In Endgame by Samuel Beckett, Beckett questions the importance and the knowledge we have of the world. He questions the meaning of living considering we will all die regardless of what we are able to acquire in our lifetime. The two main characters, Hamm and his servant, Clov, show us how confined we are and how we lack control of what we have. Hamm and Clov live with hardships, Ham is blind and is confined in a chair while Clov can’t sit down. Throughout the play they fail to demonstrate any connection by constantly bickering yet having no choice but to rely on each other. The additional characters, Nell and Nagg, who are Hamm’s parents, stay put in ashbins, also lacking mobility.

At first it may be confusing to determine what is the purpose of the play and that is what Beckett is trying to portray about life. He is trying to convey that there is no objective to living. He starts off by naming the play Endgame. This term is used in chess when there are few pieces left on the board, this may represent how we don’t have a lot of mobility. He does this by having the play take place in a room that does not have much other than two windows, two ashbins, a chair and a picture. The setting gives the impression of  emptiness, making the representation of Nihilism and giving the reader the perspective of isolation between humans and the world. Hamm asks Clov if he’s had “enough of this”– meaning his life, Clov answers saying “It may end. [Pause.] All life long the same questions, the same answers” (Botton pg. 768/ top pg. 669). In other words, Beckett informs us that there is constant repetition, yet we decide to follow the flow of how things are, just like there is no purpose of Clov staying around for Hamm. In addition, the language used in the play also contributes to nihilism. Beckett’s wording and form is fragmented, broken, giving the reader the idea that life may not always be filled will fulfillment. Nevertheless, even though it may seem that we can’t control of our lives– meaning we will eventually die, we can decide how we want to live it.

Beckett creatively uses character, setting, and language to display a depressing world without any meaning or purpose. There seems to be an emphasis of the void or emptiness. The main characters (Hamm and Clov) lack depth and appear to be suffering and miserable throughout the play. Hamm and Clov are physically and mentally broken. Hamm cannot see or walk and ironically, Clov cannot sit down. Also, their relationship lacks warmth and real connection. This is depicted through their constant arguing. These characters, along with Nell and Nagg have no purpose in this world. They remain in this small room (especially Hamm, Nagg and Nell that cannot physically move) and live mundanely. The characters do not change or develop in any way.

The setting of this play also adds to the nihilistic worldview that Beckett creates. The room that these four characters inhabit is dull and lifeless. It is “bare” and “gray,” nearly empty, with only two windows, two ashbins and an armchair. The overall atmosphere in this room parallels to the dull and lifeless depiction of the characters. Hamm explicitly questions the purpose of life when he says, “To think perhaps it won’t all have been for nothing!” (778). To further emphasize nihilism, Beckett manipulates language. The language in this play can be described as repetitive and fragmented. There are several pauses in this play. When the play first begins, Hamm yawns in middle of the word “absolute.” This can hint that Beckett is bored of the absolute (perhaps God) and directs the play towards nihilism. Also, the dialogue is random and pointless. From this static dialogue, readers do not anticipate or expect a climax. Instead we only see a contemplation of existence. This nihilistic language may pose a challenge because it fails to communicate meaning and explanation. Readers of this play are left in confusion trying to decipher the meaning of the dialogues and this play in general. Although the language throughout the play leaves the readers in question, the brief glimpses where we could grasp meaning is stressed. The two instances of storytelling where meaning can be extracted illustrates that literature has the ability to express experiences and concepts that ordinary language cannot. Also, the overall theme of nothingness and death challenges readers to question existence and implicitly offer that man can choose to be miserable or accept this meaningless life.

The play, Endgame, by Samuel Beckett is a tragicomedy that does not have any correct meaning to it’s story, but rather is a piece of literature that can help us make sense of the world. The play helps to depict, in what I find to be a more truthful, worth view through the use of absurdness and nihilism. Through the use of the absurd, and a nihilistic tone, the play breaks away from any previous “absolute” meanings that humans have, and puts us at a zero point (the core of human purpose).

The play, from the beginning to the end, does not have a plot that would, traditionally, get developed to where it would then be concluded with a moral/ lesson. The dialogue between the characters are rather absurd, because they demonstrate meaninglessness towards life and human values. For example, when Hamm says, “But we breath, we change! We lose our hair, our teeth! Our bloom! Our ideals!”, it shows how growth can reasonably be viewed as losing. This is rather not logical (absurd), because growth is commonly viewed as obtaining, but here no matter how much you can learn or develop, it’s going to be lost regardless. In addition, the play exposes our human nature to avoid solidarity, purposelessness, and pain. For instance, when Hamm and Clov confront each other with the question of why they keep each other, it shows that there really isn’t clear reason as to why. Clov says that he doesn’t have anywhere to go and Hamm doesn’t have anyone to be company to him. But, then why is this the limit of their existence? It’s absurd that anyone would remain in the position of being a servant, but is this worse than being left in solidarity and have no purpose?

The challenges that the nihilistic tone of the play poses is what do humans do if life is so meaningless and depressing. From this play, it seems that there are really only two options when confronted existentialism. They are: death, or participating in a master-slave relationship. Death can go about in two different ways, that being just suffering a meaningless life till death, or choosing suicide to avoid the pain. The master-slave relationship gives purpose, only as far as a purpose for two humans. Yet, there is another option that humans can go about, that is evident in Hamm’s and Clov’s dialogues. It is to chose who we are with stories and the different fragmented ideas that are found in life. Since, we do not have any preconceived notions of meaning or self, we are then more free than ever to control our futures, and to choose our stories that will serve to be the meaning of our existence.

Samuel Beckett’s play ‘Endgame’ is a story about nothingness. The four people in the play represent emptiness and the damp room is purgatory. Throughout the play the four people constantly argue about illogical things that do not contribute to the play. The purpose of the arguments are to precisely show how illogical communication is. The conversations the four people have with one another also do not become clear as the story progresses. Furthermore the conversations purposely seem as though they do not make sense because Beckett wants the reader to feel as confused as possible. The conversations and arguments the four people have constantly deviate into other topics and they also incessantly interrupt one another which leads the reader to be even more confused.

The nihilistic tone of the play challenges readers to contemplate existence. It’s strange to realize how insignificant people are the moment one understands how enormous the universe is. I believe the play is trying to convey that message. Although the conversations throughout the play do not make sense, it’s interesting to see that the people in the room are having conversations and arguments to begin with. It’s heavily implied that the people in the room haven’t fully grasped the idea that there is literally nothing outside but that they are some what aware that it’s a possibility. Yet they argue over petty disputes and ramble incoherently. It’s also very unusual that the first man we are introduced to wakes other members of the room and the reader finds out that the man would like to leave but cant.

The blind man has a very interesting outlook on life. He constantly asks the first man to see what’s outside. It seems as though the blind man already knows that there is nothing outside but still has hope that one day something might change. Each character has some sort of disability which forces them to be dependent on one another which could possibly be the reason none of them venture beyond the room.

The perspective 20^th century playwright Samuel Beckett had on the world was certainty not all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Through the use of dialogue and interesting characters, Endgame carefully illustrated the nihilist and absurd way Beckett saw the world and life itself. Nihilism is a philosophical concept that basically states that nothing really exists –nothing in life really has a purpose or value and therefore everything we do is pretty much pointless as well. As mentioned in the book, Endgame was written after WWII, a time period where everyone was left at a stage of disbelief and loss of faithfulness in the world. Like mentioned in class, it was hard for most to go back into having a positive outlook in the world and this state of mind is what Beckett used as a basis for his play and his characters, Hamm and Clov. These two personas embodied the absurdity and nihilism Beckett was striking at and in a few instances (I felt) they contradicted those concepts. For starters, Hamm seemed like a cold individual and most of his dialogue seemed empty –as if he didn’t really have a care in what was said because in the end it all wouldn’t mattered, or it presently doesn’t matter looking at the post-apocalyptic setting they are currently in. However, Hamm does seem to care to some extent. In the book Hamm asks Clov, “Why do you stay with me?”, with Clov responding, “Why do you keep me?” and Hamm finally answering with, “There is no one else.” (769) If Hamm were to truly uphold the nihilist principle that everything in the end is pointless, then maybe he wouldn’t have had Clov to be there in there since relationships are meaningless, but Hamm is still human. I guess in a sense we all don’t want to end up or be alone in life and Clov is the only person left. But then again, maybe Hamm is just acting out of self-interest since Clov is the only person whose legs are able to move. In regards to dialogue and language, Beckett is quite repetitive and uses this technique to show how mundane and monotonous life can be. Using a nihilistic tone challenges the audience to see the intended vision, but at the same time it could spark interesting questions/ideas/concepts within them.

Samuel Beckett’s play EndGame introduces readers into a cold and dark dark world. Buckets play  gives readers that the world is a meaning less place and things happen because people have no control over it.  The play has  two main characters Hamm and Clov both characters need one another so life could be easier. The author constantly brings life and death into the play constantly questioning whats the point in living. Ham says to Clov, “I’ll give you nothing more to eat.CLOV:Then we’ll die.HAMM:I’ll give you just enough to keep you from dying. You’ll be hungry all the time.CLOV:Then we won’t die” (Endgame). The back and forth between the characters suggest that they do not enjoy each others company and the only reason Ham feed Clov is to have someone help him not because he cares about him. Although the characters demonstrate that they don’t like one another they still stay with each other. The play states, “HAMM:I’ve made you suffer too much.(Pause.)Haven’t I?CLOV:It’s not that.HAMM:I haven’t made you suffer too much?CLOV:Yes!HAMM (relieved):Ah, you gave me a fright!(Pause. Coldly)Forgive me.(Pause. Louder.)I said, Forgive me.CLOV:I heard you.(Pause.)Have you bled?HAMM:Less.(Pause.)Is it not time for my pain-killer?CLOV:No.(Pause.)HAMM:How are your eyes?”(EndGame). The characters have some sort of love hate relationship with each other. The characters demonstrate that they care for one another by asking how the other is doing and if the other one loves him or not. Although the characters think life is meaningless they would be lost without one another. In addition the characters have given up on life because it has given up on them. The characters say,”HAMM:Nature has forgotten us.CLOV:There’s no more nature.HAMM:No more nature! You exaggerate.CLOV:In the vicinity.HAMM:But we breathe, we change! We lose our hair, our teeth! Our bloom! Our ideals!CLOV:Then she hasn’t forgotten us.HAMM:But you say there is none”(EndGame). The characters think theres no point in living if at the end they will die because of nature. The phrase “we change , we lose our hair” suggest that by growing up they are doomed to death because thats what life is.

After reading Samuel Beckett’s play “Endgame” without context I was totally confused. Rereading the play with context and background of the playwright, it was easier for me to have a better understanding of the play which is ironic because there’s no real meaning nor context within the play. There is a reoccurring theme of overwhelming darkness and desolation. The characters are in constant search for meaning though as the play goes on there is no development in the life of the characters. Death is the only thing that seems prominent in the play.

Beckett’s nihilistic worldview is evident in this play. The setting for one is gray and dreary as is always described. He also makes the characters seemingly mundane lives even more mundane by the constant repetitiveness and pauses in every sentence. That is interesting because plays and stories uses more decorative language to keep the interests of its audience, but in this play, language wasn’t use to make it flowery, in fact language was just used in the most minimal way. When Hamm asked Clov what she saw and she replied “I see my light dying” shows the cynicism and pessimism as a theme. Usually in plays there’s a certain anticipation awaited by the audience. You watch keenly and await the big climactic moment to take away from it but there was none in this play. Instead there are pointless conversations between the two main characters. Seemingly unimportant things are discussed and the characters are obsessed with things that are irrelevant. Hamm questioned Clov and asked “Am I right in the center.” Although unimportant I think the playwright uses these pointless conversations to reiterate and show just how meaningless and absurd life is. There wasn’t any meaning or obvious reasons for anything the characters did but simply to past time while they wait for death to take them away.

I would think that the challenges the nihilistic tone of the play pose is that audiences tend to be drawn to more optimistic pieces. Things that are coherent and tries to define the meaning of life. However nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless. But i also think that can be the thing that may attract people to a piece with a nihilistic tone because it more similar to the realities of life.

Beckett proposes a world view that seems to be influenced by post WW2; following the events that took place and attempting to fathom how the degradation of values could have led to WW2, Beckett appears to have been at a loss to comprehend it all. In consequence, Beckett reigns that the meaning of life and existence cannot be found and moreover, there may not be any purpose. Endgame, illustrates Beckett’s understanding or lack of, of the purpose of existence. The play is intended to leave the reader/view in a state of confusion and reflection on the existential.

Endgame, challenges views/readers to find meaning for the characters in the play. Each character appears to be in a state of perpetual wait; it isn’t clear if the characters are waiting for an event such as death or another defining moment. The characters all seem bound to the empty room repeating mundane tasks to pass time, Endgame also has a nostalgic quality in the way the character’s recall past experiences. This element of the play feels nihilistic; their existence has no real meaning aside from remaining alive. Nell states “Yes, yes, it’s the most comical thing, in the world. An we laugh, we laugh, with a will in the beginning. But it’s always the same thing. Yes, its like the funny story we have heard too often, we still find it funny, but we don’t laugh anymore. [Pause.] Have you anything else to say to me?”. This statement sounds reminiscent of better times, almost as if she recounts moments that used to give life a direction but that are no longer sufficient to sustain a meaningful existence.

The play does not have any direction or cohesive plot, however, there is repetition of some phrases. Most of play is written with short straightforward, sentences from each character with frequent pauses, implying deeper meaning and for the reader to fill in the pauses. Beckett appears to have used a simple writing style to convey the thought process of the character’s. Beckett doesn’t seem to hint at any grand question about the purpose of life, however, Beckett poses a simpler question about how to live daily with resolve.

Nihilism derives its name from the Latin root nihil, meaning nothing, that which does not exist. This same root is found in the verb “annihilate”, to bring to nothing, to destroy completely. Nihilism is the the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. looking into Samuel Beckett’s play Endgame and his life as a writer more I was able to see some of these nihilistic ideologies within his works easier. The setting of Endgame is a somewhat dark room where four characters are in conversing with one another supposedly after some sort of world Apocalypse. The characters seem somewhat lifeless and lack care for most.This is evident in the first speech, Clov says, “I can’t be punished any more”. In Hamms first speech you get the same nonchalant vibe. Hamm’s first speech, he asks, “can there be misery loftier than mine?” In the play Hamm is blind and cannot walk. On the other hand Clov can walk, but he can’t sit. Nagg and Nell are both legless, and have lost some of their hearing and sight. What one character lacks physically per say you can see it in another character. They all play off one an another. Straying away from characters and their nihilistic tones, the language in the play is very important. The constant pauses portray a worldview of brokenness. The play is very fragmented and it seems that Beckett is trying to portray the idea that the world is incomplete. Their is a failure to explain what is going on in this incomplete world.

A.Green

Beckett proposes a very bleak worldview through the use of language, and characters. The language plays a huge role because it does have a concrete meaning. Language is suppose to help people understand things through communication. In this play, language failed to do that because the reader is left with no concrete understanding of what the play is suppose to be truly about. The frequent pauses reflects the failure of language to explain stuff. In Beckett’s case, language failed to explain the holocaust and why it happened. There is no way to express the horrors of that genocide to a unaffected individual. Metaphors and similes would be used but language still fails because the experience cannot be truly explained by words.

In addition, the characters are all miserable. For example, Hamm is blind and has no legs while Clov is a servant who cannot sit. They are stuck in their positions in life. Both of them did nothing the whole play. Clov remains a servant but for no apparent reason. It seems that he is doing it because that is what he has been doing. Hamm has no sense of individuality even though he is living because he relies on another human for everything. It is a life that no person would want. It brings into question the meaning of our existence. This made my group think of life crises. Why do we try to so hard to achieve something when, in most cases, it will not be enough? As an individual, we are so insignificant to the world. The world will still survive no matter what humans do.

This lack of meaning gives opportunity for a new beginning. The only time the play had actual meaning was when a story was told by a character. This may be a opportunity for humans to progress. Knowing the faults of language, we can play with language again and create new stories. We can break pre-accepted meanings and form our own language for whatever purpose we want language to serve. The “accepted’ language failed us and therefore, we do not have to follow it anymore. By playing with language, the importance of artistic movements increases as they are the pioneers of new ways of thinking and are discovering new meanings in life. Break tradition and build something new to replace it.