“One of the most naturally gifted dramatists to have come out of England since the war,” (Kerr 29). Harold Pinter (1930-2008) has emerged as the most original theatre talent who gave fresh life to the British theatre in the second half of twentieth century. In 2005, the most prestigious literary award — the Nobel Prize was conferred upon him for his contribution to theatre. He occupies the position of a modern classic and the same is illustrated by his name entering the language as an adjective used to describe a particular atmosphere and environment in drama: ‘Pinteresque’. Pinter, along with his predecessor Samuel Beckett, has been known for his experimentation and innovation in the dramatic action and language.
Pinter appears to have admiration for human intelligence. He sees human beings as shrewd fighters. His characters fight at various levels; and a fight with the help of the tool called language is an interesting fight. Notwithstanding his characters’ habit of fighting with words, if we look at our daily lives, we find people using language as a tool — either to defend themselves against possible allegations or to prove themselves superior to others or to prove their innocence. Being a keen observer of life and language around him, Pinter must have seen this and has done an outstanding job by bringing to the fore how people use language to garner benefit out of it. His characters use language in a unique manner — as a smokescreen to hide behind, as a shield to protect themselves against dangers, as a riddle not to allow others to understand reality, and as a weapon to hurt and defeat others. With Pinter’s characters language “is a highly ambiguous business. So often, below the word spoken, is the thing known and unspoken… The speech we hear is an indication of that which we don’t hear” (Pinter, “Introduction” Plays: One 13-14). Thus, Pinter has made clever linguistic tactics of his characters the central point of his plays.
In Pinter, the room that his characters occupy becomes a refuse from the menacing world outside. The conflict in Pinter’s plays arises when some outside force penetrates into the cosy world of the occupants’ room. The terror of this unknown outside force drives the occupants to hide themselves inside the room. In one of his interviews with Kenneth Tynan, Pinter was asked — ‘what the people in the room are afraid of?’ and his answer was: “Obviously they are scared of what is outside the room. Outside it there is a world bearing upon them which is frightening, I’m sure it is frightening to you and me as well” (Hollis 21). Actually, the stance of the occupants of the room, against the fear of the outside forces, creates an impression that these occupants are offenders of the law of the land. It seems that these occupants are wary of facing the outside world because it may have some knowledge of the offence. Thus, a battle is fought between the insiders of the room and the outside intruders. While the former try to safeguard their secure position, the latter do their best to expose the possible offenders of law of the land. This battle is fought with the sword of language, making the situation, characters and dialogues interesting.
Pinter’s characters exchange words. Their talk is usually absurd as there is no direct and logical relationship between questions and answers. Hence, it appears that people are not able to communicate. It was so in Samuel Beckett where characters failed to communicate. But in Pinter it is a case of deliberate evasion from communication. The words do not end in failure of communication, rather language is manipulated in such a way that only the required meaning is obtained out of it. About this type of habit of his characters, Pinter has declared:
“I feel … that instead of any inability to communicate, there is a deliberate evasion of communication. Communication itself between people is so frightening that rather than do that there is a continual cross-talk, a continual talking about other things, rather than what is at the root of their relationship.” (Esslin 274)
Here Pinter clearly admits his characters turn and twist language in such a way that it becomes an oblique language. They speak, they speak continuously, but they do not mean what they say. They empty the words of their meaning and create mere sounds with them. These characters mean something else than what their words say.
Though the above noted perceptions are based on the study of Pinter’s plays such as The Room (1957), The Birthday Party (1958), The Caretaker (1960), and The Homecoming (1965), the present paper proposes to study his first play The Room only. The paper attempts to explore what linguistic strategies of escape the characters adopt for survival in the play — how they escape from their self, what they hide and how they hide under the linguistic garb, how they evade relevant questions, and how they fight the battle of survival with linguistic weapons against powerful forces. Apart from this, it is to be seen to what extent these characters succeed in their strategies.
The Room (1957) is Pinter’s first play. It was written in just four days at the request of his friend Henry Woolf who was studying in the Drama Department of Bristol University and wanted to stage a play. All ingredients of later dramas of Pinter like fear, insecurity, uncertainty, memory of the past, inconsequential talk and creation of illusions are found in this very first play. In the beginning of The Room, the protagonist Mrs. Rose appears to be frightened of the people in the basement. The idea of someone’s presence in the basement seems to haunt her throughout. It seems that there has been something unsolicited in her past the memory of which is not welcome to her, but the people in the basement remind her of that past. Therefore, she seems to weave a web of words to keep the harsh reality at bay. Her too much emphasis on the cosiness of the room makes us think that she is hiding something and not pronouncing what she is actually thinking.
It appears that Rose speaks incessantly to her husband to hide her fear of the people in the basement. She seems to convince herself, as well as her husband, that they are safe and warm in their room, that no one knows of her whereabouts and that the room they live in is the best in the house. Meanwhile Bert has to go out because of some important assignment. Now a young couple Mr. and Mrs. Sands visits Mrs. Rose and claims that her room has been proclaimed vacant for letting in. Again, Rose’s landlord Mr. Kidd comes and informs her that a certain man has been waiting for the whole week in the basement to see her. First she refuses to meet this man, a Negro named Riley, but when she meets him willy-nilly, he tells her that her father wants her to come home. In the meantime Bert comes back and hits Riley making him fall down. Now Rose cries and says that she cannot see. It appears that in this play there is some conflict between past and present, and that Rose’s self-consolation regarding the cosiness of the room has some deeper meanings.
When the play opens, we find Mrs. Rose speaking to her husband Bert. She appears terrified. She asserts that she is safe in her room but her body language reveals that the things are the other way round. To avoid the onslaught of fear, she talks incessantly. She speaks for the sake of speaking and does not want silence to descend on her. She begins to address Bert: “Here you are. This’ll keep the cold out” (Pinter, “The Room” Plays: One 15). However, Bert does not respond. To put a lid on the harsh and horrid reality of her fear, she hides behind the smokescreen of words again: “It’s very cold out, I can tell you. It’s a murder” (I, 101). This second attempt of bonding with Bert goes in vain and she tries again: “That’s right. You eat that, you’ll need it. You can feel it in here. Still, the room keeps warm. It’s better than the basement, anyway” (I, 101). She speaks out the train of thought going in her mind: “I don’t know how they live down there. It’s asking for trouble. Go on. Eat it up. It’ll do you good” (I, 101). After this, Rose turns to another topic, and talks about the weather outside the room: “Just now I looked out of the window. It was enough for me. There wasn’t a soul about. Can you hear the wind?” (I, 101). Bert does not answer this ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question even, and Rose’s attention is again captured by the room in the basement. Her fear, sense of insecurity and anxiety are all demonstrated with the help of pauses:
ROSE. I’ve never seen who it is. Who is it? Who lives down there? I’ll have to ask. I mean, you might as well know, Bert. But whoever it is, it can’t be too cosy.
Pause. I think it’s changed hands since I was last there. I didn’t see who moved in then. I mean the first time it was taken.
Pause. Anyway, I think they’ve gone now.
Pause. 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 … (I, 102)
With every pause, Mrs. Rose tries to reassure her silent husband and herself that they are better placed than the people in the basement. She is anxious about the identity of the people living in the basement. She tries to give a false consolation to herself that the people are gone from the basement. But the fear reasserts itself and she has to admit to herself that someone else has come in. The three pauses, which punctuate the entire dialogue quoted above, help us go closer to her heart and read her feelings even before they are expressed in the last dialogue uttered by her. Apart from the fear of some outside intruder, she struggles with the silence of the insider, Bert, who never responds to her conversation. The pauses allow her some space to make her linguistic skills better and use them to some effect. Thus, the pauses make her language cleverer and work like an aid in the hour of adversity. The pauses intensify the conflict in her mind.
When all of Mrs. Rose’s efforts to earn a reply from Bert end in fiasco, she has to gather strength again and keep the conversation going. She wants a meaningful dialogue with her husband but he fails to respond to her call. The fear of outside forces keeps knocking at the door of her heart constantly. She wants conversation to avoid the hard reality. She seems to hide something. First, she does not enjoy happy conjugal relationship with Bert, and still she tries to show that all is well. Bert’s silence is not empty, it is full of answers; it speaks volumes about his relationship with Rose. Lest silence should transport her into the world of reality, Mrs. Rose continues to speak to her husband in spite of his silence. She believes in Pinter’s opinion that “when true silence falls we are still left with echo but are near nakedness” (Pinter, “Introduction” Plays: One 15). Therefore, she avoids silence and gives a false consolation to herself: “Bert, I’m quite happy where I am. We’re quite, we’re all right. You’re happy up here … And we’re not bothered. And nobody bothers us.” (I, 103) Second, her repeated emphasis on her happiness underlines her insecurity, which she is trying to forget. Though she consoles herself that neither they bother anyone nor anyone bothers them, yet the more she tries to forget “anyone” and “them” the more intensely they visit her memory. “But I think someone else has gone in now… .” (I, 102) reveals that Rose’s awareness of someone’s presence in the ominous basement below makes her uneasy as it arouses in her knowledge of the past, which she wants to hide or rather forget. She tries to put her fear under the rug: “Anyway, I think they’ve gone now.” She appears to know that “there is something in your past … which will catch up with you” (Hobson 83). That’s why the restlessness caused by her knowledge that “someone has gone in now” exposes her fear of getting her past revealed in spite of her attempt to maintain a bold face by saying that “we’re not bothered”. Pinter has designed Rose to be so, and has himself explained how fear haunts her:
This old woman is living in a room which she is convinced is the best in the house; and sherefuses to know anything about the basement downstairs. She says it’s damp and nasty and the world outside is cold and icy; and that in her warm and comfortable room her security is complete. (Esslin, The Peopled Wound 35-36)
Thus, Rose considers herself safe in her room. However, her surrounding, especially the basement, repeatedly reminds her of her past but she tries to pose to be happy in her present thereby evading from her dreadful past. The spectator/reader can easily guess that the function of the words that Rose utters is not the same as it appears to be. Here “under what is said, another thing is being said” (Pinter, “Introduction”, Plays: One 14). She seems to guard the secret in her heart closely. Her monologue type of chat with her husband shows that she is trying to escape from uncomfortable self. She tries to evade the realities that surround her, her room and her relationship with her life partner. Thus, she uses language as a weapon to fight the adversity, which conversation on any relevant issue or even silence may bring with it. Thus, language becomes a shield behind which Rose protects herself.
If we look at the words uttered by various characters, including Rose, we find that they are used not for revealing but for concealing realities. Similar to Mrs. Rose’s treatment of language as a smokescreen or weapon is the case of Mr. Kidd, the owner of the house. He does not want to reveal his reality to others. He answers to the questions put to him in such a way that the inquisitor fails to make any idea what he actually means. Perhaps he believes that if others are informed about his position and status, they can exploit the same for their benefit (it is so in Pinter’s another play The Caretaker). Hence, Mr. Kidd deems it fit to reply in vague terms. To Mrs. Rose’s inquiry ‘how many floors he has got in the house’ he replies: “Well, to tell you the truth, I don’t count them” (I, 108). As if the number of floors keep on changing daily! Moreover, at the top of this all Mrs. Rose does not counteract the absurd answer, accepts it and responds: “Ah” (I, 108). Perhaps she does not counteract the strange answer because she, being a shrewd user of language herself, understands what he means.
Most of Pinter’s characters use language as a barrier, which they erect between themselves and others. They “reveal what they choose to reveal and confuse each other with language” (Randisi 12). They want to know the secrets of others but are not ready to share their own secrets, exactly in the manner as an armed battalion does against its enemy. With the words these characters utter, they protect themselves. In addition, with the words made of same alphabet they try to dig deep into the lives of others, thus making language a tool rather than letting it be a medium of communication. By keeping the ball of conversation rolling, they conceal their true self. Thus, the life of Pinter’s characters is controlled by clever use of language. In this way, the human world represented in his plays is a hostile world rather than it being a world of love, peace and understanding. A prominent commentator on Pinter’s plays Peter Hall, while explaining why he used vocabulary of hostility in describing activities of Pinter’s characters, admits that the world of Pinter’s people is a wild and dangerous world:
My vocabulary is all the time about hostility and battles and weaponry, but that is the way Pinter’s characters operate as if they were stalking round a jungle, trying to kill each other, but trying to disguise from one another the fact that they are bent upon murder. (Hall 22)
For survival in such a territory one needs all kind of tools. Hence, apart from other tools, language is used as a garb behind which people hide their secrets, and as a weapon with which they fight the battle of their continued existence. With the help of such innovation and experimentation, Pinter has not only pushed drama forward, but also has made us witness the real language of masses being used in drama. Moreover, he has thrown light on complexity of human nature and human life through his oeuvre.
Works Cited
- Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of Absurd. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. Print.
- Hall, Peter. Harold Pinter: You Have Never Heard Such Silence, ed. Alan Bold. London: Vision Press Ltd., 1984. Print.
- Hobson, Harold. quoted by Guido Almansi and Simon Henderson, in Harold Pinter. London: Methuen, 1983. Print.
- Hollis, James R., Harold Pinter: The Poetics of Silence. Carbondale, IL. Southern Illinois UP, 1970. Print.
- Kerr, Walter. quoted by Martin Esslin, in The Peopled Wound: The Plays of Harold Pinter. London: Methuen, 1970. Print.
- Pinter, Harold. “The Caretaker”, Plays: Two 1977; rpt. London: Methuen, 1988. Print. ---. “The Room”, Plays: One 1976; rpt. London: Methuen, 1985. Print.
- ---. interview with Sherwood, quoted in Esslin, Martin. The Peopled Wound: The Plays of Harold Pinter. London: Methuen, 1970. Print.
- Randisi, Jennifer S. “Harold Pinter as Screenwriter”, in Harold Pinter: You Have Never Heard Such Silence, ed. Alan Bold (London: Vision Press Ltd., 1984). Print.