Becketts Play and Heaneys Poetry - Term Paper Example

 Beckett and Heaney ‘In different ways Beckett and Heaney are both concerned with the limits of communication in their works’. Discuss. Introduction The limits of communication become immensely important for both Beckett and Heaney since Beckett’s play and Heaney’s poetry both are focused on how it is difficult to present the meaning of words and actions. Since both of the writers come from very different genres, it would be best to examine the writers individually to show how they deal with the idea of communicating and coming to terms with the idea of communication having its own limits. Beckett’s Communication The magnum opus, Waiting for Godot is a tragicomedy in two acts, written by Samuel Beckett; it was published in 1952 and is considered by many critics to be one of the great pieces of modern drama. On the other hand, there are those who consider the play to be confusing, lacking the ability to communicate with the viewers and without any deeper meaning than is presented prima facie. However, as a tragicomedy, it can be seen to communicate elements of both tragedies and comedies (Beckett, 1952). The hint in the subtitle communicates to the viewers that they should seek out tragic meanings in the comic parts and leads the audience to pay greater attention towards situational humor in the tragic parts of the play. The combination of tragedy and comedy is perhaps the greatest genius of this play and the way it communicates meaning to the audience. Considering the elements of a tragedy we can observe ideas like the death of a hero, an error in judgment made by a character, a character who suffers greatly, a separation from friends and a complete loss of hope. A comedy could give us images like the endurance of a hero, the joy of success, pleasure at reunion and the hero coming over great odds to win a wonderful victory. Clearly, all these elements are present in the play and are worked into situations and conversations between the characters with great skill (Beckett, 1952). However, Beckett does show that the communication of a message is not an easy task since the play is often quite mixed in the message it gives to the audience. Mixed Messages For instance, while the heroes are planning to hang themselves, they are also able to think about getting an erection. Not only are they able to think about it, but Estragon is actually quite excited about the hanging since it could lead to an erection. Another element of a comedy comes in as ‘hope’ where they decide to continue waiting for Godot before going further with the idea of hanging themselves (Beckett, 1952). What the audience gets as a communication from Beckett is that the seeking of death to end misery is a perfect element of a tragedy, while the aversion of death or the resurgence of hope is an element of comedy. Both of these combine to make the play a tragicomedy. In other dramas, the message of a comedy communicates the idea of endurance which leads to joy, while a tragedy might communicate the notion of defeat which leads to misery. In this play, the endurance of the characters is strong indeed. It is said that the time spent waiting for someone is the most testing time and the two heroes certainly go through a lot of time while waiting for Godot. Their misery at having nothing to do and just wait; while not having the ability to shorten their waiting is a tragic element which is communicated beautifully in the futility of their actions. However, the tragedy is counterbalanced by the hope that Godot will surely come tomorrow (Beckett, 1952). Considering the elements of despair which are communicated by Beckett, Estragon’s misery about the boots which hurt him comes into play at several instances within the drama (Beckett, 1952). In fact, he compares his own misery to the suffering of Christ which becomes tragic if we consider the suffering of Christ first and comic if we consider Estragon’s boots. The idea of despair is communicated in the work at several places; both the characters talk about their situation and say that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. However, soon after a declaration of despair or a long passage about how everything is completely meaningless, they launch into a game or a comic routine which makes the play seem lively as well as funny. In fact, Vladimir and Estragon come onto the scene with no other purpose in life than to wait for Godot and Lucky seems to function only as a slave to Pozzo. He has no independent abilities and one of the strangest passages in the play come where his master asks him to think (Beckett, 1952). It is difficult to ascertain what Beckett is trying to communicate to the audience here since the character simply launches into a long speech which sounds like someone trying to push out random thoughts out of confused mind. Communicating the Meaning However, when it comes to looking at the communications within the play, the speech becomes very important. In and of itself, the speech can be seen as the simultaneous comic ranting of a madman or the tragic wandering thoughts of a genius. At first glance and not knowing the background of the characters, it might be taken for a serious work of philosophy and given that the audience already knows the play to be a tragicomedy, it can be seen as both philosophy and a joke played on the audience. Within this communication, there is also the essentially tragic realization that Lucky is a complete slave to his master’s wishes. He is a slave to the extent that even his communications are controlled by his master which is perhaps the worst form of control. However, before the audience has time to dwell on this thought and see what a miserable and hopeless life Lucky has, they are presented with the image of both Vladimir and Estragon trying to find Pozzo’s watch and comparing the stench of their breath with the stench of their feet. An emotional switch from the life of lucky to the present situation of the heroes does not leave the audience any time to consider the plight of Lucky until the second Act where Lucky and Pozzo reappear in very different states. The simple tragic statement given by Pozzo in the second Act communicates that that he has gone blind which is a complete lack of visual communication with the outside world. This is immediately followed by a comic statement from Estragon who suggests that perhaps Pozzo might be able to see in the future (Beckett, 1952). This simple exchange beautifully communicates two elements from tragedy and comedy, the tragic frustration and despair of Pozzo at suddenly going blind and the comic naivety and hope of Estragon. In fact, hope is communicated as a central theme in both the acts since the characters never lose hope of seeing Godot. It is this hope of seeing him that keeps them rooted to their spots even when they decide to stop waiting and just go on with their lives. Even though some critics have thought that Godot represents God, Beckett himself denied it. It seems that that Godot represents a purpose and a desire to have a purpose in life. Godot is (as management gurus would call it) motivation which is communicated as the motivation to live by the characters. In the play, the simple act of waiting for Godot can possibly be seen by audiences as a search for meaning in words and the characters are waiting for some meaning to come in their otherwise empty thoughts and words. Once they have that meaning they can communicate it to each other and then they can move on and make do as best they can but without it, they cannot even move from the spot they are in. Essentially, the viewers expect the play to communicate both comedy as well as a tragedy and they are certainly not disappointed due to the wealth of material which is both tragic and comic. The method by which Beckett has combined the elements and the avenues left open by him for interpretation only help to further establish him as a genius when it comes to showing the difficulties in communicating and finding meaning. Heaney’s Meaning The same limitations of communication were explored by Heaney which become particularly evident in his poem The Stone Verdict. While verdicts themselves are communicated via words in speech and in writing, here the verdict is given in speechless stones (Brown, 2005). The expectation of the idea of communication becomes more than just words for the ultimate court since in that court words could possibly hold no meaning for those who sit in judgment over the accused. With ancient gods and with the words Heaney uses, judgment becomes a more formal and serious process as compared to the one which we may be used to in this world. The abstractions created by him may complicate the message for the ordinary reader but it also adds depth and meaning for others that look for deeper ideas. As reported by Brown (2005) these complications may lead some critics to suggest that the search for meaning in the poetry of Heaney is more like a hunt where each piece of communication may be as difficult to come by as any other in the same poem. In fact, this exact problem has led people to question both Heaney and Beckett as writers who create unnecessary complications for their readers in more ways than one. Brown (2005) mentions several cases with regard to Heaney in particular where some poetic verses become so obscure that finding meaning within the communication being carried out by the poet is almost impossible. This is because in many of the poems, the imagination of the poet gives the words of the poem several meanings that may not all be accessible or communicable to all the readers of the poem. The Limits of What can be Said These limitations to the communications of the poet as well as the dramatist are also compounded by the fact that they may be separated from the audience both in terms of time as well as place. Heaney in particular, makes political allusions as well as social symbols of words and this stretches the genre he is working in to new levels as it becomes difficult for some members of the more modern audience to come to terms with his poetry. While the audience may seek grandeur and greatness in his poetry he focuses on the mundane and the ordinary to show what he is trying to communicate. Brown (2005) notes this to be an issue not with the poet or the audience but with the ideas that are being transmitted from one point to another. While the world may expect writers to provide entertainment, the writer cannot help but be affected by the world around him/her. The effect of the world on the writer may be political in nature and when that expression takes the shape of words or poems, there are certain communication barriers that have to be crossed and often the audience has to meet the writer halfway across. In many ways, Heaney makes the process easier than Beckett simply because he has the ability to use rhyme and meter whereas Beckett can not launch into a poem in the middle of a play unless there is a unique importance attached to that work within the play. On the other hand, Beckett can use complete sentences which might be able to give a more cohesive structure to his message. Conclusion I feel that both Beckett and Heaney are wonderful writers and the awards as well as the accolades that they have won speak for themselves. However, these awards do not mean that they are immediately accessible or provide easily communicable material for everyone. In fact, they are both highly concerned with the limits of communication since the message they give is often cryptic and it requires a keen eye and ear to understand what is being told to the readers of poetry and the viewers of a performance. Word Count: 2,092 Works Cited Beckett, S. 1952, ‘Waiting for Godot: Tragicomedy in 2 Acts’. Samuel Beckett Resources, [Online] Available at: http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part1.html Brown, R. 2005. The poetry of Seamus Heaney, The Open University. Wikipedia. 2007, ‘Waiting for Godot’, [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot Read More