Free English Literature Essays - The term “tragedy” is one that elicits presupposition in a modern context. Tragedies such as Hamlet by William Shakespeare
The term “tragedy” is one that elicits presupposition in a modern context. Tragedies such as Hamlet by William Shakespeare (1564-1616) and Endgame by Samuel Beckett (1906-1989), though written in completely different eras hundreds of years apart, both serve as sources of boundless pessimism and situational comedy. Though their themes are bleak and sometimes wholly depressing in nature, playwrights often capitalize on extreme negativity to yield more impacting comic relief. Both Hamlet and Endgame have pessimistic themes in common; one of Hamlet’s recurring themes is the inevitability of death and the inescapability of destiny, no matter the amount of procrastination. Endgame’s prevalent themes are the human existential dilemma and the effect of man’s lack of control over everyday life. Despite these bleak undertones, both Hamlet and Endgame yield situational comedy to lighten their audiences’ moods, manifested in Hamlet’s interaction with Polonius and the many comical instances involving Nagg. In order for the audience to fully appreciate the slight wit of comedy, both Shakespeare and Beckett develop their tragedies’ pessimistic themes to an excessive degree.
Discussion: Tragedy as Unwaveringly Pessimistic
Shakespeare, for example, employs some of the darkest themes in his classical revenge tragedy Hamlet. The namesake protagonist has been perceived by some as a procrastinator, unable to capitalize on opportunity because of speculated cowardice and indecision. Others have gone as far as to suggest that Hamlet is the harbinger of death and the villain of the play. Shakespeare portrays Hamlet as a man who cannot escape his duty. The prince of Denmark is coerced by what he believes is his father’s ghost, forced to avenge an incestuous marriage and a cold-blooded murder. The pervading pessimism is not the young Hamlet’s coercion, but rather the innocent lives that are snuffed in Hamlet’s path to revenge. Literary scholar Rene Girard writes about Hamlet’s inability to escape from his destiny as his father’s avenger, noting “to shrink from revenge in a world that looks upon it as a ‘sacred duty’ is to exclude oneself from society, to become a nonentity”; “there is no way out for Hamlet” (Bloom 1996, p. 59). The inescapability of one’s destiny manifests itself in Hamlet’s procrastination, with Hamlet finds he “has no way out,” vainly “shifting from one impasse to another, unable to make up his mind” as his options either force him into a destiny he dreads or an alternative that leaves his revenge incomplete (Bloom 1996, p. 59). Having precariously started his revenge, Hamlet stumbles along the way, his actions both indirectly and directly claiming the lives of an entire family consisting of Ophelia, the love of his life, her father Polonius, and her brother Laertes. The deaths of an entire family reflect just how necessary Hamlet’s avenging is; there is no possibility that Hamlet may evade his destiny, no matter the people who stand in his way. All three “innocents”—Polonius, Ophelia, then and Laertes—are unintentionally killed by Hamlet. For example, Hamlet unknowingly stabs Polonius through a tapestry while talking to Queen Gertrude, symbolic of the unknown sacrifices all people must make in adherence to their destinies. Ophelia, driven insane by her father’s death, drowns in a river. Hamlet is forced to continue in his revenge despite the fact that he “loved Ophelia” and would just as soon “be buried quick with her” (Act V, Scene i, lines 263-275). Laertes, the enraged brother, is a reflection of the decisive, focused avenger Hamlet should be. As soon as Ophelia is buried, Laertes is revealed to have conspired with King Claudius; Laertes eventually dies by his own poisoned blade, cementing his fate despite his ready and willing acceptance of the revenge required of him. Laertes’ death is symbolic of the irony in fate, for though he aspired to all that was expected of him, he perished in an untimely fashion nonetheless. King Claudius is another figure reflective of the type of man Hamlet was meant to be; in attempting to poison Hamlet, King Claudius unwillingly causes his wife’s death. Unlike Hamlet, who had no foreknowledge of Ophelia’s death in his actions, King Claudius watches as Queen Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine meant for the prince of Denmark. Refusing to stop her despite his cognizance of the situation, King Claudius stays the course of his intent unlike the procrastinating Hamlet. A sort of Machiavellian character, King Claudius is willing to sacrifice everything to accede to his fate’s terms; in following what is deemed necessary, King Claudius loses everything and dies despite his many losses.
Like Hamlet’s futility of denial, Endgame focuses on “images of isolation and imprisonment”, situations reflective of the existential meaninglessness of life (Webb 1972, p. 55). The world outside has ended, and the room is all that is left. The four inhabitants—Hamm, Clov, Nell, and Nagg—are unable to leave, yet find their existence to be miserable. With no world outside their “hollow walls”, all the characters can do is look forward to death. Nell and Nagg, Hamm’s legless elderly parents, represent the existentialist reality of all humans. Their amputated stubs are symbolic of the existentialist perspective that man’s existence on earth is meaningless; with no legs, Nell and Nagg are unable to change or move from their station in life. Residing in bins, their surroundings are indicative of the existentialist take on life. Unable to affect anything in the universe or the world around them, Nell and Nagg’s lives are refuse; hence, their place of residence is made in trash bins. Their circumstances are directly reflective of the existential dilemma; their actions have no bearing on the universe outside them, and their very existence is inconsequential as their aspirations are scant and their executions are fewer. The character relationships are further indicative of futility and the inability of any character to leave. Hamm and Clov, for example, are bound to each other; the blind Hamm needs the younger Clov to see, and Clov needs Hamm’s building to live. Though Hamm is ultimately in control, he cannot exist without Clov and Clov cannot exist without Hamm. Nell and Nagg’s existences are even more pathetic. In the late stages of their lives, the elderly couple tries to assume the lives of lovers as they may have been in the past. Nagg asks Nell to kiss him, despite the fact that their bins are too far apart to allow their heads to touch. Frustrated, Nell puts Nagg’s hopes in check, asking why they partake in “this farce, day after day” (Beckett 1958, p. 14). Nell, the only character to die in the course of the play, symbolizes acceptance of their fates and the futility of their situations. Eventually, Nell’s sentiments are shared by the occupants of the brick room, pervading their consciousness to a point so negative that their outlook on humanity and life takes new form. The younger Clov reflects the audience’s growing acceptance of the characters’ bleak situation when he spies “a small boy” during one of Hamm’s requested and vicarious horizon searches (Beckett 1958, p. 78). Clov reaches for the sharp gaff, assuming Hamm would have him keep it in case he was meant to kill the young boy. That Clov considers murdering the boy begs the question of Clov and Hamm’s respective pessimistic outlooks on life. Clov would murder the boy because the young boy poses a threat as “a potential procreator”, insinuating that it favorable to kill the young boy because of their lives wholly depressing situation (Beckett 1958, p. 78). However, Clov may have wanted to kill the young boy because he was a possible replacement in the household, threatening Clov’s erstwhile meaningless existence as a son to Hamm. Clov’s fears are realized when Hamm states that their relationship “has come to an end” and that Hamm doesn’t “need [Clov]” anymore (Beckett 1958, p. 79). Imploring Clov to leave the gaff, Hamm spares the young boy’s life, a hopeless act of desperation symbolic of Hamm’s struggle to maintain his father-like identity despite the futility of such a motion. Regardless of whether or not Clov killed the boy, the boy’s life would still end in an empty, meaningless world. Hamm’s act was nothing more than a means to provide him with some semblance of identity, a mere moment of repose in his journey to an inescapable death.
Discussion: Tragedy as Comic Relief
Despite the malicious pessimism that pervades what often seems to be a tragedy’s entirety, the extremely bleak situations and themes are alleviated with comic relief that reminds the audience that their existences are separate from those of the characters in a play. Through comic relief, playwrights such as Shakespeare and Beckett almost cheer up the audience, showing them that the plays they watch are in no way indicative of their lives. In Hamlet, Shakespeare uses Hamlet’s sarcasm amidst his madness as a comic device mocking the prevailing theme of inescapable death. Hamlet’s interaction with Polonius and the double entendres Hamlet uses mock Polonius’ pomp and old age, deriding the very themes of inevitability Shakespeare portends. Polonius, carefully respectful of Hamlet, manages to maintain his pride through what he believes to be clever conversation. Though Hamlet very well knows Polonius as a trusted advisor to King Claudius and Queen Gertrude, he pretends to know nothing of Polonius’ relationship with the royal family. Further adding to the comedy of the situation is the fact that Hamlet is in love with Ophelia, Polonius’ daughter. In setting up the conversation between the ill-fated Hamlet and Polonius, Shakespeare devises an intricate comic device that relieves the audience, cheering it up by presenting a situation no one would want to be in. The audience, relieved that it does not have to deal with similar situations on a regular basis, further enjoys the comic relief and cheer Shakespeare provides in Hamlet’s conversation. Referring to Polonius as a “fishmonger”, Hamlet mocks Polonius’ old age, describing old men as having “gray beards”, “wrinkled faces” and a “plentiful lack of wit” (Act II, Scene ii, lines 198-200). Death and its inescapability, previously discussed, act as tragic establishments upon which comedy builds itself. In mocking the aging process and the elderly, erstwhile honorable Polonius, Hamlet takes comedy from tragedy. In keeping with the death imagery, Hamlet further mocks Polonius, likening his ability to have a daughter to “the sun [breeding] maggots in a dead dog” and referring to him as “a good kissing carrion” (Act II, Scene ii, lines 181-182). What elicits the comic relief so easily is Polonius’ failure to understand Hamlet’s quick wit and delivery. Still more symbolic is Polonius as unaware of Hamlet’s epiphanic state; Hamlet, cognizant of his duty and death’s inevitability, has already directly likened Polonius to a dead dog. Like a dead dog, Polonius will surely be host to maggots one day; that Polonius has not accepted death in the fashion Hamlet has is indicative of Hamlet’s isolation and differentiation from Polonius in his acceptance of the truth. Through his conversation with Polonius, Hamlet’s double entendres reveal his love for Ophelia and his wish that she could escape the fate Hamlet has so readily accepted. In Hamlet’s request that Polonius not “let her walk [in the sun]”, Hamlet reveals his lamentations that death should reach those he loves, such as Ophelia (Act II, Scene ii, lines 184-185). This cheers the audience by showing them a side of Hamlet that is uncompromisingly tender, despite the bleak outlook he has accepted. The audience sees a comical Hamlet, one capable of happiness. In his comparatively wistful tone taken while talking about Ophelia, Hamlet becomes more human to the audience, who in turn are given temporal relief from Hamlet’s burgeoning proclivity for murder and vengeance.
Endgame, in turn, provides comic relief and cheers up the audience in the same way. Beckett organizes the play, developing the hopeless reality of the characters, as “the life these characters know is a slow process of dying” (Webb 1972, p. 58). Most any humor in such a situation would be well received by an audience. By taking the existential air of the play, Beckett plays off the dismal emotions and helpless atmosphere, turning abject negativity into uncompromising humor. For example, Beckett presents the audience with a distorted perception of time. Since there is no nature outside the walls of Hamm’s residence, there is no night and no day. Such a concept is depressing, as Hamm requires stimulant drugs to simulate morning and pain killers to fabricate a feeling of night. Upon being asked the time, Clov quips that it is “the same as usual”, answering Hamm’s petulant badgering with reference to the pointlessness of keeping track of time (Beckett 1958, p. 4). Hamm muses at the strange reality in which they find themselves. With no sense of time, he revels how artificial substances can “brace [one] up” in the morning and “calm [one] down” in the evening “unless it’s the other way around” (Beckett 1958, p. 24). This representation of a comic situation relieves the audience, cheering them up with the realization that the things they most take for granted are still there. The audience becomes cognizant of their freedom from the play; the play’s dismal reality only applies when they want it to. The situational comedy is different, despite its similar method of playing off dismal situations. Nagg’s trouser joke is an effective comic tool as it plays off 1) a past that is inconceivable in their dismal reality, and 2) Nagg’s physical incapacitation. Nagg himself makes sport of the world around them, comparing “[ballocksed] buttonholes” and generally faulty pants created in “three months” to a dismal world “God made in six days” (Beckett 1958, p. 22). A feeble old man, Nagg’s legless reality makes his telling of a joke involving trousers all the more potent. As a legless man living in a bin with his wife in an adjacent quarter, Nagg himself is a comical object. Nagg is unable to kiss his own wife, confined to a bin in his son’s quarters. He is an impotent figure, his legs cut from under him, further confining him to his blind son’s house. His son ultimately exerts power over him, reversing the traditional role of father and son. Apathetic to the end and barely reacting to even his wife’s death in the end, Nagg jokes at every turn. Though also providing comic relief, Nagg’s jokes reveal to the audience a sick desperation. Nagg cannot escape his fate, and tries in vain to joke about his reality to alleviate the situation. He jokes with Hamm about dying; as he lives in a bin, Hamm is concerned that his father will die and he won’t know, not being able to see into the bin. Nagg retorts, pointing out that he will begin to stink if dead, to which Hamm points out that their residence already stinks. The dismal situation, providing comic relief, also cheers the audience by distancing them from the characters’ reality in the play.
Conclusion
Though unapologetically pessimistic, tragedies act as both enthralling entertainment and an example for its audience. The circumstances surrounding Hamlet are staggeringly intimidating, as he is faced with avenging his father by slaying his kinsman. As if to add to the impossibility of such an ideal, Shakespeare ties the untimely deaths of Polonius, Laertes, and Ophelia to make Hamlet’s duty all the more difficult. Endgame’s exhibition of the Parisian existentialist dilemma evokes the helplessness and reality of life as a futile stopover between stages of nothingness. However bleak tragedies may appear, they pose alternate realities to an audience, showing what life may be like. In the process, playwrights effectively communicate to their audience that their lives could be worse, and the comic relief in said tragedies reveals a lighter side of life present in even the direst situations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beckett, Samuel. (1958) “Endgame.” New York, Grove Press.
Bloom, Harold. (ed.) (1988) Modern Critical Interpretations: Samuel Beckett’s “Endgame.” New York, Chelsea House Publishers.
Bloom, Harold. (ed) (1996) Bloom’s Notes: William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. New York, Chelsea House P.
Shakespeare, William. (1992) “Hamlet.” London, Wordsworth P.
Webb, Eugene. (1972) The Plays of Samuel Beckett. Seattle, U of Washington P.
