Bo Lo
Victoria Barreras
Marvin Lee
In the first section (pg 767-776), Endgame is essentially an expression of absurdism. In many cases, the characters doesn’t seem to know why they are still completing whatever tasks they have left to do, but still try to fulfill each other’s needs. Hamm speaks about how close he is to hell, as if it’s right next-door. “Old wall! Beyond is the… other hell. Closer! … Hollow bricks! All that’s hollow! That’s enough. Back! (776).” Even though Hamm knows that displeasure is extremely close, he chose to back away from it. Hamm also expresses how nature has forgotten them even though nature still exists (771). The characters show care for each other, asking about their health. “How are your eyes? How are your legs? (769)” But even though they care for each other, the end of the day still ends without much fun (771).
According to section 2 (pg 777-785), I agree that Endgame is absurdism. The characters realize that their life is irrelevant, but this does not stop them from catering to each other’s desires. Clov says, “Mean something! You and I, mean something! Ah, that’s a good one. (778)” Clov and Hamm laugh and joke around at the crazy idea that their life can have any meaning when Hamm notices things going on with his body. Although both of them believe that their life is unimportant, Clov still does things to make Hamm happy. For example, since Hamm is blind Clov acts as his eyes and describes what he sees when using the telescope. Hamm talks about nature a lot and his admiration for it so hearing about outside makes him feel hopeful. Another example is when Clov fetches a dog toy for Hamm so he can feel better. He tells Hamm, “he’s standing” as he holds the dog upright as Hamm groups the toy. This makes him happy and if his life was worthless what would be the point of happiness and hope.
Based on section 3 (pg 786-795), I would have to say that Endgame represents nihilism instead of absurdism because it’s more about the nothingness of life rather than the humor and irrationality behind life. Hamm said to Clov, “Did you ever have an instant of happiness?” (788) to which Clov replies, “Not to my knowledge” (788). Later on, Hamm says to Clov, “It’s the end, Clov, we’ve come to the end. I don’t need you any more” (793). This shows the characters’ views on the true meaning of life and the true meaning of life is that there is no meaning in the end and that there is no true genuine happiness in life and that when life comes to an end, there is nothing more that can be said or done. While it’s true that throughout their lives, the characters have tried to make each other happy and cared for one another as seen in sections 1 and 2, the end result is that the idea of the ‘self’ slips into nonexistence. The journey ends and the individual consciousness ceases to exist.
1 response so far ↓
JMERLE // Nov 21st 2015 at 10:46 am
These are very thoughtful responses, and you have all created a nice dialogue here. You all use good quotations to support your assertions, and the third response even seems to see a kind of structural arc in the play, that goes from Absurdism to Nihilism. Not all people see the play like this, but you certainly have defended this point of view. For class, think more closely about the ending, and also about how the ending connects with the beginning.
This is a very nice response (but remember to proofread/check for grammar mistakes before posting).
9/10