A critique of Martin Esslin’s essay, ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’,

in relation to Harold Pinter’s style in his play,

‘The Dumb Waiter’.
 2

Q A critique of Martin Esslin’s essay, ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’, in relation

to Harold Pinter’s style in his play, ‘The Dumb Waiter’.

British scholar Martin Esslin in his critical analysis, ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’

enumerates several common characteristics pertaining to the theatrical tradition called

the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ which came into being in mid 1940s in France. He discusses

the unconventionality and radicalism in approach, of this extension of the theatre in

relation to the works of its pioneers such as, Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov and

Eugène Ionesco. This essay is a critique of how the British playwright, Harold Pinter,

despite being excluded in Esslin’s (1960) treatment on Absurd Theatre, conforms to or

transgresses what is held by Esslin as characteristics of the Theatre of the Absurd.

The essay begins with Esslin dwelling on the reception of Absurd Drama by

stating that the audience is usually encountered with “a bewildering experience...

[and] ...widely irrational often nonsensical goings-on that seem to go counter to all

accepted standards of stage convention”. (3) The above excerpt seems to dress Pinter’s

play, ‘The Dumb Waiter’ well, as it presents the audience/reader with two potential hit

men waiting to be instructed in a prison-like smothering room, which creates a menacing

and perturbing atmosphere contagious to audience.

Pinter’s play is set in a basement of a cafeteria within the post World War II

London setting in Birmingham. Therefore this play rules out the possibility of being

called an ‘anti-play’ as Esslin expresses that some plays run the risk of being labelled.

What Pinter portrays in his play does not seem to be impossible, improbable or

fantastical. All that is enacted on the stage are purely mundane in spite of having

eccentricities and absurdities. Even though the playwright has chosen a rare specimen of

the society, hired assassins are not aliens but human beings who do exist in the society.

Therefore Pinter has adopted “real happenings” (Esslin, 3) instead of “a dream world of

nightmares.” (Esslin, 3) He further shows how the nightmarish incidents can be found

dormant even within the happenings of the real world.

 3

Although the incidents of ‘The Dumb Waiter’ are probable they are unpredictable

due to the inherent irrationalities. This aspect can be situated in Esslin’s essay where he

states that in Absurd Drama, “everything that happens seems to be beyond rational

motivation”. (3) The audience is seldom provided with an inkling of what awaits Gus

until the curtain falls and yet they are still not entitled to an unambiguous finale.

Ben and Gus occupying an almost empty space except for the two beds, fill that

gap physically by their actions, language, silences and pauses. Esslin expresses that it is

these “manifold mechanical interactions of human puppets in groupings that suggest

tension, conflict.”(4)
Gus : I must have fallen asleep again. What was all that about then?
Why did you stop?
Ben : (picking up the newspaper). We were too early. (Pinter, 42)

The above instance shows how Ben reacts to Gus’s formidable questions by

showing his pseudo occupation with the newspaper and providing irrelevant and evasive

curt replies. It becomes evident how the irregular behavioural patterns and disjointed

dialogues reflect the inner turmoil and conflict of Ben as well as Gus.

Ben’s quasi attentiveness to the newspaper, polishing his revolver, lapsing into

silences, pauses, queer responsiveness to the dumb waiter, etc and Gus’s putting on and

taking off his shoes, indomitable questioning, aversion to silence and frequenting

lavatory, suggest their desperate attempts to conceal the mental struggle to drown their

feelings like fear, hostility, insecurity and uncertainty. These are some of the “basic

issues and problems of our age” (4) experienced by the people globally in a post World

War II era.

According to Ionesco (1957), “absurd is that which has no purpose, or goal, or

objective” (as cited in Esslin: 4) and ‘The Dumb Waiter’ asserts this fact when the

audience identify themselves with Gus who questioned the intent of life and probably

meets with an unbelievable, tragic and abrupt end without being answered. Pinter’s

endeavour to establish the fact that people sometimes have to expect the unexpected by
 4

showing “the world as an incomprehensible place” (Esslin, 5) marks Pinter as an ardent

proponent of the Theatre of the Absurd.

Esslin states regarding the audience of the Absurd Drama that, “it is impossible

for them to share the aspirations and emotions depicted in the play” (5) due to the

incomprehensibility of characters and happenings the audience is encountered with. Even

though it is evident that a certain gap is created between “the public and the happenings

on the stage” (Esslin, 5) it is difficult to state vehemently that empathising is impossible

because without which the drama would have no impact on the audience. Esslin argues

that this “emotional identification with the characters is replaced by a puzzled, critical

attention”. (5) Nevertheless he seems to have ignored the fact that this “critical

attention” per se could lead or prompt the audience to have certain emotional affinity

with the characters and incidents. Esslin seems to self contradict when he admits that

despite the absurdity, the happenings on the stage “remain recognizable as somehow

related to real life with its absurdity”. (5) If the audience can perceive the relation of

absurdity with the real life then it might not be impossible for them to identify with it.

When traditional drama is contrasted with the Absurd Drama by Esslin it

becomes evident that Pinter is representative of the latter. For the traditional audience

“right and wrong were never in doubt” (6) but for the audience of Pinter it has been

blurred. It is hard to predict whether the audience will sympathise with either Ben or

Gus. In spite of the suggested physical agony of Gus, the implicit psychological agony of

Ben having betrayed his companion, with which he has to spend the rest of his life, puts

Ben also into a pathetic plight despite being a criminal. Thus Pinter aligns himself with

people like Ionesco who believed that the theatre is an “outward projection onto the

stage of an inward world”. (as cited in Esslin, 6)

Silence.
The box goes up.
They turn quickly, their eyes meet. BEN turns to his paper.
Slowly GUS goes back to his bed, and sits.
Silence. (Pinter, 69)
 5

Pinter has been so meticulously precise in detailing to show how the behaviour of

Ben and Gus, and silences can portray their inner worlds “to externalize and project

outwards what is happening in the deeper recesses of the[ir] mind.” (Esslin, 8)

The use of language by Pinter for “externalization of mental process” (Esslin, 10)

clearly deviates from that of the traditional drama as he attempts to “smash limitations of

conventional vocabulary and syntax.” (Esslin, 10) The use of fragments, repetition and

questioning shows although how meaningless these clichés may be they are still used in

the society. The following conversation shows how Pinter has skilfully used the

fragmented sentences, and interchangeably repeated questions and responses.

Gus : Well they‘ll come in handy.
Ben : Yes.
Gus : Won’t they?
Ben : Yes, you’re always running out, aren’t you?
Gus : All the time.
Ben : Well they‘ll come in handy then.
Gus : Yes.
Ben : Won’t they? (Pinter, 46)

Pinter’s language use show how mechanically Ben and Gus converse for the sake

of conversation concealing the emotional undercurrent going through their minds. Thus

they are likewise presented as dumb waiters or apparatuses, denied the voices and

routinely execute the orders of their organisation. As Esslin says everything they say

does not mean what they intend to mean. (11) Through this Pinter shows “opacity, the

misleading nature of language and grammar.” (Esslin, 12)

Gus : Now look here, Ben -
Ben : I’m not looking anywhere! (He addresses the room.) How many
times have I - ! A bloody liberty! (Pinter, 48)

The play ‘The Dumb Waiter’ provides such ample examples of the absurd

limitations of human language which is “a mere conversational token of human

intercourse, a mask for genuine meaning and emotion.” (Esslin, 11) The utterances of

Ben are clearly indicative of how he asserts his authority over Gus using language. The
 6

power dimension of language is extensively explored by Pinter and he further shows how

Ben exerts physical violence when he discovers the atrophy of his language to assert his

authority.
Gus : What does the gas - ?
Ben : (grabbing him with two hands by the throat, at arm’s length).
THE KETTLE, YOU FOOL! (Pinter, 48)

Esslin expresses that, “the real content of the play lies in action. Language may

be discarded altogether.” (12) This statement cannot be completely agreed upon in

relation to Pinter’s drama because the language plays a pivotal role and cannot be

divorced from the performance of his drama.

In Absurd Drama the element of suspense according to Esslin is not maintained

so much due to the ignorance of the audience of what their playwrights are doing.

Ignorance can be a contributing factor that heightens the level of suspense for the

audience of the Pinter’s play. Furthermore the meaning of word suspense is blurred by

saying that the audience is “in suspense to what the play may mean” which remains even

after the drama. (Esslin, 14) Due to this transcending suspense the Pinter’s audience is

“spurred on to attempt their own interpretations” (Esslin, 13) thus forcing them “to a

mental effort and evaluate” (Esslin, 14) the experience they undergo. The audience of

‘The Dumb Waiter’ even after the play is prompted to contemplate on the confounding

experience. The more they comprehend the play the better will they come to terms with

the incomprehensible nature of the world, on which the Theatre of the Absurd is all

about. Thus Harold Pinter’s play ‘The Dumb Waiter’ exemplifies “the most demanding,

the most intellectual theatre.” (Esslin, 14) which is the Theatre of the Absurd.

by I. K. K. C. Hematilake

***

Bibliography
 7

• Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 4,
No. 4, (May, 1960), The MIT Press. pp. 3-15 07 July 2008.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1124873>

• Pinter, Harold. The Dumb Waiter. np: nd.

***