He That Increaseth Knowledge Increaseth Sorrow

Beckett's Endgame deals mainly with the interactions between Clov and Hamm. These two characters hold a large amount of distaste for one another. That being said, it is curious as to why Clov decides to deal with Hamm even though they cannot stand one another. What stood out to me while I was reading Endgame was when Clov said to Hamm, "There's one thing I'll never understand. Why I always obey you." (Beckett 52). I also wondered why Clov chooses to obey the commands of someone who makes him feel miserable. Clov always talks about how he will leave, and that if he had the chance, he would kill Hamm. But would Clov really go through with his actions? It is revealed to the audience that the reason that Clov doesn't kill Hamm is that Clov does not have the combination to the cabinet with the poison. However, when you think about it, could Clov have found another way of killing Hamm? Also, even if Hamm is not dead, Clov has the ability to leave the house whenever he chooses. Yet he chooses not to. Why?

I believe that Clov does not leave from fear of the outside world. Yes, Clov hates having to care for Hamm everyday and dealing with the same miserable routine, but it is the only thing he knows. In order to save himself from his personal hell, he must break away from the routine and make a change. I feel that the fear of what change will bring him is what prevents Clov from finding his freedom. Is change as scary as one makes it out to be, or is the fear of what change may bring what is truly frightening? There is also a level of ignorance that affects Clov and Hamm’s situation. The few facts that are revealed about the outside world are that it is gray and there is really nothing left. With that information, is it better for Clov to live in ignorance of the outside world? Is the knowledge of the real world worth the sorrow it may bring him?

What is the point of living?

While reading The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov, the underlying theme of existentialism led me to question life. What is the point of living? I may sound melancholy but the truth is all humans die. If one does not die early in their youth, he or she will eventually die in old age. In this play, Firs, an elderly man is forgotten by the others in the house. Now why is Firs neglected one may ask? Sadly, it is because he is old. The characters in the play seem to have no interest in Firs, especially Yasha –Firs’ grandson- who is disrespectful to Firs throughout the whole play. Firs, who is also ill, is believed to be in the hospital, but is actually upstairs alone. The characters leave the estate forgetting about Firs, and he is eventually left all alone to die. When one reaches old age, does he or she become less important in life?

In the play Happy Days by Samuel Beckett, the main character Winnie, like Firs, seems to be forgotten too. Winnie is basically left alone in a hole to die. Despite its comedic overview, the question of life is not very funny. After reading Endgame, also by Samuel Beckett, I noticed that the characters, Hamm and Clov are dragging through life; as if life is a burden. Clov says to Hamm, “Mean something! You and I mean something! Ah that’s a good one!”(Beckett 23). Hamm and Clov feel they mean nothing in life and they are very suicidal. They too, like Firs, are lonely old men and have nothing to live for.

Furthermore, old age is a stage in life where one is forgotten and left alone. By reading these plays, it led me to believe that eventually life will become boring and pointless. I may sound pessimistic, but one must accept the fact that everyone will die. However, it is how somebody lives their life that the meaning of life will be determined. Personally, I think if one views life as meaningful and lively, being forgotten in old age would not be a problem, but that is not always the case. The youth in our society is caught up with caring about only themselves and material items that they forget about the elderly and how much they can learn from them. The elderly is full of wisdom that they can teach us, but they are disregarded by us and sadly, forgotten.

Existence in Endgame

In chess, the term endgame is used to describe the final stages of the game where the outcome is already known. The endgame in chess is parallel to the final stages of a person’s life. Samuel Beckett realized that no matter how a person plays the game and lives their life, death will always be the final outcome. Although death is the final outcome, one of the main themes in the play Endgame is existence.

Beckett shows us that existence is one of the main themes in the play by leaving no defined plot to analyze. Without a clear plot, the characters in the play can be more easily understood. The audience pays more attention to what the character is saying at that moment rather than what is going to happen. In the beginning of the play, one of the characters Clov says, "I can't be punished any more" (Beckett 2). This statement shows that Clov will free himself from his unhappiness and begin to understand that his only important task is to survive. He accepts his existence and wants to better himself which means he has to leave Hamm. However, it seems as though Hamm is delaying the inevitable end. Each time Clov tries to leave him, Hamm interrupts and asks Clov another question. Clov states, “I’ll leave you” and Hamm replies, “Have you had your visions?” (Beckett 29). Although Clov wants to leave Hamm, the two of them are dependent on each other. Clov, for example, depends on Hamm for access to food since only Hamm knows how to open the cupboard, while Hamm relies on Clov to be his eyes and to move him around. Beckett portrays the characters in this play as people who are in constant search for meaning in a meaningless world, uncertain of their identities and searching for the true importance of their existence.

Mother Figures

While reading The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov, I have noticed that Varya seems to be more of a mother figure towards Anya, than Lyubov Andreyevna. Especially in Act I, when they return home after five years. Varya says to Anya, “Thank God, you've come! You're home again. [Caressing her.] My little darling has come back! My pretty one is here!” (Chekhov 320). Varya treats Anya as if Anya is her daughter. However, Lyubov does not show the same type of affection towards Anya, as Varya does.

In the character listing, it says that Varya is Lyubov's adopted daughter. The relationship between Varya and Anya, seems to be more than step-sisters. Varya tells Anya, “... If we could marry you to a rich man I'd be at peace” (Chekhov 321). Varya seems to care more for Anya's future, before she can care for her future. Lyubov does not care about how Anya is, and who she will marry. Varya seems to be the perfect mother figure for Anya, than Lyubov.

Why does Lyubov not care as much for Anya, as Varya? Is it because of her past relationships that is mentioned in Act III?

Why does Varya care so much for Anya? Is it because she is the perfect daughter figure that she wants?

A Remorseful Romance?

In Act II of Anton Chekhov’s play, The Cherry Orchard, Lyubov Andreyevna displays remorse for the sins she has committed. She goes on explaining to Gayev and Lopakhin that she was once married to a man who had later died from alcohol abuse. However, while her husband is still alive, Andreyevna falls in love again – but with another man. An affair develops between Andreyevna and this man. She commits adultery. Andreyevna revisits the memory of her son’s tragic death. She blames herself for her son’s death saying, “…that was my first punishment… my little boy was drowned… here in the river” (Chekhov 342). After her son drowned in the river, she moves to France, and her lover follows her there.

For three years Andreyevna and her lover live together. He soon takes ill, forcing Andreyevna to take care of him. While still in France, they sell their villa in a town near Mentone and move to Paris. There, her lover robs her of all her belongings and leaves Andreyevna for another woman. She states, “I tried to poison myself,” (Chekhov 342) telling the audience she had attempted suicide, because of the emotional pain her lover had left her with. Eventually, Andreyevna moves back to her homeland of Russia.

Despite everything that occurs, I do not know if I should feel pity towards Andreyevna. I do not respect her for having the affair. In my opinion, cheating on a loved one is cowardly. Losing a child, however, I imagine takes a terribly long time to recover from; for this, I do express sympathy for her.

“This came today from Paris… He asks my forgiveness, begs me to return…” (Chekhov 342) are the last lines Andreyevna says regarding her love affair in France. The periods following her final words make me think Andreyevna is considering going back to rekindle the relationship with her ex-lover regardless of all the suffering he has put her through.

After reading Act II of The Cherry Orchard, I do not believe that the cherry orchard is the main focus for the characters. Instead I feel that these characters are more worried about different ways to profit off the orchard. Lyubov shows she is getting away from the family heritage of keeping the orchard as the center of their lives. What makes me believe that the characters care more about money instead of the orchard is when Lopakhin says, "Let me remind you, ladies and gentlemen: on the twenty-second of August the cherry orchard is to be sold. Think about that?-Think!" (Chekhov 350) The reactions following Lopakhin's comment shows that the characters are not worried about losing the orchard. They just want to make sure they will receive a profit in return. One of the characters mentions the weather being nice. They also mention the cold times when the orchard is worthless. The family knows they will receive the highest price for the orchard during the summertime. Because the orchard will be sold in August, they are not going to resist making a profit of the orchard when it will put them into a greater debt during the winter time. Furthermore, I do not believe that Lyubov has any intentions to keep the orchard. Her family has little money and she is spending it on strangers who knock on the door. If Lyubov planned on keeping the orchard, she would hoard her money, because she would not have money during the winter when the orchard is worthless.

A Violent Mind

Henry Antrobus, also known as Cain, is a violent child. The story mentions that he killed his brother – it alludes that his name is Able – with a stone. After his brother died, he was still considered a violent child. Henry tried to stop being a vicious child; however, other people’s actions cause him to become more aggressive. In Act II, “Everybody’s always getting mad. Everybody’s always trying to push you around. I’ll make him sorry for this; I’ll make him sorry” (Wilder 62). The way people treat Henry, is why he is an aggressive child.

In Act III, the war is over and Henry is independent. Although he is still considered violent, his mother Mrs. Antrobus still accepts him and his flaws. When he comes home, Henry finds out that his father hates him. Henry says to his father, “Shoot me, I tell you. You don’t have to think I’m any relation of yours … I’m alone, and that’s all I want to be: alone. So you can shoot me” (Wilder 110). Henry is starting to feel unwelcomed in his family, and he wants to die. Also, knowing that Mr. Antrobus pull out a gun and threatens to kill Henry, I learned that Henry gets his aggressive behavior from his father.

While reading this story I asked myself, why? Why does Henry come back home? Where he knows he is not welcome? Why do other people still treat him like a bad child? When Henry is independent, and does not mean to harm others.

Approaching Chekov's The Cherry Orchard

The Cherry Orchard might actually catch some of you off guard. It’s not as existential on its surface as The Skin of Our Teeth and it’s nowhere near as absurd as Happy Days; however, I would argue there are moments in The Cherry Orchard which are more absurd and unconventional than either of the aforementioned plays.

But as you read the first act, your concerns should rest otherwise. First, get familiar with the characters and know their relationships with each other. Especially important is Lyuba, Anya, Varya, and Gayev, but do not under estimate the importance of characters such as Firs or Dunyasha. They are as important – if not more important – than the protagonists of our play. It is in characters like Firs and Dunyasha where the audience can see the absurd and the peculiar (and maybe even the truth of the play).

Once you get over the names, what you will find is an incredibly layered and complex play. The more familiar you get with this family, the more the individual choices of the characters seem insane. Where you will see the existential and absurd come into play is in communication. Take notice of which characters are paying attention to which characters, and look at how well they are communicating with each other. Unlike The Skin of Our Teeth where everyone is affected by everyone else, the people in The Cherry Orchard often times do not answer the question they were asked or randomly say something bizarre - “pickles” or even “moo!” come to mind.

The story also deals heavily with symbolism – primo numero uno is The Cherry Orchard, but there are many more. Think about how this story is both similar to The Skin of Our Teeth and Happy Days, and also think how different The Cherry Orchard is in comparison to those. Good luck in your reading – any questions or comments on this play feel free to post here.

Is The Skin of Our Teeth a Serious Play?

I wonder if I can take Thorton Wilder’s play, The Skin of Our Teeth, seriously. The tone of the play is unsophisticated and sarcastic. Events that occur are unrealistic. The question I ask myself is, “Can I take this play seriously, if the main characters cannot”. The play begins with the characters not coming on stage on cue. When Mrs. Antrobus does not appear on stage, Sabina becomes upset. She begins to improvise in order to stall the audience. When she gets frustrated, Sabina bashes the play. She says, “I can’t invent words for this play, and I’m glad I can’t. I hate this play and every word in it”. In other words, Sabina tells the audience the play is stupid and irrelevant.

Another reason I cannot take The Skin of Our Teeth seriously, is because of the talking animals. Animals cannot talk, and dinosaurs became extinct before humans appeared on Earth. There is no common sense in the play. When Mrs. Antrobus asks Sabina if the mammoth was milked, Sabina responds, “I don’t understand a word of this play.-Yes I’ve milked the mammoth”. Mammoth’s cannot be milked and were also extinct before human existence. If Sabina, an actress of the play, cannot understand the script, how is the audience supposed to understand the play?

Before the play begins, the announcer tells the audience the end of the world is postponed for twenty four hours. The end of the world would occur because of mother nature, not because a human said it would. It is not humanly possible to prevent the end of the world. If a block of ice was moving South, as described in the play, it would not stop moving because a person told it to.

The final reason I cannot take this play seriously, is because of the amount of time discussed. The reader finds out Henry is four thousand years old. We also find out Mr. and Mrs. Antrobus have been married for five thousand years. This statement in the play is more ridiculous than the talking dinosaur and mammoth. It is not humanly possible to live that amount of time.

Wilder's view on Existentialism

After reading Act I of The Skin of My Teeth by Thornton Wilder, I found myself questioning the intended message to the audience. In the play, Sabina reminds the audience that the play is idiotic and should not be taken seriously (Wilder 51). What I am getting out of the constant reminders is that the theme of the play, Existentialism, is a controversial topic and I feel that the author is mocking this study. In the play, there is a coexistence of dinosaurs, humans and other animals living in harmony. There is also a confusion of the time and placement for the setting of the play. Sabina openly tells the audience that she does not know if the play is set in the Stone Ages or in New Jersey (Wilder 32). Sabina also states that the world is not going to end and the characters in the play are exaggerating (Wilder 48). This shows that the characters of the play are creating their own purpose in life.

The message that I am receiving from the dinosaurs, humans and other animals living in harmony in an unknown setting while the characters of the play create their own purpose in life shows me that Wilder believes that Existentialism is absurd. Wilder is stating that one will not know how humans were created or why humans exist. The coexistence of dinosaurs, humans and other animals living peacefully together shows Wilder's view that Existentialists will never be able to figure out why different animals are not able to coexist in the same environment. The unknown setting in the play states that those involved in the study of human existence should give up and stop trying to figure why humans are where they are or where they are not. The created purpose for the characters in the play states that existentialists need to quit looking for the purpose of human existence. I feel that Wilder states that Existentialism is pointless and the non-serious attitude being taken towards the play states that Existentialism should not be taken sriously. Wilder displays, through the play, that people can never figure out why we, as humans, exist, why we are where we are today, and our purpose in life. What do you feel Wilder is trying to portray Existentialism as in The Skin of Our Teeth?

A Revelation or Desperation?

The Malignant Scapegoats of King Lear written by Derek Cohen made many interesting points, however, one sentence in particular caught my eye: “it is it’s villains who find themselves recurring to values of good and evil, order and chaos, as they face their ends” (Cohen 373). The process of death ultimately leads to eternal rest; however, it also serves as a last minute awakening. After realizing death is approaching, Edmund experiences a change of heart; rather than commit evil wrongdoings, he is determined to become a man of virtue. In my opinion, one recognizes his or her wrongdoings and mistakes in life when faced with death. Does Edmund truly wish to become a good person? Personally, I do not think he does. Death is a reality beyond Edmund’s control. Death threatens and frightens him. Edmund’s attempt to heroically spare Cordellia’s life is done out of fear; Edmund does not know what the afterlife has planned for him. If in fact one’s afterlife is determined by the life they lead on Earth, Edmund would have to drastically change his ways. I feel Edmund reveals Cordellia’s location as a desperate attempt to redeem the evils he has committed during his life time. I do not think Edmund has truly experienced a revelation. To prove the insincerity of Edmund’s new found moral intentions, Shakespeare consciously ends the play with Cordellia and Lear’s death. Edmund’s fate in the afterlife was set and more importantly, his effort towards redemption had failed.

Is King Lear Insane?

Throughout the play of Shakespeare’s King Lear, the reader notices how insane Lear becomes. After he found out Goneril and Regan did not love him, he became angry and upset. His insanity starts to reveal itself in Act 3. In Act 3 Scene 4, Lear relates his situation to Edgar saying, “Didst thou give all to thy daughters, and art thou come to this?” (Shakespeare 139). When in reality, Edgar’s situation had nothing to do with daughters betraying their father. Lear cannot see anyone’s pain but his own. Lear perceives himself to be insane, but is he really insane? Or is he just upset because his daughters have done him wrong? Daniels states, “They are not suffering from any illness when they made their donations; what they were suffering from was an incomplete knowledge of the character of their children” (Daniels 10). I tend to agree with this statement because Lear was perfectly fine before he gave his land away. Lear did not realize how selfish his daughters were. I also believe his banishment of his most precious and loyal daughter made him even more upset. His emotions lashed out in an unusual manner making one assume he was insane.

Selfishness

The reader learns in Act 4 Scene1 that Gloucester wants to commit suicide. “There is a cliff, whose high and bending head looks fearfully in the confined deep. Bring me but to the very brim, of it, and I’ll repair the misery thou dost bear…” (Shakespeare 177). There are many reasons for his desire. It seems the primary reason is the guilt he feels over the hurt he caused Edgar by banishing him. Gloucester chose to believe his deceptive son, Edmund, over his innocent son, Edgar. Gloucester is also scared that Edgar might be dead.
There are other reasons Gloucester wants to kill himself. For instance, Gloucester may be scared because people keep trying to kill him. Regan and Cornwall try to kill him and Oswald tries as well. Gloucester may not want to live in fear any longer. One could also think that Gloucester wants to commit suicide because his life is no longer worth living since his eyes were gauged out. Because he became blind, he may feel he has no reason to live.
Gloucester’s suicide would have been a selfish act. Gloucester seems to be in despair over the course his life has taken, particularly over the choice he made to banish Edgar. Gloucester wants to kill himself to relieve his own guilt. Possibly he believes that expressing such an intention will cause Edgar to feel sympathy toward him and forgive him.
If Gloucester wanted to commit suicide because of the guilt he felt from hurting Edgar, he should have realized that his suicide would hurt Edgar even more. If Gloucester commits suicide, he is adding to his sons’ pain, not relieving it. Gloucester should recognize that Edgar would rather accept his father’s apology than to have to cope with the tragedy of his father’s death.

Loyalty

What is the value in friendship? What is the value in family? A better question may be; What is the value in loyalty? Very few characters remain loyal to their loved ones throughout the play. There is irony in the betrayal that occurs in Shakespeare’s King Lear. While Lear believes he can trust his two eldest daughters, when they are given the throne, they do everything in their power to drive him out of the kingdom. Similarly, Gloucester’s bastard son plots to overtake his father’s name. In Act 1 Scene 4, the fool states, “Thou mad’st thy daughters thy mothers. For when thou gav’st them the rod and put’st down thine own breeches.” Although Lear constantly criticizes the fool, he is correct in that the king should have known better than to trust Goneril and Regan. It was clear they were insincere in their dramatic claims of love for him.

Cordelia and Egdar are banished from their father’s lives’ although they are the most loyal and respectable children. Lear’s most honorable nobleman, Kent was banished along with Cordelia, but instead of going against the king, Kent also remains loyal. In the end of the play, both Lear and Gloucester realize they have been wronged by their children and in return, wronged the people that were most loyal to them.