Endgame

Endgame (1957) immediately finds its place among The Road, A Little Life, and the theory of the eventual heat death of the universe, as one of the top contenders on my shortlist of the most unrelentingly bleak stories ever. Although thematically quite similar to the more popular Waiting for Godot (1952), Godot is essentially more comical in its depiction of Beckett's pessimistic view of the world compared to the serious solemnity of Endgame. Godot, like a sophisticated version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, mainly aims to make you laugh at the absurdity of human life and only feel its tragedy secondly; Endgame, however, keeps delivering one punchline after another, each one becoming less and less funny. Its tragedy stems from the fact that the absurdity of the universe is not, in fact, funny at all, despite its insistence otherwise.

Contrary to what you might expect, watching Michael Gambon perform this on youtube, with my Thai takeaway in my now almost completely packed up and emptied flat (complete with peculiarly sparse cathedral-like acoustics), has felt like my idea of an ideal evening in. Sitting here in my soulless box, I was made to feel cold and alone in the universe, confined in my infinite nutshell.

“One day you’ll be blind, like me. You’ll be sitting there, a speck in the void, in the dark, for ever, like me. One day you’ll say to yourself, I’m tired, I’ll sit down, and you’ll go and sit down. Then you’ll say, I’m hungry, I’ll get up and get something to eat. But you won’t get up. You’ll say, I shouldn’t have sat down, but since I have I’ll sit on a little longer, then I’ll get up and get something to eat. But you won’t get up and you won’t get anything to eat. You’ll look at the wall a while, and you’ll say, I’ll close my eyes, perhaps have a little sleep, after that I’ll feel better, and you’ll close them. And when you open them there’ll be no wall any more. Infinite emptiness will be all around you, all the resurrected dead of all the ages wouldn’t fill it, and there you’ll be like a little bit of grit in the middle of the steppe. Yes, one day you’ll know what it is, you’ll be like me, except that you won’t have anyone with you, because you won’t have had pity on anyone and because there ain’t be anyone left to have pity on.”

Ouch. Now that's a sting!

“O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space — were it not that I have bad dreams.” — Hamlet

I really didn't understand a thing about it.

It seems so complicated and beyond my comprehension.

But still, I gave it 5 stars.

Maybe it's because I appreciate the effort that went into creating it, even though I couldn't fully grasp its meaning.

Or perhaps it's because I have a feeling that there's something valuable hidden within, waiting for me to discover with further study.

Either way, 5 stars it is, and I'll keep trying to make sense of it in the future.

Who knows, maybe one day it'll all click and I'll realize just how amazing it truly is.

Until then, I'll continue to be intrigued and fascinated by this mysterious thing.

I can sum up this play in the following way: it is about eternity, exaggerated absurdity, and alienation. This is precisely the reason why I didn't enjoy it - there is simply too much disenchantment and estrangement from the world. The characters in the play reflect this. They refer to themselves as creatures, have to think deeply before they can laugh, and anticipate the existence of a rational being, namely humans on earth, the procreators (a shout out to Darwin). The characters seem to be stuck in an isolated, Higher Dantean realm, a hellish place where they constantly peek at a gray, sunken earth through a telescope (a shout out to Copernicus and Galileo). The spirit of mechanization and the enlightenment is quite obvious.

The four characters in the play are Nagg, Nell, Hamm, and Clov. The first two are the dismembered parents of Hamm, always placed in two adjacent bins. Hamm is also handicapped and unable to walk. However, he is centered on a small "throne" in the middle of the stage and can only move around when Clov comes in and wheels him like a chess piece. The play begins with absurdity, progresses through more absurdity, and then ends with nothing but absurdity - plus some metatheatrical moments when the characters continuously remind the audience/readers that this is fiction, this is unreal, and you are watching a performance.

5 Suffocating Stars! ⭐

While I have a genuine appreciation for some of Beckett's other plays, this particular one failed to resonate with me as strongly. The reason being that I had already witnessed a rather excellent production of it. Without the accompanying visuals, it simply couldn't convey all the nuances and subtleties as effectively.

Nevertheless, it does possess all of Beckett's characteristic trademarks - sarcasm that cuts deep, absurdism that challenges the mind, irony that keeps you on your toes, and gallows humour that manages to find laughter in the darkest of places. However, when compared to works like "Waiting for Godot" or "Happy Days", I found that this play didn't quite have the same impact.

Adding to my disappointment was the fact that my copy of the play had a very poor print quality. This made it extremely difficult for my tired eyes to read, further detracting from the overall experience.

Beckett is widely regarded as a master in the realm of the "Theatre of the Absurd", but this particular play didn't leave the same indelible mark as some of his other works. That being said, it does offer some interesting insights into Beckett's previous marriage and showcases his remarkable ability to use dark humour to great effect. Undoubtedly, it serves as a testament to his genius when it comes to writing plays of a certain genre.

There is nothing like the world of Beckett, a world of anxiety, constriction, a world that repeats, clones without stopping, dead, an ancient world like eternity, relying on the element of the absurd, the ultimate chaos, the insolent repetition, scenes of death floating in the land of the stage, (Hamm) (Clov) the domineering ones, and other characters who have realized that they are already dead, expecting nothing, ridiculing, tired since forever of this chaos that goes on without end, (Nagg) (Nell), they were without hope, continuous despair breeding laughter and ridicule, in a dead world where despair is the only and available way of salvation, (Hamm) waits, like Judo, waits in a continuous struggle with himself, time, death, waiting, anxiety, the endless suffering with blindness, a recurring nightmare every day in an endless time, (Clov) wants to leave, there is no place outside the constricted room, like a sponge that absorbs everything that happens, (Clov) wants to escape to nowhere, (Hamm) stops hoping, tells an old story that does not satisfy the hunger for accumulated hope, scattered in the void of nothingness, passing the time while waiting for salvation, this monster that tears everyone apart, death and fate moving everything in the stinking room, zero time, repetition, no specific time or place, a world of narrow dimensions, Beckett enjoys torturing his victims on the stage, stealing their hope, and even despair too..

A crazy play breeding nausea and dizziness, the mysterious Beckett in the movement of his characters, in the dialogues, and in sowing a world like this where time is mixed with nothingness, hope with despair, the nightmare with reality, strange and extreme is Beckett, and also incomprehensible..

Bad

But I'm excited to analyze

--

WHO WANTS TO READ MY PARAGRAPH ABOUT ALLUSIONS IN THIS RAH

The word "bad" might seem like a negative start, but it could also imply a sense of mystery or anticipation. Perhaps there is something that is not quite right, but it piques our curiosity. I am excited to analyze this situation further. It makes me wonder what exactly lies beneath the surface. The "--" serves as a break, a moment of停顿, as if to build suspense. And then the question "WHO WANTS TO READ MY PARAGRAPH ABOUT ALLUSIONS IN THIS RAH" is posed. It shows that there is some interesting content related to allusions in this particular "RAH" that I am eager to share. Maybe it will offer new insights or perspectives. I can't wait to explore and present my analysis to those who are interested.

Update, Nov 23rd, 2021: You know, as I keep thinking about it, the more I become fairly certain that I really liked this. I'm not sure if my liking would have been as intense if I hadn't read it for my English class. (I know, it's the opposite of what people usually say, laugh out loud. But my teacher is truly incredible and I really love him.) After having some really cool discussions about it, I've reached the conclusion that this play is kind of really neat. It has a chaotic nature, yet at the same time, it has a vaguely haunting quality.

Like, I still don't know exactly what the heck is going on, but on some level, I think I kind of "get" it, you know?

Initial thoughts, Nov 10th, 2021: I had to read this for my English class and it is definitely the weirdest thing I've read in a very long time. But hey, I finally managed to finish a book. (Even if it's just a 90-page script and I probably understood only about 10% of it.) So, like, I'm happy.

I really don't know what I think of the play itself, except for the fact that it must be a total nightmare to perform. But maybe I'll have more coherent thoughts after we discuss it in class. I'll just have to wait and see.