Absurdity Of Existence Illustrated In Dumb Waiter

Absurdity Of Existence Illustrated In Dumb Waiter ‘There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false’. I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?’ ( Harold Pinter ) The theme of nothingness is one of the major themes discussed in existentialism, which, while pervading the movement, shows a common affinity between the Absurd and Existentialism rejecting all of the philosophies, sciences, political theories, and religions which fail to mirror manà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s essence as a conscious being. Existentialism discovers and discusses the themes and topics which present a living crueler, darker, and more hopeless than a naturalistic or modern one. Existentialism had a great influence on the thinkers and artists of the time, an influence which led them to the revision of their insight concerning man and his position in the universe. Pinter, like existentialists is involved in the discord of living. His characterization reveals the same anguish apparent in Existentialism. Almost all of the writers who had influenced Pinterà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s dramaturgy (concerning Dumb Waiter, Pinterà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s work is heavily influenced by Samuel Beckett) were either founders or forerunners of the avant-garde Theatre of the Absurd. Pinter sees the funny side of the absurd. Since there is nothing for Pinter that is not funny, he employs a comic way of expression to laugh at everything, even at the tragic parts of existence. In a Pinter play, the apparently funny scene (considering Dumb Waiter, the scene in which Ben rushes toward Gus in a very threatening way) is simultaneously frightening and inhumane in terms of what the characters are experiencing. The Dumb Waiter, like many other Pinter pla ys, follows the relationship by which the nature of the man-to-man connection is analyzed. In it nothing is ever accomplished through dialogue. Most human interaction in day-to-day life accomplishes nothing more than passing time. Therefore when reading, or indeed watching the play we are overwhelmed by the futility of existence. Most conversation that occurs between Ben and Gus are pointless, and each character has trouble dealing with each other, and therefore, society. The characters are situated in a world where dream and the real are mixed up, tragic and comic are interwoven, the choice becomes a real catastrophe, and disconnected situations are what determine the individualsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸ prospect of the future life. The two killers in The Dumb Waiter are locked up in a room before they carry out their killing. Pinter contrasts the violence of their jobs with their commonplace language and concerns; on the surface we have a bare plot accompanying with a complex implication un derneath it. It reveals a more complex reality that is not comprehensible when observed superficially; such themes as loneliness, lack of communication, fear of the world outside, and the terror of future become the major concern of the absurdist writer. It probes into the essence of manà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s position in the universe and his inquiry for knowledge. The two characters on the stage, though apparently limited and undeveloped, examine a deeper and wider extent of human existence in which man is a play-thing employed by some superior beings (here someone called Wilson whose identity is unclear) to play their roles on the stage like puppets of no importance. Unaware Gus asks many questions, inquiring for knowledge, attempting to step beyond oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s limitations, an attempt which is futile in existentialism. Gus is the one who commits the crime and wants to transcend and find the cause-and-effect relationship in the course of the events, while, since the effect in exis tentialism precedes the cause, reasoning is an absurd thing. However, Gusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s desire for knowledge is discernible from the very beginning of the play: Ben. Kaw! What about this? Listen to this! He refers to the paper A man of eighty-seven wanted to cross the road. But there was a lot of traffic, see? He couldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸t see how he was going to squeeze through. So he crawled under a lorry. Gus. He what? Ben. He crawled under a lorry. A stationary lorry. Gus. No? Ben. The lorry started and ran over him. Gus. Go on! Ben. Thatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s what it says here. Gus. Get away. Ben. Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s enough to make you want to puke, isnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸t it? Gus. Who advised him to do a thing like that? Ben. A man of eighty-seven crawling under a lorry! Gus. Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s unbelievable. Ben. Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s down here in black and white. Gus. Incredible. Or considering another part of the play: GUS I asked you a question. BEN Enough! GUS (with growing agitation). I asked you before. Who moved in? You said the people who had it before moved out. Well, who moved in? BEN (hunched). Shut up GUS I told you, didn’t I? BEN (standing). Shut up! GUS (feverishly). I told you before who owned this place, didn’t I? I told you BEN hits him viciously on the shoulder. I told you who ran this place, didn’t I? BEN hits him viciously on the shoulder As it is seen in this opening conversation, It is clear here that Gus is no longer the uncertain and subservient partner. Gus questions the possibility of that event in the society. He is looking for the cause, the origin or motivation by asking, â€Å"Who advised him to do a thing like that?† Meanwhile, Ben accepts it as it is without questioning its possibility. â€Å"Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s down here in black and white†, he simply states. Gus wants to know more about his job, about the disorders he sees in the basement or those who are on the upper floor. It is this perpetual questio ning that entrants him as the victim of the final scene. He is Benà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s Labrador, doing exactly as told as if he were unable to think for himself. Gus questions everything: Oh, I wanted to ask you something? . . . Gus. What time is he getting in touch? Ben reads. What time is he getting in touch? Ben. Whatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s the matter with you? It could be any time. Any time . . à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. Gus (moves to the foot of Ben’s bed).Well, I was going to ask you a question. Ben. What? Gus. Have you noticed the time that tank takes to fill? Ben. What tank? Gus. In the lavatory. Here Gus is after knowledge so as to decrease the fear of unknown in himself while, Ben by preventing the thought of danger, does not allow the fear to imprison his mind. This, of course, makes the whole difference. Thus, the desire for knowledge itself causes the final catastrophe (the murder of Gus). If Be n had the knowledge to respond to Gusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s questions, there would be no conflict at all, and Gus could act more freely, or die knowingly. But life in Pinterà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s view, like all other absurdist-existentialist writers, is a big game in which everything happens arbitrarily, and the gun that you have aimed at the other, may suddenly turn back at yourself.