MEG – 2
Q. British Drama in the twentieth Century.
The Renaissance of drama which began in the nineties of the nineteenth century reached its peak in
the early decades of the twentieth century
The most important of the theatrical developments was the creation of the Irish National
Theatre in Dublin. W. B. Yeats and J. M. Synge contributed much to the development of Irish
theatrical movement.
The Abbey Theatre of Ireland of which Yeats and Synge were directors
attempted to revive poetic drama on the stage.
Ibsen, Strindberg, Anton Chekhov, Tolstoy, Gorky, Brecht and others - influenced the development of modern
drama. The development of science, technology, industry and commerce also moulded the modern drama to a
great extent. The experimental drama in the continent also influenced British drama in the twentieth century.
"Expressionism" was the boldest experiment in drama. The "Expressionist" drama was not
concerned with society but with man. The expressionists used symbols and symbolic
figures embodying sect impulses, and gave up the traditional structural pattern.
The influence of Samuel Beckett was important on drama after the fifties. It was
under his influence that the Absurd Drama came into being.
The realistic drama, also known as the naturalistic drama or the
problem play, presents a real picture of life. J. M. Barrie, John
Galsworthy, G. B.Shaw, James Birdie and many others contributed to
the development of the realistic drama in the twentieth century.
These playwriters discarded the romantic view of life and examined man,
society and social institutions with intellectual Courage and honesty, and
shrewd, irreverent insight.
Q. play within the play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
This dramatic device was apparently first used by Thomas
Kyd in The Spanish Tragedy around 1587, where it forms the
spectacular resolution of the story.
In A Midsummer Night's Dream (1605) Shakespeare has
included another play entitled ‘The Most Lamentable
Comedy, And Most Cruel Death of Pyramus and Thisbe’
The play within a play is the theatre reflecting on itself, on its
own paradoxical seeming.
Play-within-a-play is simply a play enjoyed and entertained
by the audience who belongs to the main play. Occasionally
the dramatist used a play-within-a-play for the dramatic
purpose - as it is seen in William Shakespeare's Hamlet: The
Prince of Denmark and A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Another play Shakespeare uses this technique in is Hamlet:
The Prince of Denmark. the Prince of Denmark, Hamlet
himself, asks some strolling players to perform the Murder of
Gonzago
The author’s skillful development and juxtaposition of these
simultaneously unfolding plots serves the function of
reiterating some of A Midsummer Night’s Dream’s principal
themes.
The most obvious example is the laborers' performance of Pyramus and Thisbe. the laborers'
play parodies much of the rest of A Midsummer Night's Dream: Pyramus and Thisbe are
lovers who, facing opposition from their parents, elope, just as Hermia and Lysander do. So
even as the lovers and Theseus make fun of the laborers' ridiculous performance, the
audience, which is watching the lovers watch the laborers' play, is aware that the lovers had
been just as absurd.
it allows Shakespeare to comment on the nature of art and theater, primarily through the
laborer's own confused belief that the audience won't be able to distinguish between fiction
and reality.
this structure allows the reader to question the very nature of creativity and of love. The
comic, lighthearted tone of the players as they prepare for and fulfill their roles in Pyramus
and Thisbe serves as a welcome contrast to the more dramatic circumstances between the
young lovers and the fairies in A Midsummer Night's Dream
The lower class laborers who comprise the unlikely dramatic troupe which will perform
Pyramus and Thisbe are introduced to the reader in Act I Scene ii. Everything about these
players is comical, from their most superficial characteristics to their deeply embedded
personality traits which include a habit of bumbling, mispronouncing words so that the
meanings of their sentences are completely and comically misconstrued, and generally
playing the part of fools. As soon as the reader learns of the rag-tag actors’ names—Bottom,
Flute, Snug, Snout, Starveling, and Quince-- he or she becomes immediately oriented to the
fact that the introduction of these characters is intended to disrupt the larger narrative of the
play and if anything, provide further comic relief to the slightly more serious (although still
lighthearted) main narrative
Upon learning that he will be assigned to play the lead role of Pyramus, “a lover that kills
himself most gallant for love”
Additionally, these goofy characters also exist to raise questions about the subjects and
themes in A Midsummer Night's Dream that are most present throughout the work. For
example, Nick Bottom is a weaver who, like his fellow tradesmen, has no previous acting
credentials. In fact, it is not entirely clear how these men have come together or who decided
that they were “worthy” of putting on a play. This issue of worthiness, or fitness, for playing
certain roles, whether on the stage or in life, is a central theme and preoccupation in A
Midsummer Night’s Dream.
In a certain sense, Shakespeare seems to be using these amateur actors as a way of opening a
conversation both with himself and with the reader about the nature of the creative process
While it can be suggested that Shakespeare is merely offering a comical interlude to discuss
the creative process, there is also the dual purpose of how these issues make the reader even
more keenly aware of other themes in the play, including love and power
the clever construction and deployment of multiple plots that run simultaneously and
ultimately unite at their conclusion. This dramatic strategy works because each of the plots
tackles the subjects of love and creation from a distinct perspective. This dramatic technique
is sophisticated and provokes the reader to consider old themes from a new perspective.
Q.3 Hamlet corresponds to classical or medieval notions of
tragedy
Although this play is over four hundred years old, the
conflicts of these characters are still relevant today. Hamlet is
uncertainly the most well-known play in the English
language. it is written Probably in 1601 or 1602, but even in
the 21st century Hamlet's tragedy is one of Shakespeare's
masterpiece.
Shakespearean Hamlet can be studied as a Revenge play
influenced by Seneca, the father of this genre. Shakespeare
has revived the Senecan tragedy, in this sense, it is a
Renaissance play. Here, Shakespeare uses the scene of
violence, killing, murdering and bloodshed as Seneca used in
his tragedy to satisfy the need of Elizabethan audiences. This
revival made it Renaissance play. As a Renaissance character,
Hamlet is suffering from the hangover between the medieval
belief of superstition and reason, the belief of Renaissance.
Aristotle, who is concerned with the proper presentation of tragic plays and
poetry defines tragedy as a representation of an action that is worth serious
attention complete in itself, and some amplitude in language enriched by a
variety of artistic devices appropriate to the several parts of the play
presented in the form of actions not narration by the means of pity and fear
bringing about the purgation of such emotions.
Although, Aristotle would have disapproved Hamlet as tragedy. Elements
like; plot, character, revenge and mystery used in the play as non-
Aristotlelian way that makes Hamlet work as one of the English languages
most renown tragedies. By proper revenge we refer to the Elizabethan view
that revenge must be sought in certain cases for the world to continue
properly. This is the main plot of Hamlet.
According to Aristotle, the element of plot shows us how he believes it must
be put together as he believes in various unities which he states, are
necessary for a proper tragedy. Aristotle believes in what he calls unity of
plot. This unity leaves no room for supports, which are crucial to the theme
of Hamlet. Without the support of Laertes and Fortinbras the play at the
ending become pointless.
The three sub- plots together as a unit allows us to understand what
Shakespeare thought of revenge. Another way Aristotle also defines the plot
of tragedy as noble actions, it means that Hamlet should be a noble person.
For example; when Hamlet refused to kill Claudius during his prayer meet
which forms the turning point of Hamlet being a tragic play. This signifies
that Hamlet wishes to get revenge when Claudius`s soul may be damned
and black as hell, that is why he didn`t kill him during his prayer meet. This
ignoble act fully justifies the theme of proper revenge.
In addition, the play end with the death of Hamlet because Hamlet is in
grieves of his father`s untimely death, and Gertrude`s marriage with
Claudius, as a classical tragedy Hamlet traditionally, the story focuses on the
tragic story of the hero in the play. Hence the Hamlet`s main plot revolves
around the Hero being vengeance, who wants to take revenge at any cost.
We recognize tragedy in literature because we find that it corresponds to a sense of the
tragic within us. The essence of Shakespeare's tragedies is the expression of one of the great
paradoxes of life. We might call it the paradox of disappointment.
MORE MATERIAL FROM BOOKS
Q.4. Discuss Murder in the Cathedral as a poetic drama.
FROM BOOK
Q. 5. Discuss Waiting for Godot as a reflection of existential themes.
Jean Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger presented theory of existentialism in which they
stated that humans had been thrown in a meaningless universe in which they had no
purpose at all. They were put in absurd situation by an unknown force and were living in
mental pains and sufferings. Life is terrible or not, it is not the topic relevant to theory of
existentialism. Hence, main reason behind sufferings of humans is not the terrible world but
that they are freely living in it. They are free to choose but irony is that no choice is given to
them but existentialism believes that even not making a choice is a choice. In concise words,
existentialism is theory that believes “man is what he does”.
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is a play that presents
conflict between living by religious and spiritual beliefs, and
living by an existential philosophy, which asserts that it is up
to the individual to discover the meaning of life through
personal experience in the earthly world.
While Günther Ander states that “the fabulae personae
whom Beckett selects as representative of today’s mankind
can only be clochards, creatures excluded from the scheme
of the world who have nothing to do any longer, because
they do not have anything to do with it” However, in my
personal view, Vladimir and Estragon have everything to do
with the world, merely lacking proper perception of it.
it can be seen that Vladimir represents the portion of
humanity who trusts in religion and spiritual beliefs to guide
them, and that Estragon represents the more ideal
existentialist portion of humanity who chooses to stop
waiting and construct the meaning of life based on
experience in the tangible and physical world around them.
Vladimir: Let’s wait and see what he says.
Estragon: Who?
Vladimir: Godot.
Estragon: Good idea.
Vladimir: Let’s wait till we know exactly how we stand.
Estragon: On the other hand it might be better to strike the
iron before it freezes
Here we see that Vladimir is depending on Godot to tell him
what he needs to know regarding his existence
The essence of existentialism concentrates on the concept of
the individual's freedom of choice, as opposed to the belief
that humans are controlled by a pre-existing omnipotent
being, such as God.
The optimistic view of the play shows a range of human
emotion and the need to share experiences alongside the
suffering of finite existence; governed by the past, acting in
the present and uncertain of the future. “Waiting for Godot”
is an existentialist play because it has clear tints of
existentialism in it. If we study the term existentialism we
would come to know that it is a philosophical doctrine which
lays stress on the existence with his concrete experience and
solidities. However, “Waiting for Godot” is an existentialist
play for it embodies Christian existentialism. Christian
existentialism stress the idea that: I God only, man may find
freedom for tension. For Christian, existentialism religious
leads to God, whereas according to the Atheistic
Existentialism, it is based on the idea of Jean Paul Sartre and
Martin Heidegger who state that: Man is alone in a godless
universe
We know that man is confronting the problem of his
existence as a being. He is striving for his survival and to
control the bridle of the pacing time. He is struggling to save
his “individuality” and this very idea leads to the philosophy
of existentialism. The word “Existentialism” stands for one’s
“awareness” of one’s “beingness”. It stands for a vital
principal of life. “Waiting for Godot” resembles the
existentialist literature because it deals not only with
existence or identity but also with the momentary and the
internal time
There is a distinction between the momentary and eternal
time for it deals with the question of existence and identity.
t. Doubts about time make the tramps doubtful about their
existence and identity. One tramp claims to be of the part, it
is doubted by the other. Their own identity and existence in
time is also questionable. One day seems to have elapsed
between the first act and the second, yet it becomes
extremely difficult to differentiate this day with the previous
by any important physical evidence.
The play “Waiting for Godot” has all the traits of
existentialism both Vladimir and Estragon represent the man
in general who is facing the problems of his existence in this
world. They are interdependent like all other man. Hope for
salvation is the subject of play and is the problem faced by
the whole human race. Representing the man in general, the
two tramps realize the futility of their exercise and we note
that they are merely filling up the hours with the pointless
activity. Hence their ‘waiting’ is mechanical and deals with
problem of existentialism.
It has been labeled as “communist”, “avant-garde”,
“existential” or just “boring.” Beckett himself said “My work
is a matter of fundamental sounds made as fully as possible,
and I accept responsibility for nothing else. If people want to
have headaches among the overtones, let them.” I will argue
that the play is existential above anything else. Some say that
Beckett’s play cannot be existential because Beckett never
identified himself as such. They may also point to the fact
that Beckett did not even associate himself with philosophy
at all
The fact that Vladimir and Estragon do nothing except be and
exist, highlight existential themes. The two wait for Godot,
instead of searching him out, and, though they want to leave,
they never do. By the end of the play, one gets the feeling
that the two will remain in that strange place forever, waiting
for a man who will never come: “Vladimir: ‘Well? Shall we
go?’ Estragon: ‘Yes, let’s go.’ They do not move.” Another
major theme in the play is that of loss of identity
Estragon and Vladimir do not seem to know who they are,
and their pasts are distant memories that are somehow
disconnected from them. According to existential thought, it
is the loss of identity that causes mankind’s helplessness. This
is why existentialists emphasized giving one’s life a purpose.
They would argue that God has not given your life a purpose,
and therefore it can mean nothing, unless you give it
meaning yourself. Beckett’s play serves as a warning to its
readers: do not do as Vladimir and Estragon do. Beckett
warns against wasting one’s life by “waiting” instead of
“doing.” Pozzo also demonstrates this warning. Imagine the
audience’s reaction when, watching Waiting for Godot for
the first time, sees Pozzo come on stage with Lucky on a
leash, treating him like an animal or a slave. This must have
had a big impact, and I would imagine that Beckett wanted it
this way. Lucky is all of us, he allows himself to be tied up and
controlled and only “thinks” when he is told to: “Pozzo:
‘Stop!’ (Lucky stops.) ‘Back!’ (Lucky moves back.) ‘Stop!’
(Lucky stops.) ‘Turn!’ (Lucky turns towards auditorium.)
‘Think!’…Lucky: ‘Given the existence as uttered forth in the
public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God
quaquaquaqua…”Lucky’s “thinking” goes on for another
three pages and consists of nothing but jumbled thoughts
that seem to be recycled from other places and are not
Lucky’s own thoughts or opinions. Everyone is in danger of
becoming Lucky.
Waiting for Godot still has much significance today, in that
Beckett wanted to wake up his audience, to show how one
can live one’s life without meaning or purpose, and to make
people contemplate and think about this, and maybe realize
how they too are Estragon and Vladimir or Lucky, living one’s
existence waiting or allowing one’s life to be controlled by
another.
shows a pretty hopelessness. Neither time nor existence,
neither reality nor memory or the past have any meaning or
significance. Acts are meaningless, time does not flow
consecutively, memory seems deceptive, existence is an
impression or perhaps a dream and happiness is extremely
and affliction is crystal clear through the situation of two
tramps. They are on the point of becoming hollow
philosophies of existence but demand no other equipment in
an audience than the bond of common perception. Bi
