanalytical approach (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1976), p. 204. 6 Irving Wardle, "The Territorial Struggle," in A Casebook on Harold Pinter's The Homecoming, ed. by John Lahr (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1971), p. 37 • 7 'Deirdre Bair, Samuel Beckett: A Biography (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978)» p. 177 • Q Colen Duckworth, Angels of Darkness (London: George Allen Ltd., 1972). 9 7For further elaboration of the stage as metaphor, see Moshe Lazar, "The Psychodramatic Stage: Ionesco and His Doubles," in The Dream and the Play: Ionesco's Theatrical Quest, ed. by Moshe Lazar (Malibu, Ca.: Undena Publica tions, 1982), p. 137* ■^Herman T. Schroll, Harold Pinter: A Study of His Reputa tion (1958-1969) and a Checklist (Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1971)* ~ Arnold P. Hinchliffe, Harold Pinter (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1981). 20 12 Steven H. Gale, “butter's going up"; A Critical Analy sis of Harold Pinter's Work (Durham, N. C.; Duke University Press, 1971)* 13 -^Martin Esslin, Pinter; a study of his plays (New York; W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1976), pp. 66, 113* ■^Ibid., p. 81. 1 3 ■^Katherine Burkman, The Dramatic World of Harold Pinter; Its Basis in Ritual (Ohio State University Press, 1971), p. 21. 1 & Arthur Ganz, “A Clue to the Pinter Puzzle; The Triple Self in The Homecoming," Educational Theatre Journal, XXI (May 1969), p. 180. ^^Martin Gottfried, Opening Nights (New York; G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1969),p• 360. 18 * Kent G. Gallagher, "Harold Pinter's Dramaturgy," Quarterly Journal of Speech, LII, 3 (October 19§6), pp. 242-8. ■^Ganz, »a Clue to the Pinter Puzzle....," pp. I8O-I87. 20 Ruth Milberg, "Dialogue and Character Splitting in Harold Pinter," Die Neueren Sprachen, LXXIII (n.s. XXIII) 3 (June 1974), pp. 225-33- 21 Gabbard, Dream Structure, p. 204. 97 Harold Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre;" in Harold Pinter, Complete Works: One (New York; Grove Press, Inc., 1977), P- 14. 2 3 Carl G. Jung, "Approaching the Unconscious," in Man and His Symbols, ed. by Carl G. Jung (New York; Dell Publish ing Co., Inc., 1969). P- 12. pI l E. A. Bennet, What Jung Really Said (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), P- 107- ^Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre," pp. 10, 13- 21 Carl G. Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (New York: Pantheon Books, 1966), p. 95. 2^Cirlot, Dictionary, p. 208. 28Ibid., p. 2?7. 29Ibid., p. 218. 30 Except where annotated, these definitions are gleaned from the body of work of Jung and other Jungians. Specific quotes and examples of these models throughout this study will, of course, be referred to their sources. -^Hinchliffe, Harold Pinter, p. 58. ^2Carl G. Jung, Symbols of Transformation (Princeton University Press, 197^), p. 35* James Hillman, The Dream and the Underworld (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1979)» PP- 190-191• John J. Fried, "Mind and Body: The Inseparable Link," Science Digest, Spring, 1980, pp. 50-53* CHAPTER 2 FROM REASON TO ALIENATION Our present lives are dominated by the goddess Reason, who is our greatest and most tragic illusion. By the aid of reason, so we assure- ourselves, we have "conquered nature." 1 — Jung Jung's indictment of the rational to the implied exclusion and detriment of the irrational may be seen as the expression of the movement of philosophical and thea trical thought from at least the ascendency of the "spirit of rationalism" in the 17th century to the present day with its themes of alienation. It was Samuel Beckett's exposure to Jung that completed a circle in Beckett's creative psyche, a circle that included as one of its major components, Descartes. The tensions implicit in this dichotomy of thought gave Beckett the impetus to 2 shape his novel, Murphy, a work which was to profoundly influence the young Pinter. While this study is not meant to be an exegesis of Murphy or even of Beckett's other work, it may be helpful to explore, at least in general, the movement of these great antipathies of thought from Descartes to Jung in order to try to determine if a key can be found therein which can help to explicate the work of Beckett’s "student," Pinter. ___________________________________ 23 Descartes' dictum, "I think, therefore I am," - expresses the central notion of the primacy of conscious ness. For Descartes, the individual mind, knowing itself more immediately than it can know anything else in the "external world" must therefore he the starting point for all philosophy. Descartes desired to explain all of the world, except for God and the soul, by mechanical and mathematical laws. He conceived of one homogeneous substance underlying all forms of matter, and another underlying all forms of mind." This separation of reality into the external and the internal began the three hundred and some year epistomo- logical debate that is still going on and largely concerned with this schism in man's perception of reality. But even Descartes did not make a complete break from half-mytho logical, archetypal images when he explained that the absolute validity of the law of causality was proved "by the fact that God is immutable in His decisions and actions." Likewise, the German astronomer Johannes Kepler asserted that there were only three dimensions of space 4 because of the Trinity. Humanism, Science, and the Industrial Revolution are direct manifestations of the trend in man to realize him self, on a material plane, as a godlike being. In the first part of Goethe's play, Faust is immersed in dreams of godlike knowledge. This idea indicates the 24 tendency of a radical departure from Western tradition. The ages old concept of an unbridgeable gulf between the human and the divine gave way to the idea of man's self- realization as a godlike being. Seen in Jungian terms, Faust and his shadow side, Mephistopheles represent the Magician/Demon archetypes of the Unconscious. It is the apparent inability of Faust to balance these two extremes of the psyche that bring about'his demise. In other words, the unconscious or "negative" aspects of the psyche, rathei' than being assimilated, take over. This concept of assi milating the unconscious will be explored further in the analysis of Pinter's early plays. But, for the present, it may be said that the example of Faust represents the impending apotheosis of man on a material plane which helped to form the nucleus of the movement of thought from Kant to Hegel and was the impetus for the revolution ary movement and counter-movement pattern that continues to this day in the various political, economic, and artis tic arenas. The various theatre movements of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries are inextricably woven into the fabric of this concept and we will explore, in general, some of the myriad of antimonies that have been spun off and can still be seen in the form of theatre known in this study as the new drama. Erich Neumann, in his book, The Origins and History of Consciousness, statesi ------------------------------------------------------: ____________ 2S- ...a too independent ego consciousness can "become insulated from the unconscious ness, and self-esteem and self-responsibi lity cary degenerate into presumption and megalomania. In other words, conscious ness, standing at the opposite pole to the unconscious and originally having to represent the personality's striving for wholeness, may lose its link with the whole and deteriorate .-5 Dr. Karen Homey considers self-deifying pride to be the nucleus of the neurotic type of personality. The person is conscious of himself as two discordant beings and the "rift" in the personality becomes a raging inner conflict since he regards the empirical beings of the senses as an "alien" and starts to despise it. "And this indeed is the essential characteristic of every neurotics he is at war with himself."® History is comprised, in the Hegelian sense, of cycles of spirit's extemalization, alienation, and transcendence of the alienation by the act of knowing. This spirit in the "becoming," like Kantian man, is an 7 absolute self in his image or idea of himself. According to Cirlot, idealism turning into materialism is one example of the inversion which always arises in time of crisis (personal, social, or collective historical crises) to satisfy the need to upset and reverse the established order.® A system concerned with the dualized generic self turns into one that seems to be concerned with a ^ dualized society. The self-alienation process is the ? dominant theme; it has just moved (or been repressed, if you will) to a lower level of consciousness. Robert Tucker says that the decisive characteristic of mythic thought is that "something by nature interior is apprehend ed as exterior, that a drama of the inner life of man is experienced and depicted as taking place in the outer 9 world."y Erich Neumann points out, "The unconsciousness know ledge of the background of life and of man's dealings with 10 it is laid down in ritual and myth...." By its apprehending of the conflicting forces of the alienated self as a dualism of social forces, it could be continued that many social movements are inversions back to the mythic mode of thought. It should be pointed out here that mythological patterns in Jung's view "were not archetypes, but rather archetypal representations and rites which formed the contents of the collective consciousness (italics mine) of a particular people. The archetyes themselves, on the other hand, are the unconscious dynamisms behind such conscious collective representations: they produce them 11 but are not identical with them." This use of the word "archetype" is contrasted with Mircea Eliade's wherein "it is the mythological pattern of the world, projected into a primordial time...which, -------- --------— ------------------------------------------27 by means of rites, the retelling of myths, and other observances and celebrations is constantly created afresh in the interest of the enhancement and furtherance of life."12 Magnifying an internal problem to the proportions of mankind in general exempts alienated man in particular from all moral responsibility to change himself. As Vladimir says, in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot, "There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the • 13 faults of his feet." J Karen Horney points out that a strong and real self enables us to make decisions and ik assume responsibility for them. The theatre of Pinter, Beckett, and Ionesco, may be strong statements of a return to the study of man's self-alienation as an internal problem. The external vs. the internal approach in man's developing perception of the problems of a schism within the psyche takes a more immediate and concentrated expression in terms of the various theatre movements and counter-movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. It may be thought of as analogous to the "soup" theory of the origins of life. The various ebbs and flows and cogita tions of the primordial admixture jolted every now and then by a bolt of lightning until an "essence" is formed. Beckett's dramaturgy may be seen (at least to date) as the penultimate of this "essence." Duckworth notes the 28 narrowing down of Beckett's plays in length and characters from the four characters and a boy in Waiting for Godot to 1 * 5 no visible characters in Breath. ^ This may be seen to a lesser degree in the early plays of Pinter. The first five stage plays of Pinter seem to approach this "essence" more so than his other plays. Many of the most important movements in theatre and their beginnings and/or development in France and what is generally termed avant-garde theatre emanates from there and has spread its influence around the world. In the 18?0's the French naturalists, with Emile Zola as spokesman, considered heredity and environment to be the chief determinants of man's fate. The cause and effect relationship implicit in- this was carried on by the Norwegian, Henrik Ibsen who combining it with psychological realism and the formula of the well-made-play, refined it into an art form that would greatly influence theatre even to the present day. George Bernard Shaw became one of Ibsen's major proponents in England. Realism takes a different twist in the plays of the Russian, Anton Chekhov. John Lahr, in "Pinter and Chekhov-: The Bond of Naturalism," makes some interesting comparisons between the two playwrights. Quoting Lahr, "Chekhov is writing, then, at the brink of a significant shift in man's attitude toward nature; his characters are both victims of its indifference and witnesses to its glory. 29 This post-Darwinian ambivalence reverses former dramatic conventions of the pastoral. ...no fixed meaning, but 1 f i only fading shadows of coherence...." Regarding Pinter, Lahr says, "Nature here allows no solace; the objects crowd with total indifference around Pinter*s characters.... His characters represent a modem consciousness wholly abstracted from its environ- 17 ' ■ ment." And further, "Chekhov's own skepticism demanded both a world-view and hope: The best (classical writers) are realists and depict life as it is, because every line is permeated, as with a juice, by a conspicuousness of an aim, you feel in addition to life as it is, life as it should be. . . But what about us? We depict life as it is but we refuse to go a step further. We have neither near nor remote aims and our souls are as flat and bare as a billiard table. We have no politics, we do not believe in revolution, we are not afraid of Ghosts...But he who wants nothing, hopes for nothing, and fears nothing cannot be an artist."1° Note the similarity in the above precept of Chekhov and the criticism of Ionesco by Kenneth Tynan, himself Socialist-oriented, in the next chapter. Lahr continues, "Chekhov chronicles an existential stalemate, a problematic condition rather than a proposed answer. Yet their still remains the comforting solidity of possessions. ...The object world of Chekhov's plays never imposes itself on the experience of the characters as much as on the imagination. In Pinter, objects and ________________________________________________________ 30 gestures take on a physical potency which illustrates a 19 mute isolation between Man and. object." It will be seen in later chapters how the above relates to the points of view of introverts and extraverts (in the Jungian sense), a dichotomy perhaps central to an explication of Pinter's work. Chekhov, it would appear, embodies somewhat of a middle-ground in terms of a God-centered universe and a man-centered universe. Anthropomorphic Nature has, how ever, taken the place of God in this polemic. So, in one sense, Chekhov is a throwback to the mythos of the middle ages and in another a reflection of the world-view of man as a creature of his environment and the growing spirit that he should promote change in that environment for the betterment of man. In France, the sweeping claims made for science, realism, and naturalism between 1850 and 1900 did not proceed without backlash. The most significant of these anti-realist protests came from the Symbolists. Anti realism and allusive languages are seen as main features of Symbolism - both elements very important to Pinter. One of the main differences would be the heavy-handed idealism and romanticism of Symbolism. The opening of King Ubu by Alfred Jarry in Paris in 1896 is widely considered the advent of avant-garde drama as it is known today. Jarry was rebelling against all ________________________________________________________ 31 things both physical and metaphysical. His was a new reality - the inverted world of 'Pataphysics.' As George E. Wellwarth points out in The Theatre of Protest and Paradox, Ubu himself has all the attributes of the cosmic 20 malignant force that pervades the avant-garde drama. The grotesque vision of man as exemplified in Ubu resurfaces again and again from the opening of King Ubu to the present time. For Jarry, according to Wellwarth, "Reason and logic and scientific discovery can only bring us to a certain point of knowledge 5 beyond that point the human mind is powerless. ...all thought was self-defeating and 21 ultimately ridiculous." One of the first playwrights in the modem era to move directly away from the conscious world and into the unconscious was the Swede, August Strindberg, who was to have .a powerful influence on subsequent playwrights. His realistic plays such as Miss Julie were very much in the "heredity and environment" mode but later gave way, after a period of insanity, to the writing of "dream plays." In his preface, ("A Reminder"), to The Dream Play, (1902), Strindberg says: As he did in his previous dream play, (To Damascus), so in this one the author has tried to imitate the dis connected but seemingly logical form of the dream. Anything may happen; everything is possible and probable. ______________________________________________________________32 Time and space do not exist. On an insignificant background of reality, imagination designs and embroiders novel patterns: a medley of memories, experiences, free fancies, absurdities and improvisations. The characters split, double, multiply, vanish, solidify, blur, clarify. But one consciousness reigns above them all — that of the dreamer; and before it there are no secrets, no incongrui ties , no scruples, no laws. There is neither judgement nor exoneration, but merely narration. And as the dream is mostly painful, rarely pleasant, a note of melancholy and of pity with all living things runs right through the wabbly tale. Sleep, the liberator, plays often a dismal part, but when the pain is at its worst, the awakening comes and reconciles the sufferer with reality, which, however distressing it may be, nevertheless seems happy in 22 comparison with the torments of the dream. Strindberg was able to see the connection between the seemingly amorphous nature of the unconscious and the output of the artist. Jung, too, was aware of this capacity of the poet to dramatically personify his mental contents. These fragmentary personalities, as Jung termed them, were part of an unknown number of complexes dwelling 23 in the unconscious. This "Reminder" of Strindberg is fraught with elements that can be useful in revealing not only the methods of his immediate successors, but also those we •have-.characterized as the New Dramatists, particularly Ionesco, Beckett, and Pinter. In The Dream Play, 33 Strindberg uses a multitude of characters (51) and in this sense he is close to Ionesco who usually uses more char acters than either Beckett or Pinter. Proliferation is also an important theme of Ionesco. This indicates a diffuseness and expansion and thus is harder to control. Whereas in Beckett and Pinter (especially in his first •finve stage plays) characters and characterizations, "split, ...vanish, solidify, blur (and) clarify." There is an apparent compression at work — a certain essence to be discerned. Thus while Beckett and Pinter reflect a certain amorphous quality that belies time and space, it is to a lesser degree than either Strindberg or Ionesco. Strindberg sees sleep and dreams as often painful and the waking state as less painful and thus a relief frorr the dream world. Obviously Strindberg sees dreams as very important and the projection of them upon the stage as perhaps therapeutic. But to see the waking state as a relief from these dreams implies a rejection of sorts, whereas with Ionesco, Beckett, and Pinter, a coming to terms with these projections implies an assimiliation . rather than a rejection. This rejection is, I believe, a reflection of Strindberg’s vision of man as an alienated, anxious being, and an extemalization of an internal problem. Strindberg's dream plays and Freud’s writings helped bring about the acceptance of the notion of unconscious desires as valid motivation for characters. The scientific nature of Freud's theories fit in readily with the mechanistic formulas of the realistic writers. The influence of Freud, I "believe, cannot "be stressed enough. His belief that the sex drive could explain much of the motivation of mankind was seized upon by many writers and thinkers as an indication of the sordidness of man's nature as a driven creature. By contrast, Jung saw the sex drive as only one of the many inner drives affecting man’s behavior. His explication of these other influences cannot be approached from a strictly mechanistic cause and effect^-vi-ew-as—wiii 4oe-see3a-~l-a«ter— Many of the changes we see in the arts in the twentieth century may reflect a gradual phasing out of Freudian theory and a phasing in of Jungian theory. The plays of Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter, may be seen as exampl.es of this. It is interesting to note that Jung considered himself to be an introvert and Freud to be an extravert. The Expressionists, starting with Reinhard Sorge's The Beggar (1912), can be seen as-direct descendents of Strindberg. As with Strindberg, the language of dreams becomes the language of drama. The grotesqueries, exaggerations, and distortions of the Expressionists can also "be seen in the plays of Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter. But there are important differences between their plays ____________________________________________________ 35 and those of Expressionist drama. In Expressionist drama there is no real conflict per se; the ancillary characters do not seem motivated on their own but serve primarily to propel the protagonist forward to his missionary goal. While it may be said of the plays of Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter, that the "characters" are but various aspects of a single persona lity, conflicts do arise between these different fragments. It seems that the Expressionists, perhaps taking their cue from Freud, were dipping into the unconscious (or subconscious as Freud called it) mind in an attempt to combat man's sense of alienation in a meaningless world but were coming out with external solutions to internal problems and applying them to the external world of society and politics. These messianic views might be contrasted with those of Pinter, Beckett, and Ionesco. Pinter says, "No, I'm not committed as a writer, in the usual sense of the term, either religiously or politically. And I'm not conscious of any particular social function. I write because I want to write. I don't see any placards on myself, and I don't 2^4- carry any banners...." Beckett says, "I'm not interested in the effect my plays have on the audience. I simply produce an object. What people think of it is not my concern. ...I didn't want to raise any intellect ual problems. I don't regard myself as a commentator on social things . 36 Ionesco's many statements against all didactic theatre, especially Brecht's, are well known. Ionesco's view might hest he summed up with, "More of us die in war times topical truth. We die; permanent truth, not topical yet always topical, it concerns everybody, and so it also concerns people not involved in war; Beckett's Endgame is more true, more universal than Schehade's Tale of 26 ^asco..." ' Andre Breton, a devoted disciple of Freud, assumed leadership of the Surrealists with his manifesto in 1924. He defined Surrealism as, "A psychic automatism with the aid of which we propose to express the real functioning of thought, either orally, or in writing, or in any other way. A dictation of thought without any control of 27 reason, outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupation." Based on Freud's theory of "free association" Breton's theory of "automatic writing" was a way of tapping into the subconscious mind while in a dreamlike state. Beckett was very much aware of this concept of automatic writing as practiced by the Surrealists, as well as having read p Q Jung's "Psychology and Poetry" in 1935* Jung's theory of "active imagination" is very similar to Freud's but, I believe, is less anarchistic. In "active imagination" the ego-center is very much present, though not perhaps actively involved. The ego-conscious ness is there to listen, to see what is going on and ____________________________________________________________ 37 perhaps to "benefit. Pinter says, "I have usually "begun a play in quite a simple manner: found a couple of characters in a particular context, thrown them together and listened 29 to what they said, keeping my nose to the ground." 7 For George E. Wellwarth, the modem avant-garde drams. sprang from the theories of Antonin Artaud, as seen in The Theatre and Its Double (1938)* According to Wellwarth, "Artaud felt that men see themselves clearly only in dreams; and that it was through dreams that men could reach "back to the primeval past when drama was bom as the ritual observance of the myths whose creation is coeval with the beginning of human thought itself. Artaud's theory of the dream is allied to the Jungian theory, in which dreams bind men together through their demonstration 30 of an inherited collective unconscious." As Wellwarth shows, there is much of Artaud in modem avant-garde drama: rejection of psychological realism; the unconscious as a point of departure, and dream imagery. But the participatory elements of Artaud's theatre can be seen to be more closely related to "Happen ings; " Richard Brooks' "Theatre of Cruelty" approach; the theatre of Richard Schechner; The Living Theatre; and others. Pinter says that he would never use such stage techniques himself and compared to such, he considers himself to be a very traditional playwright; he even 31 insists on having curtains in all his plays. ________________________________________________ 38 Pinter's approach to staging calls for a more willing participation from the audience rather than a forced one. Pinter says, (in counterpoint to Artaud)s When a character cannot be comfortable defined or understood in terms of the familar, the tendency is to perch him on a symbolic shelf, out of harm's way. Once there, he can be talked about but need not be lived with. In this way, it is easy to put up a pretty efficient smoke screen, on the part of the critics or the audience, against recognition, against an active and willing participa tion .32 French drama, after World War II, received its largest influence from the plays of the Existentialists and the so-called Absurdists. Wallace Fowlie, in his essay "Sartre," observes that the use by Jean-Paul Sartre of the theatrical forrm.Was in the best French tradition of the leader of a new movement setting out to capture and utilize the theatre for the promulgation of his philo-. . sophy.App of Sartre's plays illustrate his existentia list views. And Brockett says that the Absurdists, for the most part, accept these views. In Sartre's -unifying view, he says that the young French playwrights do not define man, "...as a 'reasoning animal,' or a 'social' one, but as a free being when con fronted with certain necessities, such as being already committed in a world full of both threatening and favorable factors among other men who have made their choices before him, who have decided in advance the meaning of those -------------------------------------- 32 factors. Sartre says that the theatre must dispel the anxie ties of its audience in the form of myths which anyone can understand and feel deeply. This seems to he similar to the prescriptive and therapeutic intent of Artaud. Sartre says that the playwright should awake in his audience, "...in the recesses of their spirits the things 3C which all men of a given epoch and community care about. In other words, a topical concern which has heen seen to he, in Ionesco's view, something less than a universal truth. Fowlie sees three themes concerning man's fate as pivotal points in Sartre's philosophy! man's solitude; his freedom; and responsibility. The last two are closely linked, in that freedom for Sartre is the freedom when assuming some kind of responsibility outside of himself. We have seen what Pinter, Beckett, and Ionesco think of political involvement. Not believing in God or verifiable moral codes, the world-the universe, becomes meaningless, absurd for Sartre. Anxiety exists in the tension created by the knowledge of a meaningless universe and the necessity to make choices though even they are known to be ultimately meaningless. But existential man must make the choices that will affect all of mankind because if he doesn't, someone else will, according to Sartre. 40 There are obvious parallels between Sartre's philosophy and the plays of Beckett, Pinter, and Ionesco, but the experimentation and originality of the Existentia list playwrights is overshadowed by the obvious statements of a philosophy and call to action regarding man's place in society. Beckett, Pinter, and Ionesco are not to much concerned with these externals. Wellwarth sees the purpose of the current avant- garde (in this study called the new drama) to be, "... protest against the hopelessness of the human condition and against the strictures imposed on the individual by society. The method by which this protest is conveyed is the method of paradox, in which, a truth is presented by 3*? - an exaggerated emphasis on its opposite" ' (italics mine). Wellwarth's explanation of this application of paradox can be^ helpful in explicating much that is in new drama. This is by no means a new concept. Heraclitus, (ca. 500 B.C.), posited his rule of enantiodromia, a tendency towards the opposite, wherein the persistence of a one sided attitude inevitably brings about the opposite attitude in an automatic attempt to restore a balanced attitude.-^ This play of compensating opposites is applied also, throughout Jungian psychology, to the con cept of mental energy and will be explored later in the study of Pinter's plays themselves. One Way For Another (1951 ) by Jean Tardieu, takes place in an inverted world of the "nameless Archipelago" in which we see the opposite of what we might expect. Coughing has replaced applause - an invitation to a salon reception ends with, "...Please come prepared to cough." The salon has many tables for the guests to sit on but no chairs. As the guests enter the salon, the valet gives them hats to wear instead of taking them. A poetry recital is roundly deprecated and coughed at in a complimentary fashion. Balloons are passed out instead of cigarettes. And at the end of the party the hostess leaves and the 39 guests stay for the night. Pinter, regarding his literary influences, says that he had never heard of Ionesco until after he had kQ written his first few plays. Pinter comments in a letter (195^) on the work of Samuel Beckett: ...I don't want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He (Beckett) is the most courageous, re morseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the shit the more I am grateful to him. He's not fucking me about, he's not leading me up any garden, he's not slipping me any wink, he's not flogging me a remedy or a path or a revelation or a basinful of bread crumbs, he's not selling me anything I don't want to buy, he doesn't give a bollock whether I buy or not, he hasn't got his hand over his heart. Well I'll buy his goods, hook, line and sinker, because he leaves no stone unturned and no maggot lonely....^! kz Further evidence of the Jung-Beckett-Pinter connec tion may be traced from the fact that while Beckett was undergoing analysis in 1935* and writing Murphy, he attend ed a lecture by Jung which profoundly affected his writing. Extracted from the lecture: Because complexes have a certain will power, a sort of ego, we find that in a schizo phrenic condition they emancipate them selves from conscious control to such an extent that they become visible and audible. They appear as visions, they speak in voices of definite people.^2 In his opening speech at the Samuel Beckett Exhibition at Reading, in 1971» Pinter speaks glowingly of the influence 1^3 upon him of Beckett's Murphy and "Extract from Watt." As seen, Pinter admits to a strong affinity for Beckett and denies knowing of Ionesco, at least while writing his early plays. His theatre does seem more akin to Beckett than Ionesco. As has been discussed, Beckett and Pinter are not concerned with society, politics, or any of the other externals that the playwrights mentioned in this chapter are concerned with. Ionesco, despite pronouncements to the contrary, does seem to be concerned with society (at least in terms of how it suppresses the individual). He of cource, is close to Beckett and Pinter in his disdain for all ideologies and all three write with a minimum of conscious manipulation. Ionesco says that his plays are, "...a projection onto the stage of internal ______________________________________________________ ^3 conflict, of the universe that lies within...it is in the deepest part of myself, of my anguish and my dreams, it is in my solitude that I have the best chance of rediscovering the universe, the common ground." We have traced in this chapter, the great antipathies of the rational and the irrational from the Age of Reason to the present in terms of its theatrical manifestations and Jungian connections. It has been seen that the theatre of the past, as a mirror, as well as harbinger, of philosophical and cultural trends can provide insight into an understanding of the body of work of such exponents of the new drama as Beckett, Ionesco, and finally, Pinter. The trends studied from this period show a definite oscillation between an external and an internal approach to a world-view. The indication is that Theatre, as seen in the new drama, is now in an introspective mode. A Jungian articulation of this, it seems, might be helpful in attempting to fashion an explication and understanding of the new drama. As to Ionesco's impact on Pinter, one might surmise an, at least, indirect influence. Ionesco's The Bald Soprano was playing in London and being reviewed by Kenneth Tynan during the time that Pinter was conceiving and writing his early plays. If Pinter was not directly influenced by Ionesco, perhaps there was "something in the air." In an attempt to narrow down even further the AA influences on Pinter and the germination of his drama turgy, we will explore, in the next chapter, the theatrical, environment of Pinter's England. 45 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER 2 1 - ___ Carl G. Jung, ed., Man and His Symbols,-Part I: "Ap proaching the Unconscious," by Carl G. Jung (New Yorks Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 19^9), P* 91* 2 Deirdre Bair, Samuel Beckett: A Biography (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 19787, p. 20. •^Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, (Garden City, New York: Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., 1926), pp. ±66-167- k Marie-Louise von Franz, "Science and the Unconscious," in Man and His Symbols, pp. 380-381. z -'Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness, trans. by R. F. C. Hull (Princeton University Press, 1970), p . 3 84. Karen Homey, Neurosis and Human Growth, (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1969), p. 112. ^Robert C. Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx (Cambridge University Press, 196l), pp • 61-63 * 0 J. E. Cirlot, Dictionary of Symbols (New York: Philoso phical Library, 1962), p. 3* ^Tucker, Myth, p. 219* 10 Neumann, Origins, p. 13* 1 1 Marie-Louise von Franz, C. G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time, trans. by William H. Kennedy (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1975)» P* 128. 12Ibid. ■^Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot (New York: Grove Press, 195*0, p. 8. 1 k Horney, Neurosis, p. 157* 46 1 5 Colin Duckworth, Angels of Darkness (London: George Allen.and Unwin Ltd., 1972), p. 72. 1 6 John Lahr, "Pinter and Chekhovs The Bond of Naturalism," in Pinter, A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. by Arthur Ganz (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.s Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 6k. ■^Ibid., p. 66 . l8Ibid., p. 69. 19Ibid. 20 George E. Wellwarth, The Theatre of Protest and Paradox (New York University Press, 196?), pp. 1-5* 21Ibid., p. 10. 22 August Strindberg, "The Dream Play," in Plays by August Strindberg (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923)", pu 2k, 2-^Bair, Beckett, p. 208. ph Harold Pinter, "Writing for Myself," in Complete Works; Two (New Yorks Grove Press, Inc., 1977)> P* 12. 2 5 -'Duckworth, Angels, pp. 17, 18. 26 Eugene Ionesco, "There is No Avant-Garde Theatre," in European Theories of the Drama, ed. by Henry Popkin (New York; Crown Publishers, Inc., 1969)1 P* ko6. 2^Michael Benedikt, "Introduction," in Modern French Theatre, edited and translated by Michael Benedikt and George E. Wellwarth (New York's E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1966), p. xxiii. 28Bair, Beckett, p. 178. 2^Harold Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre," in Complete Works; One '(New Yorks Grove Press, Inc., 1977)> P* 10. k? 30 Wellwarth, Protest, p. 26. 31 Laurence M. Bensky, "Harold Pinter*. An Interview," in Pinter, A Collection of Critical Essays, p . 33• -^2Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre," p. 11. 33 J^Wallace Fowlie, "Sartre," in Essays in the Modem Drama, ed. by Morris Freedman (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1964), p. 208. 34 J Jean-Paul Sartre, "Forgers of Myths," m European Theories of the Drama, p. 400. -^Ibid. , p . 402 . -^Fowlie, "Sartre," p. 207* -^Wellwarth, Protest, p. 27* A. Bennet, What Jung Really Said (New York: Schocken Books, 1967). P* 92. -^Jean Tardieu, "One Way for Another," in Modem French Theatre, pp. 319-329* ^°Bensky,"Harold Pinter: An Interview," p. 22. 41 Lahr, "Pinter and Chekhov: The Bond of Naturalism," p. 61. 42 „ Bair, Beckett, pp. 207, 208. ^Haraid Pinter, "Pinter on Beckett," New Theatre Magazine XI, 3. P* 3* 44 John Russell Brown, "Mr. Pinter's Shakespeare," m Essays in the Modem Drama, p. 359* 4 8 CHAPTER 3 THE SEARCH FOR THE ALIENATED SELF IN POST-WAR ENGLAND We have thus far examined some prevalent movements in Western Theatre to help determine if an internal approach to Pinter is a viable one. In this chapter we will narrow the approach to the theatrical climate in Pinter's England to try to determine the more immediate influences on Pinter and whether or not our inward journey to the center of Pinter's dramaturgy will find greater substantiation. The contributing factors that led to that theatrical climate will be examined. Primary among these will be an examination of the major exponents of that group of play wrights of the 1950's and 60's known variously as the "angry young men," and the "kitchen sink" school. Critical reaction to this new wave will be looked at in its parti culars to try to determine if this movement in England was an extension of the internal/external dichotomy posited in the previous chapter. r It will try to be determined whether or not Pinter can be placed in good standing among the aforementioned group or if he was primarily a beneficiary of these young upstarts who were "cracking the mold" that had been British Theatre. Imported Theatre will also be surveyed ^9 for possible influence. After World War Two, the theatre industry in England was in a state of approaching chaos. About a fifth of the theatres in London had been destroyed or badly damaged by bombing; others were battered or just neglected. There was a shortage of actors, many still being in the armed forces. Many theatres had been converted to cinemas and of course television began vying for the viewing public. The cost of West End theatres, (the heart of British commercial theatre), steeply escalated through the process of letting and sub letting. Consequently the West End fare consisted mainly of the tried and true plays of traditional English theatre: drawing-room comedies; Shakespeare; harmless farces; well- made plays. As a reaction, to this financial and artistic wasteland, little theatres began to proliferate. They were self-financed and operated as clubs to avoid censorship. Many of the nascent movements in England borrowed from ether countries : Broadway for commercial musicals; New York for method acting; and the naturalistic drama of Tennessee /tfilliams and Arthur Miller. Paris contributed the most Influential philosopher-dramatist, Jean-Paul Sartre, the ;>est boulevard dramatist, Jean Anouilh, the best mimes, and the most stimulating avant-garde drama such as Arthur Adamov and Eugene Ionesco. Britain's contribution to the world theatre consisted primarily of some great individual actors, some competent 50 playwrights working in an old-fashioned style, some good directors, and poetic drama, T.S. Eliot, for one. According to John Elsom, in Post-War British Theatre, the one area where British drama was shown to "be palpably deficient was i in the pervasive theme, the Search for Self. If drama critics reflect what the public will accept, then perhaps we can get an indication of why the British drama was deficient in this theme. Kenneth Tynan, after reviewing several of Ionesco's plays in London, arrived at certain conclusions in his, "Postscript on Ionesco": The position towards which M. Ionesco is moving is that which rdgards art as if it were something different from and independent of everything else in the world? as if it not only did not but should not correspond to anything outside the mind of the artist.... M. Ionesco, I fear, is on the brink of believing that his distortions are more valid and important than the external world it is their proper function to interpret. Cyril Connolly once said, once and wanly, that it was closing time in the gardens of the West? but I deny the rest of that suavely cadenced sentence, which asserts that "from now on an artist will be judged only by the resonance of his solitude or the quality of his despair." Not by me he won'.t. I shall, I hope, respond to the honesty of such testimonies, but I shall be looking for something more, something harder: for evidence of the artist who is not content with the passive role of a symptom, but concerns himself, from time to time, with such things as healing. M. Ionesco correctly says that no ideology has yet abolished fear, pain, or sadness. Nor has any work of art. But both are in the business of trying. What other business is there?2 51 1956 was a year of theatrical changes, Waiting for Godot transferred to the West End. The Berliner Ensemble visited London for the first time. And Look Back in Anger by John Osborne premiered and was the first major success of the English Stage Company at the Royal Court Theatre. In a year of changes, Look Back in Anger came to symbolize the urgent demand for change with its theme of social alienation. It immediately became the outstanding dramatic success of a decade. A.E. Dyson, in his essay "Look Back in Anger," re marks that the play was seized on as a peg for more of the pseudo-sociology that has characterized the period. He points out that the phrase "angry young men" was coined with direct reference to this play. Dyson sees a gross error in the criticism which sees Jimmy Porter as the spokesman of a movement., and his anger as pointing to some protest, or program, or ideal which can be taken as the meaning of the play. According to this criticism the hero is regarded as straight forwardly admirable, and his 'anger' as a finely directed critique of British society in the mid 5°'s. But Dyson observes, "...it is clear that certain enigmas touching both the hero himself and the validity of his 'anger' are central to the effect of the play.... Jimmy Porter is not only a warm-hearted idealist raging against the evils of man and the universe, he is also a ______________________________________________________________52_ cruel and even morbid misfit in a group of reasonably normal and well-disposed people."-^ This realistic and challenging enigma, so central to the play, does not make for the degree of certainty offered by dramatic forms as definite as tragedy or comedy. Dyson compares Jimmy with Hamlet: "Such characters are placed in dramatic situations in which their potentia lities for noble insight and creativity are balanced, and often overwhelmed, by inter-related capacities for ignoble L l and destructive illusions." In terms of the two plays, the analogy can be seen stopping short in this manner: Hamlet's death forms a resolution and that "something rotten in the state of Denmark" is expunged. Porter's enigma is open-ended. Dyson points up two possible interpretations of the ending of Look Back in Anger: the warm animal love of Jimmy and Alison may lead to a happy and continuing relationship; and it is merely a temporary escape, which will have to be faced later. Dyson sees the sheer authenticity of the play as a shortcoming in that the play's background adds the pleasures of recognition for a contemporary audience and perhaps draws attention too exclusively to the sociological implica tions. Dyson says, "The peculiar quality of frustration in Jimmy's anger...seems to make such solutions as committal to a party or a cause hopelessly inaccessible to him."-^ 53 Dyson cites the mention of the hydrogen bomb and the limits which it sets both to personal heroism, and to the future, as incentives to hope and action. The age-old voice of moral outrage is being heard, but authentically in our own time and setting. Here, perhaps is a link with the existential Zeitgeist. The old values and guidelines are gone and there are no new ones to latch on to. This is expressed in rage (anger). So in a sense this problem is at least being addressed for perhaps the first time in British drama - the particular quality of the contemporary nature of this world-sorrow (weltsch- merz). And as such one can see the threads of it running in other British dramatists to come, even Pinter. Dyson says, that like Hamlet, Jimmy lacks the power to relate his powerful emotional revulsion against evil wither to a rational appraisal of the universe as a whole or to adequate self-knowledge. Perhaps Pinter, possibly not even concerned with the dilemma of modem man, is at least taking a stab at attaining some sort of self-know ledge . According to Dyson, Osborne's main concern seems to be to tell the truth of a situation, not to offer final moral reflections on it. Here, we may begin to see some of the seeds of Pinter where the concern is not to offer solutions or moral preachments but to try to discern what is actually happening, though with Pinter this discernment process may be on a different level of consciousness. Arnold Wesker is another member of the New Wave to hit British theatre after the initial impact of Osborne. He is mostly known for his trilogy, (first performed as a trilogy in i960), Chicken Soup with Barley, Roots, and I?'m Talking About Jerusalem. Most of these new writers had an education well short of university standards. Laurence Kitchin, in his essay, "Drama with a Messages Arnold Wesker," says that the result of this "...is a freshness of imaginative response side by side with conceptual poverty, as if they were artistically mature and intellectually virgin."^ To many critical opponents of the New Wave, Osborne, and Wesker, newcomers to the stage brought no joy to play goers in search of reassurance. Many of these critics would not deal with the subversive messages of the New Wave and preferred to use the snobbish epithet 'kitchen sink.' They had come to accept the West End image of drama as recreational only. Wesker's commitment to Socialism is a product of his family background. The context of his plays is the affluent society of the mid-century capitalist Western world and the problem is in the end moral and/or social. How is the underprivileged mass to become fully human? Wesker believes it can be done by education and the arts. Kitchin considers that aside from his personal _______________________________________________ 55 ■background and "message" Wesker's most notable qualities are emotional maturity and his command of action in depth. The inner framework contains social and political issues held together dramatically by Wesker's urgent concern for them and by his conviction that they affect the homely characters in front. His characters refer .to a social context far bigger than themselves. In Roots, the theatrical situation is that of a heroine ditched by her fiance and alone with a family she has outgrown. From the current sociological angle, Beatie Bryant is a working-class girl, newly awakened to the joys of abstract painting, classical music, and extra-marital love. From Wesker's angle she is also a creature with a choice between self-realization and absorption by the greedy mass of spenders corrupted by advertising; from her own, she is a woman in love who has done her best to reconcile her boy friend's view of life with that of her mother. By the end of the play she has been let down by everybody, yet she chooses that moment to assert herself with all the zest of a woman who at last knows her own mind, or thinks she does. In Chicken Soup with Barley, there are three acts, 193^» 19^6, and 1956. The action is that of time, politics, and social changes on a Jewish East End family. The political issues are almost inseparable from Wesker's characters and seem as much a part of the household as a _____________________________________________________________________________ 56 cup of tea. Sarah: Ah, Harry, you couldn't even make money during the war. The war! When everybody made money. Kitchin believes that Wesker has the advantage over Shaw in emotional maturity and at times in the layers of meaning piled up behind external action. Kitchin sees the New Wave approach of playing down the spoken word as a detriment to Wesker because he is such a master of the spoken word. But the playwright (especially when concerned with topical subjects) must come to grips with the produc tion techniques of his time. Wesker: "I am working very much towards a reduction not only of scenery, but of dialogue as well. I am becoming more conscious of style, and I bet the rest of my plays are no bloody good...the theatre is a place where one wants to see things happen-^ ; ing. By comparison, Pinter is able to keep the natural dialogue and yet we realize that the dialogue is not what is happening. There is something else that is unfolding. As Clove says in Endgame, "Something is taking its course. Pinter acknowledges Beckett and Kafka as main influences on his work, but according to Martin Esslin in his essay, "Godot and His Children: The Theatre of Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter," Pinter's success with public 57 and critics is his ear fro the real speech of real people. This knack of naturalness had led some critics to class Pinter with the social realists among the new wave of British playwrights, the 'kitchen sink school.' The affinity of his work with this group of playwrights, how ever, is a very superficial one, says Esslin. For Pinter is not a realist in their sense at all. He is not concerned with social questions, he fights for no political causes. Like Beckett he is essentially concerned with communicating a 'sense of being,' with producing patterns of poetic imagery, not in words so much as in the concrete, three dimensional happenings that take place on the stage. Pinter has shown that it is possible to combine the poetic imagery, the 'open' construction of the Theatre of the Absurd with the techniques which do not deviate too much from the mainstreams of the tradition of drama. Esslin goes on to say that Beckett's writings (and consequently those of Pinter, might be described as a literary exposition of Sartre's Existentialism. Existent ial philosophy starts from the rejection of the validity and reality of general concepts; experience comes before essence. Each individual has to work out his own salvation by himself, for encapsulated in his own particularity, he is utterly alone. For him, and for him alone, the good, the true, and the beautiful derive entirely from his own experience. ______________________________________________ 58 For Esslin, "•..the clue to the understanding of Waiting for Godot and of the other plays in this convention these plays are not like the convential well-made drama re-enacted stories, they are complex and extended poetic images brought to life before the eyes of the audience. If the drama of plot and character is akin to the narrative art, this type of play is essentially lyrical.... In the convential play we ask: what is going to happen next? ...In this kind of play we ask: what is happening? What is o the nature of the pattern that is unfolding."^ Esslin is inconsistent, it seems, in saying that the work of Pinter and Beckett subscribes to Sartre's party line. It has been clearly established (even by Esslin) that Pinter and Beckett are not political creatures. The freedom to choose and the responsibility to do so for the betterment of mankind runs rampant in Sartre's politicized "message" plays. Regarding Sartre's "existence before essence": the archetypal images of the collective uncons cious (so much, I believe, a part of Pinter and Beckett's dramaturgy) are transpersonal and their essential features existed long before the personal conscious or personal unconscious of anyone alive today. In this sense, essence comes before existence. Other similarities, as noted by Esslin are easier to see the rejection of Rationalism and deterministic thinking as the only proper modes of thought for mankind; and, of __________________________________________________________________________£ 9 _ course, man's solitude (one of Sartre's three basic pre cepts) and the need for him to work out his own problems, if possible. Allardyce Nicoll takes a different view of the trends in British drama since the war than the writers cited so far. He starts with the general statement, "...in all periods contemporaries are but ill-equipped to measure and evaluate the worth of the writings produced during their 10 own ages." The new movements of the mid-fifties and the trends and changes in English Theatre we have spoken of so far, are, according to Nicoll, merely, ">r.a kind of con densed and accelerated repetition of the more long-drawn- out movement from 1900 to 1930• He sees the 'kitchen sink school' as retreatments of depictions of lower middle class life that aroused excite ment between 1900 and 1915- The two periods, by revolting against the poetic play and the 'drawing-room* drama, exploit similar themes, situations, and characters. Nicoll puts the plays of N.F. Simpson, Beckett, and Pinter in the same category. He connects them with the Surrealist and Dadaist movements and he sees in this new drama potential for audience alienation and that some of its objectives are basically anti-theatrical and anti- dramatic . Nicoll says, "...we must seek to be logical: if a dramatist finds that he has not the ability to express his 60 concepts in words, then the only thing for him to do is to 12 step back and give his place to the actors." Pinter might respond in this way: A character on the stage who can present no convincing argument or information as to his past experience, his present behavior or his aspirations, nor give a comprehensive analysis of his motives is as legitimate and as worthy of attention as one who, alarmingly, can do all these things. The more acute the experience the less articulate its expression.13 Although there are similarities between Simpson's plays and those of Pinter and Beckett, they seem to be basically on the surface. The main similarity is that things, events, dialogue are not to be taken for what they appear to be. One must look/deeper for significance. This relates, of course, to the theory of opposites alluded to in the previous chapter and in the plays of the Frenchman, Tardieu. Wellwarth says that Simpson is perhaps closer in spirit to Jarry than any of the current avant-garde play wrights are. In A Resounding Tinkle (1957) the family is even named Paradock. The plays themselves are exercises in Jarry's concept of 'Pataphysics,* the impossible carried out in accordance with the laws by which the possible exists. For example, in One Way Pendulum, Kirby Groomkirby likes to wear black, but black is for mourning someone he knows, so he tells jokes to strangers to make their acquaintance, and then kills them. 61 Under the slapstick and nonsense can be seen Simpson's protest against the time-worn customs and institutions of society. And in this sense, he is different than Beckett and Pinter. Simpson may be important in the sense that the English public was being reawakened to the idea that there are different levels of consciousness and reality, and different kinds of thinking besides the logical. And this of course opens up‘various possibilities for the theatre in England including the theatre of Pinter. In spite of the differences cited so far in the plays of Pinter and those of other New Wave playwrights, there are, it would seem, many similarities. Though Pinter was definitely influenced by Beckett, he does not create in a vacuum and the same environmental influences on Osborne, Wesker, Simpson and others of the New Wave also effect him, at least on a conscious level. Look Back in Anger, the plays of Wesker, and Pinter's early plays all deal with a lower-class environment. They all use "real speech of real people." The angst of Jimmy * Porter is prevalent in Pinter. Porter's awareness of the futility of joining social causes is perhaps a stepping stone to turning inward and exploring the individual - the search for self that is Pinter. Even Wesker, anti-capital ist that he is, sees self-improvement by way of education and the arts as the means to combat the corruptive forces of capitalism. On a more surface level, the grotesqueries • 62 and exaggerations of Simpson are also seen in Pinter. Since 195& in England, it has been possible to break up the old unities of the well-made play which inhibited the treatment of certain wide-ranging themes. Since the abolition of censorship, (the Lord Chamberlain's Examiner of Plays), in 1968, the restrictions which prevented the dramatic realization of certain sexual subjects and 'other affronts to public taste' have disappeared. Environmental theatre opens out the prospect of a more flexible idiom. Modem Drama and the avant-garde are not bound by syllogis tic. The associative logic of dreams can take its place. In general, the old three-act 'well-made* plays were replaced by two-act plays. The three-act play followed the pattern: major premise; minor premise; and conclusion of resolution. By dropping an act the logical pattern was set aside. The playwright of the new drama does not know everything about his characters, but in letting them "carry their own can" (as Pinter would say), he might have at least a start in his search for the alienated Self. The search for the alienated self in England has shed light on the fact that, in the main, the theatrical expon ents of this search were dealing primarily with its exter nal ramifications, that is, existential man versus society, alone in an uncaring universe. However, as we have seen, the type of theatre of the 1950's and 60's, as expounded by Osbourne, Wesker, Simpson, _________________________________________ ; _________________________________ 63 et al, was a departure from the traditional English drawing room drama, light comedies, and imported musicals, and thus set the stage, as it were, for an acceptance, though be grudgingly at first, for the drama of Pinter. Synchronistically, the appearance of the non-linear imported works of Beckett and Ionesco during this same period on the London stage was also instrumental in prepar ing the stage for Pinter. In one way, Pinter's early work may be seen as a synthesis of these two approaches - the naturalistic speech of the "angry young men" combined with the archetypal images of the unconscious that is Beckett- and Ionesco. The puzzlement of the critics with the initial Pinter may perhaps be due in part to the fact that while they were heralding the plays of Osbourne and the others as "new wave," they could at least still apply the same traditional critical standards. This was apparently not to be the case with the early works of Pinter. If a method of exploring the unconscious elements of these plays, in terms recognizable by the critics, can be found, then an explication of sorts might at least be ex- posited. One approach, necessarily different from traditional ones, is to try to establish who or what is the ego-center, and where it is. This might not necessarily be the "character" who is seen the most or who speaks the most. The traditional critics have touched on this 6k possibility (perhaps unconsciously) when they call Pinter, "The Poet of Silence." This ego-center, once established, can perhaps be traced through this unit of plays in terras of growth and permutation. The precedent has been set by Beckett himself, who readily admits that each of his 1 5 characters evolves from the ones that have gone before. Another clue that may be garnered from Beckett is his well- 1 f i known mother-complex, which may account, in part, for Pinter's fascination with Beckett's work as well as its impact on his own. These elements will be explored in the next chapter as we look into the plays themselves. 6i FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER 3 1 John Elsom, Post-War British Theatre (Londons Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1979)» PP* 7 and ff. 2 Kenneth Tynan, Curtains (New York: Atheneum, 1961), pp. 409-410. ■^A.E. Dyson, "Look Back in Anger," in Modern British Dramatists, ed. by John Russell Brown (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), pp. 47-48. ^Ibid., p. 48. ■^Ibid., p . 49 • Laurence Kitchin, "Drama with a Message; Arnold Wesker," Modem British Dramatists, p. 71* ' ’ ' ibid., p . 81. Q Samuel Beckett, Endgame (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1958), p. 32. ^Martin Esslin, "Godot and His Children: The Theatre of Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter," in Modem British Dramatists, pp. 61-62. 10Allardyce Nicoll, British Drama: An Historical Survey (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 19^3)» P* 321. 11Ibid., p. 324. 12Ibid., p. 337. ■^Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre," p. 11. 1 4 Wellwarth, Protest, pp. 212-220. ■^Bair, Beckett, p. 639* 1 6 Ibid., Beckett's mother-complex is an important theme throughout Bair's book.____________________________________ 66 CHAPTER Ur DESCENT INTO THE NETHERWORLD; THE PLAYS EXPLORED It is as if the poet could still sense, beneath the words of contemporary speech and in the images that crowd in upon his imagination, the ghostly presence of by gone spiritual worlds, and possessed the capacity to make them come alive again. — Jung‘ S Colin Duckworth, in his book Angels of Darkness, cites fifteen features of an account of Schizophrenia as listed by Drs. Curran and Gutmann; 1. Nihilistic ideas 2. De-personalization 3- De-realization h. Thought-block 5• Failure of communication 6. Catatonia 7« Obscene outbursts 8. Pre-occupation with disorders of excretory functions 9. Suggestibility 10. Frenzied outbursts 11. Periods of silence and inertia 12. Neglect of personal hygiene 13* Flight of ideas l4. Word *salds', neologisms, auto-echolalia 15* Polyvalent ambiguous symbolism, vague metaphysical ideas and religious references.2 Duckworth is concerned with how these features can be seen in the plays of Beckett, primarily Waiting for Godot, as pointed out to him by a psychiatrist. Duckworth takes issue, and rightly so, with the psychiatrist who claims 67 Waiting for Godot to foe a schizophrenic mode of expression and thus dangerous. This same list could foe applied to the first five stage plays of Pinter as well. Does this mean then, that in analyzing these plays of Pinter, they should foe approached as being the issuance of a sick mind? Not at all! Neumann makes the distinction between the creative individual and the neurotic wherein the former has the conscious capacity to withstand a surcharge of unconscious activity, while the latter suffers a disturbance in his j j , conscious development. Moshe Lazar, referring to such writers as Strindberg, Kafka, Beckett, and Ionesco, lends support to this from a critical point-of-view: If psychoanalysis started out as and still remains a 'talking cure,' then the expression- istic confessional monologues and dialogues of these authors are a 'writing cure* of sorts, a psychodramatic performance in the narrative, pictorial, or theatrical mode. ...The very personal psychodramatic process is transcended into an artwork, contrary to the irrational and hallucinatory narratives of a psychotic mind.5 Artists, such as Pinter, seems to be very much in touch with this unconscious activity, and by making it artis'ti- cally inviting, the theatre audience can also partake, to a lesser degree perhaps, by at least dipping their collective toes into these murky waters. The critic, however, cannot be satisfied with such a surface dis turbance, he must plunge in. But the usual critical . v. . > . 68 tools do not seem to be wholly satisfactory in trying to explicate the new drama. The dreamlike imagery of Pinter's early plays, along with his own statements, indicate that he was writing in a hypnagogic state of mind. There have been various terms used throughout the years to describe or closely describe this type of creative activity: daydream; brown study; automatic writing; stream of consciousness; free association; and active imagination - to name a few. One possible approach to explicating the work of this kind of artist is to allow the imagery and allusive language to engender, as nearly as possible, this same state of mind. An obvious pitfall, of course, is that the critice is in danger of being seen just as cryptically as the artist is. And, of course he is enjoined by the constraints of the critical discipline to write as clearly and as discursive ly as possible. Another way of putting it is that he must be objective and subjective at the same time. But, the best that one might hope for from this kind of journey into the Netherworld is to at least alternate on as even as keel as possible so that some sense of direction may be discerned. There are several consistently repeated elements in the plays of this study that may help to steady the course of this exploration into the psyche: the hypothesis of the room as metaphor of the mind with props and verbal images ________________________________________________; ______________ 65 as metaphors of various psychic elements; identification of the ego-center around which all the other "characters" chrystalize; and the concept of the mother archetype as it effects these various elements. Congruent with the last example is the notion of the stereotypical "overbearing Jewish mother," (which may.be seen on a more surface, cultural level, but never-the-less indicates an important connective throughout Pinter*s work) Jean Cocteau has said, "The poet is at the disposal of his night. He must clean his house and await (night*s) visitation. Pinter and other writers of the new drama may perhaps rely on the above, but their critics must actively pursue the obverse of this. This is the intent, at least, of this chapter, in terms of the first five stage plays of Harold Pinter: The Room; The Birthday Party; The Dumb Waiter; The Caretaker; and The Homecoming. I. The Room I am in my mother's room. It's I who live there now. I don't know how I got there. Perhaps in an ambulance, certainly a vehicle of some kind. I was helped. I'd never have got there alone... 8 — Samuel Beckett, Molloy The Room takes place within one room that we are told is within a large house. A door down right. A gas fire down left- . A gas stove and sink, up left. A window up center. A table and chairs, center. A rocking chair, 70 left center. The foqi; of a double-bed protrudes from alcove, up right. Bert is at the table, wearing a cap... Rose is at the stove. "As long as the archetypal mother dominates our psychology," says James Hillman, in The Dream and the Underworld, "we cannot help but see dreams from her perspective and read the dream’s message as Q corresponding with her concerns." Criticism of The Room, to date, does just that - seeing the play from Rose's perspective. According to Cirlot's Dictionary of Symbols, a room is a symbol of individuality - of private thoughts. The window symbolizes the possibility of understanding and of passing through to the eternal and the beyond, and are 10 also an illustration of any ideas of communication. If we can assume that the room is a metaphor for the mind, then a point of demarcation in studying the play may very well be the center of the room - the ego-centric. Situated at the center, according to the stage directions are table and chairs and Bert Hudd. Bert does not move from this position until well into the play. De Laszlo points out that in Jungian dream interpretation the dreamer is not encouraged to stray far from its natural center and thus a certain amount of conscious understanding is directed towards that area of the unconscious whence the dream in 11 question originated. (This is seen also in Beckett's Endgame where Hamm is constantly directing Clov to put 71 him exactly in the center). Bert is wearing a cap and reading a magazine. Again Cirlot, paraphrasing Jung, says that the hat, since it covers the head, generally takes on the significance of what goes on inside its thought. A cap can also confer 12 invisibility (symbolic of repression). Reading the magazine also helps to indicate that Bert is deep in thought or rumination. The Room starts with Rose at the stove which is on stage left. In the first part of the play, all of her actions and movements, as she administers to Bert, are on the left side of the stage. Her rocking chair is to the % left of center. According to Cirlot, Jung notes that the mother is symbolic of the collective unconscious, of the 13 left and nocturnal side of existence. ^ Bert's wife Rose may also be seen as representing his mother. . She is sixty years old, ten years older than Bert - a little too young to be his mother yet, it could be argued, a little old to be his wife. Many men have married women in the image of their mothers. Rose administers to Bert's every need, like a mother - an over bearing mother. (A Terribel-Mother and yet at times she has attributes of a Good-Mother.) She butters his bread; pours his tea (he likes his weak, she likes hers strong); dresses him against the cold; butters him up saying what a good driver he is; and yet she is constantly warning his of the dangers outside: 72 I don't know whether you ought to go out... I don't know why you have to go out. Couldn't you run it down tomorrow... It's got ice on the roads. Bennet points out the two sides of the mother complex: the woman who is the perfect mother also sucks the life out of 1 *5 her children because she has no life of her own. Rose says, "...The day is a hump. I never go out." Rose is constantly talking about their good fortune at having such a warm cozy room as opposed to the room in the basement. It’s as though she has a premonition of the menace or personal nemesis that lies in waiting for her: ...It's good you were up here, I can tell you. It's good you weren't down there, in the basement...-Those walls would have finished you off. I don't know who lives down there now. Whoever it is, they're taking a big chance. Maybe they're foreigners... If they ever ask you Bert, I'm quite happy where I am. We're quiet, we're all right. You're happy up here. It's not far up either, when you come in from outside. And we're not bothered. And nobody bothers us. Since Bert doesn't move from the chair, his know ledge of what goes on outside the room is conveyed to him by Rose as she looks out the window, (symbol of the possibility of understanding).. He receives his understand ing of the world through Rose, not first hand. Mr. Kidd, an old man, enters the room, saying that he has been looking at the pipes. He is assumed by Rose to be the landlord, but she is not sure and neither are __________________________________________________________________________ Z3_ we. The similarities in the names Hudd and Kidd plus the deference of Mr. Kidd towards Bert indicate that he may be Bert's alter-ego/opposite, and/or an aspect of Bert's psyche at a different stage-of time or a different level of consciousness. One of his main characteristics is for ge tfullness . Hillman points out that forgetfullness can be seen as a means of delivering events to anpther arche typal realm.^ Mr. Kidd can also be seen as an indicator of what is in store for Bert in the process of self-individuation. Kidd has gone beyond mother-fixation. His mother is a vague memory, "...I think my mum was a Jewess." p. 109 Here a tie may be seen with Pinter, if we see Kidd as an extension of Bert, Pinter's ego representative. Further more, Mr. Kidd has gone beyond the anima stage; his sister has died. With her death, he has lost track of the quantity of rooms and floors in the house. He notes that she resembled his mother though she was taller of course. He speaks of her lovingly: She used to keep things in very good trim. And I gave her a helping hand. ...She had a lovely boudoir. A beautiful boudoir, p.109 Earlier, Rose had been curious about Mr. Kidd's bedroom: Rose: I thought your bedroom was at the back, • / . . . /.Mr.' Kidd. Mr. Kidd: My bedroom? Rose: Wasn't it at the back? Not that I ever knew. Mr. Kidd: I wasn't in my bedroom. Rose: Oh, well. ___________________________________________________________________ 7b Mr. Kidd; I was up and about. Rose: I don't get up early in this weather. I can take my time. Pause. Mr. Kidd: This was my bedroom. Rose: This? When? Mr. Kidd: When I lived here. Rose: I didn't know that. p. 107* Later, Rose asks, "Where's your bedroom now then, Mr. Kidd?" Mr. Kidd responds, "Me? I can take my pick." pp. 109-110. This dialogue enhances Rose's fear that she is in the room on borrowed time and gives a strength to Mr. Kidd that is not so readily apparent. It is almost as though he has never really left the room and is perhaps still residing there in the figure of Bert. This adds to his qualities as a universal archetypal figure and as a compensatory agent there at Bert's bidding. When Mr. Kidd leaves the room, Rose attempts to minimize his power as a paradigm for Bert, "I don't believe he had a sister, ever.' p. 110. This link and foreboding of things to things to come is also established as Mr. Kidd speaks of Bert's van as though it were a woman: I was just looking at your van. She's a very nice little van, that. I notice you wrap her up well for the cold. I don't blame you. Yes, I was hearing you off, when was it, the other morning, yes. Very smooth. I can tell a good gear-change. p.107. Shortly after Bert, (still without saying a word), leaves, Rose opens the door to go out and empty the trash 75 but is startled to find the young couple Toddy and Clarissa Sands standing on the landing. They explain that they have just come up the stairs looking for the land lord. They come into the center of the room (the ego- center that Bert has just left). Rose immediately invites them away from the center to get warm by the fire - Mr. Sands declines. The visual image of Mr. Sands in the area that Bert has occupied until now suggests a relationship between him and Bert. The similarity in the names Hudd and Kidd has already been mentioned and now we see the same double "d" (doubles) in Toddy Sands with the diminutive "y" suggest ing a younger version. Indeed, the Sands are under the impression that Mr. Hudd and Mr. Kidd are the same person. After Rose attempts to clarify this notion, Mrs. Sands says, "Maybe there are two landlords." Mr. Sands responds; "That'll be the day." p. 113* Our first reading of this would take him to mean that there could be only one land lord, but if Mr. Sands were another aspect of Bert's fragmented psyche, he might very well mean that there are "at least" three landlords occupying the various levels of Consciousness. At least for now they may form a ternary - Kidd/Hudd/Toddy. Cirlot's dictionary says that the emergence of a third (latent) element imparts a dynamic 17 equilibrium to the binary situation. 1 Toddy Sands and his anim.a, Clarissa may be seen as _____________________________________________ 76 a younger more ideal version of Bert if circumstances had been different, and/or Bert in the Becoming as he strives for Self-hood. Mr. Sands seems to be aware of the psychic importance of Bert's trip in the van when he re marks that Bert is taking a big chance tonight. When Rose says, "What?", Mr. Sands seems to equivocate, responding, "No - I mean, it'd be a bit dodgy driving tonight." p. 11^. It's as though he is somehow privy to what is about to happen and does not want to give Rose any intimation of it. An argument takes place between Mr. and Mrs. Sands that might be revealing in terms of how they fit into this psychic picture: Mrs. Sands: You take after your uncle, that's who you take after. (Could Tood's uncle be Bert Hudd and/or Mr. Kidd - Hudd/Kidd?) Mr. Sands: And who do you take after? Mrs. Sands■(rising): I didn't bring you into the world. (The antinomy of the Rose/Bert relationship is spelled out in bold relief. Mrs. Sands will have none of that relationship, and in essence seems to be saying, "I am not your mother-and don't even suggest the possibility!") Mr. Sands: Well, who did then? That's what I want to know. Who did? Who did bring me into the world? The parallel is strong between the above and Mr. Kidd's 77 vague memory of his mother, reinforcing the kinship of Kidd/Toddy. On another level, Mr. Sands may be addressing Clarissa in her archetypal aspect as the feminine princi ple. If he was not of woman-born, could he be an image conjured up and constellated, by Bert perhaps? And for what reason? Perhaps the Sands are. Bert's emissaries, enjoined to help him right the psyche's imbalance. The Sands may be seen as shadow figures able to traverse the various levels of consciousness quite freely as they meander throughout the house, symbolic of the successive layers of consciousness. The name Sands evokes the image of an hour-glass, symbolic of consciousness and when inverted, the unconscious. Mrs.Sands; ...we were just coming down again when you opened the door. Rose: You said you were going up. Mrs. Sands: What? Rose: You said you were going up before. Mrs. Sands: No, we were coming down. Rose: You didn't say that before. Mrs. Sands: We'd been up. Mr. Sands: We'd been up. We were coming down. pp. 117-118. As Heraclitus says, "The way up and the way down are one 1 ft and the same." As the Sands describe their search for the landlord in the basement they confirm Rose's suspicions and anxiety regarding the nature of the basement in its dark 78 and damp aspect and that there is someone down there who is a threat to her. The Sands were able to get through the basement because of Toddy's good eyesight (and perhaps because he was accompanied by a positive anima figure). The. voice they heard down there was very polite") and help ful - to them. He tells them that there is a room vacant, number 7 - Hose's room: The Sands ignore Rose's protesta tions that the room is occupied and politely take their leave. After the Sands leave, an agitated Mr. Kidd enters. He ignores Rose's questions about the Sands, saying, "As soon as I heard the van go I got ready to come and see you. I'm knocked out." Rose's fear and uncertainty are mount ing, "Listen Mr. Kidd, you are the landlord, aren't you? There isn't any other landlord?" Again Mr. Kidd ignores her and relates that the man in the basement has been waiting for Bert to leave so he could come up and see her. Rose refuses at first, saying that she doesn't know him, to which Mr. Kidd responds, "But he knows you, Mrs. Hudd, he knows you." pp. 119-120. Rose's reaction gives an indication of how the various figures in the play operate from time to time on different levels of consciousness. Earlier when Mrs. Sands had asked Rose if she had ever t been in the basement she replied, "Oh yes, once a long time ago." p. 115* The contrast is now quite evident. 79 Rose: But I don't know anybody. We're quiet here. We've just moved into the district. Mr. Kidd: But he doesn't come from this district. Perhaps you knew him in another district. Rose: Mr. Kidd, do you think I go around knowing men in one district after another? What do you think I am? p.121. If the basement can be seen as a deep level of the unconscious, then Rose's relationship to it and any creature who inhabits it assume archetypal, universal ; qualities - "...in one district after another." The deeper one goes into the unconscious, the closer one comes to the realm of the collective unconscious, the First Parents, and the Great Mother. Mr. Kidd expresses his awareness that Rose and the man in the basement are somehow related to each other when he says, "Why don't you let me be, both of you?" p. 121. If Mr. Kidd is an aspect of Bert's psyche, he might just be expressing Bert's wishes. Rose only consents to see the man from the basement when Mr. Kidd assures her that after coming "all this way" he'll come up when Bert is there, if he has to. This is a clear threat to Rose's well-being and her.dominion. Rose says, "Fetch him. Quick. Quick!" Riley, a blind Negro, enters. Rose is prepared for battle - the battle of the First Parents and beyond. She assumes the all-powerful archetypal aspect of the Great Mother: 80 What do you think you've got here, a little girl? I can keep up with you. I'm one ahead of people like you... And a little later: ...You've got a grown-up woman in this room, do you hear? ...What do you know about this room? You know nothing about it. And you won't be staying in it long either.... pp. 122-123. But her position starts to crumble as Riley reveals his message to her. Rileys Your father wants you to come home. Rose; Home? Riley: Yes. Roses Home? Go now. Come on. It's late. It's late. Riley: To come home. Roses Stop it. I can't take it. What do you want? What do you want? p. 12U-. "Home" may be seen as her rightful place in the uncons cious to relinguish (at least for a while) her negative influence upon Bert. Riley manages to draw her closer to the unconscious as he calls her "Sal" (her archetypal name?). When some one is using another name, a certain amount of power is 19 lost when they are called by their true name. ^ Riley: Come home Sal. Pause. Roses What did you call me? Rileys Come home, Sal. 81 Rose : Don't call me that. Riley: Come, now. Rose : Don't call me that. Riley: So now you're here. Rose: Not Sal. Riley: Now I touch you. Rose : Don't touch me. Riley: Sal. Rose : I can't. Riley: I want you to come home. Rose: No. Riley: With me. Rose : I can't. Riley: I waited to see you. Rose : Yes. Riley: Now I see you. Rose : Yes. Riley: Sal. Rose : Not that. Riley: So, now. Pause. Rose: I've been here. Riley: Yes. Rose: Long. Riley: Yes. Rose: The day is a hump. I never go out. Riley: No . Rose: I've been here. Riley: Come home now, Sal. pp. 12^-125. She has been at a certain level of consciousness too long and is ready to return. The stage directions show that a ritual of communion is taking place in preparation for a union of opposites. 82 She touches his eyes, the hack of his head and his temples with her hands. At this point Bert enters and closes the curtains. It is now dark. He goes to the center of the room, looks at Rose, and speaks for the first time, "I got back all right." p. 125. Rose responds with a simple "yes" to r everything he says. It*s as though she has given up the ghost in her control over Bert. Bert describes his adventures in the van and the very icy conditions he had to drive through. Hillman points out that Dante*s Ninth Circle of the Inferno is all ice. The "...desires of the Ninth Circle give that cold psychological eye that sees all things from below, as 20 images caught in their circles,...." It is perhaps meaningful that as Bert was about to leave for his drive through the ice, Mr. Kidd did not say "Goodbye," but "Arivederci." Hillman remarks that therapeutic analysis "...has still to venture into the frozen depths that have so fascinated poets and explorers and that in depth psy chology are the areas of our archetypal crystallizations, 21 the immovable depressions and the mutisms of catatonia." Bert's van may be seen as symbolic of the anima and its incipient crystallization. For Jung, the true symbol is, "...the expression of an intuitive perception which can as yet neither be apprehended better, nor expressed p p differently." Bert speaks of his van as though it were 83 a woman: I caned her along. She was good. Then I got back. I could see the road all right. There was no cars. One there was. He wouldn't move. I bumped him. I got my road. I had all my way. There again and back. They shoved out of it. I kept on the straight. There was no mixing it. Not with her. She was good. She went with me. She don't mix it with me. I use my hand. Like that. I get hold of her. I go where I go. She took me there. She brought me back. p. 126. With Bert's successful descent and return from the netherworld and his reorientation to the feminine princi ple, both Rose and Riley are out of place at this new level of consciousness. Riley: Mr. Hudd, your wife -- Bert: Lice! Since Bert does not let Riley finish the sentence, we can only speculate on what Riley was about to say. ("...is your mother," is a possibility.) At first glance it would seem that Bert is calling only Riley, "Lice," and indeed other critics see it that way. But why does he use the . plural? Perhaps he is referring to both Riley and Rose as unwanted and unneeded parasites at this stage. Bert knocks Riley down, kicking him. Rose clutches her eyes, saying, "Can't see. I can't see. I can't see." p. 126. The union of opposites is complete, (at least for the time-being). She has returned with the blind Riley to the netherworld of the unconscious, the realm of the 84 First Parents. It is important at this time to discuss some of the recurring verbal and visual images of The Room not only because they help to establish and explicate a link between the various elements of the play, but because they are also repeated in the other five plays of this study and may help in discerning a certain continuum in these plays. The image of sitting/standing is brought out in bold relief during the scene with Mr. and Mrs. Sands, but it can be seen as a predominant image throughout the play. It may indicate whether a particular aspect of the various psychic projections is dominant or subserviant. When the Sands enter, Rose invites them to sit down away from the center of the room and near the fire. Mr. Sands refuses, preferring to stand near the center. In a moment off guard, Mr. Sands "perches" on the table. Mrs. Sands: You're sitting down! Mr. Sands: (jumping up). Who is? Mrs. Sands: You were. Mr. Sands: Don't be silly. I perched. Mrs. Sands: I saw you sit down. Mr. Sands: You did not see me sit down because I did not sit bloody well down. I perched. Mrs. Sands: Do you think I can't perceive when someone's sitting down? p. 116. At the beginning of the play Bert is sitting; Rose is standing. When Rose hears a knock at the door, she __________________________________________________________________________ 85 stands. When Mr. Kidd enters, Rose repeatedly tells him to sit; he refuses. He finally sits at a point in the dialogue where Rose seems unsure of herself. When the blind Riley enters, Rose tells him to sit and by contrast to the others, he does. It is as though Riley has nothing to fear; he considers himself at this moment on an equal level with Rose. In short course she sees his sitting as an impertinence: • ...You force your way up here. You disturb my evening. You come in and sit down here. What do you want? p. 122. A related image is that of Rose sitting in her rock ing chair during transitional periods in the play and the recurring stage directions, "She rocks." After one such direction, she says, "It gets dark now." p. 103. (Blind people rock because it gives them a sense of movement and 23 - - place.) ^ This image can be seen as foreshadowing her. ; eventual blindness. Another recurring image is that of the magazine Bert was reading before he left on his journey. He reads the whole time Rose is talking and continues reading while Mr. Kidd is in the room. After Bert leaves, Rose watches the door, "...then turns slowly to the table, picks up the magazine and puts it down." The Sands enter shortly thereafter. When the Sands leave, Rose, "...picks up the magazine, looks at it, and puts it down." Soon Mr. Kidd 86 enters again. For Rose, the magazine may be identified as an animistic connection with Bert’s psyche and by look ing at it she might be able to discern what he is up to, or thinking about. This will be explored further in the other plays. Bennet points out, "When unhealthy'identi fication occurs we may anticipate the appearance of an opposite in ...dreams .. .and his presences represents the aim of the dream to establish compensation to restore 2k healthy conditions in the mind." In this regard, the Sands and Mr. Kidd may be seen as forces at work on Bert’s behalf. How reading material is handled; sitting/standing; dominance/subservience; and light/blindness, darkness are a few of the important prevailing images that run through out the plays in this study and tend to highlight how the various psychic projections are inter-related. And so, The Room may be seen as an, at least temporary, defeat of the mother-dragon. It wasn't easy and the calling up of all the reserves of the psyche was necessary to- help bring it about. Various father, uncle, double/opposite, and anima figures had to be summoned by the ego-center, Bert. The mother-image who had stayed too long, in her terrible aspect, was a formidable foe. The archetypal night-sea journey is usually necessary when a re-orientation of consciousness is called for but in this case the effort required was so protean that the _____________________________________________________________________________87 ego-center had to descend to the very depths - the frozen depths - of the unconscious. With the help of and the assimiliation of his anima aspect, he was able to return unscathed, but prepared for the eventual relegation of the Terrible aspect of the Great Mother back to her proper level of the unconscious where her influence upon the ego- consciousness would not be so pronounced. Of course all of the above are only some of the myriad of possible interpretations of The Room and an attempt at a clear delineation of the well-nigh infinite refractions of the psyche involved is primarily to establish a framework, a point of reference, for a possible understanding of the plays in this study. The' question remains, "Why would Bert attack Riley if he is merely trying to help him restore a healthy balance?" Jung says, "No one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real... these have an - emotional nature . . . . " If Bert is recognized as representative of the ego- center in The Room, then we may look for similar attrib utes among the figures in Pinter's next play, The Birthday Party in trying to discern the focus or center of that play as well. An important clue might well be the determination of who among them is the "silent character." 88 II. The Birthday Party For example my mother's death. Was she already dead when I came? Or did she only die later? I mean enough to bury. I don't know. Perhaps they haven't buried her yet. Samuel Beckett, Molloy. The opening of The Birthday Party is similar in many respects to The Room, but upon closer examination many somewhat subtle differences may be discerned. These differences, in the aggregate, may be seen as a slow * * . changing of consciousness from that of The Room. There are again table and chairs at the center of the room, but the room is now the livingroom of a house in a seaside town. Petey and Meg may be seen as Bert and Rose at a different stage of relationship. Petey and Meg are both now sixty years old while Bert was fifty and Rose sixty. The difference in their relationship is initially articu lated visually. Petey enters the room from the left and sits at the table; Bert was already sitting at the table in The Room. Petey has reading material with him (a newspaper) as did Bert (amagazine). Pete's entrance indicates a certain mobility, an activeness, that was missing in Bert, at first. This visual image is reinforced as Meg prepares breakfast for him. He rises and takes the com flakes from her; he later rises and takes the plate of fried ______________________________ 89 bread from her. This is contrasted to The Room where Rose brought everything in a motherly fashion to the ^sedentary Bert. This hint at independence on Petey's part and the fact that he and Meg are the same age indicate more of a wife/husband relationship than that of Rose/Bert. Meg later says to Stanley, "He (Petey) knows I'm not a bad 27 wife." The Terrible Mother aspect that was Rose in The Room has been by now assimilated by Petey and what remains is the anima/Good Mother aspect in its relationship to Petey. But the relationship between Stanley (in his late thirties) and Meg is very similar to that of Bert/Rose. Meg administers to Stanley and addresses him like an over bearing mother. The play is replete with passages similar to: "Now you eat those cornflakes like a good boy. Go on." p. 2^. But the most obvious difference is that Stanley is a border in this house. His stay is transient and he perhaps does not even belong here although he wants to remain seemingly forever. Much reference is made to the amount of time Stanley spends in his bedroom and how drowsy and tired he always seems to be. Neumann says, "So long as the infantile ego consciousness is weak and feels the strain of its own existence as heavy and oppressive, while drowsiness and sleep are felt as delicious pleasure, it has not yet discovered its own reality and different ness . 90 While the Petey/Meg relationship seems to he on an even keel, what is to be made of the Stanley/Meg pairing? Stanley can perhaps be seen as a shadow side of Petey and the Stanley/Meg relationship as a remnant or memory of the past that has not entirely released its negative influence on the ego-center that is Petey. As Jung says, "The hero's victory over the "mother," or over her daemonic representative (dragon, etc.), is never anything but 29 temporary." As seen in the discussion of The Room: when the need is present to restore an imbalance in the psyche, com pensatory forces appear: Petey (turning to her): Oh, Meg, two men came up to me on the beach last night. Meg: Two men? Petey: Yes. They wanted to know if we could put them up for a couple of nights. Meg: Put them up? Here? Petey: Yes. Meg: How many men? Petey: Two. Meg: What did you say? Petey: Well, I said I didn't know. So they said they'd come round to find out. Meg: Are they coming? Petey: Well, they said they would. Meg: Had they heard about us, Petey? Petey: They must have done. p. 22. "As masculine self-consciousness grows stronger," says Neumann, "The stage of matriarchy is followed by that of 21 division. Symptomatic of this transition period is the twin-brother motif in mythology, which expresses the 30 mutual affinity of opposites."^ Before Meg tells Stanley the information about the two men coming, a foreshadowing of his impending isolation is revealed by her, "You'll be lonely, all by yourself." p. 29. This echoes what the Sands had said to Rose in The Room, "...Must be lonely for you, being all alone here." p. 118. As Stanley is told about the two men coming, his reaction of fear and anxiety is similar to that of Rose's reaction to the news of Riley wanting to see her in The Room: first in denial; then asking for the details; then a swelling up of false courage. And finally assuming an identity (perhaps archetypal) at once powerful and menac ing, Stanley*. Who do you think you're talking to?... and: ...Tell me, Mrs. Boles, when you address yourself to me, do you ever ask yourself who exactly you are talking to? Eh? p. 31- This is very similar to Rose's admonition to Riley in The Room; What do you think you've got here, a little girl? I can keep up with you. I'm one ahead of people like you. p. 122. It is as though Stanley is suspecting that Meg (perhaps __________________________________________ 92 unwittingly) is part of the gradual martialing of forces determined to drive him out. Stanley later tries another tack as though he were aware that Meg shares something in common with Rose. He tries to re-kindle that same insecurity in her, implying that the two men have come for her and not for him. Meg, however, is able to fend off the threat, Stanley (advancing): They're coming today. They*re coming in a van. Meg: Who? Stanley: And do you know what they've got in that van? Meg: What? Stanley: They've got a wheelbarrow in that van. Meg (breathlessly): They haven't. Stanley: Oh yes they have. Meg: You*re a liar. Stanley (advancing upon her): A big wheel barrow. And when the van stops they wheel it out, and they wheel it up the garden path, and then they knock at the front door. Meg: They don't. Stanley: They're looking for someone. Meg: They're not. Stanley: They're looking for someone. A certain person. Meg (hoarsely): No, they're not! Stanley: Shall I tell you who they're looking for? Meg: No. Stanley: You don't want me to tell you? Meg: You're a liar. p. 3^* 93 A sudden knock on the front door interupts this harass ment of Meg by Stanley, as though by design. Meg leaves and in a short scene with the sexy Lulu, a girl in her twenties, Stanley is shown to be woefully inadequate in terms of accepting any anima figure. The name "lulu" is not typically Irish, Jewish, or even English so we might have to look elsewhere for any significance this name might carry. The famous "lulu" plays of the German writer Frank Wedekind, have Lulu as the embodiment of the carnal. The amoral sexuality, personified by Lulu, can bring 31 extreme pleasure, but also destruction and even death. Stanley's out-of-hand rejection of Lulu implies a stunted libido and further highlights the infantile nature of one who is not even attracted by this "forbidden fruit." Lulu admonishes him for never going out. (In The Room, Rose never went out.) After Stanley demurs from going out on a picnic with her, Lulu sums up by saying, "You're a bit of a washout, aren't you?" p. 36. The stage has been set for the appearance of Gold berg and McCann as Stanley slips out of sight in order to watch them, unnoticed. Again the sitting/standing motif appears. Goldberg: Don't worry yourself, McCann. Take a seat. McCann: What about you? Goldberg: What about me? McCann: Are you going to take a seat? Goldberg: We'll both take a seat. p. 37. __________________________________________________________________________ 9U The above indicates that these two are complimentary figures, helpful to each other and, for the moment, not vying for dominance. Although Goldberg does seem to be calling the shots, McCann is his sole accomplice. Meg -underscores her tacit (perhaps intuitive) understanding of the situation and the role Goldberg and McCann are to play when she assigns them to the same room. Meg: Oh, I've put you both together. Do you mind being both together? Goldberg: I don*t mind. Do you mind, McCann? McCann: No. p . 43• She had let them know that today was Stanley*s birthday (something that Stanley later denies). Goldberg leaps at the suggestion implicit in this revelation and offers to take care of arrangements for a birthday party for Stanley - the type of ritual that would be conducive to the task they are about. "We'll bring, him out of himself, ' says Goldberg, p. 43* According to Cirlot, "...every rite is a meeting, that is, a confluence of forces and patterns; the significance of rites stems from the accumulated power of these forces when blended harmonious- 3 2 ly one with the other." Much like the ritual of annointment between Rose and Riley in The Room, although in The Birthday Party it is on.a larger scale. At the end of Act I, Meg reveals to Stanley that she has brought him a birthday present - a boy's drum. __________________________________________________________________________ 2JL He accepts for the moment this yoke of subservience and defeat saying, "Shall I put it round my neck?" p. ^-6. For Cirlot, the drum is a "...symbol of primordial sound,.... With the aid of drums, shamans can induce a state of ecstasy. ...In the most primitive cultures, as in the most advanced, it is equated with the sacrificial altar...," and the drum in the form of an hour-glass, 33 symbolizes Inversion. The stage directions seem to bear this out. She watches him, uncertainly. He hangs the drum around his neck, tans it gently with the sticks, then marches round the table, beating it regularly. Meg, pleased, watches him. Still beating it regularly, he begins to go round the table a second time. Half way round the beat becomes erratic, un controlled. Meg expresses dismay. He arrives at her chair, banging the drum, his face and the drumbeat now savage and possessed. Curtain p. ^6. Thus Stanley is prepared for his birthday party, or perhaps more appropriately stated, his "re-birthday party." Act II finds McCann sitting at the table tearing a sheet of newspaper into five equal strips. It would be easy to dismiss this action as a bit of whimsy, but since the image of reading material is a recurring one, it might be worth exploring. It has already been proposed that reading material may be indicative of thoughts. This image may be readily expanded to include the sum-total of hereditary, cultural, and environmental influences both __________ 96 on the conscious and unconscious level. It will he seen later in The Caretaker how the "stacking up" of these factors can stifle and impede any rise in consciousness. There are five strips of paper; there will he only five "characters" at the birthday party since Petey will not he there. Could these also represent five parts of a fragmented psyche? It was suggested earlier that the figures (projections) in The Room might represent the thoughts of the reticent Bert who leaves at the moment of crisis. The almost equally quiet Petey will not he at the party. It could he said that he is leaving his thoughts or parts of his psyche behind. But since he will he play ing chess somewhere, it is as though he is stepping out of the picture yet still manipulating the situation, as in a chess game. Esslin cites Pinter*s poem, A View of the Party, 195Sj as a source for interpreting Goldberg and McCann as thoughts. The second part of the poem: The thought that Goldberg was Sat in the center of the room, A man of weight and time, To supervise the game. The thought that was McCann Walked in upon this feast, A man of skin and hone, ok With a green stain on his chest. If Petey can he seen as the ego-center, then Goldberg and his cohort, McCann, can he seen as part of Petey*s mental 97 makeup, in this case acting as agents in his absence. Stanley tries to leave so as to miss the party but McCann will not let him. Stanley, at least twice, tries to pick up a strip of the paper; McCann will not let him. Another time McCann warns him, "Your cigarette is near that paper." p. 51. Is Stanley trying to destroy certain elements of the psyche that will ultimately bring about his demise? Stanley's infantile nature is reiterated throughout. He tells McCann not to call him "Sir." McCann refers to Petey as, "the man of the house." Goldberg talkes about his childhood; and in a telling response Petey says, "Yes, we all remember our-childhood." Is Stanley, and his relationship to Meg, a part of Petey's memory that has returned from the unconscious and won't let go? Goldberg then follows with, "Too true. Eh, Mr. Webber (Stanley), what do you say? Childhood. Hot water bottles. Hot milk. Pancakes. Soap suds. What a life." p. 53- It is at this moment that Petey announces he is off to play his game of chess. It is as though Petey is assured that Goldberg understands the situation and what must be done. He (and McCann) will be left to do their dirty (but necessary) business. When Petey leaves, Stanley assumes the center posi tion and tells Goldberg he'll have to leave. Goldberg sees through his bluff, essentially ignores it, and __________________________________ 98 prefers to talk about the upcoming party. The sitting/ standing motif recurs. McCann and Goldberg in a comedic interlude try to cajole Stanley to sit. In a nice bit of trickery Stanley gets McCann and Goldberg to sit and says, "...Now you've both had a rest you can get out." p. 57* This arouses their ire and they rise and force Stanley to sit. There follows a long rhythmic cross-examination of Stanley that contains elements of incantations, litanies, and theological and metaphysical inquiries that suggest an exoricism of sorts is taking place and impli citly why it is taking place. The following excerpts seem to be the most revelatory: Goldberg: ...Why are you getting in every body's way? Goldberg: ...Why are you driving that old lady off her conk? Goldberg: ...Why do you force that old man out to play chess? Goldberg; ...Why do you treat that young lady (Lulu) like a leper? McCann: Why did you leave the organization? (the unconscious, perhaps?) Goldberg: What would your old mum (Rose, perhaps?) say, Webber? Goldberg: Why did you never get married? Goldberg: What's your name now? Stanley: Joe Soap. (The "soap suds" of childhood that Goldberg had previously mentioned?) Goldberg: Do you recognize an external force? pp. 57-60. The last question is asked three times. Duckworth, in 99 Angels of Darkness, points out, "The Jungian critique of religion suggests that the search for a 'unifying symbol or factor outside the psyche can inhibit the realization of wholeness from within." ^ McCann: Mother defiler. Goldberg: You verminate the sheet of your birth. (Recalls Bert's reference to lice in The Room.) Goldberg: You're a plague, Webber.... McCann: You're what's left! Goldberg: ...We can sterilize you. McCann: You betrayed our land. Goldberg: You betrayed our breed. McCann: Who are you Webber? Goldberg: What makes you think you exist? McCann: You're dead. Goldberg: ...You're nothing but an odor! pp. 61-62. Stanley, (like an expelled demon, if we are to follow the image of exorcism), kicks Goldberg (the exorcist) in the stomach, felling him, much like Bert had done to Riley in The Room. With Goldberg down, McCann seizes a chair, (again symbolic of dominance/subservience), and raises it above Stanley, who covers his head with another chair as they circle each other in a dance macabre, with Stanley grunting like an animal. McCann says, "The bastard sweat pig is sweating." p. 63. A loud drumbeat (symbolic of Inversion/ecstasy) is heard offstage sounding the tatoo for this stage of the ritual to end and another to begin. 100 Meg in an evening dress for the party enters holding stick and drums. As the party progresses, the liquor flows and with it, inhibitions. McCann and Meg, and Goldberg and Lulu pair off, the latter two amid much sexual inuendo. Stan ley unable to participate in any healthy male/female way remains passive on the sidelines. It is Meg who proposes a game. It is Lulu who proposes blind man's buff. It is only after Stanley becomes "it" in blind man's buff that he is again active. It has become dark outside, the lights go out inside, and Stanley is blindfolded - total darkness, (an added symbolical fillip is McCann purposely breaking Stanley's glasses). McCann also places the drum in Stanley's way and he catches it on his foot as he steps through it. The sounds of the drum, now distorted, signal that the chaos of the netherworld has come to the fore as Stanley, in turn, tries to strangle Meg and rape Lulu - violent inversions of normal son/mother, man/wife relation ships. Goldberg and McCann protect both women. As Stanley bends over Lulu, McCann shines a flashlight on his face. Stanley is thwarted like Dracula facing a crucifix. Stanley does not belong in the world of light. As the light draws closer, Stanley backs away, flattening himself against the wall, giggling like a berserk, one step away from catatonia. 101 Act III begins the next morning, showing Petey entering with a newspaper, sitting at the table and read ing. Meg tells him there is nothing to feed him for breakfast. She seems strangely forgetful. She sees the broken drum but doesn't remember how it got broken. She seems to be oblivious to the terrible ordeal that Stanley has been through. And she seems surprised that it is Mr. Goldberg's car that is outside. Petey appears anxious to get Meg out of the house for the time being and when she leaves he expresses his concern about Stanley to Goldberg. Goldberg replies that he (Petey) should not worry because everything will be taken care of. It is beginning to look as if Petey is having second thoughts about Stanley leaving - it is not easy to give up a mother/son relationship no matter how unhealthy it may be. As Goldberg and McCann discuss Stanley, Petey listens at the kitchen hatch unnoticed. Apparently Goldberg and McCann spent the entire night with Stanley, perhaps dressing his wounds in prepar ation for the journey. That, coupled with the turmoil of the birthday party, appears to have taken its toll on them as well. An air of guilt permeates their conversation about Stanley. They don't seem so sure of themselves any longer. They snap at each other. McCann: Well? Goldberg (with fatigue): Well what? 102 McCann: Do we wait or do we go and get him? Goldberg (slowly): You want to go and get him? McCann: I want to get it over. Goldberg: That's understandable. McCann: So do we wait or do we go and get him? Goldberg (interrupting): I don't know why, but I feel knocked out. I feel a bit... It's uncommon for me. McCann: Is that so? Goldberg: It's unusual. McCann: (rising swiftly and going behind Goldberg's chair. HissingT^ Let's finish and go. Let's get it over and go. Get the thing done. Let's finish the bloody thing. Let's get the thing done and go! pp. . 85-86. They seem to be approaching a breach in their complimentary relationship though it appears they are try ing to maintain the status quo. Goldberg lectures McCann on respect for family and elders: ...Because McCann - (Gently.) Seamus - who came before your father? His father. And who came before him? Before him? ...(Vacant-triumphant.) Who came before your father's father but your father's father's mother! Your great-gran-granny. p.88. This seems to serve Goldberg as a reminder to McCann of what they are about and that the great parent beyond all great parents is the Great Mother archetype. Yet in spite of this affirmation of the cosmic forces, he says to McCann, "All the same, give me a blow. (Pause.) Blow in my mouth," and, "One for the road." p. 89* Cirlot says 102 that difficulty in breathing may symbolize difficulty in assimilating the principles of the spirit and of the 3 6 cosmos. These emissaries of the unconscious have per haps risen to a too high level of consciousness and find breathing difficult. They cannot lose that connection if they are to complete the task. Further psychic fragmentation is foreshadowed by the revelation of two new names for McCann and Goldberg - Dermot and Benny, respectively. Another hint of their own possible disintegration is indicated in their verbal abuse of Lulu when she re appears . McCann even threatens her. They get back on course when Stanley appears, clean shaven, in a dark well-cut suit and white collar, and with broken glasses in his hand. For seventy-three lines of dialogue, McCann and Goldberg alternate, telling Stanley what his problems are and how he will be re-orientated, pp. 92-94. While the ritualistic incantation of the second act seemed to have Stanley*s destruction as its intent, this time the purpose seems to be one of annoint- ing the dead, perhaps in preparation for re-birth. But there is an undercurrent of mockery as well, indicating that McCann and Goldberg are. not as stable in their resolve and their own make-up as they once were. Stanley, completely in the throes of catatonia, can only gurgle. ---------------------------------------------- 104 Petey enters, feeling sorry for Stanley, and half heartedly tells Goldberg and McCann to leave him alone. Goldberg and McCann stop him quick with, "Why don't you come with us... There's plenty of room in the car." p.96. After the trouble they have gone through on Petey's behalf they will have no truck with his faint-heartedness. They leave. Petey goes back to reading, and the strips of paper fall to the floor, out of his thoughts for the time-being. The ensuing conversation reveals that Meg does not know Stanley is gone. She apparently has forgotten that Petey was not at the party although her response of, "Weren't you?" could be taken as ironic. She remembers of course that she was, "the belle of the ball." p. 97* And so, The Birthday Party can be seen as a contin uation and expansion of the elements involved in The Room. The Bert-Rose relationship has evolved to Petey and Meg. Stanley can be seen as a shadow side of Petey and the mother/son relationship of Stanley/Meg can be seen as a remnant, a memory of that part of Bert/Rose that was a negative aspect. Lulu can be seen as a further crystallization of the anima from the van image in The Room in its female/sexual aspect as consumated by Gold berg . Goldberg/McCann, as double/twin-brother emmissaries from the unconscious were conjured up out of the need to __________________________________ 105_ further balance a still dissociated psyche. An incipient dissociation of fragmentation can be discerned regarding them as well and will have to be dealt with. They have become crystalized from the unconscious making the ego- conscious aware of them. But they can not yet be fully assimilated. They will have to be studied further by the ego . Just who Goldberg and McCann are is a question central to this study of a.psyche's attempt to balance itself and thus rise in consciousness. By developing these "characters" further, Pinter's next play, The Dumb Waiter appears to provide some of the answers. Ill. The Dumb Waiter The scene is a basement room with no windows. There are two beds flat against the back wall. A serving hatch (dumb waiter), closed, is between the beds. At left is a door to the kitchen and lavatory. Another door to a passage is at right. The two figures are Ben and Gus, hired killers - underworld figures. Following the premise of the first two plays, the image is clear - the play is taking place deep in the unconscious, the underworld. Further reinforcing this shadow image, Gus says: ...I mean, you come into a place when it's still dark, you come into a room you've never seen before, you sleep all day, you do your job, and then you go in the night again... 37 106 Ben and Gus may be seen as continuations of Goldberg and McCann. Besides their Jewish-Irish names, (Goldberg was even called Benny in one of his tales in The Birthday Party), Ben, like Goldberg is the senior partner. This indicates that McCann/Gus may have splintered off of that part of the psyche that is Goldberg/Ben. Even though Goldberg was giving the orders in The Birthday Party and reiterates, as Ben, that he is the senior partner in The Dumb Waiter, a gradual erosion of his position can be discerned. McCann and Goldberg's relationship seemed to be deteriorating in The Birthday Party and this continues in The Dumb Waiter. Indeed, when the play opens Ben is lying on a bed while Gus is sitting on a bed - only slightly more elevated but perhaps a hind that a power struggle is in the offing.' Ben is trying to read the paper but becomes agitated by Gus' mannerisms - a further indication that they are not getting along too well. Regarding the first two plays of this study, it was posited that the act of reading may have been a clue to establishing the ego-center. Ben may be closer psychi cally to the ego-center, being the senior partner (and being Jewish like Pinter), but he is no closer to the center of the room than Gus. Ben/Gus may be seen as continuations of Goldberg/McCann but a figure representing a continuum of Bert - Petey is not to be seen. At the center of the room between Ben and Gus is the dumb waiter, ___________________________ 107 for the moment closed. Further developments must be' awaited before the implications of this can be explored. In the meantime the respective "characteristics" of Ben and Gus are seen. One way of explicating their op posite natures is by seeing Ben as more of an extravert and Gus as more of an introvert. DeLaszlo, commenting on Jung's precepts, says, "The life of the extravert is lived mainly through his direct attention, frequently to the point of identification, to the object of his interest. The life of the introvert derives its value from his in ternal assimilation of whatever material enters into his experience. The dynamics .of both types are, therefore, opposite and compensatory. This is not to say that any given person reacts exclusively in one or the other fashion, but rather that the possibility exists for anyone to observe the predominance of one reaction pattern over the other in large numbers of persons as well as within himself."-^® Ben has been reading out loud to Gus stories of violence from the newspaper - being concerned with the external details. Gus is able to look behind the external!* of the st'ories and see other possible interpretations be sides the obvious. One such story has to do with an eight year old girl killing a cat. Ben: ...It just says - Her brother, aged eleven, viewed the incident from the toolshed. 108 Later, Gus: I bet he did it. Ben: Who? Gus: The brother. Ben: I think you*re right. Pause. (Slamming down the paper.) What about that, eh? A kid of eleven killing a cat and blaming it on his little sister of eight! It’s enough to - p. 132. The above is an indication not only of Gus' insight but also the suggestibility of Ben, and Gus* growing influence on him. Throughout the rest of the play, Gus increasingly questions their whole situation - environment, occupation, the way they are treated like pawns, etc. While Ben seems content to wait -until they receive further orders. He tells Gus he should develop interests, much like Goldberg had told McCann - again externals. He tells Gus, "You never used to ask me so many damn questions. What's come over you?" p. 143- Gus* contemplative nature is shown early as he describes the crockery available to them: ••*(He sits in a chair. Ruminatively.) He's laid on some very nice crockery this time, I'll say that. It's sort of striped. There's a white stripe. Ben reads. It's very nice. I'll say that. 109 Ben turns the page. You know sort of round the cup. Round the rim. All the rest of it's "black, you see. Then the saucer's black, except for right in the middle, where the cup goes, where it's white. Ben reads. Then the plates are the same, you see. Only they've got a black stripe - the plates - right across the middle. Yes, I'm quite taken with the crockery, pp.130-131. If we trace the descriptions of the cup, saucer, and plate, and regard them from a top view, we will see respectively: a white circle around a "black center; a black circle around a white center; and a black circle around a white center with a black stripe across the middlei What we are looking at is: a mandala (perhaps representing Gus); its inversion or opposite in coloration (perhaps representing Ben); and the third, a combination or synthesis of the two, bisected to show the union of opposites. This has not necessarily occurred regarding Gus and Ben but is something to be hoped and strived for - an aesthetic ideal in terms of the crockery - a psychic ideal in terms of ego-consciousness. According to von Franz, the mandala motif can be used to restore a lost inner balance; and, "The contemplation of a mandala is meant to bring an inner peace a feeling that life has 39 again found its meaning and order."^' Ben's reaction to Gus' preoccupation with the crockery is ironically (as will be seen later) stated by, 110 "What do you want plates for? You're not going to eat." p. 131* Ben appears to be only concerned with externals, the practical use of the plates. Later, Gus again singles out the crockery, "I say the crockery's good. It is. It's very nice. But that's about all I can say for this place." p. 135- As Gus discovers they don't have any money to put in the gas meter so they can make tea, an obvious echo from Waiting for Godot is heard. Ben: You'll have to wait. Gus: What for? Ben: For Wilson. Gus: He might not come. He might just send a message. He doesn't always come. p.l^. Besides this obvious deference to Beckett, Pinter may be making reference to Wilson as a "higher" power - the ego conscious . Gus goes on to insist strongly to Ben (despite his apparent indifference) that the whole house, of which the basement is a part, belongs to Wilson - that it is not just rented in order for a job to be performed. Gus has wanted to question Wilson about many things, paramount among them - the subject of their last job, a girl, about whom Gus feels very guilty. This recalls McCann (Gus at an earlier stage or higher level) and his rough verbal treatment of Lulu near the end of The Birthday Party. Verbal abuse at a high level of consciousness, may be seen 111 as physical abuse (a killing) at a lower more sinister level. Could Gus be lamenting his improper treatment of an anima figure, though perhaps it was a necessity, in order for ego-consciousness to evolve. Gus says, "...,it was that girl made me start to think-." p. 147* As though on cue, a loud clatter is heard from the dumb waiter. The question can now be asked: "Has the ego-center, until now only hinted at, risen to a higher level of con sciousness perhaps as a result of what has taken place in the two previous plays; is the ego-center now at the top of the dumb waiter?" Notes are sent down on the dumb waiter as in a restaurant, at first requesting typical English food and then more and more exotic cuisine. The best that Ben and Gus can do is send up the meager rations they have of biscuits, chocolate, milk, one Eccles cake, etc. And when they find a speaking tube, the voice at the other end informs them, with Ben relaying the information, that everything they sent up was spoiled. Gus. ...We send him up all we've got and he's not satisfied. No, honest, it's enough to make that cat laugh. Why did you send him up all that stuff? (Thoughtfully." Why did I send it up? p. 157. In The Room and The Birthday Party, the ego-center, in the persons of Bert and Riley, respectively, was 112 passive, at first, becoming progressively less so, but essentially at the mercy of activated figures of the unconscious. In The Dumb Waiter, the unconscious figures of Ben and Gus seem to be at the mercy of the ego. And their sending up of all their food can be very readily seen symbolically as the conscious mind assimilating kn ■unconscious contents. At the same time can be seen Gus* growing influence on Ben - introvert on extravert - working toward a balance. These elements in turn are being assimilated by the ego. Bennet, discussing the process of individua tion, points out, "As middle-life is reached and the years pass, subjective life is (or should be) enlarged, because a process of development has occurred. A mature attitude towards life has come about and the immaturity of ego- consciousness has given place to a natural - probably unnoticed - acceptance of the collective background of life." The above quoted process has not completely taken place but its beginnings can be discerned in The Dumb Waiter. After Ben and Gus ritualistically review their procedure for dealing with their victims, Gus grows in^- creasingly apprehensive and realizes that it is Wilson who has been manipulating them. Gus: ...Well, what's he playing all these games for? That's what I want to know. What's he doing it for? p. 162. _________________________________________________________113 This harkens back to the games played in The Birthday Party. Gus further protests that they've always *done their jobs and should not be treated so. Another demand, this time for Scampi, comes from the dumb waiter. Gus cries through the tube, "WE'VE GOT NOTHING LEFT! NOTHING! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?" p. 162. After Ben pulls him away, Ben goes back to his newspaper. And here we see a further blending of the two - in a way, a communion of minds - as they both comment on the newspaper articles without the content being divulged out loud. Gus leaves, at left, to get a glass of water. Ben gets more instructions through the speaking tube. Ben calls Gus through the door at the left, draws his gun, and in a piece of psychic legerdemain, Gus enters through the door at the right - a clear sign that these figures are being manipulated as though by a puppet- master - Wilson. It may be worthwhile here to speculate as to who "Wilson" is. If he is seen as the ego-consciousness having been raised to a "higher" level, then his relative proximity to Pinter himself would follow. The choice of the name, Wilson helps to support this. Pinter's wife at the time of the writing of The Dumb Waiter was preg nant - their son Daniel was bom on January 29» 1958. The imagination does not have to be stretched too much to see the possibility of: Wilson = Will-Son = Will have a Son - t m Pinter wanted to have a son. This does not mean Uif that Pinter consciously chose the name Wilson for the above reasons. But it may be just a clue as to what is welling up from the unconscious and why. It also indicates that Wilson may represent a figure nearer to the personal unconscious whereas Gus and Ben may be seen more as transpersonal archetypes. It was pointed out earlier how the need for a change in consciousness is brought about by important events in one's life. Procreation would be a definite milestone calling for development and enrichment of the psyche. Neumann points out, "The assimilation of unconscious contents, in whatever form, leads not only to an enrich ment of the conscious material but to an enrichment of k? libido,..." Gus stumbles in, stripped of his jacket, waistcoat, tie, holster and revolver. He is stripped of the accoutrements of his trade as had been foreshadowed by the mention of McCann in The Birthday Party as having been unfrocked. Pinter has said in "Writing for the Theatre," "When true silence falls we are still left with echos but 4.3 are nearer nakedness." And so the curtain drops as Ben and Gus stare at each other in silence. This long silence and staring may be seen as a communion, an "Act of Knowing." Pinter has said, regarding his characters, "It is in the silence that k it they are most evident to me." Gus has been prepared for ____________________________________________________________ 115 eventual assimilation and. subsequently by Wilson, but the tension between the pair of opposites is still there. Wilson has, for the moment, manipulated a cease-fire in this dual of opposites. Neumann, in a variation on his previous quote, says, "The relative depotentiation of the unconscious is absolutely necessary if ego consciousness is to be reinforced and enriched with libido." J Pinter does not write his next play, The Caretaker, until 1959- The open-endedness of The Dumb Waiter leads one to expect that the "characters" of Ben and Gus will be heard from again, though perhaps in a different guise. Whether or not the initial antagonism of Ben and Gus remains, or develops into a cooperative relationship, is something to look for in The Caretaker. It may be speculated that if this "union-of-opposites" is to take place, another ritual of sorts may be necessary, perhaps even the sacrificing of a scapegoat. IV. The Caretaker The setting is a very cluttered room as opposed to the relatively sparse one of The Dumb Waiter. A lot can happen in the two years between the writing of The Dumb Waiter and The Caretaker. Without proper attention, clutter can accumulate in the psyche as well as a room. The room being viewed is now on the top floor of a rickety old house. There are however remnants remaining from The 116 Dumb Waiter setting and differences as well, besides the relocation of the room. There is a window (partially covered by a sack), where there, was none in The Dumb Waiter. ‘ The two beds remain. The metered gas stove mentioned in the previous play has now become disconnected and is situated near one of the beds, with a statue of Buddha on top. A wooden chair is on its side. The sparse reading material of the previous plays has become a pile of old newspapers, (perhaps a further indication of the crowded nature of a psyche replete with historical and cultural influences). There is a general look of disre pair but the poetntial for refurbishing the room may be seen in the various implements and furnishings that also clutter the room: ladder, paint buckets, hardware, rolled- up carpet, etc. The setting seems to be crying out, "clean up your house!" The location on the upper floor, (nearer consciousness), prepares one to expect the play to be presented on a more realistic level than Pinter's previous plays. And so it is, but this could also mean one must probe deeper in terms of trying to interpret the play. Mick is seen sitting on the bed looking around the room in silence, checking everything out. When he hears voices approaching, he quietly sneaks out of the room. There is an air of expectation about his demeanor that indicates he has been preparing with great care for the _______________________________________ ‘ 117 events that are to follow. Mick may be seen from the start as a manipulator. Aston comes in with Davies, a dishevelled old man wearing sandals, whom he has rescued from a fight at a local cafe. He tells Davies to sit down, but in a variation on the sitting/standing motif, Aston has to look for the chair (lying on its side) for Davies. The old procedures are rusty and a certain re orientation is necessary. In the ensuing dialogue we find that Davies is an apparently well-travelled tramp who makes a pittance from time to time cleaning out cafes, etc. He is also shown to be an opportunist who tries to ingratiate himself to this good Samaritan, Aston for the purpose of having a place to stay and for whatever else he can get from his. Davies takes notes of the clutter but couches it in polite terms. He inquires about the other rooms in the house to which Aston responds, "They're out of commission," and the downstairs is closed up. An air of mystery about the other rooms and passages of the house, is thus, once more, subtly established. The uncertainty of possession as in the previous plays, is re peated : Davies: This is your house then, is it? Pause. Aston: I'm in charge. 1+6 Davies: You the landlord, are you? Other similarities and connections between Davies _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 8 and figures from the previous plays can already be seen. Davies makes it a point to let Aston know of his aversion to foreigners and Blacks. This harks back to Rose/Sal from The Room. It's as though Davies does not want to be thought of as a sinister agent (or foreigner, or by association with Riley, a Black) from a deeper level of consciousness. Another similarity, Davies' peripatetic existence from city to city, reminds one of Rose's denial in The Rooms "Mr. Kidd, do you think I go around knowing men in one district after another? What do you think I am?" p. 121. The notion of traveling from one place to another (or one psyche to another) is indications of the presence of a transpersonal, hence archetypal, nature. Another connection can be seen with Stanley, otherwise known as Joe Soap, in The Birthday Party. Davies: Always slipped me a bit of soap, anytime I went in there. Very good soap. They have to have the best soap, whenever I happened to be knocking about the Shepherd's Bush area. Davies says he is going by an assumed name, Bernard Jenkins, and there may be a possible connection here with Goldberg's mentioning of his Uncle Barney in The Birthday Party.^ Indeed, Davies, besides having an assumed name, is generally evasive to any question Aston asks him regarding his-background: _______________________________________ 119 Astons Welsh, are you? Davies: Eh? Aston: You Welsh? Paus e. Davies: Well, I heen around you know...what I mean. . .1 "been about. . . . Aston: Where were you born then? Davies (darkly). What do you mena? Aston: Where were you born? Davies: I was...uh...oh, it's a bit hard, like, to set your mind back...see what I mean...going back..la good way...lose a bit of track, like... you know.... p. 3^* and when Davies says he wants to check out job possibili ties at a place where he had been before: Aston: When was that? Davies: Eh? Oh, well, that was...near on... that'll be...that'11 be a little while ago now. p. 36. Earlier, Davies had asked Aston if he had a spare pair of shoes he could let him have. He admires the shoes but says they don't fit because he has broad feet. This recalls Estragon and Vladimir in Waiting for Godot when they were having problems making their shoes and hats fit properly. As mentioned earlier all props in these plays may be seen as metaphors. A hat or shoe may repre sent a part of the psyche that doesn't "fit" another part. Davies "laments” that he won't ne able to go anywhere without decent shoes. Asron obligingly invites him to stay there until he can get himself "fixed up." He also 1 20 lets him have some pocket change. Having extended these courtesies to Davies, Aston makes an attempt at self- revelatory conversation. Aston: I went into a pub the other day. Ordered a Guinness. They gave it to me in a thick mug. I sat down but I couldn't drink it. I can't drink Guinness from a thick mug. I only like it out of a tin glass. I had a few sips but I couldn't finish it. p.28. Seemingly embarassed at the awkwardness of the atJove speech, "Aston picks up a screwdriver and plug from the bed and begins to poke the plug." Aston seems to have a hard time expressing himself and is of a general reticent and introverted nature. He seems to be always tinkering with something as though making attempts to repair things but it appears he does little more than poke at plugs or whittle wood. Another indication of Aston's introspective nature is seen as he studies the Buddha statue. Aston: Yes I quite like it. Picked it up in a...in a shop. Looked quite nice to me. Don't know why. What do you think of these Buddhas?^8 Davies: Oh, they're...they're all right, en't they? Aston: Yes, I was pleased when I got hold of this one. It's very well made. pp. 26-27. This is similar in tone to Gus' admiration for the crock ery in The Dumb Waiter. There are traces of Bert and Petey also in the silent nature of Aston. 121 Davies, seemingly to fill the void in the conversa tion announces that he would go down to Sidcup, if only the weather would break, so he could pick up his papers. Aston: What are they doing at Sidcup? Davies: A man I know has got them. I left them with him. You see? They prove who I am! I can't move without them papers. They tell you who I am. You see! I'm stuck without them. pp. 28-29- He repeats this throughout the play as though giving assurance that he is who he says he is and not someone else. But the weather is always too bad or he can't make it without proper shoes. One begins to wonder who he really is. Davies is surprised the next morning when Aston goes shopping and trusts him enough to let him stay in the house. He immediately starts rummaging around the room. He wonders about the pile of papers, and after touching it, has to steady it to keep it from falling over. (Could his rummaging be symbolically jarring memories; cultural patterns; heritage?) As Rose in The Room touched Bert's magazine, it seemed to cue someone to' enter the room. As Davies steadies the pile of newspapers, Mick comes in, unnoticed. After watching Davies for a while, Mick seizes him and throws him to the floor screaming. With Davies on the floor and Mick on a chair, Mick says, "What's the game?" p. 38. It seems as though Mick had been waiting 122 and stalking Davies, perhaps with Aston’s collusion. They are going to have to find out-who Davies is and what he is up to, and deal with him accordingly. Act Two begins a few seconds later. It is now Mick's turn with Davies. If Aston is an introvert, then Mick is seen, in no uncertain terms, as an extravert - the compensatory or complementary side of Aston's nature. He toys with Davies both verbally and physically. His Irish name, Mick, together with his antics and blarney in his scenes with Davies, evokes images at times of an impish leprechaun hopping gleefully from one vantage point to another. At other times, he seems to be a whirling dervish, frightening and out of control, as he changes from being solicitous and friendly to accusatory and threatening towards Davies. Micks What's your name? Daviess I don't know you. I don't know who you are. Pause. Mick s Eh? Daviess Jenkins. Micks Jenkins? Daviess Yes. Micks Jen...kins. Pause. You sleep here last night? Daviess Yes. Micks Sleep well? Daviess Yes. 123 Mick: I'm awfully glad. It's awfully nice to meet you. Pause. What did you say your name was? Davies: Jenkins. Mick: I beg your pardon? Davies: Jenkins! Pause. Mick: Jen...kins. pp. 39_^0> Mick seems to he trying to let Davies know that he knows who he really is or is not. Mick continues, in a speech that at first seems to he merely poking fun at Davies. But certain excerpts from the speech may give some clues as to the real nature of Davies as Mick sees it: You remind me of my uncle's brother. He was always on the move, that man. Never without his passport. Had an eye for the girls.... and, ...Had a funny habit of carrying his fiddle, on his back. Like a papoose. I think there was a-bit of the Red Indian in him. To be honest, I've never made out how he came to be my uncle's brother. I've often thought that maybe it was the other way around. I mean that my uncle was his brother and he was my uncle. But I never called him uncle. As a matter of fact I called him Sid. My mother called him Sid too. It was a funny business. Your spitting image he was.... p. ^+0. This talk about Davies being the spitting image of his uncle's brother is confusing at first but in essence, this confusion may be purposeful. His uncle's brother could 1 2 k "be his father, or another uncle on his father's side, or even an uncle on his mother's side - a maternal uncle. As quoted earlier from Neumann, "As masculine self- consciousness grows stronger, the stage of matriarchy is followed by that of division. Symptomatic of this transi tion period is the twin-brother motif, ...which expresses kg the mutual affinity of opposites." We have seen how the Goldberg/McCann - Ben/Gus - and now, Aston/Mick continuum may be representative of this. Neumann goes on to say that as the negative influ ence of the Terrible Mother is surpassed, the rising male ego-conscious is at first nurtured by positive aspects still remaining from the.archetypal image of the father as experienced by tradition, authority, and received cultural values. But, in turn, this influence becomes negative and stiffling and is a factor that must be over come in the process of individuation. In that the ego is not allowed to grow past a certain point, this negative influence is seen archetypally as an aspect of the Terrible Mother returningBut, in ''her stead there appears the elder brother, the maternal uncle, bearer of the authority complex in the matriarchate.... Neumann continues, "The transpersonal factor is projected upon different objects, sometimes upon the maternal uncle and sometimes upon the father,.... But in every case there must be an encounter with the carrier 125 of this factor, for without the murder of the "father" no development of consciousness and personality is possible.”5^ So, as in Mick's speech above, Davies may be seen from time to time as the maternal uncle and as a father-figure, but in either, or both cases, he is an obstacle to be overcome. Mick's knowledge, or inkling, that Davies is an interloper is shown by some of his questions! You a foreigner?... How did you like my bed?... You intending to settle down here?... You settling down for a long stay? and when Davies protests that he was brought there, Mick replies . * I'm afraid you're a born fibber, en't you? You're speaking to the owner. This is my room. You're standing in my house, p. 43* The following dialogue can be seen as a growing, or confirmed suspicion on Mick's part that Davies is some how an agent and/or consort of the mother archetype returning from the netherworld of the 'unconscious, which Davies denies. Mick points to where Davies had slept. Mick: ...That's my bed. Davies: What about that then? Mick: That's my mother's bed. Davies: Well she wasn't in it last night. Mick (moving to him). Now don't get perky, son, don't get perky. Keep your hands off my old mum. Davies: I ain't...I haven't.... 126 Mick: Don't get out of your depth, friend, don't start taking liberties with my old mother, let's have a hit of respect. Davies: I got respect, you won't find any one with more respect. Mick: Well, stop telling me all those fibs. Davies: Now listen to me, I never seen you before, have I? Mick: Never seen my mother before either, I suppose? Pause. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that you're an old rogue. You're nothing but an old scoundrel, p. kk. Aston returns with a bag to replace the one that Davies had lost. This is one of the few times in the play that Aston and Mick are on stage at the same time - it's as though they were dealing with Davies from different angles, different perspectives. The bag is passed around in a frenetic game of keep-away, like two children keeping something from an old man who they no longer respect. They toy with him. When Mick leaves, Aston tells Davies, for the first time, that Mick is his brother. Aston tells Davies about how he will start fixing the place up once he builds a shed outside. This seems to be an excuse for not doing anything, much like Davies* excuse of shoes and weather for not going to Sitcup. Davies has an excuse for not leaving and Aston has an excuse for not putting his house in order - embodying a state of inertia, non-progression. Aston offers Davies 122 the bob of caretaker for which he is woefully inadequate. Aston's offer, in a sense, is abrogating his own duty to take care of the place. Mick later offers Davies the same position. And here a regression of sorts is indica ted. They have let their house (representative of the psyche) sink into disrepair and it seems they are currently unable to do anything about it themselves. If Davies accepts, and does the job, then they have taken a step backwards in terms of ego-consciousness, for Davies represents the sinister aspect of the Terrible Mother that tries to prevent attainment of selfhood. Another way of looking at their offer, is that they are setting up Davies in order to throw'him off-guard. Davies seems to suspect this by his non-commital, fumbling responses to their respective offers. Mick's offer is qualified by his request for references. He seems to know that Davies would not be able to come up with any legitimate ones. In a scene reminiscent of the comic-horror of The Birthday Party, Davies returns to the darkened room where he is chased around by Mick with a vacuum cleaner. Davies reacts hysterically and flattens himself against the wall like Stanley. Mick says nonchalently, "I was just doing some spring cleaning." p. 5^* He seems to be saying that any cleaning up of the rooms must start with Davies. 1 28 Act Two ends with a long speech by Aston to Davies as the room grows slowly darker with only Aston clearly visible. This speech has been described by some critics as telling of Aston*s shock treatments in a mental hospital, and by others as evidence that he had a pre- frontal lobotomy performed on him. Either case indicates that his mind has been altered to some extent. But if we look behind some of the things Aston is saying, we can see elements from the previous plays that happened to the various "characters" who, as this paper posits, are all projections of the same psyche. And traces of the battle scars, resulting from the various confrontations, would still be evident in Aston. The imagery of Aston standing up against the wall, trying to evade the doctors who are operating on him, re calls the helpless Stanley in a similar position. Before his operation, Aston talked too much, perhaps like the glib Goldberg, whose powers of speech and assurity were seen to be on the decline in the person of Ben in The Dumb Waiter. Since Aston was a minor at the time, they had to get permission for the operation from his mother. She signed the form giving permission. This can be com pared to Meg’s tacit acquiescence as Stanley was being carted away in The Birthday Party. The operation itself, if it was apre-frontal lobotomy, might indicate a part of the psyche that has been excised. The process of _________________________________________________________________________ L2S- conscious-awareness, is not easy; it hurts. It would be much easier to go back to the womb, where the Great Mother is always waiting. As Rollo May says, "How much self-awareness can a man bear?"-^ The Third Act commences two weeks later in the same room, with Mick lulling on the floor and Davies in a chair, wearing a smoking jacket and holding a pipe. The scene looks for all the world like Davies is well-enscon ced in his new home, and, no closer to Sidcup. Davies is complaining to Mick that Aston does not talk to him at all. This is in contrast to Aston*s long speech at the end of Act Two. He won't even let Davies have a knife to cut his bread. Mick rather cryptically replies, "I know what you want.” Davies complains to Mick further about Aston's behavior and ends with, "You and me, we could get this place going." pp. 68-69. It appears he is trying to put a wedge between the two brothers, for his own purposes - perhaps "divide and con quer." Mick, in a long speech about how the place could be fixed up to look like a palace, sounds much like an interior decorator making a sales pitch. Davies warms up to the whole idea, thinking he would be part of the whole redecorating scheme. Davies: I'd say it would, man. Mick: A palace. Davies: Who would live there? __________________________________________________________ 130 Mick: I would. My brother and me. Pause. Davies:, What about me? p. 70. Mick ignores his question and goes on about all the junk in the room. Davies * isolation can be sensed as he won ders whether he has a chance here. Davies doggedly continues to complain about Aston and tells Mick how he could help him to decorate the place He insists that Mick should talk to Aston about it since he is his brother. Mick says, "Yes...maybe I will." p.73* A Throughout the above conversation, one gets the feeling that Mick has no intention of letting Davies come between him and his brother and that he is just letting Davies ramble on so that he will be in a more vulnerable position later. As Aston is about to enter, Mick exits. It's as though he is saying, "OK brother, it's your turn now." Aston brings in a pair of shoes for Davies who complains that the laces are missing and when Aston gives him a pair, he complains that the color doesn't match the shoes. It's as though Aston is saying, "Hit the road, Davies!", and Davies is replying, "Not on your life!" The tension between the two builds as Aston again complains about Davies' sleep noises. Davies goes into a tirade against Aston, intimating that Mick and he are allied against Aston and that he can be carted away to ______________________________________________________________________ 131. a mental hospital. Aston moves towards Davies who pulls a knife on him. Aston, in a very funny "bit of irony, says "I...I think it's about time you found somewhere else. I don't think we're hitting it off.” p. 77* After much arguing, Davies exits, threatening to come back after he talks to Mick. Mick and Davies enter in the next scene with Davies still trying, pathetically, to turn Mick against his brother. It is obvious that Mick will have none of it but Davies fails to see this. Mick puts Davies on the defensive by telling him he had better be a good interior decorator. Davies denies saying he was one, but that given time he could pick it up. Mick: I don't want you to pick it up. I want a first-class experienced interior decorator. I thought you were one. Davies: Me? Now wait a minute - wait a minute - you got the wrong man. Mick: How could I have the wrong man? You're the only man I've spoken to. You're the only man I've told about my dreams, about my deepest wishes, you're the only one I've told, and I only told you because I understood you were an experienced first-class professional interior and exterior decorator, p. 81. Mick, along with Aston, now, obviously, waiting in the wings, has completely depotentiated Davies. He was a thinly-disguised interloper from the start and was really no match for the tandem of Mick and Aston. But, it 132 seems, they had to completely polarize their duality into that of stark introvert/extravert, as though this clear delineation would make them stronger in terms of dealing with Davies on an alternating basis. In this way, they were able to keep him off-balance so that he would not get a foothold. They let him into the house knowing that he was an element of the unconscious that would have to be vanguished in order for them to advance. The growing division and enmity discerned in the relationships of Goldberg/McCann and Ben/Gus is all but gone as the brothers Aston/Mick unite against a common foe. As Aston comes in, he and Mick look at each other, "...both are smiling, faintly." As Neumann points out, "Consciousness of the bond between the male opponents is the beginning of masculine self-consciousness....The development of masculine self- consciousness is both the cause and the product of this self-discovery, and gradually male enmities are replaced by male friendships."^ And, "The principle of opposites which formerly divided the hostile brothers has now be- come the principle of brotherhood.""^ Davies still tries to linger on, telling Aston, "We'll both put up that shed together." Aston replies, '"No I can get it up myself." Davies continues to implore him, but Aston turns his back to him. Pinter had originally planned to end The Caretaker with the violent _____________________________________________________________133 death of Davies hut realized that this violence was not necessary.D Given the impetus of the brothers Mick and Aston towards ego-consciousness, his demise was a fore gone conclusion. Davies, as a representative or agent of various negative aspects of the psyche, may be seen as a surrogate victim or scapegoat. Since the dark side of the uncon scious can never be (and should never be) completely repressed, the sacrifice of Davies (in a semi non-violent manner) may be thought of as an attempt to achieve a balance of all the elements within the psyche, and is thus collective in nature. In other words, the negative as pects of the psyche are temporarily held in check, as represented by Davies, while the positive aspects of Mick and Aston are allowed room to grow in consciousness. According to Renee Girard, in Violence and the Sacred, "Even the most violent rites are- specifically designed to abolish violence. ...the rite has its violent as pects, but these always involve a lesser violence, prof fered as a bulwark against a far more virulent violence." And what of the clutter and the delapidated house? How will this seeming discrepancy, in terms of the return of a healthy psychic balance, be cleared up? It can of course be projected that with the defeat of Davies, the housecleaning will begin. But, as in the other plays — _____________________________________________________________________________ discussed thus far, The Caretaker is open-ended indicating that there are no easy answers and more exploration is necessary. Another possible resolution can be projected from an interview with Pinter: ...I had a terrible dream, after I'd written The Caretaker, about the two brothers. My house burned down in the dream, and I tried to find out who was responsible. I was led through all sorts of alleys and cafes and eventually I arrived at an inner room somewhere and there were the two brothers from the play. And I said, so you burned down my house. They said don't be too worried about it, and I said I've got everything in there, everything, you don't realize what you've done, and they said it's all right, we'll compensate you for it, we'll look after you all,right - the younger brother was talking - and there upon I wrote them out a check for fifty quid.;.I gave them a check for fifty quid!58 A repeated proposition of this study has been the compensatory nature of dreams. Pinter's dream might indicate that the psyche battles encountered thus far in the plays of this study, have left so much clutter and residue, that to progress any further, a clean slate is needed - much like erasing the chalk board before the next lesson begins. The clutter and disrepair of The Caretaker will be replaced, as compensation, by a large, sparsely 0 furnished room in The Homecoming, so that Pinter may muster the remaining fragmented personalities of the psyche together again for final review. 1351 V . The Homecoming What do you think of the room? Big isn't it? It's a big house. I mean, it's a fine room, don't you think? Actually there was a wall, across there...with a door. We knocked it down...years ago... to make an open living area. The structure wasn't affected, you see. My mother was dead. <9 --Harold Pinter, The Homecoming"^* The setting of The Homecoming is in stark contrast to the clutter and confinement of The Caretaker. It is a large room, extending the width of the stage. The back wall which had contained the door, has been removed, but a square arch shape remians. In the hall beyond, a staircase ascends,- "well in view." There is a window and the various pieces of furniture are described as large. The immediate impression is one of openness, expansive ness . If The Homecoming can be seen as a continuation of the four previous stage plays, then the title itself and the clear view of things might imply that the various elements of the psyche from the previous plays are being brought home one more time to be examined as clearly as possible - with, hopefully, minimum obfuscation and maximum understanding. This could also account for the bold, often shocking, way the various "characters" deal with one another. The approach of this study thus far has been to try to establish where the ego-center is located, as a point ______________________________________________________________136 of demarcation in explicating the other personages with special attention to the visual images. This, I believe, reveals'itself as the play progresses. Lenny is seen reading a newspaper, like Bert and Petey, but he is sitt ing on the sofa, at left, not center. His father, Max, enters wearing a cap, like Bert and he is looking for a pair of scissors to cut something out of the paper, (similar to McCann's tearing of the paper). He wants to cut out an ad for flannel vests, indicating his knowledge of "the rag trade," recalling Goldberg. The paper he is looking for is not today's but an older paper, recalling the stacks of old paper in The Caretaker and indicating that a generational perspective is'being implied. This idea is reinforced with the sight of Max carrying a stick, which he does throughout the: play. The image evokes the riddle of the Sphinx and the three ages of man, wherein the old man walks on three legs in the evening of his life . This idea of three generations is clearly defined as the play evolves. The three generations themselves may be divided into groups of three: The brothers Max and Sam, and Max's very close friend Mac, now deceased, but of whom Max speaks of throughout in a very warm, brotherly fashion; Max's sons Teddy, Lenny, and Joey; and Teddy's three sons, back in America. Max remarks, "All boys? Isn't that funny, eh? You've got three, I've got three." p. 66. __________________________________________a 37 The Caretaker had been referred to earlier as being opended, as not being resolved in terms of the dualism of the brothers. Pinter's dream of the two brothers burning the house down seemed to indicate that Pinter himself was unsettled by this absence of Gestalt. But the brothers did tell him, in his dreams, that he would be compensated later. Part of the compensation, in addition to a more expansive room, can now be seen as the dualism of The Caretaker becoming a ternary system. Cirlot says that this system, "...is created by the emergence of a third (latent) element which so modifies the binary situa tion as to impart to it a dynamic equilibrium.... Unity is split internally into three 'moments' -- the active, the passive, and the union or outcome of these two.... Hence three has the power to resolve the conflict posed by dualism; it is also the harmonic resolution of the impact of unity upon duality."^0 Referring back to the concept of the ego-center, the implication is that there is now a closer bond among the various aspects of the psyche. Ganz points out that in the trio of Teddy, Lenny, and Joey, as aspects of a single self, Lenny may be seen as the connecting link or union of the opposite qualities of Teddy and Joey. So, for the opening of the play, Lenny may be discerned as the center, since he is a catalyst of sorts. But his position at stage left and subsequent developments would __ L3_8 seem to indicate that his role in that regard is primarily as a functionary, being manipulated by someone else. There is evidence that even though Teddy has been away in America, his presence is certainly felt. Lenny says later: ...we do make up a unit, Teddy, and you*re an integral part of it. When we all sit around the backyard having a quiet gander at the night sky, there's always an empty chair standing in the circle, which is in fact yours. p. 81. Jung and Neumann both refer to the primacy of the circle as indicative of the perfecting self who has gone beyond 61 the opposites. The appearance of this positive symbol is an indication to the psyche that the, "...goal of life now is to make oneself independent of the world, to detach ( S 2 oneself from it and stand by oneself." Teddy's entrance, at first glance, would seem to indicate the opposite of the above. It would appear that this is the "homecoming" referred to in the title — a reunion with his family as opposed to standing alone, be ing self-sufficient. He and Ruth, enter the room at night with the rest of the family apparently asleep upstairs. His key still fits the door. He is on familiar grounds. Ruth, as an in-law, would not be expected to be as "at home" as Teddy. But a subtle transformation seems to be occuring. Again the sitting/standing motif recure. Ruth: Can I sit down? Teddy: Of course. _________________________________________ 139 Ruths 1*111 tired.... Teddy: Then sit down. She does not move. p. 36. After Teddy makes a rather cryptic connection between the remodeling of the room and his mother's death, ...there was a wall, across there...with a door. We knocked it down...years ago... to make an open living area. The structure wasn't affected, you see. My mother was dead. p . 37. Ruth finally sits, as though something in the above speech makes her feel more at home. Teddy takes her act of sitt ing to confirm what she had previously said about being tired, Teddy: ... Tired? Ruths Just a little. p. 37* The beginnings of an inversion can be discerned. Before, she was "tired," now - "Just a little." Ruth seems to be gaining energy - the opposite of what one would expect. Her question, "Do you want to stay?" sounds innocent enough but, on second thought, it has an air of foreboding about it. In light of what is happening and subsequent developments, Ruth may be understood to be saying, "Do you really want to go through with this?" Teddy confirms it, but does not indicate, at this time, that he under stands her meaning. Teddy tries to get Ruth to go to bed while he stays up for a while. The developing dialogue shows that ______________________________ she is indeed getting stronger - she now wants to take a stroll rather than go to bed. The opposite is true of Teddy, who now is going to bed. The role reversal or in version is completed as he gives the house key to Ruth. With the transferral of the key comes the feeling that Ruth is somehow taking over, with Teddy's approval, and that the key to re-balancing or reintegrating the various elements of the psyche is now in her hands. Lenny has already felt Ruth's presence, as he cannot sleep - a certain "tick" is bothering him. After brief "hellos" Lenny asks to hold Ruth's hand. When she asks "why?" he tells a curious, rambling story of a run-in he had with a pox-ridden prostitute: ...Well, this lady was very insistent and started taking liberties with me down under the arch, liberties which by’any criterion I couldn't be expected to tolerate, the facts being what they were', so I clumped her one. It was on my mind at the time to do away with her, you know to kill her, and the fact is, that as killings go, it would have been a simple matter, nothing to it. ... and later in the same speech, ...But...in the end I thought...Aaah, why go to all the bother...you know, getting rid of the corpse and all that, getting yourself into a state of tension. So I just gave her another belt in the nose and a couple of turns of the boot and sort of left it at that. pp. 46-47* After expressing to Ruth, that he wished he was as sensi tive as Teddy, Lenny tells another story about how he ________________________________________________________ 14: tried to help an old lady and wound up giving her a jab in the belly when she started giving him a hard time. These two speeches appear to be designed by Lenny to show how roughly he treats women if they offend him in any way - real or imagined. He then tries to verbally push Ruth around, at first innocently moving the ash tray and then trying to take her glass away from her. Ruth stops Lenny short by calling him "Leonard." Lenny: Don't call me that please. Ruth: Why not? Lenny: That's the name my mother gave me. p. 4-9* When he persists, Ruth says, "If you take the glass... I'll take you." When Lenny accuses Ruth of trying to start trouble, She picks up the glass and lifts it _ ,. : , . towards him. Ruth:- Have a sip. Go on. Have a sip from my glass. He is still. Sit on my lap. Take a long cool sip. She pats her lap. Pause. She stands, moves to his with the glass. Put your head back and open your mouth. Lenny: Take that glass away from me. Ruth: Lie on the floor. Go on. I'll pour it down your throat. Lenny: What are you doing, making me some kind of proposal? p. 50. The above dialogue and action between Lenny and Ruth 14-2 may be seen as the beginning of the assimilation of Lenny by Ruth. The two stories about the whore and the old hag as told by Lenny, reveal how he deals with certain elements of the feminine principle - with violence - though he doesn't kill them. No matter how bizarre or convoluted, he does deal with them to his own satisfac tion. But though he tries, he cannot deal successfully with Ruth. She has the upper hand. The imagery and the dialogue indicate that Ruth is rapidly becoming (or is) a mother figure to Lenny, and the obvious sexual over tones would indicate an incipient incestuous relationship. Neumann says that an incestuous fixation denotes the neurotic's "...inability to break away from his origins and a refusal to be bom into the world. . . . " J So, it seems that Ruth has accomplished another inversion, this time with Lenny. She has used her maternal/sexual powers aggressively to depotentiate Lenny's fustian and potential for violence. In light of what has been previously said about the possibility of Teddy trying to go it alone, a certain pattern may be discerned as developing: Ruth, as Teddy's agent, is beginning to envelop the various aspects of his psyche which have the potential to hold him back. The incestuous aspect of Lenny is seen again later as he talks to Max: 1^3 ...It’s a question I've been meaning to ask you for some time. That night...you know...the night you got me...that night with Mum, what was it like? Eh? When I was just a glint in your eye. What was it like? What was the background to it? * then later, ...I should have asked my dear mother. Why didn't I ask my dear mother? Now . it's too late. She's passed over to the other side. pp. 52-53* Max, the father, seems to have become quite femini zed. He is the cook of the family and much is made of this. His attitude toward his sons is like that of a mother hen, as seen in one of his stories: First of all I gave Lenny a bath, then Teddy a bath, then Joey a bath. What fun we used to have in the bath, eh, boys? ...1 remember the boys came down, in their pajamas, all their hair shining, their faces pink, it was before they started shaving... p. 62. And later, ...don't talk to me about the pain of childbirth - I suffered the pain, I've still got the pangs - when I give a little cough my back collapses.... p. 63. Earlier in the play when Joey, the youngest son, says he is hungry, Max, who has not met Ruth yet, replies: Who do you think I am, your mother? Eh? Honest. They walk in here every time of the day and night like bloody animals. Go and find yourself a mother, p. 32. ___________________________________________' 1 4 4 and, it would seem, that ultimately, Joey does precisely that. In the second act, while Lenny and Ruth are con versing, Teddy is preparing to leave, though it is by no means certain that Ruth has assented to their departure. She has been gradually gaining strength and a foothold and she seems to have a pre-ordained purpose. What happens next ritualistically and graphically illustrates Ruth's crossover to the other side of consciousness, despite the mild protests from Teddy. Lenny goes to the radiogram and puts on a record of slow .jazz. ... Lenny (to Ruth): What about one dance before you go? Teddy: We're going. Lenny: Just one. Teddy: No. We're going. Lenny: Just one dance, with her brother-in- law, before she goes. Lenny bends to her. Madam? Ruth stands. They dance slowly. Teddy stands with Ruth's coat. Max and Joey come in the front door and into the room. They stand. Lenny kisses Ruth. They stand, kissing. Joey: Christ, she's wide open. Pause. Old Lenny's got a tart in here. Joey goes to them. He takes Ruth's arm. He smiles at Lenny. He sits with Ruth on the sofa, embraces and kisses her. He looks up at Lenny. Just up my street. Ik 5 He leans her back until she lies beneath him. He kisses her. He looks up at Teddy and Max. It's better than a rubdown, this. Lenny sits on the arm of* the sofa. He caresses Ruth's hair as Joey embraces her. . . pp". 74-75. The imagery of the above is like that of a bitch in heat wantonly taking on all comers. As Joey says, "Christ, she's wide open." But the sexual act is not consummated. As they roll around on the floor, Ruth suddenly pushes Joey away and remarks, "I'd like something to eat." p.76. As seen earlier, eating is symbolic of assimilation and 6 4 - Ruth's assimilation of Joey has begun. Ruth has dealt successfully with Lenny and must now work on Joey. And it seems, by the above passages from the play, that she is even getting Lenny's help and participation. Another indication that inversion is taking place in Max's unexpected reaction to the above. Whereas, when he first met Ruth, he called her "whore," "slut," etc. without apparent cause, Max now notes her fine qualities to Teddy as she tumbles around on the floor with Joey: Mind you, she's a lovely girl. A beautiful woman. And a mother too. A mother of three. You've made a happy woman out of her. It's something to be proud of. I mean, we're talking about a woman of quality. We're talking about a woman of feeling, pp. 75-76. 146 That the above titillation of Joey by Ruth was pri marily a come-on by Ruth to get Joey's attention, is seen later, as the results of Joey coming under the control of Ruth, becomes apparent. She has turned his amorous desires to her own advantage. He spends two hours alone with Ruth and admits to Lenny that he didn't go "all the way. " Joey: I've been the whole hog plenty of times. Sometimes...you can be happy...and not go the whole hog. Now and again...you can be happy... without going any hog. p. 8^. One gets the impression that all- that took place was a lot of caressing as in a mother/son relationship. So neither Lenny or Joey have had Ruth sexually. But when Max asks Teddy, "Does she do that to you too?" he replies, "No." p. 85* Lenny and Joey, it seems, are not capable, or advanced enough,to consummate sexually with Ruth, and yet Teddy is. Joey even gets upset at the mention of anyone having sex with Ruth, like a boy might feel about his mother or sister. His assimilation by Ruth is complete. Not only does Max have motherly attributes, as mentioned earlier, but he speaks of his father in a simi lar way: He used to come over to me and look down at me. My old man did. He'd bend right over me, then he'd pick me up. I was only that big. Then he’d dandle me. Give me the bottle. Wipe me clean. Give me a smile. Pat me on the bum. p. 35* _______________________ 1^7 Generations of males with female attributes is reminis cent of what Goldberg told McCann in The Birthday Party; ...who came before your father? His father. And who came before him. ...Who came before your father's father but your father's father's mother! Your great- gran -granny . p. 88. This; also calls to mind the previous discussion of Davies in The Caretaker, as being a link with the Great Mother (in it's Terrible aspect). There are other parallels between Max/Mac and Gold berg/McCann, besides the ethnic affinity of names. Max describes the relationship he had with Mac: We were two of the worst hated men in the West End of London. I tell you, I still got the scars. We'd walk into a place, the whole room'd stand up, they'd make way to let us pass. You never heard such silence, p. 24. The image is of tough, perhaps underworld, characters much like Goldberg/McCann, as well as Ben/Gus in The Dumb Waiter. In addition, Max is a butcher by profession and Mac was also a butcher in the family business. Ben/Gus were butchers of a different sort - killing people - but the similarity is clear. As Gus had said, regarding a victim: ...What a mess. Honest, I can't remember a mess like that one. They don't seem to hold together like men, women. A looser texture, like. Didn't she spread, eh? pp. 146-147- 1 4 8 Teddy may be seen, by virtue of his introverted, introspective nature, as a direct descendent of Bert - Petey - McCann - Gus - Aston. But no where in the other plays are the dynamics of this state of mind, and its importance in maintaining psychic balance, spelled out so clearly as they are in The Homecoming. Teddy says to the family unit: ...You're way behind. All of you. There's no point in my sending you my works. You'd be lost. It's nothing to do with the ques tion of intelligence. It's a way of being able to look at the world. It's a question of how far you can operate on things and not in things. I mean it's a question of your capacity to ally the two, to relate the two, to balance the two. To see, to be able to see! I'm the one who can see. That's why I can write my critical works. Might do you good...have a look at them... see how certain people can view...things... how certain people can maintain... intellec tual equilibrium. Intellectual equilibrium. You're just objects. You just...move about. I can observe it. I can see what you do. But you're lost in it. You won't get me being...I won't be lost in it. pp. 77-78* Lenny reinforces this aspect of Teddy a little later, along with the idea that Teddy stands a cut above the others: ...1 will say you do seem to have grown a bit sulky during the last six years. A bit sulky. A bit inner. A bit less forthcoming. ...I'd have thought you'd have grown more forthcoming, not less. Because I want you to know that you set a standard for us, Teddy. Your family looks up to you, boy.... p. 80. i M . Six years is the amount of time Teddy has been away in America. It is roughly the amount of time since Pinter's previous stage play, The Caretaker. There are strong indications that Teddy's Uncle Sam, Max's brother, leads a celibate life. Max berates him for never getting married and he is referred to at various times as "sexless" and a "wet wick." In a short scene between Teddy and Sam, they seem to relate to one another more than the others. Sam says, "You know, you were always my favorite, of the lads. Always." p. 78. It might be projected that Teddy, at this stage, is beyond sex, at least in terms of archetypal development of the psyche. He has had his three children with Ruth and he is now leaving her behind. Max, Lenny, and Joey strike up a bargain with Ruth, whereby she will work as a prostitute for them in addition to performing household chores. But it can be seen, as Ruth makes more and more demands regarding the conditions of the pact, that it is she who is really in control. Again, the element of sex is used by them to try to con trol Ruth but she turns the tables, ever so adroitly, on them. Ted mildly acquiesces to the whole arrangement, perhaps knowing something the others don't. Again, it is by no means certain that Ruth will live up to her end of the bargain. Later, even Max says: 150 ...I've got a funny idea she'll do the dirty on us, you want to het? She'll use us, she'll make use of us, I can tell you! I can smell it! You want to het? p . 97• In spite of all the quasi-foreplay and talk of sex, it becomes increasingly clear that The Homecoming is actually sexless: Teddy stands on the sidelines; Max is more like a mother; and Lenny and Joey were unable to consummate the act with Ruth. As Teddy later remarks, "It was just love play...I suppose... that's all I suppose it was." p. 89. The closest thing to a sex act comes from "sexless" Sam. He has not participated in the above- mentioned bargaining with Ruth, but quite unexpectedly, out of nowhere, Sam comes forward, and like a verbal ejaculation: Sam (in one breath): MacGregor had Jessie •in the back of my cab as I drove them along. He croaks and collapses. He lies still. They look at him, p^ 9h. Sex in the play is primarily talk, braggadocio, and thwarted, half-hearted, attempts at it. Later, Lenny accuses even Max of being "sexless." p. 88. This apparent impotence (and attempts to hide it) has been successfully used by Ruth to depotentiate these projections of characters, or various aspects of the psy che, and, it may be added, with Teddy's approval. As Jules Feiffer puts it, "...outside the range of manipulation ______________________________________________________________ 15L and counter-manipulation engaged in between Ruth and the family stands the prime manipulator... the seemingly 6 ^ innocent Teddy." J The question remains, "Why would Ruth be doing all these things for Teddy?" One way of looking at it is this: Teddy, as representative of the psyche's growth to wards individuation has already procreated with the anima aspect of the feminine principles that is Ruth, and now needs to go beyond that. The "Good Mother" aspect of Ruth is being relegated to that level of the unconscious, where she will keep potentially harmful or regressive elements in check, so that Teddy may progress. In order to bring this about, Ruth has at various times throughout the play, in terms of the other "characters," represented every element of the feminine principle - sister, whore, mist ress, and wife. But it is in her final guise as "Great Mother" that she exalts her greatest strength. There are archetypal symbols throughout The Home coming that seem to lend support to the above. There are many references to animals, one example: Max says, "She'll make us all animals." Animals stand for the unconscious areas of the psyche. "Identifying oneself with animals represents integration of the unconscious and sometimes - like immersion in the primal waters - rejuvenation through bathing in the sources of life itself." At the beginn ing of the play, Lenny is reading the sports page and ____________________________________________________________152 talking with Max about which horses to bet on. Max says that he could always tell a good horse by its smell, especially the fillies. Jung surmissed the horse to be a 67 symbol for the mother and "the mother within us." ' Max later calls Ruth, a filly. And near the end of the play, as previously quoted, he says, "...she'll make use of us, I can tell you! I can smell it! You. want to bet?" p. 97* 6 8 The symbol of the horse also pertains to water. There are many references to water throughout the play: Ruth offers to pour water down Lenny's throat; the many references to bathing, lakes, etc.; and the archetypal Night-Sea Journey of Ruth and Teddy. They arrive at the house at night, wearing raincoats. The symbol of the Night-Sea Journey, "is a kind of Journey into Hell com parable with the journeys described by Virgil and Dante, and also a sort of journey to the Land of Spirits, or, in 6 9 other words, a plunge into the unconscious." 7 Ruth and Teddy are arriving perhaps not so coincidentally from Venice, Italy, the city of canals. A prevailing symbol throughout the play is that of the dog. Lenny says to Max, "You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs." p. 27. Like the leader of a pack of dogs, Max later says, "...I was going all over the country to find meat...." p. 62. Max constantly refers to everyone as a "bitch" (which also indicates their less than masculine attributes). They _________________________________________ 15; also sniff around Ruth like dogs in heat. The final tableau, at the end of the play, sees Ruth, the Great Mother, as a Madonna, sitting relaxed, with Max, Sam, Lenny, and Joey (with his head on her lap), gathered around her like a pack of loving dogs, contentedly basking in her warmth and radiance. The dog is, "An emblem of faithfulness, and it is in this sense that it appears so often at the feet of women in the engravings on 7 0 mediaeval tombs." But as we have seen, things are not always as they appear to be in these plays. The quote of Max, previously eluded to, still rings in our ears, "...she’ll make use of us, I can tell you! I can smell it! You want to. bet?" Looking at this fixed tableau on another level, this group at the feet of Ruth, may be seen as more "cowed" than 'loving," as they "knuckle under" to the dominance of Ruth. As for Teddy, as representative of the developing psyche, he has reached the stage of "the treasure hard to attain." And it has not been, indeed, an easy task. Neumann submits a partial listing from various legends, myths, rituals, etc., as symbols of this treasure: "...the water of life, the healing herb, the elixir of immortality, the philosopher's stone, miracle rings and 71 wishing rings, magic hoods and winged cloaks...."' The "stone is a symbol of being, of cohesion and harmonious reconciliation with self." And, "...between eternal 1 birth, reintegration, and the discovery of the philo- 72 sopher's stone, there is no difference whatsoever.": It appears, that in this case, "the treasure hard to attain" is the philosopher's stone as Teddy returns to his position as Professor of Philosophy, to continue his quest. But, as mentioned previously, the Great Mother aspect of the feminine principle can not be sublimated forever. And so, as Teddy turns to leave, Ruth says, "Eddie... Don't become a stranger." p. 96. The implica tion is that although Teddy has reached a certain higher level of consciousness, the archetypes of the unconscious, though relatively dormant, are still there. In any future progression (or regression) of the psyche, these forces will once again be marshalled up to play their necessary roles. The concluding chapter will review the main threads of continuity followed throughout these five plays to determine, if indeed, they constitute a unit and whether or not this approach does provide a viable way of viewing them in a new light. 1 5 5 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER 4 i Jung, Symbols of Transformation,' p. 3°3 • p Duckworth, Angels, pp. 5^-56. ...The hook referred to by Duckworth is presumed to be: Psychological Medicine; A short introduction to Psychiatry by Desmond Curran and Eric Gutmann (Edinburgh's E. & S. Livingstone, 19^) • 3 -'Colin Duckworth, "Beckett's Dramatic Intensity," New Theatre Magazine, XI, 3, pp. 20-21. L . Neumann, Origins, p. 410. -’ Lazar, p. 136. Pinter's many references to Jewish and Irish culture will be explored in a study I intend to do, tentatively entitled, "Pinter's Irish Connection." "^Dudley Lynch, "Creative Flashes from the Twilight Zone," Science Digest, December 1981, p. 70. O Richard W. Seaver, ed., I can * t go on, I'll go on: A Selection from Samuel Beckett's Work (New York: Drove Press, Inc., 1976), p. 212. Q Hillman, Underworld, p. 71. ■^Cirlot, Dictionary, p. 262. 11 Violet S. DeLaszlo, ed., The Basic Writings of C . G . Jung (New York: The Modem Library, 1959)» Introduction, p . xviii. ■^Cirlot, Dictionary, p. 13^* 13Ibid., p. 208. ■^Harold Pinter, The Room in Complete Works: One. (New York: Grove Press! Inc., 1976), pp. 102-104. All quotes in this study, from The Room, are from this edition. __________________________________________________ 156 1 5 Bennet, Jung, p. 121. l6Hillman, Underworld, p. 155- ■ * - ^Cirlot, Dictionary, p. 318* 1 ft Hillman, Underworld, p. 78. 19 The notion of assuming another name or identity as disguise and the need to travel from one place to another are motifs that rim throughout the plays of this study. They may be thought of as the Jewish experience of "survival by assimilation," and will be explored in the intended study alluded to t earlier in Footnote 6. 20Ibid., p. 170. 2^Ibid., pp. 168, 169. 22 Bennet, Jung, p. 41. 2-^Sal Manna, "Blind singer’s saga gets made into movie," Los Angeles Herald Examiner, April 10, 1982, pp. B-l, oh. Bennet, Jung, p. 117* 2^Ibid., p. 119- Seaver, I can’t go on, p. 213- ^Harold Pinter, The Birthday Party in Complete Works; One, p. 26. All quotes in this study, from The Birthday Party, are from this edition. 28 Neumann, Origins, p. 16. 29 Jung, Symbols of Transformation, p. 3°1. -^Neumann, Origins, p. 180. 157 31 See Max Spalter's study of Wedekind's sexual vision of life as personified by Lulu, in Brecht's Tradition (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967), pp. 113-135- ■^Cirlot, Dictionary, pp. 261-262,' -^Ibid. , p. 85 • ^Esslin, Pinter, p. 81. 33 Duckworth, Angels, p. 91* Cirlot, Dictionary, p. 31* -^Harold Pinter, The Dumb Waiter in Complete Works: One, p. 13^* All quotes in this study, from The Dumb Waiter, are from this edition. -^DeLaszlo, Basic, Introduction, p. xv. ■^M.-L. von Franz, "The Process of Individuation," in Man and His Symbols, ed. by Carl G. Jung, p. 230. Ao Neumann, Origins, p. 30. 4l Bennet, Jung, pp. 172-3. h,o Neumann, Origins, p. 3^3- ^Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre," p. 15* ^Ibid., p. 1^. ^Neumann, Origins, p. 339* ^Harold Pinter, The Caretaker in Complete Works: Two (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1977T» P* 2ll All quotes in this study, from The Caretaker, are from this edition. ^0n another level, the above discussion can be seen as part of the Jewish experience: The Jew as foreigner; traveling from place to place; having to assume new last names and yet keeping typically Jewish first names. ______________________________ 1 5 8 48 The image of the Buddha here might well indicate a dis enchantment with the Judeo/Christian experience at least on a conscious level. At the same time, it may suggest an inward-turning of the psyche that is so much a part of Eastern mysticism. ^9Ibid., pp. 179-180. 5°Ibid., pp. 170-191. -^Ibid. , p. 182. ■^2Ibid. , p . 184 . -^Rollo May, Love and Will (New York: Dell Publishing Co.-, Inc., 1973), p. 171. £ 54 J Neumann, Origins, p. 180. ■^Ibid., p. 181. -^John Pesta, "Pinter’s Usurpers," in Pinter: a Collection of Critical Essays, p. 128. Renee Girard, Violence and the Sacred (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), P« 103• See Chapter Four of Girard's book for further exploration of the surrogate victim as communal institution vs. private concern. ■^^Bensky, "Interview...," p. 28. ■^9Harold Pinter, The Homecoming in Complete Works: Three (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1978), p. 37- All quotes in this study, from The Homecoming, are from this edition. Cirlot, Dictionary, p. 318. Neumann, Origins, p. 11. ^Ibid. , p. 36 . 63Ibid. 159 6^ • Here and following, can also be seen the triple percep tion of the feminine as madonna/woman/whore that runs throughout Strindberg's Dream Play and Ionesco's The Chairs, for example. ^Rolf Fjelde, "Plotting Pinter's Progress," in A Casebook on Harold Pinter's The Homecoming, p. 105. 66 Cirlot, Dictionary, p. 13* 67Ibid., p. 1^5. 6 8 . , Ibid. 69Ibid., p. 218. ^°Ibid., p. 80. "^Neumann, Origins, p. 195* "^Cirlot, Dictionary, pp. 299 > 300* 160 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION But writing for the stage is the most difficult thing of all, whatever the system. I find it more difficult the more I think about it. --Harold Pinter"*" By studying the five stage plays from The Room to The Homecoming as a unit, certain patterns were discerned that would not have been readily apparent without this approach. In a strong departure from other literature on Pinter, the silent, or most reticent, "character" was traced throughout these five plays in terms of being the ego-center, with the other "characters" appearing as constellations of this center core. Many quotes by Pinter revealing the importance of silence in his plays have been cited throughout this study and may be seen collectively as an important "key" in interpreting the main "character" in each of these plays. Not only the "characters," but props, sets, and verbal images were seen in this study as metaphors of something else. It was proposed that all of these elements might be metaphors or projections of the psyche - the room, in each play, and all that it contained, being a projection of the different stages of the psyche in its journey through the unconscious towards equilibrium, or individuation. l6l Jungian archetypal symbolism was found to be a viable and consistent tool to an understanding of just who or what these metaphors might represent. The use of this methodology also provided a means of seeing these various elements as fragmentations and continuations of each other from play-to-play, thus justifying the study of these five plays as a self-contained unit - an approach not found in the literature on Pinter, to date. The plays were studied as one might study dreams. Jung and others see dreams as compensatory. And with this as a guide, "characters" seemed to "well-up" from various levels of the unconscious to satisfy the need of the moment to maintain balance. They have been described in this study as various aspects of the psyche, and their opposites, doubles, mirror-images, and alter-egos. They have first to be recognized as such before they can be assimilated by the psyche so that it may rise to another level of consciousness in the process of individuation, or union with the Self. Throughout this study, with the aid of Jungian archetypal hermeneutics, the "characters" were seen, at various times, as representatives of the male principle - "Great Father," "Terrible Father," father, uncle, brother, son, and as representatives of the feminine principle - "Great Mother," "Terrible Mother," mother, sister, whore, mistress, and wife. Adding to the . 162, complexity of this approach was the "crossover" of characteristics among these various projections of the psyche. Certain aspects would fuse with others at times, disappear at times, and re-appear as opposites at other times, making delineation difficult - but that is the nature of dreams also. It is in the studying of the five plays as a whole that certain repetitions and lines of force may be seen. One of the strongest connecting links in these five plays, as proposed by this study, is the tracing of the ego-center. This study has proposed that the quiet Bert is the ego-center in The Room and all the other "char acters" are working at his bidding, to expunge his Terrible Mother aspect as represented by Rose. The Birthday Party sees the taciturn Petey as a continuation of Bert, in a mellowed-down version, (suggest ing increased understanding). Petey has more of a husband-wife relationship with Meg, but finds it necessary to deal with certain negative elements that have lingered on in the "person" of Stanley. The twin-enforcers, Gold berg and McCann, represent other aspects of the psyche that have to be dealt with, as we saw their partnership beginning to dissolve towards the end of The Birthday Party. These "characters" had to be developed further to discern what their roles were to be in the psyche’s attempt to balance itself. And they were, as Ben and Gus _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 6 3 in The Dumb Waiter. Here the ego-center is unseen, but his presence is felt from above as the manipulative spectre, Wilson. It is his directives that highlight the dichotomy of Ben and Gus as opposing (perhaps extraverted and introverted) forces or opposites within the same psyche. The tension of the tableau at the end of The Dumb Waiter implies an understanding or realization that clear ly foreshadows the union of opposites as seen in the figures of Mick and Aston in The Caretaker who are now represented as brothers. The play takes place on the top floor implying a nearness to consciousness. Their respective extraverted and introverted qualities are now seen as complimentary rather than oppositional as they ■unite to deal with another threat to their well-being, Davies, who ultimately functions as a scapegoat so that Aston and Mick may put their house in order. Mick, how ever, seems to have functioned primarily as a catalyst in order for Aston to be able to turn his back on Davies. And Mick has said that he would be turning the house over completely to Aston's care. That Aston prevails could very well be indicative of the fact that the journey into the self is an introspective one. Pinter had a dream, after writing The Caretaker, wherein the house from the play had burned down. In this dream Aston and Mick promised Pinter that he would be 164 "compensated." Emphasis throughout this study has been on the Jungian precept of the compensatory nature of dreams. And so, five years later in The Homecoming, Pinter receives this compensation, where the clutter of The Caretaker is replaced by an airy, expansive room, with the back wall knocked out, and a view of an ascending staircase. The setting is right for a re-evaluation of all that has gone before and a preparation for what is to come. The silent Aston of The Caretaker reappears as the reserved Teddy in The Homecoming. ' Here, Teddy can be seen as the manipulator (whom this study purports to be the ego-center) standing on the sidelines. And, as has been pointed out earlier, some critics have been found who agree with this view of Teddy's importance. The Homecom ing, as the capstone to the four other plays, brings the ego-center's journey to its highest level of consciousness thus far. The various disturbing (and necessarily so), elements of the psyche have been successfully dealt with during the the process of individuation, as they pose in tableau for final measure. This tableau is like a frozen moment of time, but by no means does it imply that the figures have been stilled. The feeling is one of tension rather than repose. They are at the ready, prepared to help or hinder, as the case may be, when the psyche continues its journey through consciousness . ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________, ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 6 5 . * At least two rather direct links between Bert of The Room and Teddy of The Homecoming can he seen in the motifs of-blindness and silence . . Bert, in The Room, is the only one left on stage who can see. Teddy, in The Homecoming, says that he is the only one (of everyone on stage) who can see. The relative silence of both Bert and Teddy is broken by rather long self-revelatory speeches. It is from these speeches that we gain real insight into these "characters." The figures ostensibly expelled in the various plays should not be seen as totally discarded. They have been put in the spotlight - seen for what they were - and temporarily placed on the shelf. It is this act of recognition that is necessary before assimilation can be affected. And this assimilation is necessary in turn before consciousness can progress to a higher plane. The motif of violence in these plays has met with much discussion in the literature on Pinter. It may be helpful to approach this important aspect in terms of the guidelines already established in this study. Violence seemed to diminish from one play to the next ~ from the graphic physical violence of Bert kicking Riley in The Room to the blatent buffoonery in The Homecoming. The attempts at rape and strangulation by Stanley in The Birthday Party can be seen as feeble protestations of an aspect of the psyche approaching catatonia, or psychic 166 paralysis. Stanley was easily restrained by Goldberg and McCann. In The Dumb Waiter, the face-off at the end of the play between Ben and Gus was an indication more of tension than overt violence. In The Caretaker, Aston has merely to turn his back on,Davies to effectively repel him. In The Homecoming, we hear stories from Lenny regarding his violent behavior towards women, but the ease with which Ruth pacifies him suggests that his stories are to be taken at something less than face value. When Max gives Joey and Sam quick jabs, it is to be seen as being more clownish than anything else. If we look at the aspects of paralysis and violence, exhibited in these plays, as two sides of the same coin, they can be seen as an oscillation from tension to release, a necessary process to maintain psychic balance. Bert's violence to Riley in The Room can perhaps be under stood in this ways If Riley, as this study has attempted to show, is an agent from the deepest level of the unconscious, then Bert's first reaction to this confronta tion with the unconscious would be that of rage. Only after this initial outburst can come understanding and then assimilation. And this is the process that seems to be taking place throughout the other plays on a diminishing level as the psyche rises in understanding and consciousness. 16? Another way of viewing the violence is in terms of assimilation - the opposite of what one would at first think. Violence may be helpful as a neutralizing agent, enabling assimilation to take place. As has been pointed out in this study, most critics interpreted each of these five plays separately in terms of traditional, linear, methods of criticism - each play having a beginning, middle, and end. It appears, that for the most part, they were not completely comfortable with their conclusions, i.e., their constant references to the ambiguities, puzzlement, and "unknowability" of early Pinter. Had these plays been studied by these critics, as a continuum, they would have perhaps discerned that there is indeed a cohesiveness and "knowable" meaning behind these early works of Pinter. It is in this sense that this study purports to have made a meaningful con tribution to the literature on Pinter. It may be conjectured that another important reason for their "problems with early Pinter," was their selec tion of the protagonist as usually the most visible and talkative character. It may be enlightening to show, in a general way, who the critics saw to be the central character in each of the plays in this study: The Room. No critic was found who saw Bert as the central figure; all of the critics researched for this study, saw Rose as the central character. 168 The Birthday Party. Most saw Stanley; some saw Meg; Petey was mentioned as questionable. The Dumb Waiter. None saw Wilson; most saw Gus. The Caretaker. Many saw Davies; many saw Aston; some saw Aston/Mick. The Homecoming. Many saw Ruth; some saw Lenny; those who saw Teddy, felt pretty strongly about it. It seems from the above, that as the plays rose in consciousness, along with the journey of the psyche's rise in consciousness, more and more critics began to see the centrality of the figures as propounded in this study. There are at least two possible explanations for this: 1. As each play represented the goings-on at a higher level of consciousness, from the point-of-view of the ego- center, it became more apparent to the critics, used to interpreting drama in the traditional sense on a conscious level, just who the central character was. 2. As the critics became more saturated with Pinter's style and motifs, certain aspects of this journey into the un conscious "sunk in," and Pinter began to make more sense, at least on an intuitive level. A combination of the above two explanations is also possible, as well as many others. The inference here is that this study is not meant to be implied as the only one and true, but evidence is cited to at least allow for the possibility that there may be some merit to it. As Pinter himself says: __________________________________________ 169 ...there are at least twenty-four possible aspects of any single statement, depending on where you're standing at the time. ... No statement I make, therefore, should be interpreted as final and definitive.2 At another level, closer to the surface, and used as a point of demarcation and framework in this study, we can see the structure of the hero-dragon fight-treasure myth. The hero, as personified in the quiet figures, somehow manipulates the other "characters'* to help defeat whatever aspect of the psyche happened to represent the "dragon" figure or agent of this figure in each particular play, iontil finally, Teddy, in The Homecoming, stands alone. By recognizing these various aspects of the Self, he has assimilated them and is able to move on. He has found the "treasure-hard to attain" - the philosopher's stone. On an even more surface level can be seen the themes of artist vs. society, failure of communication and verification, and others, as mentioned in the introduction to this study. These themes are equally important and may be seen as.a stepping-off-point between the "real" world and the netherworld. The theme of alienation as it applies to existential man should perhaps be looked at separately. If the main thrust of this study has any validity at all, then it might be conjectured that the concept of existential man ___________________________________________________________________ 170 alone facing an indifferent universe is not of primary concern in these plays of Pinter and perhaps not in the plays of Ionesco and Beckett as well. The theme of alienation-of-self seems more appropriate. The quest is centripetal as opposed to centrifugal. Teddy, in The Homecoming, says as much in his speech about the world of material things. The Age of Reason developed into the Age of Aliena tion and man realized his finiteness as his consciousness expanded to the limits of the material universe. But like the process after a super-nova, perhaps an implosion of sorts is taking place and the journey is now directed in ward . We should perhaps take a step down from such cosmic considerations for a moment and speculate on the direction Pinter's dramaturgy might take that would fit into the overall concept of this study. His last play, Betrayal, 1980, is a memory play and does not, I believe, advance the themes and considerations of his first five stage plays. He seems to be in a holding pattern, a middle ground, as he philosophizes about life on the surface - a legitimate stage of existence, to be sure. But like the mature Ionesco, and Beckett, the need will perhaps some time arrive for another journey into the Netherworld as another level of consciousness beckons. 171 It will be interesting to see if and how Pinter will deal with Beckett's concept of Endgame. In Ionesco's Exit the King, the mother image, Marguerite, returns to guide the king hack to the unus mundus. If there is any validity to this concept of Self-attainment, then we might one day expect to see Pinter return to the format of his first five stage plays. The words of Ruth in The Home coming echo hauntingly, "Eddie...don't become a stranger." The disparity intrinsic in the traditional approach of the critics to these five plays and that of this study also suggests a profound need for a re-orientation to the staging of these plays in production. The investigation of these staging possibilities calls for another major study. Just some of the questions that might be asked are: 1. Should the Stanislavsky acting method of "pursuing the objective" be dis carded, and if so, what can replace it? 2. If the "characters" are all fragmenta tions of one another how can they be developed as individual characters? Or should they be? 3. Should the costuming indicate the relative proximity of the various characters to the different levels of consciousness? ^ . Should the representative of the ego- center be highlighted in some way? 5. Should sets,- lighting, and props some how indicate the locale of these productions as being in the realm of the Netherworld? 172 These, and other questions, must be addressed if the thesis of this study is to be used as a guideline for future productions of the plays of the new drama. 173 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER 5 Harold Pinter, "Writing for Myself," in Harold Pinter, Complete Works: Two (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1977 )> p. 12. 2Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre," p. 9* 17^ BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Anderson, Michael. Anger and Detachment; a Study of Arden, Osborne, and Pinter^ London: Pitman, 1976. Artaud, Antonin. The Theatre and Its, Double. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1958. Bair, Deirdre. Samuel Beckett: A Biography. New York: Hareourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1978. Baker, William and Tabachnick, Stephen Ely. Harold Pinter. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1973- Barzun, Jacques. Clio and the Doctors. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 197^- Beckett, Samuel. Endgame. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1958. Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 195^- Benedikt, Michael and Wellwarth, George E. Modern French Theatre . • New York: E. P. Dutton & Co . , Inc . , 1966. Benedikt, Michael and Wellwarth, George E. Postwar German Theatre. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1968. Bennet, E. A. What Jung Really Said. New York: Schocken Books, 1967• Berlin, Isaiak / Karl Marx: His Life and Environment. London: Oxford University Press, 1963- Brockett, Oscar G. History of the Theatre. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977- Brown, John Russell, ed.' Modern British Dramatists: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs’ , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall/Spectrum, 1968. Brustein, Robert S. The Theatre of Revolt. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964. Burkman, Katherine H. The Dramatic World of Harold Pinter Basis in Ritual. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1971. 175 Cirlot, J. E. A Dictionary of Symbols. Translated by Jack Sage. New York: The Philosophical Library, 19&2. Coe, Richard. Eugene Ionesco: A Study of His Works. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1970. Cox, David. Modem Psychology: The Teachings of Carl Gustav Jung! New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1968. Curran, Desmond and Gutmann, Eric. Psychological Medicine: A Short Introduction to Psychiatry. Edinburgh: E. & S. Livingstone, 1944. Dante. The Divine Comedy. Translated by H. R. Huse. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. De Laszlo, Violet S., ed. The Basic Writings of C. G . Jung. New York: The Modem Library, 1959* De Laszlo, Violet S., ed. Psyche and Symbol. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958. Duckworth, Colin. Angels of Darkness. London: George Allen and Oliver, Ltd., 1972. Dukore, Bernard F. Where Laughter^Stops: Pinter*s Tragicomedy. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1976T Durante, Will. The Story of Philosophy. Garden City, New York: Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., 1927* Ehrenzweig, Anton. The Psycho-Analysis of Artistic Vision and Hearing^ New York: George Braziller, 1965* Elsom, John. Post-War British Theatre. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979- Esslin, Martin. Pinter: A Study of His Plays. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1976• Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969. Faraday, Ann. Dream Power. New York: Berkeley Books, 1980. Fergusson, Francis. The Idea of A Theatre. Princeton University Press, 1968. 176 Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. New York; Harper and Brothers, 1957* Fisher, B. Aubrey. Perspectives on Human Communication. New York: MacMillan-Publishing Co., Inc., 1978. Freedman, Morris, ed. Essays in the Modern Drama. Boston; D. C. Heath and Company, 196^. Frenz, Horst, ed. American Playwrights on Drama. New York: Hill and Wang, 1965• Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton University Press, 1957* Gabbard, Luciana P. The Dream Structure of Pinter*s Plays; A Psychoanalytical Approach. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1976* Gale, Steven H. "butter's going up"; A Critical Analysis of Harold Pinter's Work. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1977* Ganz, Arthur, ed. Pinter; a Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Girard, Renee. The Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977* Glover, Edward. Freud or Jung? New York: Meridian Books, 1956. Gordon, Lois G. Stratagems to Uncover Nakedness: The Dramas of Harold Pinter. Columbia, Missouri: U. of Missouri Press, 1970* Gottfried, Martin. Opening Nights■ New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1969. Hayman, Ronald. Harold Pinter. London: Heineman, 1975* Hillman, James. The Dream and the Underworld. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1979* HinChliffe, Arnold P. Harold Pinter. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1981 Hollis, James R. Harold Pinter: The Poetics of Silence. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970. _______________________________________________________ 17Z Homey, Karen. Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: W. W. Norton and Co. , fncT7~T9^9^ Hubben, William. Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzshe and Kafka. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952. Ionesco, Eugene. Exit the King. New York: Grove Press, Inc., I963. Jung, Carl G., ed. Man and His Symbols. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1969• Jung, Carl G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Vintage Books’ ^ 1965 • Jung, Carl G. On the Nature of the Psyche. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press, 1973- Jung, Carl G. Symbols of Transformation. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press, 1976. Jung, Carl G. The Undiscovered Self. New York: The News American Library, 1958* Jung, Carl G. Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. New York: Pantheon Books, 1966. Kirby, E. T., ed. Total Theatre. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1969. Lahr, John, ed. A Casebook on Harold Pinter’s The Home coming . New York: Grove Press, Inc., ,1971* Lazar, Moshe, ed! The Dream and the Play: Ionesco's Theatrical Quest. Malibu, California: Undena Publications, 1982. May, Rollo. Love and Will. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1973• May, Rollo. Man's Search for Himself. New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1967* Neumann, Erich. The Origins and History of Consciousness. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Bollingen Series. Princeton University Press, 1970. Nicoll, Allardyce. British Drama: An Historical Survey. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1963* 178 Pinter, Harold. Betrayal. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1978. Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: One. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1977* Pinter, Harold. Complete Work: Two. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1977* Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Three. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1978. Pinter, Harold. The Hothouse. London: Eyre Methuen, 1980. Pinter, Harold. No Man's Land. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1975. Pinter, Harold. Old Times. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1977- Popkin, Henry, ed. Barrett H. Clark*s European Theories of the Drama. New' York: CrownPublishers Inc., 1969• Pronko, Leonard C. Avant-Garde: The Experimental Theatre France. Berkeley: University of California Press, iw r r Quigley, Austin E. The Pinter Problem. Princeton University Press, 1975* Rukle, Otto. Karl Marx: His Life and Work. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. New York: The Viking Press, 1929. 1 Schroll, Herman T. Harold Pinter: A Study of his Reputa tion Cl 958-1969) and a Checklist. Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1971* Seaver, Richard W. I can't go on, I'll go on: A Selection from Samuel Beckett's Work. New York: Grove Press, Inc . 1976 . Spalter, Max. Brecht*s Tradition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967. Sokel, Walter H., ed. An Anthology of German Expression ist Drama. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963• 179 Strindberg, August. Plays by August Strindberg. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1923* Taylor, John Russell. Harold Pinter. Essex, England: Longmans, Green and Co., 19&9 • Trussler, Simon. The Plays of Harold Pinter: An Assess ment . London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1973* Tucker, Robert C. Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx. Cambridge University Press, 1961. Tynan, Kenneth. Curtains. New York: Atheneum, 1961 . Tynan, Kenneth. A View of the English Stage 1944-63. London: Davis-Poynter, 1975• Vaughn, Jack A. Drama: A to Z ♦ New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1978* von Franz, Marie-Louise. C. G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977* Wellwarth, George E. The Theatre of Protest and Paradox. New York University Press, 1967* Whitman, Robert F. The Pla.vreader's Handbook. Indiana polis : The.Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1966• Articles Ashworth, Arthur, "New Theatre: Ionesco, Beckett, Pinter," Southerly, XXII, 3 (1962, pp. 145-54. Barnes, Clive, "Harold Pinter's Debt to James Joyce," New York Times, July 25, 1969, D, p. 8. Barranger, M. S., "Death as Initiation in Exit the King," Educational Theatre Journal, December, 1975> 5°^-°7• Bernhard, F. J., "Beyond Realism: The Plays of Harold Pinter," Modern Drama, September, 1965> PP* I85-9I . Callen, Anthony, "Stoppard's Godot...," New Theatre Magazine, x, 1, pp. 22-30. Cohn, Ruby, "Latter Day Pinter." Drama Survey, Winter, 1964, p. 367. 180 ___________» "The World of Harold Pinter." Tulane Drama Review, March, 1962, pp. 59-63. Donoghue, Denis, "London Letter: Moral West End." Hudson Review, Spring, 1961, pp. 93-103* Duckworth, Colin, "Beckett's Dramatic Intensity," New Theatre Magazine, xl, 3> PP* 20-21. Dukore, Bernard F., "A Woman's Place." QJS, pp. 237-2^1. Feynman, Alherta E. "The Fetal Quality of 'Character' in Plays of the Absurd." Modern Drama, May, 1966, pp. I8-25. Fried, John J., "Mind and Body:- The Inseparable Link," Science Digest, Spring, 1980, pp. 50-53* Gallagher, Kent G., "Harold Pinter's Dramaturgy," Quarter ly Journal of Speech, Lll, 3 (October, 1966), pp. 2^2-8. Ganz, Arthur, "A Clue to the Pinter Puzzle: The Triple Self in The Homecoming." Educational Theatre Journal, May, 1969i PP* 180-7. Goodman, Florence Jeanne, "Pinter's The Caretaker: The Lower Depths Descended." Midwest Quarterly, Winter, 196^, pp. 117-26. Hoefer, Jacqueline, "Pinter and Whiting: Two Attitudes Towards The Alienated Artist." Modern Drama, February, 1962, pp. ^02-^08. Hutchings, Patrick, "The Humanism of a Dumbwaiter," Westerly, No. 1 (1963), pp. 56-63. Itzin, Catherine and Trussler, Simon, "Peter Hall - Directing Pinter," Theatre Quarterly, Nov.-Jan. 1975» pp. 4-17* Lahr, John, "Pinter's Room: Who's There?" Arts Magazine, March, 1967i PP* 21-23. _______, "Harold Pinter." On Contemporary Literature, N. Y. : Avon Books, 1969» PP~ 682-689 • Lynch, Dudley, "Creative Flashes from the Twilight Zone," Science Digest, December, 1981, p. 70. 181 Manna, Sal, "Blind singer’s saga gets made into movie," Los Angeles Herald Examiner, April 10, 1982, pp. B-l, — j — Marowitz, Charles, "New Wave in a Dead Sea," Quarterly Review, October, i960, pp. 270-77* Mast, Gerald, "Pinter's Homecoming." Drama Survey, (1968), pp. 266-278. Messenger, Ann P., "Blindness and the Problem of Identity in Pinter's Plays." Die Neueren Sprachen, August, 1972, pp. 481-90. Milberg, Ruth, "Dialogue and Character Splitting in Harold Pinter." Die Neueren Sprachen, June, 1974, pp. 225-33. Morris, Kelly, "The Homecoming." TDR, Winter, 1966, pp. 185- 91 • Murphy, Robert P., "Non-Verbal Communication and the Over looked Action in Pinter's The Caretaker." QJS, February, 1972, pp. 41-47- Pesta, John, "Pinter's Usurpers." Drama Survey, Spring, 1967* PP* 54-65. Pinter, Harold, "Pinter on Beckett." New Theatre Magazine - May 19* 1971* P- 3- Schechner, Richard, "Puzzling Pinter." TDR, Winter, 1966, pp. 176-84. States, Bert 0., "The Case for Plot in Modern Drama." Hudson Review, Spring, 1967* PP - 49-61. Storch, R. F. "Harold Pinter's Happy Families." The Massachusetts Review, Autumn, 19o7» pp. 703-12. Walker, Augusta, ",essages from Pinter." Modern Drama, May, 19o7» pp. 1-10. Winegarten, Renee, "The Anglo-Jewish Dramatist in Search of His Soul." Midstream, October, 1966, pp. 40-52. 182 Production Reviews The Room; Brien, Alan. "The Guilty Seam." The Spectator, January 29* I960, p. 138. Newsweek, December 21, 1964, pp. 75-6. Time, December 18, 196^, p. 86. The Birthday Party: Alvarez, A. "Death in the Morning." New Statesman, December 12, 1959$ P* 836. Brien, Alan. "Communications." The Spectator, May 30, 1958, p. 687. Bryden, Ronald. "Three Men in a Room." New Statesman, June 26, 196^, p. 100^. Hewes, Henry. "Disobedience, Civil and Uncivil." Saturday Review, October 28, 1967* PP* ^6-7. Hewes, Henry. "Like Birth Warmed Over." Saturday Review, October 21, 1967, P* 50. Worsley, T. C. "A New Dramatist or Two." New Statesman, May 31, 1958, pp. 692, 69^. The Dumb Waiter; Alvarez, A. "Wanted - a Language." New Statesman, LIX, January 30, i960, pp. 1^9-150. Saturday Review, December 15, 1962, p. 30. Pryce-Jones, Alan. "Openings/New York." Theatre Arts, XLYII, January 1963, PP* 10-11. 183 The Caretaker; Baltimore Sun, July 1, 1979» P* 112. * Hewes, Henry. "Nothing up hte Sleeve." Saturday Review, October 21, 1961, P* 3^* Nation. October 21, 1961, p. 276. Dunne, J. G. "Haunting Simple Denial." National Review, XI, December 16, 1961, p. . The Homecoming; Brustein, Robert. "Thoughts from Home and Abroad." New Republic, June 26, 19&5* PP* 29-30. Bryden, Ronald. "A Streak of Pinter." New Statesman, LXIX, June 11, 1965, p. 928. Commentary, June, 1967, PP* 73-^* Hewes, Henry. "Pinter's Hilarious Depth Charge." Saturday Review, January 21, 1967. P* 51* "Land of No Holds Barred." Time, LXXXIX, January 13» 1967, P* 43. Panter-Downes, Mollie. "Letter from London." New Yorker, XLI, July 31, 1965. P* 5°*

Linked assets