While reading Endgame, I was overwhelmed by the sense of emptiness in the characters’ lives and souls. Being an optimistic person, I was amazed at how the play moved me with compassion toward anyone who feels this emptiness. Perhaps that was one of Beckett’s goals. Whether he intended it or not, his theme of emptiness pervades the entire work.
The characters themselves manifest emptiness, or absence. Hamm is blind, and Nagg and Nell talk about their loss of sight. Hamm has also lost the use of his legs, and Clov cannot sit. At the beginning of the play, Hamm says, “the bigger a man is the fuller he is. And the emptier.” (p. 3) He tells Clov he will be “a speck in the void, in the dark, forever, like me,” and speaks of the “infinite emptiness.” (p. 36) Emptiness is conveyed through their surroundings: the room is starkly set and the outside world is only grey. The word “zero” is used to describe what Clov sees outside and also as the temperature in Hamm’s story. Throughout the play, the characters continually mention the absence of things: painkiller, nature bicycle wheels, pap, navigators, sunshine, sound of the sea, light, Turkish Delight. Hamm and Clov justify their co-existence by saying their is “no one else” and “no where else.”
Oddly enough, I had a similar empty feeling after reading Sentimental Education. Although the styles are totally different, I believe both authors were trying to portray a certain emptiness of their society. Flaubert used ornate description and details to make us understand that in the midst of wealth, advantage and social position, Frederic still had a vacuous life. The big difference was that he never seemed to realize it. So which is more pitiful?
Flaubert only paints the picture; he leaves the judgment up to the reader. Beckett puts all the angst, misery, doubt and fear right out there for us, yet, as Dr. Van Noort said, there are a million ways to interpret it. With both authors, we get the opportunity to step into the world of others and gain a new perspective on ours.
I like your comparison between two such different styles of writing. Where Flaubert’s style is so verbose, describing every minute detail, in order to paint a picture of empty lives, Beckett’s style is so minimalist that it provides a sharp contrast. I think your conclusion is correct, that the two stories both lead to the same conclusion about life. But in Sentimental Education, we come to that conclusion ourselves, while in Endgame, because of the sparse use of language, he tells us since we have very little information on the two protagonists previous lives.
Yes, I felt that awful emptiness, too. And I agree that Beckett is much more in the reader’s face, although, as you say, there are so many ways of interpreting it.
I liked your take on Sentimental Education and comparion with Endgame. Frederic’s emptiness, his lack of ambitions, passions, or abilities seemed to be central to the novel. I think your are right on and it was very well said. I enjoyed your post.
Does Flaubert leave it up to the reader? I don’t know… I still say he had a motive.
And Beckett, I think this novel left much more to interpretation than Flaubert did.
But I guess I agree with you, Endgame bummed me out too.