The Theatre of the Absurd - Essay Example

An Absurdist-Existentialist Writer I. Introduction Harold Pinter was born in Hackney in London's East End with Eastern European-Jewish ancestry. He studied at London's Royal Academy of dramatic Art and Central School of Speech and Drama. He was one of the most important playwrights of the last half of the 20th century, and the most influential on his generation. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005 (Columbia Encyclopedia, 2008). Pinter wrote what have been called “comedies of menace”. He used common place characters and settings (Columbia Encyclopedia, 2008). His plays concern struggle for power without any reason. He has his own special style: nobody can produce so many pauses like him in order to express horror and anxiety. The Columbia Encyclopedia explains: The peculiar tension he creates often derives as much from the long silences between speeches as from the often curt, ambiguous, yet vividly vernacular speeches themselves. His austere language is extremely distinctive, as is the ominous unease and sense of imminent violence that it provokes, and he is one of the few writers to have an adjective-Pinteresque-named for him. Pinter has written twenty-nine plays and twenty-one screen plays, he has also directed twenty-seven theatre productions. Many critics regard him as one of the figures of the Theatre of the Absurd (Esslin, 1964). Charles A. Carpenter (1973) recommends: “Absurd, which is one of the many different aspects of his works, functions as a means of getting into the reality that is Pinter's main concern”. In his own website he writes: In 1958 I wrote the following: “There are 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 either true or false; it can be both true and false” I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false? ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’ is a term coined by Martin Esslin (1964), who made it the title of his book on the subject. The term refers to a special type of plays which first became popular during the 1950s and 1960s and which presented on the stage the philosophy expressed by French philosopher Albert Camus in an essay named “The Myth of Sisyphus”. In his essay he defines the human condition as basically meaningless (Esslin, 1964). The Theatre of the Absurd was undoubtedly influenced by the shocking experience of the horrors of the Second World War, which showed the unsteadiness of human life and its basic meaninglessness (Crabb, 2006). This terrible experience of living from 1945 under threat of nuclear destruction also seems to have been an important factor in the rise of this theatre (Crabb, 2006). This Theatre aims to create ritual-like, mythological and allegorical vision, closely related to the world of dreams. The main point of these dreams is often man’s confusion and anxiety coming from the fact that he has no answer to the basic existential questions such as: Why we are alive? Why we have to die? Why there is injustice and suffering? Therefore; The Theatre of the Absurd is commonly associated with the existentialism and it shows the failure of human beings without recommending the solution (Esslin, 1964). Most of the absurdist playwrights attempt to convey their sense of confusion, anxiety and wonder in the face of an unexplainable universe. Their works express the belief that, in a godless universe, human existence has no meaning or purpose, therefore; all communication fails. Logical conversation and argument gives away to illogical speech and to its final conclusion, silent. The absurd in these plays shows the man’s reaction to a world apparently without meaning or man as a puppet controlled or menaced by an invisible outside force (Culik, 2000). One of the most important aspects of absurd drama is its distrust of language as a means of communication. Dr. Culik (2000) suggests, “Words failed to express the essence of human experience, not being able to penetrate beyond its surface. The Theatre of the Absurd constituted first and foremost an onslaught on language, showing it as a very unreliable and insufficient tool of communication. The most important characteristics of The Absurd Drama: - Comedy, mixed with horrific or tragic images. The mode of the most of these plays is tragicomedy. - Characters caught in hopeless situations, forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions. Most of them are flat characters and their roles can be interchangeable. They may find themselves trapped in a routine, or in a story. The characters are usually interdependent pairs: it means that they are usually two males or a male and a female. One of them can be dominant and may torture the passive one. - Plot can consist of the useless repetition of cliché and routine, often there is a menacing outside Force that remains a mystery, sometimes this menace exists within the limited space. Plots are often cyclical and circular. Absence, emptiness, nothingness and unresolved mystery are Central features in many absurdist plot, therefore; we do not have a definite plot. - Use of small talk and elliptical dialogue. - Humanity's useless struggle against fate. - Inadequacy of communication. - Uncertainty and lack of coordination between the dialogues of the characters. - Illogical Responses of the characters. - The themes of absurd plays: loneliness, cruelty and violence, absurdity, futility and passivity that is human being has no power to control his own fate. - World set on destruction. The general analysis of Harold Pinter's works has been one of the main interests of any critics. It seems that there is a disagreement among his critics. Many critics regard him as one of the main figures of the Theatre of the Absurd who has used many tactics derived from Kafka and Hemingway and they call him “absurdist”, “existentialist” playwright (Culik, 2000). Some of them believe that we cannot find the sense of absurdity in all of his plays, therefore; we can not prove that he is a mere absurdist dramatist. The aim of this essay is to show the sense of absurdity in Pinter’s first play named “The Room” (Culik, 2000). Key Terms The Theatre of the Absurd: absurd in this term means that man is an absurd creature and human's life is without any purpose or meaning, man does not believe in god and religion anymore, he is lost and all his actions become senseless, absurd and useless (Crabb, 2006). Existentialism: this term is usually associated with the “Absurdism”. It claims that god is dead, therefore; man is left alone in this meaningless universe and all of his questions about human's existence remain unanswered (Crabb, 2006). Comedy of Menace: It is a kind of comedy which is mixed with horrific or tragic images, and by this, dramatist wants to show the situation which seems to be like a trap but, he does not want to show the solution (Crabb, 2006). The Room is Pinter's first play, written and first produced in 1957 (Pinter, web, 2004). II. Review of Related Literature Some critics claim that Pinter is absolutely absurd as they see the first side; while, on the contrary, some other critics deny Pinter as being an absurdist writer because they see the other side. For example, Philip Hope-Wallace (1986) regards Pinter's works as absolutely absurd, saying that: “These Pinter pieces, variously amusing according to taste, and often fraught with fashionable commodity menace, are not really ‘about’ anything.” Dr. F.Pourgiv proves the absurdity of The Birthday Part in his essay (Gale, 1972): In this play Goldberg and McCann are interrogating Stanley. Goldberg: Where was your wife? Stanley: In---- Goldberg: Answer. Stanley (turning, crouched ): What wife? Goldberg: What have you done with your wife? McCann: he's killed his wife. Stanley: What wife? Goldberg: Why did you never get married? Language fails to unite these individuals and an intentional deviation from communication leads them to the solitude of a fearful void. Thus, the bigger questions concerning man and his position in the universe emerge: what is man and where does he really belong? Does his existence mean anything? Is he able to know the nature of his being in a world where the relationship between being and nothingness, between different entities in an undefined system of life, is contingent and arbitrary? The attempt to answer these questions associates the idea of the Absurd with the more Philosophical explorations of existentialism which opens up a new chapter in the history of man’s struggle to define his being and to determine his position in the universe. Similarly, Martin Esslin (1964) placed Pinter among the other absurdist writers such as Adamov, Ionesco, Genet, Albee and Beckett, he limits the idea to certain point: “For Pinter, there is no contradiction between the desire for realism and the basic absurdity of the situations that inspires him. Like Ionesco, he regards life in its absurdity as basically funny up to a Point”. He also writes (Esslin, 1964): “Pinter's characters are unable to predict the danger (Salmon, 1975). They are circumscribed by threats, but they know nothing of their nature. They are represented in Pinter’s plays at their utmost climactic state when they are forced to meet the basic problems of their being. It is the preoccupation with the problem of self that separates Harold Pinter from the social realists among the young British playwrights of his generation with whom he shares the ability to put contemporary speech on the stage (Salmon, 1975). Gus and Ben stay in the basement not knowing when and who they are ordered to kill; so towards the end of “The Dumb Waiter” when Gus goes to drink a glass of water, Ben is given the order to kill him (Hollis, 1970). One of the important elements of absurd drama that I have explained before is that characters are undeveloped and flat, they are like puppets of no importance, playing their roles on the stage (Culik, 2000). They also encounter with the absurdity of attempting to control their fate. Steven Jr. Gale (1972) writes about “The Dumb Waiter”: In The Dumb Waiter the metaphysical anguish occurs to the character who asks many questions, inquiring for knowledge, attempting to step beyond one’s limitations, an attempt which is futile in existentialism (Hollis, 1970). Gus is the one who commits the crime and wants to find the cause-and-effect relationship in the course of the events, while, since the effect in existentialism precedes the cause, reasoning is an absurd thing. However, Gus’s desire for knowledge is discernible from the very beginning of the play: Ben. Kaw! What about this? Listen to this! He refers to the paper. A man of eighty-seven wanted to cross the road. But there was a lot of traffic, see? He couldn’t see how he was going to squeeze through. So he crawled under a lorry. Gus. He what? Ben. He crawled under a lorry. A stationary lorry. Gus. No? Ben. The lorry started and ran over him. Gus. Go on! Ben. That’s what it says here. Gus. Get away. Ben. It’s enough to make you want to puke, isn’t it? Gus. Who advised him to do a thing like that? Ben. A man of eighty-seven crawling under a lorry! Gus. It’s unbelievable. Ben. It’s down here in black and white. Gus. Incredible. As it is seen in this opening conversation, Gus questions the possibility of that event in the society. He is looking for the cause, the origin or motivation by asking, “Who advised him to do a thing like that?” Meanwhile, Ben accepts it as it is without questioning its possibility. “It’s down here in black and white”, he simply states. Gus wants to know more about his job, about the disorders he sees in the basement or those who are on the upper floor. It is this perpetual questioning that candidates him as the victim of the final scene. Gus. You got any cigarettes? I think you’ve run out. He throws the packet high up and leans forward to catch it. I hope it won’t be a long job this one. Aiming carefully, he flips the packet under his bed. Oh, I wanted to ask you something? On the next page Gus continues to ask questions: Gus. What time is he getting in touch? Ben reads. What time is he getting in touch? Ben. What’s the matter with you? It could be any time. Any time . . . ….Gus (moves to the foot of Ben’s bed).Well, I was going to ask you a question. Ben. What? Gus. Have you noticed the time that tank takes to fill? Ben. What tank? Gus. In the lavatory. Here Gus is after knowledge so as to decrease the fear of unknown in himself while Ben, by evading the thought of danger, does not permit the fear to capture his mind. This, of course, makes the whole difference. Another element of The Theatre of the Absurd which I have mentioned before is that the characters in absurd plays are scared about everything around, no security is guaranteed and danger is waiting for them outside the door. John Pesta (1972) explains, “In Pinter’s drama there is typically a menacing “usurper”: A figure who undermines the existential security of those about him while his own existence is simultaneously being undermined”. This characteristic can be seen in many works of absurdist playwrights, such as Samuel Beckett, who is so powerful in creating this kind of feeling: Estragon: In the meantime let's try and converse calmly, since we're incapable of keeping. silent. Vladimir: You're right, we're inexhaustible. E: It's so we won't think, We have that excuse.
V:It's so we won't hear.
V: We have our reasons. E: All the dead voices.
V: They make a noise like wings.
E: Like leaves.
V: Like sand.
E: Like leaves. Silence.V: They all speak at once.E: Each one to itself. Silence. V: Rather they whisper.E: They rustle.
 V: They murmur.
E: The rustle.Silence. V: What do they say?E:They talk about their lives.
V: To have lived is not enough for them. E: They have to talk about it. V: To be dead is not enough for them.
E: It is not sufficient.Silence.V: They make a noise like feathers.
E: Like leaves.
V: Like ashes.
E: Like leaves.Long silence.V: Say something! In this conversation between Vladimir and Estragon, two characters in “Waiting for Godot ”, Alan Astro (1990) believes that Beckett wants to show that they are afraid of everything, even the voices that arise out of silence, they are trying to talk to each other in order to avoid these voices and maybe to overcome their fears. He also argues that, the theme of this play is set by the beginning: Estragon: Nothing to be done.
Vladimir: I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. He writes: “Although the phrase is used in connection to Estragon's boots here, it is also later used by Vladimir with respect to his hat. Essentially it describes the hopelessness of their lives.” Deirdre Bair (1978) also writes about this play: "Waiting for Godot" is all about how the world is based on chance. A world based on chance can have no orderly time sequence, and thus time has no meaning. The extension, then, is that human life has no meaning. Realizing this, humans will create distractions and diversions, in the form of patterns and reliance on nebulous forces, to provide the purpose and meaning that is inherently lacking in their lives. "Waiting for Godot" is the classical, archetypical presentation of this facet of human existence. IV. Data Analysis The play opens with Rose having a dialogue with her husband Bert, who remains silent through the story. From the very beginning we can understand that Rose feels that there is a menace outside and she is so glad that she is in her warm room. Rose: It is very cold out, I can tell you. It’s murder…still the room keeps warm. It’s better than the basement, anyway… I don’t know how they live down there. It’s asking for trouble… I’ve never seen who it is. Who is it? Who lives down there? …but whoever it is, it can’t be too cosy. At the same time she shows her curiosity about the basement and its occupant, it seems that this basement becomes a mystery for her. The word ‘murder’ also has a negative connotation that helps the frightening and mysterious atmosphere of the play. The silence of her husband ‘Bert’ here creates a confusing and frightening feeling. Out of her curiosity of who has occupied the basement, she keeps on talking to her husband: Rose: I think it’s changed hands since I was last there. I didn’t see who moved inn then. I mean the first time it was taken. Pause. Rose: anyway, I think they’ve gone now. Pause. Rose: but I think someone else has gone in now. I wouldn’t like to live in that basement. Did you ever see the walls? They were running. This is all right For me. Go on, Bert. Have a bit more bread. Here we can see that her husband remains silent. He does not make any contact with her, even he does not answer to her questions. I think Bert’s silence is funny and humorous, but, at the same time, it is frightening for Rose. This is the mixture of comedy with scary images that we see a lot in absurd plays, and it is called “Comedy of Menace”. Rose: no this room is all right for me. I mean, you know where you are. When it’s cold, for instance. She goes to the table, Rose: what about the rasher? Was it all right? It was a good one, I know, but not as good as the last lot I got in. it's the weather. any way, I haven’t been out. I haven’t been so well. I didn’t feel up to it. Still, I’m much better today. I don’t know about you though. I don’t know whether you ought to go out. I mean, you shouldn’t, straight after you’ve been laid up. Still. Don’t worry, Bert. You go. You won’t be long. She rocks. It's good you were up here, I can tell you. It’s good you weren’t down there, in the basement. That’s no joke. Oh, I’ve left the tea. I’ve left the tea standing. In my opinion, Bert’s silence is the silence of one who has nothing to say and even he doesn't care about Rose and whatever she is saying, but Rose talkativeness shows us she is trying hardly to communicate with Bert and, to say what she really wants to say but she is not successful. She really wants to say that she is afraid of the cold, of the night, and of the dark forces that may exist in the basement. She really wants Bert to respond her and to feel her concerns, but he remains silent. Here we can surely see that language does not help her to communicate with her husband and it is not a trusty tool. Rose: Those walls would have finished you off. I don’t know who lives down there now. Whoever it is, they’re taking a big chance. Maybe they’re foreigners. Rose: There isn’t room for two down there, anyway. I think there was one first, before he moved out. Maybe they’re got two now. Rose: if they ever ask you, Bert, I’m quite happy where I am. We’re quiet, we’re all right. You’re happy up here. It's not far up either, when you come in from outside. And we’re not bothered. And nobody bother us. In the above paragraph, we can understand that, although Rose is talking to Bert, her mind is busy with the basement. She says maybe ‘foreigners’ are living down there and, it shows that Rose is scared of whatever exist beyond her limited space. She is continuing that she really wants to know, who lives in the basement and, it reveals her anxiety. She feels, just the room where they are living in, is a safe place and, other places give this feeling to her that she is not safe. Another important element of the absurd drama which can be seen in this play is, uncertainty and lack of coordination between the dialogues of the characters: Rose. Well, it’s a shame you have to go out in this weather, Mr. Kidd. Don’t you have a help? Mr. Kidd. Eh? Rose, I thought you had a woman to help. Mr. Kidd. I haven’t got any woman. Rose. I thought you had one when we first came. Mr. Kidd. No woman here. Rose. Maybe I was thinking of somewhere else. Mr. Kidd. Plenty of women round the corner. Not here though. Oh no. Eh, Have I seen that before? Rose. I don’t know. Have you? Mr. Kidd. I seem to have some remembrance. Rose. It’s just an old rocking-chair. Mr. Kidd. Was it here when you came? Rose. No, I brought it myself. Mr. Kidd. I could swear blind I’ve seen that before!. Rose. Perhaps you have. Mr. Kidd. What? Rose. I say, perhaps you have. Mr. Kidd. Yes, maybe I have…I wouldn’t take an oath on it though. Mr. Kidd. Was this chair here when you came? Rose. Yes. Mr. Kidd. I can’t recollect this one. The previous conversation between Mr. Kidd and Rose suggests the uncertainty, these two characters are uncertain about what they say or what they want to say. It seems that they do not remember exactly whether the chair was there before or not. In absurd plays, there is not any fact or certainty. John Arden says that “there is a deliberate haze about the past, and indeed the present, of all his characters, which never quite becomes so opaque that we are entirely bewildered…We never quite catch a complete view of them.” The characters also are flat characters; it is obvious from their language. They ask repetitive questions without any purpose. For example, the Sands ask for landlord’s name many times, and they do not listen to its answer. In the following conversation we can see the nonsense and meaningless dialogue: Mr. Sands: The landlord. We’re trying to get hold of the landlord. Mrs. Sands: What’s his name, Toddy? Rose: His name’s Mr. Kidd. Mrs. Sands: Kidd? Was that the name, Toddy? Mr. Sands: Kidd? No, that’s not it. Rose: Mr. Kidd. That’s his name. Mr. Sands: Well, that’s not the bloke we’re looking for. Rose: Well, you must be looking for someone else. Pause. Mr. Sands: I suppose we must be. Pause. Mr. Sands: That’s it. You’re the wife of the bloke you mentioned then? Mrs. Sands: no, she isn’t. That was Mr. Kidd. Mr. Sands: Was it? I thought it was Hudd. Mrs. Sands: No, it was Kidd. Wasn’t it, Mrs. Hudd? Rose: That’s right. The landlord. Mrs. Sands: No, not the landlord. The other man. Rose: Well, that’s his name. He’s the landlord. Mr. Sands: Who? Rose: Mr. Kidd. Pause. Mr. Sands: Is he? Mrs. Sands: Maybe there are two landlords. These pauses which are continuing through the play, confuse the reader and also spread the mysterious atmosphere. Eric Salmon writes, “the connection with the surface of apparent ordinariness is partly preserved and the effect is to make us feel a sense of strangeness within ordinary things so that we begin to develop the feeling that all ordinary life has a sinister strangeness lurking only just below its surface.” In the following conversation between Mr. Kidd and Rose, we can see illogical responses of the characters which is one of the elements of The Theatre of the Absurd. It is clear that here again, language fails as a means of communication, Rose asks Mr. Kidd about his sister but, he answers something irrelevant, therefore; Rose cannot find what she wants: Rose: What about your sister, Mr. Kidd? Mr. Kidd: What about her? Rose: Did she have any babies? Mr. Kidd: Yes, she had a resemblance to my old mum, I think. Taller, of course. Rose: When did she die then, your sister? Mr. Kidd: Yes, that’s right, it was after she died that I must have stopped counting. She used to keep things in very good trim. And I gave her a helping hand. She was very grateful, right until her last. She always used to tell me how much she appreciated all the---little things---that I used to do for her. Then she copped it. I was her senior. Yes, I was her senior. Rose: What did she die? Mr. Kidd: Who? Rose: your sister. Pause. This menace that we see during the play, comes from the outside world which can be from the weather outside, from Mr. Kidd, from the Sands, from the basement and at the end of the play, from Mr. Riley, a blind negro. Before Mr. Riley appears Mr. Kidd creates a scene which increases the tension and threatening atmosphere in the play when he wants Rose to see Riley and it is like an alarm for Rose: Rose: Who? Mr. Kidd: The man. He’s been waiting to see you…I can’t get rid of him…..Rose: See whom? Mr. Kidd: The man. He’s downstairs…Rose: Who is he? Mr. Kidd: How do I know who he is? All I know is he won’t say a word, he won’t indulge in any conversation. . . He just lies there. It’s no good for me. He just lies there, that’s all, waiting. Rose: He lies there, in the basement? Mr. Kidd: Shall I tell him it's all right? Rose: That what’s all right? Mr. Kidd: That you’ll see him? Rose: I beg your pardon….I don’t know him. Why should I see him? Mr. Kidd: But he knows you, Mrs. Hudd…! Rose denies seeing a stranger who has become a torture for Mr. Kidd. He begs her to Feel pity for him and see the man. When finally, Riley appears on the scene, Rose asked him his name: Riley: My name is Riley. Rose. I don’t care if it’s—What? That’s not your name. That’s not your name… Rose seems to recognize Riley but she pretends that she does not know him, this adds more to the mysterious atmosphere, we want to know that why she behaves like this? What is she afraid of? What happened in her past? Are there any mysteries in her past that she does not want to reveal them? Maybe she had an unpleasant life before and she is trying to escape from that...! These questions remain unanswered, even when the play ends and become unresolved mysteries, which is one of the elements of absurd drama. The following dialogue ensures us that blind Negro and Rose know each other: Riley: I have a message for you. Rose: You’ve got what? How could you have a message for me, when I don’t Know you and nobody knows I’m here and I don’t know anybody anyway…Pause. Rose: What message? Who you have got a message from? Who? Riley: Your father wants you to come home? Pause Rose: home? Riley: To come home. Rose: Stop it. I can’t take it. What do you want?...Riley: Come home, Sal. Pause. Rose: What did you call me? Riley: Come home, Sal. Rose: Don’t call me that. Riley: So now you’re here. Rose: Not Sal. Riley: Now I touch you. Rose: Don’t touch me. Riley: Sal. Rose: I can’t. Riley: I want you to come home. Rose: No. Riley: I waited to see you. Rose: Yes. Riley: Now I see you. Rose: Yes. Riley. Sal. Rose: Not that. Riley: So, now. Pause. So, now. Rose: I’ve been here. Riley: Yes. Rose: Long. Riley: Yes…Come home now, Sal. She touches his eyes, the back of his head and his temples with her hands. Bert returns, finds Rose while she is touching Riley’s face. For the first time in the play he talks about his experience driving his van as if she was woman, then he beats Riley violently and kills him. Rose says “Can’t see…I can’t see… I can’t see…”, The theme of violence also can be seen in this play. Rose does not have any power to change her fate. Here again we have comedy of menace, they are in a situation which is comic and, at the same time, tragic. For example, when Burt suddenly comes and kills Riley creates a funny situation because, this question comes up to our mind that, why did he kill her without knowing anything or even asking? At the same time the death of a person creates a tragic image. At the end of the play we find out that this menace that rose feels from everything around her maybe, is because of herself. She is afraid of her past so, she is always waiting for something unpleasant to happen that will change everything… V. Conclusion Pinter portrays his major character as a woman who is trapped in a situation and who does not have any power to change her fate. The characters in the play are flat, helpless, and they are confused. The characters can’t predict danger, and even if they did, their actions are still futile towards the danger. The communication between the two characters is inadequate too. All these are marks of an absurdist play. The plot is also confusing and existentialist in nature, as it is hopeless and dark and reeks of defeat. Pinter shows another aspect of our life in this story, a life which is not necessarily beautiful or desirable, therefore; according to the definition stated by the, absurd drama and its characteristics, I can call Pinter an absurdist-existentialist writer in this play. Works cited Astro, Alan. Understanding of Samuel Beckett. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1990. Print. Bair, Deirdre. Samuel Beckett. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978. Print. Banker, B. K. The Theatre of the Absurd and Existentialism: an overview. In Indian Journal Of American Studies, vol. 26, no 2, 1996. Print. Beckett, Samuel. Waiting For Godot. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1954. Print. Blackham, H.J. Six Existentialist Thinkers. London: Routledge. Print. Carpenter, Charles A. The Absurdity of Dread: Pinter's The Dumb Waiter. London: Sage Publications, 1973. Print. Crab, Jerome P. The Theatre of the Absurd. Article, 2006. Web. Culik, Jan. Theatre of the absurd. http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm 2000. Web. Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. London: Eyer & Spottiswoode, 1964. Print. Gale, Steven Jr. Harold Pinter. The Birthday Party and Other Stories. New York: Monarch Press, 1972. Print. Glicksberg, Charles I. The Tragic Vision in Twentieth-Century Literature. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965. Print. Hollis, James R. Harold Pinter: The Dumb Waiter: The Poetics of Silence. London: Feffer and Simons, 1970. Print. Hope-Wallace, P. Harold Pinter: The Birthday Party and The Homecoming. London: MacMillan, 1986. Print. Pinter's Homepage. http://www.harolpinter.org/home/index.shtml. 2004. Web. Salmon, Eric. The Pinter Problem. Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975. Print. Pesta, John. "Pinter's Usurpers" in Pinter, A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Arthur Ganz (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1972. p. 125. Print. Pinter, Harold. (2008).The Columbia Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/columency/pinter_harold. Read More