Chapter 2: The Birthday Party Written in 1957 itself, The Birthday Party, Pinter's first full-length play, was first performed at the Arts Theatre, Cambridge, on 28th April 1958. The Hudd's room was like an Oasis in a nameless surroundings, this play is contained in a room which has a precise location: a rundown sea- side boarding house belonging to Petey and Meg. This play, like The Room,, opens on a breakfast scene. Meg is giving breakfast to Petey, while he reads the newspaper. Unlike Bert, Petey responds to Meg's childish prattle. Through their conversation, we gather that two men wish to spend one night in their boarding house. Their only boarder, Stanley Webber, claims to be a concert pianist but now he is content doing nothing. He allows himself to be pampered by Meg who is overindulgent towards him. However, he begins to show signs of irritation and unease when he learns from Meg that two men might be spending a few nights at their boarding house. In turn, he unsettles Meg by suggesting that some people are coming in a van and insinuates that they are looking for Meg. At this point, the fourth character in the play, Lulu, makes an appearance. She has come to leave a parcel for Meg. After Lulu's departure, Stanley goes in the kitchen and from the hatch can see Goldberg and McCann's arrival. He stealthily exists from the scene. When Meg returns from shopping, she finds them in the room. During the course of their conversation, she unexpectedly announces that it is Stanley's birthday. The three of them decide to give him a surprise by arranging a party for him. A short while 51
later, Stanley enquires about the two men. When he hears from Meg that one of them is called Goldberg, he slowly sits at the table. A pronounced feeling of unease clouds around him. Act One ends with Stanley's erratic beating of a toy drum which is Meg's birthday gift to him. Act Two begins with Stanley striving to fathom the reason for Goldberg and McCann's presence in the house. He engages the latter in a tentative, mainly one-sided, conversation and asks 'you wouldn't think, to look at me, really... I mean, not really, that I was the sort of bloke to - to cause any trouble, would you? and ' Has he told you anything? Do you know what you're here for?7 With Goldberg's entrance in the room, Stanley becomes agitated and, like Rose, takes recourse to verbal onslaught 'You don't bother me. To me, you're nothing but a dirty joke'. Subsequently the two men put Stanley to gruelling interrogation in which all kinds of strange and non-sensical questions are asked: "Goldberg: Why did you come here? Stanley: My feet hurt! Goldberg: Why did you stay? Stanley: I had a headache! Goldberg: Did you take anything for it? Stanley: Yes. Goldberg: What? 52
Stanley: Fruit slats! Goldberg: Enos or Andrews 7"1 For a while Stanley attempts to answer them but the speed and the unexpectedness of the questions thrown at him fuzzes him. McCann removes Stanley's glasses and both he and Goldberg stand on either side of Stanley's chair and continue badgering him. They refer to some organization which Stanley is supposed to have betrayed. At this point Stanely is capable of answering only in monosyllables: "Goldberg: Is the number 846 possible for necessary? Stanley: Both. Goldberg: Wrong: It's necessary but not possible. Stanley: Both".2 or,incomplete sentences: "Goldberg: Why did the chicken cross the road? Stanley: He wanted..."3 and finally, can only emit anguished sounds. The strange catechism draws to a close with the appearance of Meg which signals the beginning of Stanely's, probably assumed, birthday party. They are all in high party spirit-goldberg calls Mega 'Goldiola', and flirts outrageously with Lulu: "Goldberg: Lulu, You're a big bouncy girl. 53
Come and sit on my lap"4 Meg proposes a toast to Stanley, and McCann sings a love song; only Stanley sits still. Meg decides she wants to play a party game and Lulu suggests 'blind man's buff'. After Meg and McCann, it is Stanley's turn to be the blind man. For Stanley, even this game is reduced to a kind of torture session. When he is being blindfolded, McCann takes these glasses and breaks them. Then he puts the toy-drum in Stanley's path on which he stumbles and falls and his one foot gets caught in it. He continues to move, dragging the drum on his foot. He moves towards Meg, reaches for her throat and begins to strangle her, when Goldberg and McCann rush to separate them. Suddenly the lights go off and there follows a general confusion. McCann shines his torch which is knocked from his hands and it goes off, Stanley moves towards Lulu who faints seeing him approach towards her. Stanley picks her up and places her on the table. Meanwhile, Goldberg and McCann are hying to search Lulu on the floor. Instead of Lulu, McCann finds his torch and shines it on the table on which Lulu is lying and Stanley is bent over her. As soon as the torch light hits Stanley, he begins to giggle hysterically and moves backwards. The act closes with Stanley against the wall and Goldberg and McCann converging upon him. Act Three is the morning after the party. In Meg's opinion the party was a great success. She has picked by the regular morning routine of giving breakfast to Petey and worrying over Stanley. Signs of concern are shown by Petey who enquires about Stanley's condition from Goldberg, 54
and is told by him that they are taking Stanley to one "Monty" who is going to take care of his troubles. In this act, Goldberg and McCann appear to be edgy. They want to wind up this 'job7 and get over with it. Meanwhile, Lulu comes and accuses Goldberg of using her for a night. McCann in a stem tone orders her to get out, and then brings Stanley in the room. Stanley is completely subdued. He is clean shaven and is wearing a clean suit, but he cannot talk at all and just sits slumped on his chair. In contrast to the earlier cross - examination, the two men try to woo him in unison: "McCann: We'll renew your season ticket. Goldberg: We'll take tuppence off your morning tea. McCann: We'll give you a discount on all inflammable goods. "Goldberg: We'll watch over you. McCann: Advise you, Goldberg: Give you proper care and treatment. McCann: Let you use the club bar. Goldberg: Keep a table reserved".5 But it has no impact on Stanley who just sits like an unanimated puppet Petey tries to stop them taking Stanley away but Goldberg's threatening tone defeats him: "Goldberg (insidiously), why don't you come with us, 55
Mr. Boles?"6 He is incapable of preventing Stanley's departure. Immediately after their departure, Meg returns from her shopping. The entire under - current of last evening has not touched her at all. She is still engrossed in the memories of last evening7 s party, and fondly tells Petey, T was the belle of the ball'. The Birthday Party adheres to the Aristotelian concept of a drama having a well-defined beginning, a middle, and an end. All the characters are introduced in the First Act, the relationship between them is suggested upon, and the birthday is announced, the event on which the forward movement of the plot depends. Act Two comprises Stanley's vain attempt to escape his tormentors. This act moves rapidly to its dramatic climax where Stanley is singled out as the tragic protagonist. Act Three concludes the pattern. The tragedy of Stanley is complete: he is beyond speech and action, and he is taken away by Goldberg and McCann. The play develops within the framework of the unities of time and place : the play lasts from one morning to the next, and the plot is contained in one place, in the house of Petey and Meg Boles. Aristotle's concept of the structure of action is also evident in the format of the play. The structure, of action should have a certain proportion-" Beauty depends on magnitude and order."7 In The Birthday Party the action builds towards a climax in Act one, reaches its apex in Act two, and falls gently in Act 56
three. Aristotle recommends a complex action. A "complex7 action is better than a simple -'complex7 being that which includes a peripeteia or sudden turn and, as the mechanism of this turn, an anagnorisis or recognition7.8 There is a sudden complication is Stanley's life when his indolent existence is interrupted by two intruders and he recognizes the fact that his escape is impossible. The stage direction enforces this idea: 'there is now no light at all through the window. The stage is in darkness'9 followed by, 'Goldberg and McCann move towards him (Stanley). He backs, gigging, the torch on his face. They follow him upstage, left. He backs against the hatch, giggling. The torch drawn closer. His giggle rises and grows as he flattens himself against the wall. Their figures converge upon him'.10 Finally, an action should be complete and whole - 'For thus we define the whole that from which nothing is wanting, as a whole man or a whole box... 'whole' and 'complete' are either quite identical or closely akin. Nothing is complete (teleion) which has no end (telos); and the end is a limit'.11 There is one cohesive strand of action beginning from the arrival of two men in the seaside town. Early in the play, Petey informs Meg about them, 'two men came up to me on the beach last night... They wanted to know if we could put them up for a couple of night'. Stanley's sustained questioning about them, 'who are they?... what do they want here?... What are they called?' naturally makes us wonder at the reason for his agitation, the actual arrival of the two strangers in Meg's house and Stanley's evasion of them, the 57
interrogation of Stanley resulting in his disorientation, and the final scene of the two men taking an emaciated Stanley away with them. Patricia Hem detects a similarity of pattern between The Birthday Party and Greek tragedies. For comparison she has selected The Choephori, the middle play from Aeschylus 'The Grenstein Trilogy: "The middle play of this trilogy shows a society ill at ease, living under the rule of Aegisthus and of Queen Clytemnestra, who killed her husband, Agamemnon, on his return from Troy. The arrival of Orestes, Clytemnestra's exiled son, violently disturbs this uneasy calm, as, spurred on by his sister, Electra, he hunts down and kills his mother, Clytemnestra, and then is forced to run away, pursued by the furies who will drive him mad unless Apollo can save him. When Orestes departs, bearing his guilt with him, the others are left to pick up what remains of their routine existence... The Birthday Party... opens on a scene of normality, troubled only by Stanley's nervousness... This is disturbed by the introduction of an element from outside - Goldberg and McCann - which leads to a dramatic crisis... Then the intruders leave, carrying guilt or responsibility with them, while the others have to go on living as best they can... the Furies here being represented by Goldberg and McCann, who have the power to destroy his mind."12 58
The format is comparable, however, Orestes differs from Stanley as the guilt of the former is established and the crime is committed knowingly. While Stanley's guilt is never made specific, in fact it is doubtful whether he actually trespassed, unless we second Camus' existentialist view and conclude that he exists, hence he is condemned. Set against Stanley's assumed guilt or probable guiltlessness, the fate of Greek tragic protagonists, defies equation. Though the action of the play relentlessly propels Stanley towards his tragedy, the play is not a tragedy, though he evokes in us a feeling of terror and pity, he is not a tragic hero, only because of the presence of a third element-the comic element. Stanley's disintegration evolves out of a tension created between two contrary factors, laughter and horror, and the play can be best described as 'Comedy of Menace', and Stanley can be aptly described, to borrow a phrase from J.L. Styan, a 'Comic-Pathetic Hero', 'Who at the crisis is so human as to remember and hope rather than heed and act, often tends to assume universal qualities through the very individual and contradictory details that go to make him up'.13 Working within the framework of conventional structure, Pinter has created a play which captures the essence of the crisis threatening the modem man. As in The Room, in this play also Pinter has refrained from supplying substantial background information about his characters, 59
which brings us to a major issue which is to weigh the validity of the tendency to understand Stanley, Goldberg, and McCann in symbolical or allegorical terms arising due to an absence of sufficient biographical data. A clue can be taken from the pattern of Pinter's creative process about which he wrote: "If I write about a lamp, I apply myself to the demands of that lamp. If I write about a flower, I apply myself to the demands of that flower. In most cases, the flower has singular properties as opposed to the lamp... Flower, lamp, tinopener, tree... tend to make alternation from a different climate and circumstance and I must necessarily attend to that singular change with the same devotion and allowance. I do not intend to impose or distort for the sake of an ostensible 'harmony' of approach".** A supra-realist, Pinter concentrates and endeavours to recreate the characters in the manner in which they appear to him and the way he experiences them. Such an intuitive writing style precludes the possibility of his writing a symbolical or allegorical play which demands a pre - meditated and conceptualized creative process. The second clue is provided by the speech Pinter made at the National Student Drama Festival in Bristol, in 1962, where he said: "My characters tell me so much and no more, with reference to their experience, their aspirations their motives, 60
their history. Between my lack of biographical data about them and the ambiguity of what they say lies a territory which is not only worthy of exploration but which it is compulsory to explore".15 The playwright himself discovers the characters when they slowly come to life on a blank page, they are unfolding themselves to him, and Pinter invites us to explore the vast undefined and indeterminate area between what his characters might have been, what they say they are, and what they appear to be. Due to its inherent definitionlessness, this space possesses tremendous evocative and suggestive power and the amazing resonance of Pinter's plays can surely be attributed to this undefined area. The third clue in Pinter's own categorical denial that his works are meant to express his preconceived notions: "I think it is impossible - and certainly for me to start writing a play from any kind of abstract idea... I start writing a play from an image of a situation and a coupled of characters involved, and these people always remain for me quite real, if they were not, the play could not be written".16 Keeping these three factors in view, any attempt to offer an allegorized or symbolized interpretation of this play (and also Pinter's other plays) only serves to detract from the play's innate qualities and superimposes an extrinsic qualification. In spite of Pinter's denial, there are several critics who have ventured to unravel the mystification 61
surrounding the three characters - Stanley, Goldberg, and McCann- and have offered some explanations. Irving Wardle asks 'who was Stanley in The Birthday Party a helpless ego, engaging in polymorphous infant games with a mother substitute until the cruel superego intervenes in the person of Goldberg? Or an economic mebbish, who falls victim to the capitalist forces of business and state religion?'17 According to Ruby Cohn, Goldberg and McCann are symbols of the debased Judeo - Christian tradition working to brainwash Stanley into submission.18 In Jacqueline Hoefer's view, the theme of the play is that of an alienated aritist who is opposed to society.19 Martin Esslin, in spite of suggesting that the play can be seen as an allegory of death, 'man snatched away from the home he has built himself... by the dark angels of nothingness',20 explains 'as in the case of Waiting for Godot all such interpretations would miss the point, a play like this simply explores a situation which in itself, is a valid poetic image that is immediately seen as relevant and true'.21 It is not so important to verify Stanley's past as it is to see and feel what actually happens to him. To get lost in the question 'who is Stanley' is as misleading as it is to ascertain 'who is Riley'. In a Pinter play what has happened before the curtain rises is a trackless ground and it is futile to make a backward journey to grasp the source of the wound: "The mistake they make, most of them, is to attempt to determine and calculate, with the finest instruments, the source of the wound. They seek out the gaps between the 62
apparent and the void that hinges upon it, with all due tautness. They turn to the wound with deference, a lance, and a needle and thread".22 Pinter in The Birthday Party has presented a critical juncture in the life of Stanley; it is a dramatic presentation of die vigorous field of tension between the two strangers and Stanley, and the crisis that engulfs him. His plight can be seen as subjective on one level. Perhaps he suffers for some obscure crime he might have committed due to which he is hunted down by two daunting strangers. Though, in the story he relates to Meg, regarding his career as a concert pianist, he is not the betrayer but he is the one who has been betrayed: "I had a unique touch... They came up to me and said they were grateful. Champagne we had that night, the lot. My father nearly came down to hear me... Then after that, you know what they did? They carved me up. Carved me up. It was all arranged, it was all worked out. My next concert. Somehwere else it was... Then, when I got there. The hall was closed, the place was shuttered up, not even a caretaker. They'd locked it up... A fast one. They pulled a fast one. I'd like to know who was responsible for that....all right, Jack, I can take a tip. They want me to crawl down on my bended knees. Well I can take a tip... any day of die week"-23 63
However, the two men call him a betrayer and accuse him of a host of other misdeeds. The accusations leveled at him range from why did he leave the organization to why does he pick his nose! In Arthur Adamov's play Professor Taranne, Taranne, the central figure is summoned to the police station for curious crimes : that he was stripped in public place; he has left paper lying about in bathing cabins; and instead of presenting his own research paper, he borrowed the ideas from another professor, Menard, Mid did not mention his name. In the beginning he tries to placate his accusers: "You ought to know who you're dealing with.. What proof is there that the girl, who came here to tell you all this, was really present... at the scene?.. Besides, it's quite simple you've only to send for people who know me... They'll bear witness to my character."24 Gradually, we begin to wonder whether he is guiltless when a woman mistakes him for Professor Menard and she is corrected by another gentleman, 'He hold his glasses in his hand... like he does.(laughing) But apart from that l'25 Taranne claims a notebook to be his own but finds it difficult to read it, and towards the end of the play says 'I watched them carefully. While I was speaking, they were yapping... 'He's stolen Professor Menard's spectacles. He does everything like Professor Menard. Pity he's smaller than he is'.26 64
However, the accusation turns to reality when, at the curtain time, Taranne slowly begins to strip. It is difficult to establish whether Taranne is guilty or the accusations drive him to a state of neurosis where he confirms the accusations through his actions. Stanley is driven to a state of psychic aberration but his guilt is never confirmed unless we treat his being whisked away by Goldberg and McCann as an indirect confirmation of his transgression. By omitting to mention the nature of the crime, Pinter has made the pulse of the play at once particular and general. The aggressive cross-examination is real for Stanley. He suffers due to it and the tumultuous experience emasculates him. But what is it that he is guilty for? Has he betrayed some organization? Or is he guilty of the innumerable accusations flung at him? The inability to find answers transforms his subjective plight into a widely extended one which involves us all. Pinter has led us to ask ourselves what are we guilty of by making Goldberg and McCann ask every imaginable question to Stanley: "Something for everyone, in fact : somewhere, the author seems to be telling his audience, you have done something think hard and you may remember what it is - which will one day catch you out. The next time you answer a door to an innocent -looking stranger...".27 65
If we are not consciously aware of it, we still might feel the disturbing fear of a nameless threat just as Meg experiences it when Stanley frightens her by saying that two men are coming in a van with a wheelbarrow and are looking for her. Stanley's state of being becomes a representation of the condition of man who is struggling against the threat of a sudden reduction from being to non- being. With the collapse of the old familiar world, man finds himself unsupported by a co-hesive value system. He blunders through life, making short-term choices, what his limited understanding of the universe and the meaning of his existence makes possible. He desires an identity but each time he seeks to attain it, his efforts are mercilessly thwarted, until he reaches the stage where he has a misty awareness of what might constitute identity. Wishing to escape from these dilemmas, from the perplexities of life, he hides behind a facade of false identity or substitutes chimeric existence for reality. Whatever he may resort to, he is ultimately unprotected and extremely susceptible to accidental encroachments in his life, where fate and divine intervention have been replaced by chance and accidental encroachments. Stanley selects the Boles' boarding house as a safe retreat and is content to lead a placid life. He is comfortable with Petey's kindness and Meg's indulgence. Yet this security turns out to be a mirage. Two strangers swoop on him and crush his efforts to protect his self. His endeavours to shield his fragmentary identity are futile and the person who departs with Goldberg and McCann is identity - less, 66
a mere shape without any substance, though he continues to be called 'Stanley Webber'. Camus wrote - "Much could be said... about the privileged fates of Greek tragedy and those favoured in legend who like Ulysses, in the midst of the worst adventures, are saved from themselves. It was not so easy to return to Ithaca".28 The tragedy of Stanley is that he did not find an easy road leading back to Ithaca. It is essential to realize that he tried to save himself but did not succeed. A vague premonition takes hold of him when he hears about the two men whom Meg is expecting, and he avoids meeting them. The compelling unease and a distinct conviction that he is trapped finds expression in his frenzied drum beating and in his attempt to strangle Meg. The sudden sexual aggression towards Lulu and his hysterical giggles when caught are the acts of defiances from desperate man who confronts the fact that he has been sought out and to whom all possible avenues of escape seem closed. Stanley's tragedy is not like the awesome tragedy which befalls Odeipus or Lear in the wake of a series of calamitous happenings. And yet, it is more acute, as in him we watch the disintegration of a common man, a man who is not a king, a man whom the world does not look up to with awe, a man who is not considered noble, grand and wise. Stanley is an ordinary man and so he is closer to us. We can laugh when he plays the toy dram, when he picks up chair to defend himsplf
from McCann, and when he makes sexual advances on Lulu, taking advantage of the dark room, but at the same time, an infinite sadness overtakes us as we confront the full force of the realization that his efforts to gain freedom are futile. Stanley is what Styan has described as the 'Comic - Pathetic Hero's who is his confrontation with the unfathomable forces relies on hopes and dreams, but is finally left standing desolate, helpless, and mute. Samuel Beckett has captured the essence of such a man whom the 'Comic -Pathetic Hero' typifies, in his play Act Without Words I in which a man is flung backwards on the stage. He hears the sound of a whistle and when he goes towards it he is flung back again on the stage. Various objects appear on the stage from time to time : a tree, a pair of scissors, a carafe with water, a set of cubes, and a rope. When he sits under the tree, the palms close like a parasol, he cannot reach the carafe, and the cubes on which he sits are pulled from under him. In the end, he hears the whistle but does not move. The carafe is dangled in front of his face but he remains still. The stage direction reads :'He does not move'.29 At this point it is irrelevant whether he moves or not, in both the cases he seems pathetic. The play seems to be condensed and mimed representation of Stanley's situation. As Stanley, at the end of the play, sits dazed, so does the man, at the end of Beckett's play, sit dazed, so does the man, at the end of Beckett's play, sit alone in the desert, staring at this hands. Both of them are impotent against the unremitting external powers. 68
In fact, how easy is it for us to return to Ithaca? Plagued with doubts and uncertainties, and without the hallowed relief provided by the belief in God and destiny, how are we going to safeguard ourselves in this startlingly antagonistic world? Joseph K, in Franz Kafka's The Trial found it equally arduous to defend himself from accidental encroachments in an unfriendly world. Two strangers intrude into his bedroom and accuse him of unspecified crimes. He is supposed to have betrayed humanity, society, and probably the state. The question thrown at Stanley also touch these three areas : " Why are you wasting everybody's time, Webber? Why are you getting in everybody's way? 'Why did you leave the organization?', Why did you kill you wife?. 'What about Ireland?'Though unsure of his crime, JC. is keen to defend himself and appease his accusers 4 "I cannot recall the slightest offence that might be charged against me. But that even is of minor importance the real question is, who accuses me? I demand a clear answer of these questions, and I feel sure that after an explanation we shall be able to part from each other on fhe best of terms".30 like Stanley, K. succumbs to the punishment thrust on him. His executioners, with utmost courtesy, lead him into a suburb : "K. shivered involuntarily, whereupon the man gave him a light reassuring pat on the back... The two of them laid JC. down on the ground, propped him against the boulder, and 69
settled his head upon it. But in spite of the pains they took and all the willingness K. showed, his posture remained contorted and unnatural - looking".31 In spite of the gentle treatment and the ritualistic wooing, Stanley's posture and behavior at the end of the play also remains 'unnatural - looking'. Just as K. is interrogated and ultimately hanged owing to some crime which even he himself could not comprehend, Stanley is subjected to intense mental and physical harassment for some nameless crime. The tenor of The Birthday Party is quite similar to that of The Trial. Both the works point to the absurdity of existence by co-mingling the rational and irrational, and the individual and universal. The guilt of K. and the guilt of Stanley both assume an irrational stature partly due to the absurd content of the accusations, partly due to their individual attempt to understand their situation logically, but mainly due to the final reduction of their personality resulting from a nameless crime and shapeless guilt which neither of them comprehend. Their incomprehension translates their individual confrontation with absurdity into a universal condition. Both the characters, after an initial attempt to escape the difficult situation, allow the pattern to unfold and proceed on its own momentum. It does not imply that they transform themselves into passive observers, they areinvolved in the pattern, are the centre of the circle, the core against which the premises and questions collide, and then rebound and explode into myriad suppositions and suggestions. 70
They too wonder if there is a rational explanation to their irrational situation, logic behind absurdity. They wait and we wait, like Beckett's tramps in Waiting for Godot for some kind of explanation which would validate our existence. The theme of crime, guilt, and betrayal, followed by retribution, is as old as the history of drama. Agamemonon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia and the Fate punishes him by having him murdered by his wife, Clytemnestra, in the first play of Aeschylus. The Oresteian Trilogy, in Homer's Iliad, Paris goes as an ambassador to Sparta, but betrays his host, Menelaus, by taking his wife Helen to Troy. His wantonness and betrayal result in his death in the Trojan war, the guilt of Lady Macbeth for having murdered Duncan leads to her insanity and death in Shakespeare's Macbeth. These works show a belief in the supernatural reality and the pattern of the plays corresponds with the divine law: "No gift, no sacrificial flame Can soothe or turn The wrath of Heaven from its relentless aim".32 The authority punishing them is defined. The critical question in K. 's speech made in his self -defiance is 'who accuses me? What authority is conducting these proceedings?' and points to the vagueness of the identity of the accusers. As the unspecified crime transforms the sense of _ 9 The Birthday Party from individual to universal, so the ill defined accusers raise the play from particular to general. Pinter has skillful 71
side-stepped the two issues which are the central aspects of the play. We do not know the nature of crime and we are equally ignorant about the accusers. Connecting the two is Stanley's resentment and despair, and Goldberg and McCann's aggressive stance. Apart from indicating towards the wider existentialist dilemma of chance and choice, it also hints at, perhaps, our collective guilt, for directly or indirectly existing in a world marked by murder, destruction, carnage, betrayal, promiscuity. Stanley and K.'s condition highlights the unpredictability of life. We may one day open the door only to usher in people who may threaten our very existence. In a B.B.C interview, Pinter told John Sherwood: "... in The Birthday Party... this man is hidden away in a seaside boarding house... then two people arrive out of now here, and I don't consider this an unnatural happening".33 Pinter adds that it is not surrealistic, as strange intruders have been arriving at the door in Europe since the last two to three hundred years. The unsettling fear of the outside world and a chilling sensation of being tracked down, a residue of the Nazi era would understandably be a predominant subconscious trait of the European psyche. Stanley is the victim in the play, but the fear of the unknown is evident in other characters as well. Meg is disconcerted when Stanley teases her cruelly * "Stanley : They're coming in van. 72
Meg: Who? Stanley: And do you know what they've got in that van? Meg : What? Stanley: They've got a wheelbarrow in that van. Meg: (breathlessly). They haven't Stanley: A big wheel barrow. And when the van stops they wheel it out/ and they wheel it up garden path/ and then they knock at the front floor. Meg: They don't Stanley: They're looking for someone. A certain person. Meg (hoarsely): No, they've not Stanley: Shall I tell you who they'are looking for? Meg: No. Stanley: You don't want me to tell you? Meg: You're a liar I34 She has invented her own defence mechanism against such a fear, she lives in her own fantastic world where Stanley is the son she had always wanted, and he is also a man who keeps her sexuality alive.35 Petey is comparatively more sensitive to the turbid nuance of the external forces but he is a mild man, incapable of taking an aggressive stand against intruders : 73
"Petey (brokenly): Stan, don't let them tell you what to do"36 The fun-loving Lulu too senses the menacing powers of the two men: "Lulu(retreating to the back door): I've seen everything that's happened. I know what's going on. I've got a pretty shrewd idea."37 Even Goldberg and McCann, the two men sent to subjugate Stanley are themselves uneasy after their task is accomplished : "McCann: So do we wait or do we go and get him? Goldbeg (interrupting): I don't know why, but I feel knocked out I feel a bit... It's uncommon for me MeCann: Is that so? Goldberg: It's unusual. McCann (rising swiftly and going behind Goldberg's Chair. Hissing): Let's s finish and go. Let's get it over and go. Get the thing done. Let's finish the bloody thing. Let's get the thing done and go".38 The menacing strangers seem human after all and become apart, a clog in the gigantic pattern of people tracking down people. We the audience / reader are empathetic towards Stanley's situation and we begin to wonder how safe we are in a world which is shaken up to such a degree that all our values and beliefs have been tossed about, there is nothing which we can clutch at to feel secure, apart from 74
continuing to live our everyday life, submerging our consciousness in platitudes. This is what the characters in The Birthday Party do. They sense and recognize the fear of the unknown but they make themselves insensate, thereby, giving themselves an indirect protection. They lead the everyday life and often view their surrounding as an image of their dream world, as Meg is inclined to, or become a passive observer, like Petey. Pinter uses languages as a form of defence strategy behind which his characters have a compulsive need to hide. He explained the reason for it in an interview in Paris Review, in 1966: "I think possibly it's because people fall back on anything they can lay their hands on verbally to keep away from the danger of knowing, and of being known".39 The fear of the outside gets compounded by another fear, "the danger of knowing, and of being known. His characters combat this problem by erecting language barriers. The bulk of their conversation comprises small talk, meaningless repetitions, and polite chitchat: "Meg: Well, I bet you don't know what it is. Stanley: Oh yes I do. Meg: What? Stanley: Fried bread. Meg: He knew. 75
Certificate This is to certify that Krishna Kant Tripathi has worked under my supervision on "Political Consciousness in the Selected Plays of Harold Pinter" for the period stipulated in the Ph.D. ordinance of V.B.S. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. His research work embodies the results of his own investigations conducted under me. I forward the thesis to the University for evaluation. (Dr. Vinod Kr. Singh) Co-Supervisor Reader & Head Department of English Harishchandra P.G. College, Varanasi, U.P. (Dr' Pramod Kr. Singh) Supervisor Reader & Head Department of English Sakaldiha P.G. College, Chandauli, U.P.
Stanley: What a wonderful surprise".40 In fact, the comic element in the play is, to a large extent, a combination of small - talk, intended and unintended misunderstandings, and characters seemingly talking to each other but actually about two different things. When Lulu tells Goldberg that he must have been a good husband, he says that she should have seen his wife's funeral. Or, in the party, McCann and Meg are talking to each other but about two divergent things: "McCann: I know a place, Roscrea, Mother Nolan's. Meg: There was a night light in my room, when I was a little girl. McCann : One time I stayed there all night with the boys. Singing and drinking all night. Meg : And my nanny used to sit up with me, and sing songs to me/'41 Such banal conversation forces us to laugh because it approximates the kind of language which dominates our lives. Mr. Kidd's absentmindedness has taken a mature from in this play; it can be seen as faulty comprehension and defective memory. Stanley's story of how he was let down once when he was a concert pianist assumes a different colour when Meg narrates it to Goldberg: 76
"Meg : His father gave him champagne. But then they locked the place up and he couldn't get out. The caretaker had gone home. So he had to wait until the morning before he could get out. They were very grateful. And then they all wanted to give him a tip. And so he took the tip."42 When memory is suspect, comprehension of speech content absorbs the inflections of the listeners, and language is primarily used to conceal rather than to reveal, it would be a formidable task to verify a person's motives, or his reasons for doing or saying a certain thing, or his past. This is yet another instance of Pinter's supra - realism, his characters, their speech, their action are very much like real men. An introspective exploration would yield substantial information concerning our defence strategems, our unspoken motives and spoken banalities and our incredible flair to distort the past consciously and often unconsciously. Goldberg is an enthusiastic talker and relates many incidents from his past. How much of it can be taken seriously? To Petey he says: "Simey:myold mum used to shout,'quick before it gets cold' And there on the table what would I see? The nicest piece of gefilte fish you could wish to find on a plate".43 and to Lulu he relates the same story but in this case'mum'has become 'wife' and the food has become 'rollmop and pickled cucumber'. Stanley's 77
story about his betrayal and Meg's story about her childhood may be either true or false. There is no absolute method to determine the trueness or falseness of a given situation as Pinter explains in writing for the theatre: "We don't carry labels on our chests, and even though they are continually fixed to us by others, they convince nobody. The desire for verification on the part of all of us, with regard to our experience and the experience of others, is understandable but cannot always be satisfied. I suggest there can be 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 true or false, it can be both true and false."44 Pinter's creative genius lies in the skill with which he magnifies a commonplace activity into a protracted nightmare through a dexterous juggling of words which makes the tone of the play oscillate between the ordinary and the enigmatic. The opening scene itself, where Meg is giving breakfast to Petey, has the common - placeness of the everyday: "Meg: I've got your cornflakes ready,... here's you cornflakes... Are they nice? Petey: Very nice. Meg: I thought they'd be nice".45 78
They are joined by Stanley who dearly enjoys needling her: "Stanley: Not to make your husband a cup of tea. Terrible. Meg: He know's Tm not a bad wife. Stanley: Giving him sour milk instead. Meg: It wasn't sour. Stanley: Disgraceful".46 This ordinary breakfast ritual does not prepare us for the sudden turn of events which overtakes Stanley. It is an effective dramatic strategy as we, along with Stanley, are caught off guard, as in The Room we were predisposed to view Rose's fear as an old lady's obsession till the Sands announced that the basement was indeed inhabited, which startled both Rose and us. The fear of the outside is mentioned categorically by Rose; Stanley's strained behavior: "Stanley : I can't drink this much. Didn't anyone ever tell you to warm the pot, at least? Meg: That's good strong tea,that's all. Stanley: Oh God, I'm tired";& his offensiveness towards Meg; "Get out of it. You succulent old washing bag"'48 79
and his irritableness: "Stanley (violently): Look, why don't you get this place cleared up. It's a pigsty. And another thing, what about my room? It needs sweeping. It needs papering. I need a new room".49 indicate his edgyness. He shows a reluctance to step out of the house, he does not work anywhere, and even when Lulu suggests he go for a walk her, he wards her off. These are taken as temperamental quirks till Meg mentions that she is expecting two gentlemen. Interestingly, the only time in the play he is keen to go out is when Goldberg and McCann are in the house. The sharp outlines of The Room have given way to a 0 smoother structure, where things are suggested and felt. Instead of an unnatural blind negro in this play, the harbingers of menace are two practical men who mean business " ' McCann, as an Irishman, deals with politics and religion (treachery and heresy), and Goldberg as a Jew and travelling salesman (hence the briefcase), deals with sex and property'.50 The violent conclusion of The Room has not been repeated. Stanley is taken away in a state of catatonia which is more unsettling due to its suggestiveness. In its widest connotations, The Birthday Party touches upon the absurd tragedy of men. In its narrowest connotation - the story of an ordinary man, pursued and removed from him hideout - qualifies as a stunning piece of theatre. It has all the ingredients which are required to 80
make an entertaining drama : mystery, humour, a plot which gradually reaches its crescendo, and an undeniable capacity to make one wait for the final scene with baited breath. It is thrilling in its unexpected turn and absorbing in its "what - happens -next' quality. A play which was unanimously rejected by the reviewers after its first London performance, on 19 May 1958, ultimately did very well. By July 1960, it was performed in Birmingham (where Pinter directed the play), Canonbury (where it was a brilliant success), Germany, and U.S. A. (first professional performance of Pinter). Its televised version had a tremendous impact. ' For days one could hear people in buses and canteens early discussing the play as a maddening but deeply disturbing experience/47 It was revived on 18 July 1964, at Aldwych Theatre, London, and its film version opened on 9 December 1968 in New York. Pinter up to 1980's did not write any overtly political plays. In fact, at a time when some kind of political motivation was considered essential for the legitimacy of art, Pinter deliberately kept himself aloof from such concerns. It is only from 1980's that he started writing 'openly' political plays. While this change in the dramatist suggests to some a radical departure from his earlier so called 'non-political' plays, the present study emphasizes the need for a reconceptualization of the word 'political' * when it is used in relation to Pinter. In the recent times, various critical schools have invested the word political with meanings that call into question the traditional distinction between the private and the political. 81
Although not equating the two, Pinter among all other English playwrights, foregrounds the idea of the political permeating the realm of the private and the domestic. Lyotard, in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge writes, "to speak is to fight" (1979:9). Pinter's earlier plays like The Birthday Party (1957), The Caretaker (1959), The Homecoming (1965), The Dumb Waiter (1960) and other such plays may be seen as dramatic expressions of this remark. Pinter has always maintained that his plays have been political. Indeed, he went so far as to offer an interpretation of The Birthday Party as a whole in what can be called 'political terms/ In a letter to Peter Wood, he wrote: The hierarchy, the Establishment, the arbiters, the socioreligious monsters arrive to effect alteration and censure upon a member of the club who has discarded responsibility... towards himself and others... and he collapses under the weight of their accusation. (Quoted in Michael Scott, 1986:80) Again, in an interview, Pinter stated that his earlier plays were political in which he took an "extremely critical look at authoritarian postures, power used to undermine if not destroy the individual or the questioning voice" (Ford, 1988,Interview). The earlier plays can be seen as dramatization of situations involving two or three characters confined to the walls of one room and engaged in verbal battles, thus, underlining the idea of language as a potent tool at the disposal of a domineering character who uses it to render mute the other 82
reluctant speaker. These characters use language primarily to assert themselves and gain ascendency over their opponent who is silenced by the verbal assault which takes the shape of a series of absurd questions and commands addressed to him. In The Birthday Party, Stanley finds himself in such a situation as he is confronted with the relentless inquisitioning by Goldberg and McCann. Similar examples can be cited from The Dumb Waiter, The Caretaker and The Homecoming. These plays, thus, underline the significance of power relations in the personal and private domain negotiated through language. The use of language, Pinter suggests, always carries a political edge with it. This analysis helps us to place the significance of power relations presented in Pinter's plays. These plays allow us to envisage the whole range of micropolitical power relations existing across the social network. What is of interest here, however, is whether Pinter by writing the 'openly political' plays from 1980's has moved in any significant way from this position. These later plays broaden their focus to include an understanding of politics as the world of state power, repression and violence. These plays, then, are political at a macro level because they deal explicitly with the structure and sub-structures that exercise control over the individual. 83
References 1. Plays: One, loc. cit., p.58. 2. Ibid.,p.60. 3. Ibid.,p.61. 4. Ibid.,p.68. 5. Ibid., pp.92-93. 6. Ibid., p.95. 7. Aristotle, (Poetics VII), Quoted by William K. Wimsatt, Jr. & Cleanth Brooks, Literary Criticism A Short History, Oxford, IBH. Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1957, p.28. 8. Ibid.,p.29. 9. Plavs: One, loc. cit., p.74. 10..Ibid., pp.75-76. 11. Aristotle, (Physics III, 6), Quoted by William K. Wimsatt, Jr. & Cleanth Brooks, Literary Criticism A Short History, loc. cit., p.29. 12. Patricia Hem, The Birthday Party (Harold Pinter), loc. cit., pp.xiixiii. 13. J.L. Sty an, The Dark Comedy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968, p.269. 14. Harold Pinter, Quoted by Martin Esslin, Pinter : A Study of His Plays, loc. cit., p.233. 84
15. Harold Pinter, Plays : One, loc. cit., p.13. 16. Harold Pinter, Quoted by Martin Esslin, The Theatre of The Absurd, loc. cit., pp.241-2. 17. Irving Wardle, A Casebook on Pinter's Homecoming, ed. John & Anthea Lahr, loc. cit., p.37. 18. Ruby, Cohn, The World of Harold Pinter, Tulane Drama Review, Spring, IV, p. 63. 19. Cf. Jacqueline Hoefer, Pinter & Whiting: Two Attitudes Towards the Alienated Artist, Modem Drama, IV, 1962, pp.402-8. 20. Martin Esslin, The Theatre of the Absurd, loc. cit., p.241. 21. Ibid., p.241. 22. Harold Pinter, Quoted by Martin Esslin, Pinter : A Study of His Plays, loc. cit., p.54. 23. Plays: One, loc. cit., pp.32-3. 24. Arthur Adamov, Absurd Drama, Penguin Books, England, 1965, p.121. 25. Ibid., p.125. 26. Ibid., p.136. 27. John Russell Taylor, Anger & After, loc. dt., p.328. 28. Albert Camu, The Myth of Sisyphus, Trans. Justin O'Brien, Punguin Books, London, 1975, pp.115-16. 85
29. Samuel Beckett, Collected Shorter Plays of Samuel Beckett, loe. cit., p. 46. 30. Franz Kafka, The Principal Works of Franz Kafka, trans. Willa, Edwin Muir, Seeker & Warbug/Octopus, London, 1976, p.18. 31. Ibid., p.127. 32. Aeschylus, The Orestein Trilogy, trans. Philip Vellacott, Penguin Books, England, 1956, p.44. 33. Harold Pinter, Quoted by Martin Esslin, Pinter: A Study of His Plays. loc. cit., p. 36. 34. Plavs: One, loc. cit., p. 34. 35. Ibid., p.29. 36. Ibid., p.96. 37. Ibid., p.91. 38. Ibid., p.86. 39. Harold Pinter, Quoted by John Russell Brown, Theatre Language, loc. cit, p.19. 40. Plavs: One, loc. dt, p.26. 41. Ibid., p.70. 42. Ibid., p.42. 43. Ibid., p.53. 44. Ibid., p.ll. 86
45. Ibid., p.19. 46. Ibid., p.26. 47. Ibid., p.28. 48. Ibid., p.28. 49. Ibid., p.29. 50. A.P. Hinchliffe, Harold Pinter, loc. cit., p.59. 87