Universidad Nacional de San Martn
The Shakespearean Hero as the Antecessor
of the Heroes of the Theatre of the Absurd
Carrera: Licenciatura en Lengua Inglesa
Materia: Literatura Inglesa I
Docentes: Dra. Gabriela Leighton JTP Lic. Patricia Moglia
Alumna: Virginia Vallina
DNI: 33.362.378
Fecha: 24 de Febrero de 2012
The Shakespearean heroes as the antecessors of the heroes of the
Theatre of the Absurd
Introduction
Shakespeare is the canon. He sets the standard and the limits of literaturei
According to Blooms idea, Shakespeares works have shaped the western culture and
particularly its literature, so it may be posed that some of his greatest tragic heroes may
have inspired the creation of certain heroes of modern and postmodern theatre.
Therefore the aim of this paper is to discuss the influence of Lear and Hamlet on the
heroes of some of the plays of the Theatre of the Absurd, particularly Jerry and Peter in
The Zoo Story by Edward Albee, Hamm and Clov in Engame by Samuel Beckett and
Amade in Amade or how to get rid of it by Eugne Ionesco. This analysis will be done
by comparing and contrasting the motivation, character, use of language, nature and
actions of the characters in these plays as to show that the tragic heroes on Hamlet and
King Lear may have been the antecessors of these other characters created
approximately 350 years later. For this purpose, it seems necessary to talk about the
characteristics, philosophical and theatrical, of the theatre of the absurd, as well as to
analyze the similarities and differences between the theatre of the absurd and
Shakespearean theatre, in order to understand better the dramatic structure that rules
both sets of characters and the mechanisms that will lead all heroes to their expected
doom.
Before delving into the analysis, it should be clarified that the influence of Shakespeare
on Ionesco, Beckett and Albee will not be suggested as something meant by these
authors, whether they intended to pay homage, consciously or unconsciously, to
Shakespeare or not will not be an issue discussed in this paper. However the concept of
intertextualityii will acquire certain relevance in the analysis, since the suggestion of
texts influencing others brings about the idea of the constructive-destructive activity iii
that creates texts out corpus of texts.iv Therefore by comparing two plays of a period
with other three plays of another period, there will be references to intertextuality,
similarities among the texts. Shakespeares King Lear and Hamlet will be read as
textual sources of the tragic features of the previously mentioned characters of the
Theatre of the Absurd. For this purpose, the absurdity of these Shakespearean play and
its heroes will be analyzed before they are compared with the heroes of the absurd.
The theatre of the absurd and Shakespearean theatre
The first difference to be drawn between Shakespearean theatre and the Theatre of the
Absurd is a contextual one. Shakespeare wrote his plays in England during the
Renaissance, which meant the rebirth of classical antiquity in the modern worldv, i.e.
artists started to value Greek and Roman art and took the classical arts as a source of
inspiration. Although it is true that traces of Greek and Roman drama are distinctively
part of Shakespearean theatre, Shakespeare did not fully comply with the features of
classic theatre described by Aristotle in the Poetics; he created his own rules.vi For
example, Shakespeare did not abide to the ideas of unity of place, time and actionvii as
set by Aristotle; also he did not dedicate to write about Christian themes as most of the
Renaissance artists did. This does not mean that there is an absence of religious
references in Shakespeare, it rather means that none of his mature tragedies show
religion as a main concern and that the philosophical stance of some of his characters is
more evident than their religious stance, this is the case of Hamlet. In some of Hamlets
most famous soliloquies (e.g. Act III scene I), Hamlet shows that his thinking is more
philosophic/reflexive in a popular senseviii, but not religious (This topic will be further
expanded later on).
The Theatre of the Absurd developed mainly in Paris during the 1950s but its
development continued until the early 1970s and it may be considered an example of
Postmodern writingix. Most of the absurd dramatists were writing in Paris but their
origins were diversex; Beckett was Irish, Ionesco was Romanian and Albee was
American (the only one who did not live in France). This contextual reference is
essential in order to understand the spirit of absurdity that characterized these artists of
that time, a feeling that the world was inexplicable and senselessxi. Europe had been
destroyed by both World Wars and the horrors had left a sense of despair and the
sensation that ideologies, science and several things that made people feel safe were
no longer able to explain the insanities of the postmodern world. This may have been
also be true at Shakespearean times considering that little before, England had faced a
civil war and several religious and political conflicts that caused many deaths and
probably changed some aspects of the ideology of British people.
Postmodernism meant a radical break with classic modernism and contempt towards the
period of Enlightment. It is believed that the ideas of progress and reason had failed to
explain the tragedies of the 20th century. Therefore, unlike Shakespearean Theatre which
reflects a return to classic theatre in certain aspects, the Theatre of the absurd represents
a rupture with previous theatrical movements that established how theatre should be
done, such as Classic Theatre and Realist Theatrexii. In terms of classic theatre, Absurd
Theatre subverts Aristotles idea of plot, character and dialogue, not to mention the fact
that the ideas of unity of time, space and action are quite overlooked. Nevertheless,
during the analysis of the heroes of the Absurd Theatre, Some aspects of Aristotles
features of a hero will be used as a framework for the analysis. In Endgame or any other
of the plays to be analyzed, there is almost an absence of plot because very little
happens or everything that happens is cyclical, the actions are even fewer and quite
futile and the dialogues reflect a failure in communication and the isolation and
misunderstanding that the characters suffer. There are many instances of false starts,
unfinished or ungrammatical sentences and senseless speeches or as Esslin claims no
truly dialectical exchange of thought occurs in it.xiii This means that what the characters
say does not communicate what they think and what they actually mean. The characters
almost lack any clear motivation and they do very little to change their almost static and
incomprehensible situations. The use of non-communicative speeches, negative
structures and free association are characteristics of the Theatre of the Absurd as well
they are part of Shakespearean theatre. For example during the scenes in which Hamlet
feigns madness, instances of repetition and senseless speech are noticeable. While
speaking to Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, Hamlet uses a series of proverbs which do
not fit the situation, like (...) while the grass grows (...)xiv which does not have much to
do with the context of the conversation.
While Realist theatre presents a concern on social issues which are historically
contextualized and tend to show a social concern in a realistic- objective- manner,
Absurd Theatre almost lacks time and place references and social issues are not directly
addressed. Most of Shakespeares mature plays have contextual references We know,
broadly speaking, where the persons live and what their journeys arexv- the reader can
follow the movements of the characters, however it can be argued that in King Lear, as
it happens in most plays of the Theatre of the Absurd, the contextual references are not
that clear. According to Bradley, in King Lear the indications are so scanty that the
readers mind is left not seldom both vague and bewilderedxvi, this means that the
location and movements of the characters are ambiguous and that they may confuse the
reader. For example, it is quite puzzling the location of Glosters castle. This may have
been something intended by Shakespeare as to set the focus of the play, not on a
political struggle (as a realist writer would have done), but rather as a reflection on
almost universal issues of the human condition such as ingratitude or the growth of
awareness. Therefore while in some of his plays, Shakespeare addresses metaphysical
issues xviior issues related to the human condition in any place or time, such as
loneliness, procrastination, among others, the Absurd Theatre chooses the same focus,
disregarding social or historical conditions. Absurdity presents humanity "stripped of
the accidental circumstances of social position or historical context, confronted with
basic choices"xviii, so society and history in the plays to be analyzed are not the forces
that led the characters to the situations they are in, just the individual choices they are
forced to make.
As it was previously mentioned Absurd Theatre developed throughout postmodernism,
but not all of the philosophical features of this movement were mentioned and these
features, which will be now discussed, most surely influence the creation of the
characters to be analyzed. Following Esslins ideas, Existentialism gave birth to the
Theatre of the absurd xixbecause it showed how a person could face a meaningless
existence; the characters embody the ideals of that philosophy, expressing through
action and dialogue the absurdity and meaninglessness of the world and this is what is
usually considered the existentialist view of life. According to Cambridge Dictionary,
existentialism is a modern system of belief (...) in which the world has no meaning and
each person is alone and completely responsible for their own actions (...)xx This idea
of senselessness of the world is the product of the disenchantment caused by the tragic
events that marked the 20th century and the raising of individualism. The sense of loss of
ideologies and religion as tool to understand lifexxi or as Nietzsche puts it the death of
Godxxii gave rise to the ideas that the world is not to be understood and simply to be
lived in spite of the nothingnessxxiii of human existence.
Although contextually speaking, existentialism belongs to postmodernism, the
existential attitude has existed for centuries but it was not called so. The first traces of
existentialism go back to Greek mythology. The Myth of Sisyphus, which is about a
sinner condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it
roll back down again.xxivwas reread by Albert Camus in the 20th century and
reinterpreted as a manifestation of existentialism. The fact that Sisyphus had the
futilexxv task to roll up a rock as to just see it go down again and again served as an
allegory on how senseless human action can be but as that is his fatexxvi, he embraces
that destiny and perceives himself as the master of his daysxxvii, embracing the
absurdity of his condition as normal and appreciating that fact that he expects no God or
master to save him of his fate. All that is left for Sisyphus is to go on living and doing
even if there is no sense in it, raising him to the category of an absurd/existentialist hero.
In the light of existentialism as a feature that does not belong to a particular time and
Camus analysis of the Myth of Sisyphus, Shakespearean Heroes can be seen in the light
of existentialist philosophy and in consequence their absurd features will emerge too.
An existentialist view on Shakespearean tragedy is not a novelty, White poses that in
his general view of tragedy, Bradley anticipates existentialism. The metaphysical
analysis that Bradley does on tragedy and the attention he pays to the idea of fate are
starting point on how characters existentialist attitude will reinforce the sense of
tragedy and will also add a sense of absurdity to many aspects of the plays.
Hamlet and King Lears relation to absurdity
Before delving into a comparison between Hamlet and Lear and the characters of the
Absurd Theatre, it seems necessary to establish some general absurd characteristics of
Lear and Hamlet as to facilitate the understanding of what particular features are
embedded into each character.
Following Kott, it can be established that the hero is driven into absurdity when a
compulsory situation is created by forcing him into a game in which the probabilities
of his total defeat constantly increases, as a result the heroes actions and their
hamartiaxxviii or tragic flawxxix leads them to a series of absurd choices and situations,
What Kott calls gamexxx, which will finally take them to an inevitable defeat.xxxi
This inevitable defeat may be understood as the fate that leads them to their doom or
if we take into account Aristotles work, their hamartia precipitates their fall.xxxii Both
Lear and Hamlet are immersed in very serious situations: Hamlet must revenge his
fathers death by killing his traitor uncle and Lear must decide what to do with his
kingdom while he still alive. Both characters are facing choices, but as their alternatives
of choice seem indeed absurd, irrelevant or compromisingxxxiii, they end up caught in a
kind of game.
Hamlets choice lies between taking revenge in spite of his own feelings of
melancholyxxxiv and spiritual vacuum because it is his duty, or following his true self and
not taking revenge. Both alternatives seem a threat to Hamlets individual integrity, if he
does it, he would be betraying his true self but if he doesnt do it, he would be betraying
his fathers memory and his father is also part of himself, part of his identity. These
games are exemplified by his feigned madness and the set up of The Mousetrap. In this
manner, Hamlet enters a game of madness and delusion as an unconscious way to
procrastinate choice, a choice that either way it will be contradictory and compromising.
Hence, without Hamlets internal conflict, the play would not be a tragedy, but
something merely grotesquexxxv because the absurdity of certain events such as Polonius
death are inexplicable, as an absurd event should be, but not grotesque or funny and this
would be so if Hamlet was not torn by a discrepancy between his reasoning and his
action.xxxvi Hamlet has such an internal conflict that his actions do not coincide with
what he thinks (his thinking is shown in the soliloquies) and every action he does is
done by impulse increasing the gap between his doing and his thinking.
Another absurd feature in Hamlet is his existential view of life.
Hamlet is unintelligible. Shakespeare intended him
to be so, because he himself was feeling strongly,
wished his audience to feel strongly what a mystery
life is and how impossible it is for us to understand
itxxxvii
In this passage, Bradley explains Hamlets existentialist attitude without using that term,
which did not exist by Bradleys time. He tries to understand what Shakespeare must
have been feeling in order to create such a puzzling character as Hamlet and probably
he is on the right track because Hamlet seems to be in a philosophical search of identity
and in the path he understands the senselessness of human existence and feels what a
mystery life is. Throughout the play, there are many instances in which Hamlet shows
how confusing human existence can be. For example on act II scene II, he exclaims
What a piece of work is a man!xxxviii, suggesting how difficult the understanding of any
man can be. Also he posits many unanswerable questions as a philosopher would do in
order to understand diversity of issues related to human condition, especially death. On
act III scene I, Hamlet questions the sense of continuing alive if one should suffer the
slings and arrows of outrageous fortunexxxix i.e. lifes misfortunes. So through this
speech, Hamlet explores the absurdity of human action considering that death is the
final destiny and death is a mystery to everyone. God does not interfere in his logic, he
seems quite certain that everything, even death, should be a matter of choice, which is
what an existentialist would pose.
Another absurd feature in Hamlet is the metatheatrical allusion while Hamlet dedicates
to instruct the actors on the play the Mousetrap (act II scene II) . He comments upon the
actors abilities to perform their feelings: A broken voice, and his whole function
suiting with forms to his conceit?. This passage tells how an actor changes everything
in order to make his crying believable, which can be described as a lying barexl of the
devices behind theatre. It is quite common the use of metathetrical allusions in Absurd
Theatre, in some cases the actors seem even to be addressing the audience. In Endgame,
Hamm says did you never hear an aside before?xli , referring to the aside that he has
just said but which has been heard by Clov and has confused him. This quote lays bare a
common device in theatre which is somehow inverted because it has lost its original
value, a speech that can only be heard by the audience.
Another characteristic of postmodernism that is noticeable in Hamlet is the Chinese box
worldsxlii i.e. a story in narrated within the story and theres a mirror reflection of both
worlds. Inside Hamlets story, theres another story The Mousetrap which reflects the
first one. This same characteristic is seen in Endgame, but with some alterations. Hamm
tells a story within the play and in spite of the fact that no name is mentioned, the reader
may grasp the feeling that the little boy is Clov and that story was already kind of
floating in the atmosphere of Hamm and Clovs relationship.
King Lear begins showing Lear making an absurd demand, a measurement of his
daughters love in terms of words, as if love was only a matter of saying and not doing.
Lears folly may struck as absurd and not worthy of a great monarch like Lear. This
original absurdity is probably provoked by Lears need to choose what to do with his
kingdom while he is still alive. If he leaves the kingdom undivided before his death,
there will probably be a conflict between his daughter on how it should be divided but
at the same time giving away his kingdom means resigning to part of who he is. This
compromises his integrity and identity. In addition, he might have wanted to find a just
way to benefit Cordelia without making the others jealous. But the result is quite
different and Cordelias ideals and stubbornness are stronger than her fathers wish for
compliments. This is the point when Lear enters a game of love and the reader can grasp
the absurdity of it. Lears hamartia is probably his passionxliii. His love is so strong that
it demands strong manifestation of emotions but when this is not fulfill, he shows a
childish attitude by manipulating what he gives to each daughter as if his own kingdom
was a toy to lend or not lend.
After Lear has done his fatal error, he suffers the ingratitude of Goneril and Regan.
From this moment onwards, Lear will go through a transformation which will give him
a greater awareness but also a sense of hopelessness, characteristic of an existentialist
hero and that will find its greatest peak during the storm.
Another feature of absurdism traceable in the play is the fool as a truth teller, a character
who embraces the absurdities of life and people and points them out in a funny fashion.
In Spite of his lower social class, the fool shows more wisdom than Lear and even
patronizes Lear. This polyphonyxliv and inversion of social order are quite common in
the absurd too. By saying Lear is a shadowxlv( act I scene IV), the fool informs Lear
what nobody else had said to him and that is that he has given away all he owned and
therefore he is no longer Lear.
The subplot of King Lear also exposes some aspects of the absurd. Firstly, Edgar feigns
madness as a disguise and takes advantage of his impunity to say what he thinks. The
moments when he pretends madness, his speech highly resembles Absurd Theatre
speeches because of his use of ungrammatical sentences and senseless phrases as in
Pillicock sat on Pillicocks hill;- Haloo, Haloo, loo,loo!xlvi (Act III scene III), which is
an unintelligible phrase. Furthermore, the subplot exposes an even more ridiculous
situation. Firstly Bradley wanders why Gloster would go to Dover to end his life and
this is something which is unanswerable taking into account just the text and it certainly
seems an unmotivated and senseless choice for his suicide. Secondly, in what absurd
universe would a blind man ask a madman to accompany him to his suicide, Gloster
could have had better options. These two facts seem to set the mood for an absurd scene
and this is probably confirmed by the resolution of the conflict. Edgar tricks his father
into believing that he has fallen but a miracle has made him survive the fall unharmed.
However, Edgar and Glosters world becomes more insane and a real mockery of what
anyone would expect from life, when Edgar tells Gloster who he really is and this
affects the old mans heart causing his death. The greatest irony and absurdity of this
story lies on this event, the saver kills indirectly the person he has just saved.
King Lear and Amade or hot to get rid of it
The cases of intertextual reference between these two plays are almost nonexistent.
Nevertheless, the tone of both is what may imply a certain familiarity between both
plays. Firstly both plays present difficulties in terms of stage craft. Bradley exclaims
King Lear is too huge for the stagexlvii and certain scene which are essential for the
development of the tragic features of the hero seem too difficult to be performed in a
dignified and realistic manner. If the storm is not adequately made, the tragic effect of
Lear facing the elements which are a reflection of his emotions, may look like the
pathetic attempt of an old man against a storm. This same stage difficulty is evident in
the ending of Amade or How to get rid of it. If the corpse is not what takes Amade
through the skies, then the moment of catharsis, when we pity Amade for the high
prize he had to pay for a mistake of the past, would be completely lost and the absurdity
of Amades existence would lose force. Therefore what King Lear and Amade have in
common is their imaginative effectxlviii on the reader. It can even be said that they are
plays to be read rather than acted out. The plays appeals to the idea of letting ones mind
fly, to the readers imagination and not the senses. In the imaginative effect is where the
strength of the heroes lies, the magic effect of the storm and the magic effect of flying
vindicates the heroes images, makes the audience sympathize with them. In the case of
Lear, the storm may appear as a way to expiate what he has done to his younger
daughter.
King Lear and the Zoo Story
As it was previously mentioned, Lears hamartia is that as he loves with excess, he
expects excess in return and sincerity is something that his passion does not recognize.
Jerrys hamartia, on the other hand, is quite the opposite; he lacks passion, which is a
common feature in many characters of the Theatre of the Absurd. Jerry has felt isolated
his whole life and he is unable to communicate with peoplexlix, this is represented by the
two empty frame that he mentions. The same kind of failure in communication seems to
be present in Lear, who was incapable of recognizing insincerity or interpreting modesty
in his daughters speeches. This failure to connect with other peoples true self leads
both characters to human conflict and to the awareness of the absurdity of
communication through words. This is perhaps the reason why Jerry starts valuing
animal, who will actually express what they mean.
The other similarity between Lear and Jerry lies on their relation to animal life; both
characters face beasts figuratively speaking. Lear feels that Goneril and Regan are beats,
in just one passage of act III scene III, he calls them (...) hog (...), wolf (...), dog in
madness and lion in praylThese references to animals as a comparison point with his
daughters and many other passages give the impression that Lear is not dealing with
people but rather with beasts and this is perhaps the reason why he cannot communicate
with them. Jerrys conflict is actually with a dog he hates, but the dog and Jerry were
finally able to make a connection and this reinforces in Jerry the feeling of isolation and
the need to seek some meaning to his existence. The tragedy lies on the fact that
existence is meaningless and Jerrys attempts to connect with other beings were futile.
Only tragedy made him leave an unforgettable trace in another persons mind and that
was his purpose.
Both characters have a distinct purpose in different points of the play; they know what
they want. For example during the storm, Lear seeks expiation and oblivion and with
his death Jerry seeks a human connection, seeks to create a compulsory necessity to be
remembered by someone.
King Lear and Endgame
As it was mentioned before, the absurdity of a tragedy lies in the compulsory game that
the hero is doomed to play. In Endgame, the title expresses the fact that the absurd
heroes Hamm and Clov are playing a game which seems to be reaching an end. This
game is, as in King Lear, a game of love and necessity. Hamm is handicapped and Lear
is old, both of them feel the need to be taken care of by someone who loves them.
Hamm is looked after by Clov, who perhaps had once loved him but now their
relationship has perverted into a game of words and necessity. They dont want to be
together, they are fed up of each other but they cannot separate; Clov stay for the
dialogueli and Hamm needs him to do thing for him. Lear expects his daughters to love
him and take care of him but he also fails to reach this relationship with them which is a
part of his tragedy.
Another similarity between Hamm and Lear is that both feel that nature is against them
because both are old and their physical strength has faded. This existentialist sensation
that nature is no longer something that can be faced or benefiting for them due to old
age is part of their tragedy. Lear expresses this sense of loss by facing a storm as an
attempt to regain contact with nature. Hamm expresses his sense of loss by saying
nature has forgotten uslii because none of nature gifts are any longer available for him.
Therefore the only natural thing that will change both characters is death or in the case
of Hamm something which is not even natural, the rest of his life in a bin as it is the
case of Nagg and Nell.
Hamlet and Amade or hot to get rid of it
Hamlet seems to have exercised a greater influence on the creation of Amade than in
any other character. Firstly, both characters share a very important feature, their
hamartia is procrastination. Amade wants to delay his duty of getting rid of the corpse;
he even asks what if I went tomorrow?liii (Act II) in an attempt to delay something that
cannot be delayed because the body has already occupied a great part of their house.
While Hamlet also delays his duty to revenge his father as a result of his previously
mentioned internal conflict. Both characters procrastination is absurd because it comes
from their intrinsic life but the events that occur around them need immediate actions
and these delays only precipitate their fate. Amade is affected by the fact that every
minute the corpses size increases and it makes more difficult its movement and Hamlet
is affected by the fact that his uncle is more aware of his revenge plan and he is
preparing a plan to get rid of him.
Their absurd condition is not only driven by procrastination but also by the fact that
both are haunted by dead people, the growing corpse and his fathers ghost, which
obliges them to act without feeling the resolution to do it and drive them away from
what they enjoy: The intellectual world. In the case of Hamlet is the university and in
Amades case is writing. This contact with death from the very beginning raise in them
questions regarding life and death and fill their aura with a sense of hopelessness, that
not even in dead people rest.
Hamlet exposes two other characters that resemble the hero of the story in many ways.
Laertes has lost his father as Hamlet and he wants revenge, Fortimbras has lost his
Kingdom just like Hamlet and he wants it back. Both characters are like a more resolute
mirror image of Hamlet. This idea of people living the same kind of destinies is taken to
an extreme by Ionesco during act II when a second Amade starts to act while the real
Amade is waiting for the night.
Hamlet and the Zoo story
Peter resembles Hamlet because events lead him to a murder that he has never intend to
make. Hamlet kills Polonious and Laertes as a consequence of a chain of events that
place them in the wrong place, in the wrong time. In the case of Polonious, Hamlet kills
him in an impulse without really knowing who he is because he was hiding behind a
curtain before the crime. Something similar occurs to Peter, who does not want to kill
Jerry, but Jerry wisely manipulates him in such a way that Peter picks up the knife and
Jerry impales himself on the knifeliv The absurdity of this accidental death does not
only raise Jerry to the level of absurd tragic hero because he chose death as a way to
make a connection with someone but also Peter becomes a tragic hero because he has
been forced to come out of the numb comfort of his bourgeois reality and he faced the
senselessness and absurdity of human life and death. Although Hamlet does not show
regret after killing Polonious and even jokes about it (Act V scene III), the fragility of
human life may have caused an impression on him because later on in act V scene I,
Hamlet reflects again about death as he takes Yoricks skull.
Jerry has also some reminiscences of Hamlet in the sense that both characters seem to
be the reflective type who are going through a great melancholy which makes them feel
more vividly the absurdity of life and to suffer their inability to make connections to
people, especially women. Hamlet cannot stand Ophelia during his melancholic state
and Jerry cannot stand any woman for more than an hour.
Conclusion
Summing up, Shakespeare has most likely influenced every piece of theatre in western
literature, so probably traces of his greatest heroes like Lear and Hamlet could be found
in thousands of literary works. Nevertheless, the amount of examples of absurdism
found in both plays may imply that the influence on the absurd is not purely accidental
or just the result of a culture which has been modeled, in part, by Shakespearean theatre,
but that Absurd Theatre has been shaped on the basis of Shakespearean tragedy.
Although it is true that many differences could be also drawn between both theatrical
movements, the language used by Shakespeares fools and madmen exposes the same
devices (repetition, ungrammaticality, false starts, etc) as the language used by the
characters of the theatre of the Absurd. Also the heroes tragic flaws tend to coincide
and this is perhaps because absurdity is only embraced if the character possesses certain
personal characteristics as it was seen on some characters of the analysis. It is also
difficult to deny the fact that the sensation of hopelessness and certain bitterness when
facing choice are features which can be observable in both sets of characters.
Nonetheless, absurdist theatre is not merely the merit of Shakespeare. Some absurd
features of the characters, for example the fear to loneliness is not an issue that
Shakespeare exposed in an absurd manner in these plays, so Absurd Theatre only took
some aspects on Shakespearean theatre and gave them other dimensions, trying to
intensify an absurd and gloomy perception of human existence. This Gloominess is not
so deeply engrained in Shakespeare because the tragic endings seems to vindicate the
heroes, but this is not so in most instances of Absurd theatre. For instance in Endgame,
the ending is not clear at all, so we are not actually sure is Clov has left or not and
Hamm seems to remain in his static situation.
In conclusion, The Shakespearean hero has influenced some basic aspects of the hero of
the Absurd but in surface this is not so noticeable because many others have been
modified or exaggerated e.g. Amades procrastination is an exaggeration of Hamlets
tendency to procrastinate. It can be concluded that these sets of heroes are linked by
common psychological feature which is the consciousness of the absurdity of human
condition while facing a dilemma.
Bloom H. The western canon. New York: Penguin Group incorporated, 1992
ii
Kiebuzinska C. Intertextual loops in Modern Drama. London: Rosemont publishing and printing
corp., 2001
iii
Ibid.
iv
Ibid.
Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. United State of America: first Princeton
paperback writing, 1980.
vi
Here I quote Phd. Gabriela Leighton, who said did during a class.
vii
Aristotle. The poetics. Translated by S.H, Butcher. Provided by http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/Poetics.html Date:
11th April 2010.
viii
Bradley,A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: St Martin Press, 1978.
ix
This idea follows Susana Acordes explanation during one of he classes.
Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. London: Penguin book Ltd. 1968
xi
Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. Op. Cit.
xii
Styan L. Modern Drama in theory and practice 2 Symbolism, surrealism and the Absurd.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
xiii
Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. Op. Cit.
xiv
Shakespeare W. Hamlet..London: Longman Group limited, 1979
xv
Bradley,A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit
xvi
Ibid
xvii
White R.S. Shakesperean Criticism in the Twentieth Century. Usa: Oxford University Press,
2001.
xviii
Criticism on Samuel Beckett retrieved from http://www.samuelbeckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm. Date: January 2012
xix
For this idea I am following Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. Op Cit.
xx
This was retrieved from the online Cambridge dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
Date: February 2012
xxi
For this idea, I am following Esslin M. on the introduction To Four plays of the Absurd drama.
Great Britain: Penguin book, 1967.
xxii
Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. Op. Cit.
xxiii
Here I quote because the term nothingness as an existetialist term was first coined by Jean
Paul Sarter and belong to a famous quote that says We are nothing and in action we become
conscious of that original nothingness http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm
accessed on February 2012.
xxiv
The original myth of Sisyphus was retrieved from
http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html Date: February 2012
xxv
Camus A. The myth of Sisyphus
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm Date: February 2012
xxvi
Ibid.
xxvii
Ibid.
xxviii
Aristotle. The poetics. Op. Cit.
xxix
Ibid
xxx
Kott J. Shakespeare our contemporary. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd, 1967
xxxi
Ibid
xxxii
Aristotle. The poetics. Op. Cit.
xxxiii
Kott J. Shakespeare our contemporary. Op. Cit.
xxxiv
The idea of Hamlets melancholic state is posed by Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.
xxxv
For this idea I am following ibid
xxxvi
This quote belongs to Brecht but it was read in Kott . Shakespeare our contemporary. Op.
Cit.
xxxvii
Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.
xxxviii
Shakespeare W. Hamlet. Op. Cit.
xxxix
xl
Ibid
Here, I follow Susana Acordes views on Formalism
xli
Beckett S. Endgame. Downloaded from http://samuel-beckett.net/endgame.html. Date:
December 2011
xlii
This idea is following Susana Acordes class on Brian Mc hales theory
xliii
Here, I follow Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.
xliv
For this idea, I follow Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. Op Cit.
xlv
Shakespeare W. King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
xlvi
Ibid.
xlvii
Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.
xlviii
Ibid
xlix
This idea agrees with Esslins ideas on the introduction To Four plays of the Absurd drama.
Op. Cit.
l
Shakespeare W. King Lear. Op. Cit.
li
Beckett S. Endgame. Op. Cit.
lii
Ibid
liii
Ionesco E. Amade or How to Get Rid of it in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Op. Cit.
liv
Albee E. The Zoo Story in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Op. Cit.
Bibliography:
Albee E. The Zoo Story in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Great Britain: Penguin book,
1967.
Aristotle. The poetics. Translated by S.H, Butcher. Provided by
http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/Poetics.html Date: 11th April 2010.
Beckett S. Endgame. Downloaded from http://samuel-beckett.net/endgame.html. Date:
December 2011
Bloom H. The western canon. New York: Penguin Group incorporated, 1992
Bradley,A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: St Martin Press, 1978.
Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. London: Penguin book Ltd. 1968
Esslin M. on the introduction To Four plays of the Absurd drama. Great Britain: Penguin
book, 1967.
Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. United State of America: first Princeton
paperback writing, 1980.
Kiebuzinska C. Intertextual loops in Modern Drama. London: Rosemont publishing and
printing corp., 2001
Kott J. Shakespeare our contemporary. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd, 1967.
Ionesco E. Amade or How to Get Rid of it in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Great
Britain: Penguin book, 1967.
Shakespeare W. King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Shakespeare W. Hamlet..London: Longman Group limited, 1979
Styan L. Modern Drama in theory and practice 2 Symbolism, surrealism and the Absurd.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Tylliard, E.M.W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Pelican, 1972.
White R.S. Shakesperean Criticism in the Twentieth Century. Usa: Oxford University Press,
2001
the online Cambridge dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ Date: February 2012
Camus A. The myth of Sisyphus
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm Date: February 2012
myth of Sisyphus was retrieved from http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html
Date: February 2012.
Criticism on Samuel Beckett http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm.
