AYJW

Parrot Trick Training

Poicephalus

Parrot Forum

Existential works are difficult to describe because the definition of existentialism covers a wide range of ideas and influences almost to the point of ambiguity.  An easy, if not basic, approach to existentialism is to view it as a culmination of attitudes from the oppressed people of industrialization, writers and philosophers during the modern literary period, and people who were personally involved as civilians, soldiers, or rebels during WWII and witnessed the worst aspects of life and war.  These attitudes combined the aspects of loss of identity and autonomy, the uselessness of pain, a sense of alienation, and the meaninglessness of a harsh life where death is the only way out; all of these things helped give birth to a new philosophy that for the first time dealt with the cold reality of life after WWII.  The canon of existential literature almost singularly deals with native authors from France, Germany, Russia, and the former Czechoslovakia; however, there has yet to be a universally accepted Irish writer to belong to this category.  Some argue that this segregation of Irish writers has to do with Ireland’s geographical location and its neutrality during WWII; however, if existentialism is purely an amalgamation of attitudes, then a country’s location and direct political policy play a meager role in the classification of a work as existential.  Moreover, those arguments pay no attention to expatriates, or the simultaneously related socio-political condition of other countries; thus, a reevaluation of the canon, or at least a reconsideration of Irish works as existential is appropriate.
       Two Irish playwrights who epitomize the attitudes of existentialism are Brendan Behan and Samuel Beckett.  Each playwright’s approach in depicting the modern world and society is different; however, Behan, in his The Quare Fellow, and Beckett, in his Waiting for Godot, beautifully represent a merciless, indifferent, and almost meaningless world through the actions, language, and situations of their characters.
       Brendan Behan’s play, The Quare Fellow, contains all the characteristics of an existential work through the depiction the realistic portrayal of an Irish prison.  Behan wastes no time in expressing his disdain for the public’s blind acceptance of the present state and motives of the modern world.  The setting of the play, an Irish prison, is a microcosm for the modern, capitalistic society.  In this context, the inmates represent ordinary citizens of society and the warders, respectively, represent those who maintain power and order—governments and corporations.  Behan’s presented imagery is that of an inescapable world where no person is actually free.  There are always powers that people must follow and respect in order to survive in such a society.  The loss of autonomy and complete freedom is always the result, thus perpetuating the stratification of power and the continued sacrifice of the masses; however, the delusion of freedom is always present.  Although Mickser is released from the prison, there seems to be little hope in his future as “he’ll be back,” inevitably, in prison (Behan 309).  Mickser is a physically free man, but with the world working against him, he will return to the place where every decision is made for him.  Whether he accepts that reality or convinces himself otherwise, this man will never be completely free.  Behan illustrates this delusion, more directly, when the Quare Fellow receives his meal.  The prisoners on the grounds imagine what kind of meal the Quare Fellow might receive and, as if overcome with their own desires, fanaticize about “sweet cake…steak and onions…sausage and bacon…pork chops…salmon…jelly and custard…roast lamb…[and] plumb pudding” (Behan 284).  In reality, the Quare Fellow is receiving “rashers and eggs,” an Irish version of bacon and eggs (284).  Behan’s depiction represents a criticism of modern society’s need for the extravagant by the lowering the prisoners to a status of groveling dogs: they suppress and exploit themselves because of their delusions.  Their fantasies represent the capitalistic lavishness of which people dream, and they can only have control of their lives (freedom) if they could only realize the harsh reality of life.  Behan seems to present the idea that life is not “jelly and custard,” but only “rashers and eggs.”  It is only when the prisoners realize what the Quare Fellow is actually getting, do they gain composure of themselves.
       Behan further exhibits the existential ideal by his treatment of death.  When the Quare Fellow dies, his number is the only thing to identify him.  Behan not only comments on society’s drive to make the individual obsolete by the prescription of the number, but he also comments on the uselessness of life by recognizing the Quare Fellow by a number different than his own: “It should be E. 779 according to the book, but a ‘7’ is easier for [a prisoner] to do than a ‘9’” (Behan 309).  Here, the Quare Fellow is forgotten completely because it is easier, or more effective, for society to do so.  
With the stripping away of the Quare Fellow’s identity through death, Behan shows his audience that there is no such thing as glory in death.  The reality of death is that the prisoners will forget about the Quare Fellow and his story will die away with their memory, care, and lives.  Behan drives that point deeper by depicting how soon people forget by the immediate continuation of the prisoners’ day-to-day lives.  The treatment of the Quare Fellow’s letters also depicts the lack of control people really have in their life.  Although the letters were supposed to be mailed to relatives, the warden neglects to respect the Quare Fellow’s last wishes and takes the matter into his own hands.  It is inevitable at this point to see that Behan is forcing his audience to question the meaningfulness of life, and inviting them to see the harsh reality of the world.
Much like Behan, Samuel Beckett explores the nature of the modern world only to find it indifferent, without hope, and completely up to the individual to form sensitivities towards meaning and the individual’s life.  Beckett, however, takes a more radical approach to raising awareness about the harsh reality of life, as he directly criticizes the public through the representation of his characters.  Beckett uses one of the most classically intimate forms of human interaction to spoof the idea of innate goodness and happiness in the world: the hetero-male, Neo-Platonic relationship.  Classically, the Neo-Platonic relationship is the strongest because it is based off ideas superior to physical love, and the forced sense of duty.  Estragon and Vladimir’s relationship, however, is flawed because they stay together for the wrong reason.  The only foundation for their friendship is fear: they fear being alone and not having anything, or anyone, to rely on (Beckett 13).  In turn, both characters do nothing and perpetuate the stagnation that is their life.  Neither Estragon nor Vladimir can commit themselves to an idea, and instead decide to “[d]on’t…do anything [because]…[i]t’s safer” (13).  Through this criticism, Beckett is trying to bring the audience to realize the reality of this situation in every person’s life.  In the modern world, people do nothing to contribute anything substantially meaningful to their lives, but instead wait for the immediate leadership or support of another person.  The extremely pathetic and stagnant nature of Estragon and Vladimir is intended as a direct social comment on individuals of modern society.
Beckett uses the hanging motif to express this idea even further.  In the end of Waiting for Godot, Estragon and Vladimir contemplate hanging themselves for the last time because they “can’t go on” like they have been (Beckett 109), but instead, they decide to wait for Godot.  This is one of strongest scenes because this scene forces an image of both men not only giving up on themselves, but also giving their lives to Godot.  It is at this exact point that the audience is supposed to see the blind, fantastical faith that these two men have for something or someone intangible, and the irrationality of such an action.  Estragon and Vladimir cannot even take their own lives to save a sense of autonomy—that is how pathetic they are.  Beckett is almost telling the audience that if they cannot take control of their lives without having something to always support them, then maybe they should take their own life instead of continuing living the lives portrayed by Estragon and Vladimir.  Although this is a cruel idea, in the context of the harsh modern world, Beckett is only reflecting the true aspects of life and questions the audience’s own ideas about the meaningfulness of their lives.  
The relationship between Pozzo and Lucky also represents the nascent nastiness of modern society in which people feed off others in order to maintain happiness, or at least create a sense of power and superiority.  Beckett creates an extended syllogism throughout the play that is only completed when Estragon comments that Pozzo represents “all humanity” (96).  The syllogism is as follows: all humanity is depicted through Pozzo’s character; Pozzo is cruel, lazy, selfish, heartless, irresponsible, hypocritical, and blind to reality; therefore, all humanity in the modern world is like Pozzo.  Beckett is commenting on society’s need to overpower others without understanding what they are actually doing to their own people, or what their people have to suffer through in order to maintain the status of a select few.  This relationship exemplifies that of laissez-faire capitalism, and if Pozzo and Lucky’s relationship is a microcosm of Beckett’s ideas of modern society, then Beckett is merely commenting on the harsh realities of life that every person is a part of, and in some way supports.  This is one of Beckett’s strongest criticisms of society: the useless pain and suffering that Lucky endures is not only so Pozzo can maintain his happiness because of his control, but also so that Lucky may not be estranged.  This relationship is much like Estragon and Vladimir’s, and it only continues Beckett’s criticism on modern society.
       Despite the difference in delivery and criticism, both Behan and Beckett arrive at the same conclusion, the defined foundation of existentialism: Sartre’s first principle of existentialism, “Man is nothing but what he makes of himself.”  The characters and their situations in The Quare Fellow and Waiting for Godot are merely the tools through which criticism and interpretation of modern society are available. Behan and Beckett are trying to open society’s eyes in order for them to question their lives and the world in which they live.  When the representations are understood, the audience can begin to question the establishments of society, the rationality of blind or complete faith in a soulless and seemingly meaningless world, and the real purpose and meaning of their own lives.  Behan and Beckett heighten expectations of existential writing and thought through their unforgiving and callous treatment of society, which reflects the abominable demeanor and absurdities of modern society and life.

Works Cited
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1954.

Behan, Brendan. The Quare Fellow. Modern Irish Drama. Ed. John P. Harrington. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, Inc, 1991. 255-310.