Why is samuel beckett described as an absurdist writer

They did not want to show life as it really was, but rather, the inner-life of man—what was going on inside his head. One characteristic of this poetic form was the devaluation of language.

The absurd dramatists felt that conventional language had failed man—it was an inadequate means of communication. As a result, the movement of the characters on stage often contradicts their words or dialogue. Moreover, in doing so they expose how unreliable language is; one can easily say one thing and do the opposite. Another common way in which they presented the uselessness of language was by having their characters constantly speak in cliches, or overused, tired expressions.

Martin: How curious it is, good Lord, how bizarre! Martin [ musing ]: How curious it is, how curious it is, how curious it is, and what a coincidence! Ionesco Therefore, their repetition of it is empty—they are speaking without actually communicating. Essentially, the dramatists are claiming that language has become a means of occupying time and space rather than a way to effectively communicate with one another. Another poetic aspect of absurdist plays is that they lack a plot or a clear beginning and end with a purposeful development in between.

These actions are so frequent, however, that the audience begins to feel as if they are watching the same thing over and over again. They could even be called static actions as they contribute nothing to the flow of the play. Yet this lack of purposeful movement in Waiting for Godot and most other absurdist dramas is intentional.

As discussed above, the plays are attempting to portray an intuition which by definition should be an instantaneous or immediate insight. Therefore, if one does not view the play as a story, but rather as a single idea being acted out, this supposed lack of plot becomes irrelevant.

Above all, the absurd dramatists sought to reconcile man with the modern world. The absurd dramatists were the first to propagate this idea of acceptance in the face of absurdity.

In doing so, they challenged the preconceptions of what does and does not constitute theatre. Essentially, the absurd dramatists redefined the art form and created a space in which succeeding movements could flourish. Abbotson, Susan. Thematic Guide to Modern Drama. Westport, Conn. Albee is not concerned with individualizing his characters. They remain types and, as types, are seen at times in terms of extreme burlesque.

So, unlike Beckett's tramps, and more like Ionesco's characters, Albee's people are seen as Babbitt-like caricatures and satires on the "American Dream" type; the characters remain mannequins with no delineations. Likewise in Ionesco's The Bald Soprano, the Martins assume the roles of the Smiths and begin the play over because there is no distinction between the two sets of characters. Perhaps more than any of the other dramatists of the absurd, Ionesco has concerned himself almost exclusively with the failure of individualism, especially in his most famous play, Rhinoceros.

To repeat, in this play, our society today has emphasized conformity to such an extent and has rejected individualism so completely that Ionesco demonstrates with inverse logic how stupid it is not to conform with all society and be metamorphosed into a rhinoceros.

This play aptly illustrates how two concerns of the absurdists — lack of communication and the lack of individualism — are combined, each to support the other. Much of Ionesco's dialogue in this play seems to be the distilled essence of the commonplace.

Then two rhinoceroses, then more. Ridiculous arguments then develop as to whether they are African or Asiatic rhinoceroses. We soon learn that there is an epidemic of metamorphoses; everyone is changing into rhinoceroses. Soon only three individuals are left. Suddenly it seems almost foolish not to become a rhinoceros.

In the end, Berenger's sweetheart, Daisy, succumbs to the pressures of society, relinquishes her individualism, and joins the society of rhinoceroses — not because she wants to, but rather because she is afraid not to. She cannot revolt against society and remain a human being.

Berenger is left alone, totally isolated with his individualism. And what good is his humanity in a world of rhinoceroses? At first glance, it would seem obvious that Ionesco wishes to indicate the triumph of the individual, who, although caught in a society that has gone mad, refuses to surrender his sense of identity.

But if we look more closely, we see that Ionesco has no intention of leaving us on this hopeful and comforting note. In his last speech, Berenger makes it clear that his stand is rendered absurd. What does his humanity avail him in a world of beasts?

Finally, he wishes that he also had changed; now it is too late. All he can do is feebly reassert his joy in being human. His statement carries little conviction. This is how Ionesco deals with the haunting theme of the basic meaning and value of personal identity in relationship to society.

If one depends entirely upon the society in which one lives for a sense of reality and identity, it is impossible to take a stand against that society without reducing oneself to nothingness in the process. Berenger instinctively felt repelled by the tyranny that had sprung up around him, but he had no sense of identity that would have enabled him to combat this evil with anything resembling a positive force.

Probably any action he could have taken would have led to eventual defeat, but defeat would have been infinitely preferable to the limbo in which he is finally consigned. Ionesco has masterfully joined two themes: the lack of individualism and the failure of communication. But unlike Beckett, who handles the same themes by presenting his characters as derelicts and outcasts from society, Ionesco's treatment seems even more devastating because he places them in the very middle of the society from which they are estranged.

Ultimately, the absurdity of man's condition is partially a result of his being compelled to exist without his individualism in a society which does not possess any degree of effective communication. Essentially, therefore, the Theater of the Absurd is not a positive drama. It does not try to prove that man can exist in a meaningless world, as did Camus and Sartre, nor does it offer any solution; instead, it demonstrates the absurdity and illogicality of the world we live in.

Nothing is ever settled; there are no positive statements; no conclusions are ever reached, and what few actions there are have no meaning, particularly in relation to the action. That is, one action carries no more significance than does its opposite action. For example, the man's tying his shoe in The Bald Soprano — a common occurrence — is magnified into a momentous act, while the appearance of rhinoceroses in the middle of a calm afternoon seems to be not at all consequential and evokes only the most trite and insignificant remarks.

Also, Pozzo and Lucky's frantic running and searching are no more important than Vladimir and Estragon's sitting and waiting. And Genet presents his blacks as outcasts and misfits from society, but refrains from making any positive statement regarding the black person's role in our society. The question of whether society is to be integrated or segregated is, to Genet, a matter of absolute indifference.

It would still be society, and the individual would still be outside it. No conclusions or resolutions can ever be offered, therefore, because these plays are essentially circular and repetitive in nature. The Bald Soprano begins over again with a new set of characters, and other plays end at the same point at which they began, thus obviating any possible conclusions or positive statements.

The American Dream ends with the coming of a second child, this time one who is fully grown and the twin to the other child who had years before entered the family as a baby and upset the static condition; thematically, the play ends as it began. In all of these playwrights' dramas, the sense of repetition, the circular structure, the static quality, the lack of cause and effect, and the lack of apparent progression all suggest the sterility and lack of values in the modem world.

Early critics referred to the Theater of the Absurd as a theater in transition, meaning that it was to lead to something different.

So far this has not happened, but the Theater of the Absurd is rapidly becoming accepted as a distinct genre in its own right. The themes utilized by the dramatists of this movement are not new; thus, the success of the plays must often depend upon the effectiveness of the techniques and the new ways by which the dramatists illustrate their themes. The techniques are still so new, however, that many people are confused by a production of one of these plays. Yet if the technique serves to emphasize the absurdity of man's position in the universe, then to present this concept by a series of ridiculous situations is only to render man's position even more absurd; and in actuality, the techniques then reinforce that very condition which the dramatists bewail.

In other words, to present the failure of communication by a series of disjointed and seemingly incoherent utterances lends itself to the accusation that functionalism is carried to a ridiculous extreme. But this is exactly what the absurdist wants to do. He is tired of logical discourses pointing out step-by-step the absurdity of the universe: he begins with the philosophical premise that the universe is absurd, and then creates plays which illustrate conclusively that the universe is indeed absurd and that perhaps this play is another additional absurdity.

In conclusion, if the public can accept these unusual uses of technique to support thematic concerns, then we have plays which dramatically present powerful and vivid views on the absurdity of the human condition — an absurdity which is the result of the destruction of individualism and the failure of communication, of man's being forced to conform to a world of mediocrity where no action is meaningful. As the tragic outcasts of these plays are presented in terms of burlesque, man is reminded that his position and that of human existence in general is essentially absurd.

And it is on this philosophy that Beckett created his famous play Waiting for Godot. Before the genre of Absurd Drama gained popularity in the hands of Beckett, Adamov, Ionesco, and Gennet, plays were characterized by a clearly constructed story and subtlety of characterization and motivation. However, the absurd plays were characterized by non-specific unrecognizable characters who are presented almost like mechanical puppets. It challenges the audience to make sense of non-sense, to face the situation consciously and perceive with laughter the fundamental absurdity.

It is unconventional in not depicting any dramatic conflicts. In the play, practically nothing happens, no development is to be found, there is no beginning and no end. The entire action boils down in an absurd setting of a countryside road with two tramps Vladimir and Estragon who simply idle away their time waiting for Godot, about whom they have only vague ideas.

They have nothing substantial to tell each other and yet they must spend the time, for they cannot stop waiting. Two other characters, a cruel master called Pozzo and his half-crazy slave called Lucky appear. Eventually, a boy arrives with a message that Godot will arrive the next day. The two tramps decide to go away, but they do not move and the curtain falls, eventually, nothing happens.

The second act is the replica of the first act, but Pozzo is now blind and Lucky is dumb. The wait of Vladimir and Estragon continues but in despair. This monotony characterized the world after the wars and this condition was captured and depicted in the Theatre of Absurd.

The Absurd theatre dealt with a deeper layer of absurdity— the absurdity of the human condition itself in a world where the decline of religious belief has deprived man of certainties.

The barren stage stands symbolic to the universe where the two tramps are thrown to confront with the basic situations of their existence and undergo through the dilemma of choices and expectations. And this situation ultimately makes Vladimir and Estragon passive and impotent before time. Often they grow tedious of the wait and decide to go but they fail as they say:. The theatre of Absurd is a post-world war creation.

It is a creation and a search for a way of relief after the two terrible wars. The title itself is suggestive that the play deals with a prolong wait and the waiting of the two tramps is for Godot. Beckett very tactfully highlighted some religious references to figure out God as whimsical, partial and capricious. The messenger who works for Godot, lets Vladimir know that Godot executes physical tortures to his brother, a shepherd, for no reasons. However, at the same time, Beckett in his play projected the supremacy of Godot and the futile dependence of man on supreme power.

Vladimir and Estragon tell about Godot to Pozzo, whom they took to be Godot:. Pozzo: —.