CHAPTER III
REALISM IN THE CARETAKER (1960)
The Caretaker is the second full-length play by Harold Pinter. It is a three act, three character play.
Aston and Mick are brothers. Aston the elder brother is in his early thirties and Mick the younger brother is in his late twenties. Mick, as we understand, is a successful businessman; he owns a small van and lives somewhere else. Aston lives in an old house in a western suburb of London bought for him by Mick. Only one room in the house is livable and others are 'out of commission'. Even the livable room is cluttered up with old furniture and junk collected by Aston. The ceiling of the room has a leakage. A bucket hangs from the roof to catch the water that drips through.
The first act begins with Mick's silent inspection of the room. In short while./Aston enters the room with an old tramp, Davies,whom he has saved from a brawl in a cafe. During the conversation, Davies tells Aston that his name is Jenkins. That is his official name on his insurance card. But further he returns to Mac Davies as his real name. Davies tells that his papers which can prove his identity are left at Sidcup. He has no shoes and the weather is not clear so he has to postpone his journey to Sidcup.
Aston feels sorry for Davies and he invites him to stay with him until he finds place somewhere. The next morning Aston mildly complains that
Davies has been talking in his sleep. Davies denies it and attributes it to 'them
Blacks.... Next door.' In spite of Aston's complete ignorance about Davies'
87 identity and nature, he trusts him and gives second key of the room to him. As
Aston leaves the room, Davies, left alone, is frightened by the menace of the junk, especially electric plug and gas stove. In fact these objects are out of use.
At this moment, Mick secretly enters the room and frightens Davies out of his wits by suddenly seizing him.
The second act continues the last scene of the first act. Mick subjects Davies to a torturing cross-examination. Aston enters the room at this time and tells Davies that he has brought his bag from the cafe. Mick grabs the bag and a cyclic contest for its possession begins among the three. Mick finally throws it over to Davies and leaves the room. Aston has shown great concern for
Davies by offering him the job of the caretaker of the house.
In the next scene, Davies returns to the room in the evening. He gets into extreme panic because there is no light and there comes a loud and eerie noise. When the light is on, Davies is seen with a knife in his hand ready to attack. In fact, the loud and eerie noise is there because Mick is using a vacuum cleaner and has exhausted the electric supply. Mick this time appears polite to
Davies. He complains about Aston's laziness and offers the job of caretaker to him. He asks Davies about some references for the job. Davies promises that he will be able to produce the references as soon as he gets down to Sidcup.
Davies recognizes Mick's superiority and speaks ill of Aston.
The next morning the tension grows between Aston and Davies on the matter of keeping the window open. Aston wants it open for the fresh air.
Davies wants it closed as the rain comes in. Aston then begins to tell Davies the
88 story of his life. In a self-revealing monologue Aston tells him that considering him to be excessively talkative and abnormal, he was taken to mental hospital and given a shock- treatment. He tells that he was as good and active as anyone else but because of the shock treatment he has become slow and incapable of any work.
The third act opens with Mick's description of his dream to
Davies. Mick wishes the derelict house to turn into a luxurious penthouse. Davies is excited by this treatment and confidence shown into him and considers himself on par with Mick. He complains to him about Aston. Shortly after Aston returns with a pair of shoes for Davies. But Davies finds faults with them. In the night when Aston complains about Davies' talking in sleep and making noises, Davies reacts with anger and contempt. He even pulls out the knife to intimidate Aston.
Aston tells him that it is high time that he should leave the house. Davies in turn tells him that he is in charge of the house and it is Aston who has to go.
The same evening, Davies returns and speaks ill of Aston to Mick.
Mick seems to be listening attentively. But when Davies suggests that Aston should go back to mental hospital because he is 'nutty', Mick's attitude changes.
He calls Davies 'imposter' and discharges him off his job of interior decorator. In his anger, Mick smashes the statue of the Buddha, one of Aston's favourite objects in the room. Aston enters the room at this time. The two brothers look at each other and smile faintly. Mick tries to speak but cannot manage and leaves the room. Aston sees the broken statue, recollects it and silently passes behind
Davies to work on the electric plug. Davies tries to regain Aston's favour but it is
89 all in vain. The play ends with Davies desperately pleading for Aston's permission to stay in the room, and Aston standing silently by the window with his back to Davies.
This bare storyline shows that the play is relatively more realistic.
It is confirmed by the play's unlikeness to the earlier plays in certain respects. In
The Room and The Birthday Party, Rose Hudd and Stanley Webber possess safe places and try to defend themselves against the intruders. Whereas in this play, Davies does not have any place and he tries to find one. In the earlier plays intruders come from the outside world and there is a constant dread of being expelled out of the safe place. Here Davies, the invited guest turns into an intruder. He tries to get a position in the house and fights constantly to prevent his expulsion. Secondly, Davies' expulsion is not brought about by any mysterious agency or fate. It is the direct consequence of his inability to rise above his base nature and share the feelings of his benefactor, Aston. The degree of mysteriousness about the characters is comparatively mitigated in this play and surface realism is rigidly observed. But it will become evident that such increased degree of reality is superficial if the play is closely analyzed. We certainly notice a relative increase in the realistic plane of the play, but at the same time we do observe that it is the sharpening of the reality to the point where the ordinary and commonplace situation signifies the underlying human condition. Pinter himself has pointed to such significance:
As far as I'm concerned The Caretaker is funny, up to a point. Beyond that point it ceases to be funny, and it was because of that point that I wrote it (Dukore, 1984:55).
90 This 'point' is the twist in the play where all apparently realistic aspects signify underlying realities.
The play continues to deal with Pinter's earlier thematic concerns.
It presents them In a reversed situation and with a new perspective. In other words, Pinter's exploration of the underlying reality of the ordinary human existence in the previous plays reappears in this play too. Existential themes like menace, loss of security and identity, struggle for space and dominance receive more focused treatment in this play. Guido Almansi and Simon Henderson
(1984:51) offer a very striking remark In this regard:
In The Caretaker (1959), one of Pinter's most obscure plays and also one of his best, we are left In the dark room from the outset. The opening scene has Mick silently looking around the pile of junk in his brother's room, and the Initial question raised -and never fully resolved- Is who Is this Man and what game Is he playing?
Pinter withholds exposition in this play. He does not provide background of the
characters, motivation of their words and actions. A mysterious atmosphere
surrounds all the three characters and their mutual relationship.
The researcher proposes to analyze all aspects of the play to
examine the reflection of Pinter's realism at various levels. As it is in the previous
plays, setting of the play is realistic. It has a recognizable social context. It
embodies the lower class suburban London life. However unlike the setting of
The Birthday Party, it has only one habitable room in the large house since other
rooms are 'out of commission' and need 'a lot of doing to'. Even the habitable
room is cluttered with junk indiscriminatingly collected by Aston. Pinter describes
the realistic set in greater detail than in the earlier plays since it is vital to the
91 action of the play. The setting does not merely provide environment to the
characters. It becomes the part of the action of the play, since it embodies the
characters' concerns for safety, autonomy and interaction with the outside world.
It holds a possibility of realizing subtextual dreams for the characters. As
Bernard F. Dukore (1982:55) observes:
Realistic, the setting matches the play's dialogue and action. Like them, it suggests more than real.
The room and the junk inside reflect more than the mere physical appearance.
The room serves as a protective shell for Aston and badly pursued shelter for
Davies. Austin Quigley (1975:65) precisely underlines the indicative function of
the room:
In^The Caretaker, Pinter focuses on the room itself-its ability to shield, to exclude and impose itself on the characters.
The room provides protection to Aston from the outside world which had subjected him to acute mental persecution. It seems to shield his slow-wittedness and inability to work. It accommodates the old tramp Davies and offers warmth to him. It even opens a new possibility for him to settle down and avoid insecure life. The room thus appears to provide security, belongingness, identity and sustenance to/and Davies.
The room may be identified with Aston because it is the extension of his personality. It reciprocates with his nature, attitude and illusions, it is
unkempt, disordered and full of the objects indiscriminately collected. Its very
92 untidy appearance and the junk in it suggest the nature of its occupant. It is what
its occupant is. It concretizes its occupant's mental make-up.
Bernard. F. Dukore (1982:55) points out the association between
Aston and the disorder in the room:
The scenic clutter and disarray reflect the mind of the room's occupant, the absence of an orderly world in which everything has a place, and only makeshift means to cope with difficulties.
The junk in the room suggests illogical but humanely accommodating nature of the occupant of room. The objects like paint buckets, kitchen sink, shopping trolley, gas-stove, a statute of the Buddha, rolled carpet, blow-lamp, a number of
ornaments, a small electric fire and a very old electric toaster -are not properly
placed and are not usable. Kitchen sink is not connected with the water pipe, gas-stove is not connected with the gas, and electric fire is not connected with the mains. Paint buckets, lawnmower, suitcases, and boxes are useless items. A
pile of old newspapers, ornaments and the statue of the Buddha are out of place
and have no reason to be in the room. The room has become a storage of
indiscriminate and non-functional objects. Like Aston, it immersed in chaos. The
room suggests the characters' concerns for safety and identity. It becomes
associated with their personal autonomy. Its significative function may be
observed in its association with the three characters in the play.
From Aston's perspective, the room works as a protection for him
from the outside world. Aston is slow and awkward. Sometime in the past, he
used to be as nimble and active as Mick. But as we learn from his speech in the
second act, his overtalkativeness had taken him to the mental hospital. There he
93 was subjected to a shock treatment and he lost his power to think logically and work effectively. Now he thinks slow, speaks less and works more with hands.
Such state of life needs protection, needs a private world where he can go by his own pace. The room provides him such protection and privacy. There has been a deep-seated feeling of insecurity in Aston's mind. He has experienced how the world can be torturous to a highly sensitive person. Even his mother whom he had expected to save him from the shock treatment had ruthlessly consented it.
He therefore fears that the world might subject him to yet another persecution.
The room for Aston:
represents a place where he can labour with his hands to erect his own Sidcup (Baker&Tabachnich, 1973:80-81).
As it epitomizes security and privacy for him so it epitomizes the possibility of reestablishment of contact with the world. He looks upon the room as a place where he can realize his dream, become functional and get going as Mick. Aston has his own way of dealing with the world. Words do not help him. He deals with his hands and communicates through his work. Working with hands is his mode of operation and the room provides protected space for it. He dreams to build a shed. He thinks that it will help him prove his worth and rediscover his identity.
The room holds the illusion of rebuilding his life. But in effect we find that the room neither provides security to Aston nor fulfils his dream. It does not change into a medium for him to reestablish contact with the outside world. With Davies' entry the room begins to turn into an insecure place and a source of conflict.
94 Gradually it becomes clear that Davies wants to possess the room and drive
Aston out.
From Davies' perspective the room:
represents a goal, a minimum but secure and final place in society that he must achieve at all costs; at the same time, it represents a threat, a place where enemies could locate him (Baker&Tabachnich, 1973:80-81).
Davies is an old homeless tramp. It has been his life-long pursuit to possess an enclosed and safe place. He knows that his homelessness is the source of all troubles in his life. It has made him insecure and rootless. Unlike Rose Hudd and
Stanley Webber, home is Davies' primary quest. His old age and homelessness pitied on by Aston facilitate his entry into Aston's room. And the room turns into a lucrative possibility of realizing his dream of home. Davies is frightened of the outside world. He needs security. Aston has saved him from a brawl in a cafe.
The small encounter implies that the old tramp's life outside is not safe. His old age and assigned work have not been considered and duly respected by the world. He complains Aston that he was asked to take out the bucket in the cafe which was not his job. But he was forced to do that and later was knocked by the
Scotchman. This was a humiliating defiance of his old age and also the indication of his vulnerability. It was all because of his homelessness and his inability to be functional and reactive in the world. Even in Aston's room, he lives constantly under the threat of the outside world. Like Stanley, the fear of being spotted and abducted continues to nag him. Like the intruders - Goldberg and McCann- the
'Blacks' can take hold of him and mercilessly drag him into the unprotected
95 world. He attributes his fear with the 'Blacks' and remains prepared in the posture of attack with his knife in hand. The room can give Davies the most urgently needed security. Even though he tells Aston that he will find the place for himself very soon it is not very difficult to understand that he is not telling the truth and that he does not intend to leave the house. His stay in Aston's room can offer him security from the outside menace.
But the room frustrates Davies' illusion and reduces him to his earlier state of insecurity and homelessness. It temporarily provides him a secure stay. He could have enjoyed its warmth and safety for the longer time, had he understood its terms and behaved accordingly. He should have reciprocated with
Aston's generosity and kindness without treacherously asserting his intention of possessing the room. But he wishes to posses the room. And his possession means Aston's expulsion. He struggles hard to expel Aston by forcefully asserting his claim on the room. As a consequence he is expelled. Thus the safe and accommodating appearance of the room betrays the ultimate reality of
Davies' existence - his hopeless and unending travel in the torturous world.
For Mick the room becomes a professionally pursued dream of a luxurious penthouse. He has kept Aston as in charge of the house and has given him a modest work of turning it into a habitable place. Aston has not been able to do the assigned job. His junk-littered room and leakage in the ceiling show that he could not turn it into at least a well maintained place. Mick hopes to bring order and tidiness in the room. He dreams to turn it into a luxurious house. But like Aston, the room is unable to connect the things and unable to appear elegant
96 and livable. He believes that the room at least provides security and privacy to his brother and that it will help him regain his confidence to build his shed, to build relations with the outside world. But with Davies' entry the room becomes a threatening place to Aston and thereby a challenge to their familial ties. The room that was assumed to be providing security to Aston now becomes a hunted place for Davies. Mick has then to win back the room by expelling Davies, the intruder and restore his brother to his earlier safe and unscathed dwelling. The room which represents the professional dream of Mick becomes an insecure place and makes his dream a very faint possibility.
The stage props In the play signify and make explicit below the surface motives. It is very important to note that not all the items described in the play have individual significance. But as a cluttered junk, they indicate the underlying reality of chaos and lack of connectivity. Austin Quigley (1975:65) puts it as:
The chaos inside is indicated by the debris in the house, the leaking ceiling, the strange conduct of the men in the room.
It is an indiscriminate and unmindful collection. The items are not and perhaps cannot be connected and put into use. They suggest the lack of connectivity, functionality and isolation from the world of order and activity. Some of them externalize Davies' concern for safety and subtextual menace.
The electric plug and the gas stove appear as unconnected and out of use items. The plug does not have electric power supply and the gas stove is not connected with the gas. So they are non-functional and harmless. But they
97 signify the deeply seated menace in Davies. When Aston tells Davies to switch on the plug to get fire, Davies is scared. His reaction is 'I won't bother about if and 'I don't go in for them things much' (p. 26). Davies enquires Aston about the gas stove. Aston replies 'It's not connected' (p.26). But the trouble with Davies is
'it's right on top my bed.' Apparently Davies is afraid of the plug which may carry electrical supply and the gas stove may let out fire. It is abnormal and uncanny fear. But it is the indication of a very potential threat. It has affiliations with
Davies' attribution to his persecution in the monastery at Luton, to the Scotchman in the cafe and to the 'Blacks' neighboring Aston's flat. Like Stanley, Davies is afraid of the unguarded outdoor life. He is incapable of defending himself against the threats and fears of the outside world.
If the electric plug reveals Davies' fears, it also refers to reciprocal of Aston's fear. We find Aston always engaged with the electric toaster and the electric plug. It is apparently very strange that Aston works hopelessly with the plug. When Davies converses with him, Aston works with the plug (p. 22) in the first act, and when Davies pleads for mercy, Aston is busy with the plug (p. 75) in the third act. It has association with Astons' revelation in the monologic speech at end of second act. The electric plug indicates Aston's electric shock treatment.
His engagement with it at once suggests the electric pincers put on his head to make him socially acceptable and his loss of his contact with the outside world and alacrity of mind. So the electric plug indicates the menace of mental persecution Aston has suffered. It suggests his efforts to get back to his previous state of mind by mending it.
98 Electrolux is another stage object in this sequence that reveals the
underlying menace. On the surface level, it is a commonplace instrument and
Mick is busy doing a usual activity with it. But the darkness that it creates by exhausting electricity and its eerie noise suddenly grip Davies. He is taken over by the panic and his movements and words (p. 45) suggest that he is terribly unnerved. He appears hopelessly in the posture of defense. The electrolux externalizes menace in Davies' mind.
Shoes as a stage prop acquire a special significance in the play.
In fact shoes are very insignificant object. But they are so effectively used that they give up their routine standing and signify the subtextual motive. They suggest safety, mobility and a definite excuse for Davies to postpone his trip to
Sidcup. For Davies, shoes are 'life and death' (p. 13). Presently he does not have shoes because he had lost them in the monastery down at Luton. He enquires
Aston about a spare pair of shoes. Aston looks out for a black pair and offers it to him. Davies tries them on and finds that they don't fit. He says These are too
pointed' (p. 15). Next time when Aston offers a pair of shoes to Davies, he rejects them saying they are not right and they do not have laces (p. 65). On the surface
level, Davies does not have a pair of shoes and he badly needs them. Whichever
Aston offers are misfit and unusable for him. But the underlying significance is
that shoes offer safety to a mobile life. Till the point of entering Aston's room,
Davies' life was mobile and so he needed shoes. But now he does not need
them. He rejects them under petty faults. Davies certainly does not wish to be
mobile henceforth. He does not require them because they can pull him out of
99 the safe house and make mobile. Now his safety lies in not trying on any one of them. His finding fault with the shoes is an implicit denial to go out of the house.
Accepting shoes is accepting the bid to leave and go down to Sidcup.
The statue of Buddha is another stage object that signifies the mystery of Aston's mental set-up and the nature of relationship between Aston and Davies. It is as common as any statue and one of the items in Aston's collection. Aston tells Davies that he just picked it up in a shop, 'Looked quite nice to me.
Don't know why' (p. 17). As with other items, Aston does not know why he has brought the statute and what is its utility. But because particularly the statue is mentioned and that it is very odd, it is very special. Baker and
Tabachnick (1973:79) call "the Buddha like Aston". Steven H. Gale (1977:92) finds the statue as Aston's prototype: Th '^G3\
It might be mentioned that the mysterious and conspicuous figure of Buddha which Mick smashes (much as society crushed Aston) is the statue of a sensitive man. **
The statue is the concretization of Aston's generous and compassionate mind. It suggests his saintly and unworldly nature. He brought it as he has brought
Davies in the house without bothering about its utility or relevance. Aston behaves very much like Buddha. So the statue signifies Aston's compassionate nature.
A bucket that hangs from the ceiling is another trivial object that signifies the underlying reality of Aston's endeavor to mend his damaged communication with the world and his temporary remedy to deal with serious problems of life. It is also his attempt to integrate himself against the leaking-
100 intruding world. The first reference to the bucket is made with Mick's staring at it in the opening of the first act. Its next mention is made by Mick at a very crucial point when he winds up his cross- examination of Davies. As Aston enters the room and engages with his electric toaster, Mick sits in the chair and a drip sound in the bucket is heard (p.37). Mick asks Aston about the leak. Aston replies that he is going to tar over the cracks to stop the leak. Mick suspects the utility of such application. The cracks show the vulnerability of the house which can be exploited to selfish ends. They have reference to Aston's mental abnormality. Aston uses the bucket as a temporary remedy to stop water from spilling down on the floor. The bucket cannot prevent the leakage and tarring cannot mend the ceiling. The leakage is an intrusion of water and Aston has no effective mechanism against it. Thus the bucket indicates Aston's slow & inadequate effort to integrate and face off the difficulty.
Some of the casual and trivial incidents in the play make explicit the underlying motives. They act as dramatic devices that reveal below the surface tensions. The bag-snatching incident is one of such very casual and comic devices Pinter employs to externalize the underlying tension in relations of the three characters. This incident occurs immediately after Davies' cross- examination by Mick in the beginning of the second act. The cross-examination
has already cornered Davies and reduced to an insignificant item. But Aston
brings him back into the mainstream of the acfion. His words 'I got your bag'
(p.38) restore Davies' stature in the house and express his concern for him.
Davies takes the bag from Aston and Mick snatches it. He claims that it is very
101 familiar, implying thereby that it is his bag and must not be given to Davies.
There begins a cyclic struggle over the possession of the bag. As Bernard F.
Dukore (1982:51) sees it, Mick's snatching of the bag is a very effective means to diminish Davies' stature in the house. It is Mick's "humiliation of the defenseless old man." Mick's words 'Don't overstep the mark, son' (p.38) come as a signal to
Davies that he understands his intentions and that Davies will not be allowed to play his foul game in the house. Mick humiliates Davies and
Aston tries to defend him. Davies is Aston's find and if he cannot see an intruding rogue in him Mick certainly can. Therefore he threateningly ridicules him and thereby mocks at Aston's choice. On more subtle level, the act of tossing the bag serves as an instance of the difficulty in protecting one's individuality and possession in a hostile world. Davies and Aston find it very difficult and menacing to be functional and defensive in the outside world. Mick is the representative of the outside world and he tosses the bag from one to the other as if he is alternating and withholding the identities of Davies and Aston. Both of them are verbally incompetent to reclaim the possession of the bag. They are also physically incapable to catch hold of it. Thus snatching and tossing the bag achieves dramatic significance.
Davies' making noises in sleep is the next very insignificant act
Pinter introduces to suggest the underlying reality - the impossibility of friendly relationship between Aston and Davies. It Is also indicative of the ensuing struggle for possession of the house. Because noises make life impossible in the
102 house and either of the two has to leave. Arnold P. Hinchliffe (1967:90) rightly observes the underlying sense;
From the first night, it is obvious that these two men will not be able to live in harmony. The tramp Davies keeps Aston awake at night with his jabbering and dreams, both of which he angrily denies in the morning and attributes them to the Blacks next door.
It is important here to note that Davies attributes noises to the Blacks. In the next scene when Aston again complains Davies of making noises (p-66), Davies does not attribute them to anybody else but to Aston's mental abnormality. He fiercely retorts Aston and affirms that mental hospital is a right place for him. The mutual recognition of the impossibility of living together is evident here. The struggle for possession of space begins as Davies would like Aston to go back to mental asylum and vacate the house for him. Aston on the other hand plainly wishes
Davies to leave the house, 'I think it's about time you found somewhere else' (p.
68). His nature is such that he is only capable of giving trouble to others. This device reveals what Davies is capable and incapable of. As Mick says ever since
Davies has came in the house 'there's been nothing but trouble'. He can trouble
Aston by keeping him awake in the night and can trouble Mick by attempting to replace Aston in his relationship and expel his brother from the house. He is incapable of adjusting even with his benefactor. He cannot put up with the outside world and cannot come on friendly terms with the inside world of Aston.
He should have listened to Aston's complaint because Aston has done so much for him and is unconditionally compassionate with him. But Davies
103 misunderstands Aston's generosity as his mental disorder and seeks to drive him out of the house.
Pinter employs blackout (p. 44) as a device that momentarily but completely dislocates the surface realism. It makes explicit the subtextual realities- insecurity, fear of menace and terrorizing dominance. As D. Keith
Peacock (1996:77) comments:
In a blackout the ordinary and familiar turns into the surreal and menacing, as Mick chases the tramp in the dark with a vacuum cleaner.
The stage falls In darkness and despite Davies' try the light does not come. He tries to light the match but drops it. He gets unnerved and takes out knife. He
'moves, stumbles, falls and cries out'. Suddenly he listens loud and eerie noise and sees a figure moving luridly. Davies is taken over by the panic. In fact it is
Mick with electrolux 'doing some spring cleaning'. It is rather an ordinary activity performed with a familiar instrument. But the darkness and noise convert the known and realistic plane into unknown and menacing one. The darkness and noise externalize Davies' subtextual fear of insecurity and menace. They signify
Mick's assault on Davies to terrorize him with an object rather than with words this time. The blackout achieves its dramatic effect as Davies stands and breaths heavily with the knife in his hand. It is a posture of defense which in effect indicates his underlying frightened state.
Mick's smashing the statue of Buddha and the faint smile between the two brothers serve as two consequential act that signify below the
104 surface reality to the anxiety at confronting with the painful condition of life and a united effort to encounter the intrusion.
John Pesta sees Mick's smashing of the statute of Buddha as
Mick's "inability to accept and cope with his brother's condition" (Ganz, 1972:129).
It represents Mick's violent reaction to Davies' intrusion and stratagem to
possess the space. It suggests what Mick can do if Davies does not leave the
house and continues to enjoy his brother's openness and vulnerability. It certainly
concretizes Mick's abject frustration at his brother's choice-the statue of Buddha
and Davies- and his inability to turn away the intrusion. The statue of Buddha
reflects Aston's kindred nature which can neither perceive intrusion in Davies'
entry nor can retaliate him to protect his safe place. Therefore it is Mick's
rejection of and frustration at Aston's way of life which is open to any kind of
intrusion and injury.
The faint smile between Mick and Aston comes as a succeeding
and consequent device to Mick's smashing of the statue of Buddha. Clifford
Leech perceives the smile as a suggestion that things are again as they should
be:
They are brothers... they are together for a moment, a silence...as they smile ...there is understanding and affection (Lewis, 1971:29).
It suggests a tacit understanding that Davies will be expelled from the room and
that family unity will be restored. The occupied space will be vacated and the
previous safety will return. Elin Diamond (1985:78) focuses the word 'faint' in
105 'faint smile' and observes that it suggests lack of substantial texture of affinity between the two brothers:
It may signify communication, it may even replace Buddha's mystical smile; but the smile is faint because the bond between the brothers is tenuous. it is a mutual recognition no doubt but it is occasional and superficial. It is not that the brothers understand and consent each other's attitude but rather temporarily unite to expel Davies. Once Davies is expelled, they will follow their respective, separate ways of life.
Entries and exits in the play do not merely function as the conventional dramatic device but become essential part of the action. The researcher has selected following entries & exits because they maneuver" inclusion and exclusion of the characters. They exclude one character and engage the other two. Such arrangement indicates the underlying reality of interrelational attitudes of the characters and friction in relationship.
Mick's exit in the opening scene of the first act serves as a preparatory act to Davies' entry in the house. His exit empties the space for
Davies and ends any possibility of inhibition. Mick's presence would have resisted Davies' entry. His departure facilitates the possibility of an alternative relationship for Aston. Davies enters with the intention of possession and Aston brings him with the intention to try out an option other than his brother. So the entry of the two is a kind of threat to Mick's space ownership and fraternal relationship.
106 His exit avoids the encounter between the old tramp and the
owner of the house at an initial stage. Mick leaves and Davies is ushered into the
house by slow-witted Aston. Aston's nature is such that Davies can turn Into a
usurper. Mick's exit foreshadows such subsequent course of action. In other word^ it is his exclusion that breeds Davies' inclusion and consequent intrusion.
This silent exit of Mick is counter-balanced by his stealthy and malignant entry at the end of the first act. Mick enters insidiously and watches Davies try out his
hand at various items in the room. Mick suddenly seizes Davies' arm and forces
him to the floor. He tries to unsettle Davies. While Davies lies on the floor
stunned, Mick sits in the chair, watching him menacingly. Mick's sitting suggests
his belongingness and authority in the house and Davies' lying down his
outsidedness and subservience. There pervades a portent silence and its effect
is further consolidated by Mick's question -' What's the game?'
Aston's entry in the opening scene of the second act brings the
cornered Davies back at the center of activity and tries to impart equal status to
him. Aston realizes that Mick has humiliated Davies into a crouched guy. Aston
wishes to pull Davies immediately out of his present miserable position. So he
tries to express his disapproval by avoiding to converse with Mick. When Mick
forces him to speak, Aston produces one word response 'Yes' for five times. On
the contrary he eagerly turns on to Davies with 'I got your bag' (11,38). This is his
first long and complete sentence which shows his willingness to communicate
with Davies.
107 Underlying all this is the friction in relationship. Mick's and Aston's way of life contrast. A successful businessman like Mick cannot become a compassionate fellow with the parasite Aston. Aston wishes to rediscover his past abilities by breaking out of his present cocoon. In pursuit of this, he happens to meet Davies.
He sees in him an alternative to Mick and some body as a partner to relate with.
He assumes relationship with Davies as a trial to establish contact with the outside world. When he finds Mick intimidating Davies, he understands it as the humiliation of his choice. Davies is after all Aston's find and he endeavours to make him feel comfortable in the house. Mick, on the other hand, perceives threat in Davies' arrival. He knows that Aston's nature can be a sure card in
Davies' hands to score possession of the house. As a result, he mounts attack on Davies. He tries to unsettle him from the beginning.
Mick's exit at the end of the play seals Davies' fate and regains
Aston's favour. Mick discharges Davies from his caretaker's job and signals to leave the house. Importantly Aston enters at this junction. They look at each other and Mick having failed to approach to Aston, exits. Aston does not defend
Davies this time but to ratifies Mick's move to expel Davies. Unlike in the earlier scenes, Mick's exit does not relieve Davies, nor bring him in the warm and solicitous company of Aston. It terminates his place in the house. After Mick,
Davies has to exit. Mick exits not before he wins his brother's approval for his act of Davies' expulsion. He is sure that Aston wilt not entertain Davies any more.
Thus his exit evacuates the house and restores it to its previous state where only
108 the dependent brother lives. This exit parallels his exit in the opening scene of the play and completes the circle of exclusion.
Dialogue of the play has a greater degree of proximity to real life situations than in The Birthday Party. It does not become as weird and absurd as in the second act of The Birthday Party. But this does not differentiate its function in this play from that of |n the earlier plays. It appears with all the
'Pinteresque' traits and to their optimum effect. As it is the part of Pinter's realism in The Birthday Party, dialogue here appears intensely realistic to indicate the subtext. It is by means of the commonplace and characteristic everyday conversation that dialogue in the play refers to the other unspoken reality. The researcher has selected following passages to study how dialogue in the play manifests Pinter's realism. The opening passage in the first act serves as an instance such dialogic function:
Aston. Sit down. Davies. Thanks (Looking about). Uuh ... Aston. Just a minute. Aston looks around for a chair, sees one lying on its side by the rolled carpet at the fireplace, and starts to get it out. Davies. Sit down ? Huh...I haven't had a good sit Down... I haven't had a proper sit down ... well, I couldn't tell you... Aston (placing the chair). Here you are. Davies. Ten minutes off for a tea break in the middle of the night in that place and I couldn't find a seat. All them Greeks had it. Poles, Greeks, Blacks, the lot of them, all them aliens had it. And they had me working there... they had me working there...
109 Aston sits on the bed, takes out a tobacco tin and papers, and begins to roll himself a cigarette. Davies watches him. All them blacks had it. Blacks, Greeks, Poles, the lot of them, that's what, doing me out of a seat, treating me like dirt. When he come at me tonight I told him. Pause. Aston. Take a seat. Davies. Yes. But what I got to do first, you see, what I got to do, I got to loosen myself up, you see what I mean I could have got done in down there. Davies exclaims loudly, punches downward with closed fi^t, turns his back to Aston and stares at the wall. Pause. Aston lights a cigarette. Aston. You want to roll yourself one of these? Davies (turning). What? No, no. I never smoke a cigarette... (1:9,10) It is a commonplace dialogue between the host and the guest. It is realistic because it reproduces everyday conversation. It is casual, repetitive and irrelevant. It seems that Aston and Davies do not listen to each other and do not bother about what the other is talking. But this incoherence and casual approach suggest^the need to enter a new set of relationship. Aston is the opener in the conversation and it is very obvious since he is the host. He tells Davies to sit down. Davies does not follow. His response is a non-verbal 'Uuh', which is supported by his non-verbal action of looking about the room. Aston understands
Davies' response as his demand for a chair. He tries to get one out for Davies.
During this Davies breaks in with his emphatic 'Sit down?' to underestimate
Aston's act. Aston places the chair before him but Davies ignores it and shifts to
110 the other topic. While Davies talks of to 'sit down,' his action does not go with it.
This contrast is deliberate to counter Aston's 'Sit down' offer. Ronald Knowles sees Davies' response as the expression of his feeling of deprivation:
Davies' categorical discriminations ('sit down... good sit down...proper sit down') express the degree of deprivation that he has suffered (Scott, 1986:149).
Certainly Davies has suffered deprivation from a humanly treatment and status throughout his itinerant life. His neglect to Aston's benevolent act displays his anxiety and anger at his underprivileged state. Davies feels deprived and dependent and tries to assert his independence. Associated with this is his search for a common ground. It can lead him to befriend Aston and earn a safe place in the room. Like Stanley, Davies feels insecure in the outside world.
Greeks, Poles and Blacks personify menace for him. He lives under the threat of being snared by them. Aston's room can be a protective shell for him. Therefore he attempts to find a ground where he and Aston can share their feelings. But to his dismay, Aston's reticence frustrates him.
Aston, on the other hand is in search of a companion. He wishes to establish relationship with Davies. He deals with Davies very generously. It is true that he is inarticulate and at times cuts himself off from Davies. But it is not motivated by any sense of superiority or resistance to Davies. As Quigley
(1975:121) points out, it:
seems to proceed from a general antipathy towards any kind of conversation.
111 Aston contrasts his reticence with his small acts of generosity. He offers chair to
Davies, offers cigarette, money, a pair of shoes and a place to live in until Davies
'gets fixed up'. Aston does all this not merely out of his kindred nature but out of his deep desire to hold contacts with the outside world. However Davies fails to understand Aston's underlying intention. He misinterprets Aston's reticence and generous acts. He fails to recognize his associative motive.
Aston's long speech at the end of the second act comes as a revelation of his past secret. It becomes monologic, since the entire focus falls on him neglecting Davies' presence. It suggests the deprivation and persecution
Aston has suffered:
Aston. I used to go there quite a bit. Oh, years ago now. But I stopped. I used to like that place... They were all ... a good bit older than me ...
But they always used to listen. I thought...they understood what I said...I talked too much. That was my mistake... The trouble was I used to have kind of hallucinations. They weren't hallucinations they... I used to get the feeling I could see things...very clearly...everything...was so clear...everything used to get very quiet... this clear sight...I thought people started being funny...Then one day they took me to a hospital, right outside London...I didn't want to go ...Got me in and asked me all sorts of questions...Then one day...this man...doctor...told me I had something. He said...we're are going to do something to my brain... I knew I was a minor... The trouble was... I couldn't look to the right or the left, I had to look straight in front of me...The thing is, I should have been dead...
(11,55,56,57)
112 The speech relates the most tragic event in Aston's life. It suggests that Aston had something extraordinary which the society misinterpreted and consequently quelled. Esslin (1984:110) interprets it as the artistic vision of Aston ruthlessly thwarted by the society:
...he was living a life of heightened sensibility and imagination; he was in some senses, an artistic personality who had to be forcibly reduced to sober respectability.
Aston was deprived from his qualities and was forcefully fit into the framework of social acceptability. He had to lose his individuality and identity in this act of forced conformity very much like Stanley. This speech therefore necessarily reminds us of Stanley's speech narrating his musical concert and recalls his forceful subjection to torture. Alongside this tragic reminiscence, the speech evokes Aston's desire to provide a ground of common suffering for Davies to share. It evokes his desire to earn sympathy from Davies. It indicates the identical sufferings of Aston and Davies. Baker and Tabachnick (1973:88) argue in this vein:
...it provides a parallel ending for the end of the second act. The first act ended with violence, and so does this act. Aston is telling about having his arm twisted behind his back by society, just as Mick twisted Davies.
Aston and Davies both have been tortured by the society due to their inability to come to terms with the world. Both of them do not have their identities and they live under the threat of menace. Of course, this parallel is undercut by Davies' devious nature and Aston's self-pitying nature. But the suggestion here is that
Aston is narrating a report of the past event in his life which can help Davies
113 identify with. Aston is indicating that his sufferings are not different from those of
Davies and that they can establish a bond of affinity between them, Quigley's
(1975:150) observation:
This long speech comes at a time when the relationship with Davies is deteriorating, and it has a function as a response to that deterioration.
underlines Aston's appeal for sympathy and friendship to Davies. The
re\ationsh\p has reached the point of crisis. It is shown by their disagreement over the matter of window in the preceding conversation. Aston realizes that it is difficult for him to live with Davies and establish amicable terms. So he
reminisces the tragic event. He expects Davies to sympathize with him and
acknowledge the friendly bond he has extended.
We note repetition of words and frequent pauses in the speech.
Aston is incapable of handling the verbal medium effectively due to the shock
treatment. He normally avoids speaking. But in this speech he speaks at length.
He collects his wit and shows the courage to make a sustained and long effort at
handling the verbal medium. The repetition of words shows his mental strain to
organize words. The pauses are the gaps that he takes to recall words and find
logical link in them. Simon Trusseler (1974:81) points out that pauses here are:
genuine, often heartfelt searchings for the right way of putting something, or for the logical connection that evades him.
The pauses here do not indicate the moments of tension or threat as usually
they do in a Pinter dialogue. The reason is that they come in a monologic
114 reminiscence and that unlil In spite of Davies' defiance and devious nature, Aston continues to be friendly and overtures to Davies to establish friendliness proceed undeterred in the play. Davies is set to exploit Aston's weakness and thereby to reject to get into any endearing role. Aston, however, continues to make non verbal signals of companionship to Davies. This could be seen reflected in the following passage: Aston. Pair of shoes. Davies (turning). What? Aston. I picked them up. Try them. Davies. Shoes? What sort? Aston. They might do you. Davies. No, they're not right. Aston. Aren't they? Davies. They don't fit. Aston. Mmnn. Pause. Davies. Well, I'll tell you what, they might do ... until I get another pair. Pause. Where's the laces? Aston. No laces. Davies. I can't wear them without laces. (Ill, 64-65) In the beginning of the conversation Aston is in a solicitous mood and a bit articulate. Davies, on the other hand is reserved and contemptuous. But as the 115 conversation proceeds, we notice the reversal - Aston getting to his usual inarticulate and ignoring way and Davies becoming increasingly noisy, talkative and spiteful. Aston offers a pair of shoes a non-verbal signal of affinity to Davies. Davies' answer is a contemptuous one word question 'What?' It suggests his refusal to recognize Aston's offer. In his second response Davies repeats 'shoes?' in order to show his indifference to Aston's generosity. His immediate next question is 'What sort?' It is intended to point out the inappropriateness of the shoes so as to turn down Aston's offer. His conclusion after having tried the pair of shoes is 'No, they're not right'. Aston is twice affirmative and shows interest in his response. But when he receives emphatic negation he repeats the negation and asks in a withdrawing tone 'Aren't they?' Davies keeps on saying 'No' and Aston completely withdraws from the conversation with 'Mmnn: It is followed by a pause. It suggests a state of impasse and tension. Aston is striving to bring Davies around the line of mutual understanding and Davies is attempting to upset him. The pause comes between Aston's inarticulate 'Mmnn' and Davies' first big and complete response in this passage. It prompts Davies to say 'they might do.' It is Davies' conditional recognition of Aston's offer. But there comes 'Pause' again - an obstruction in Davies' recognizing attitude which disorients him to yet another fault-finding question -'Where's the laces?' The pauses here thus indicate impasse in the relationship of the two and provide silent space for them to change their complimentary moods to alienating ones. The opening conversation between Mick and Davies in the second act Illustrates the indicative function of the dialogue. The conversation here shifts 116 violence and intimidation of the previous scene from physical level to verbal level. Quigley's (1975:128) argument about Mick's dominating strategy underlines the nature and implication of the dialogue: His technique follows up a physical demonstration of his superior power with a verbal demonstration. Linguistic coercion as a means of reinforcing dominance is never more apparent than here. Mick repeatedly asks questions and compels Davies to realize his cringing and obsequious position: Mick. Well? Davies. Nothing, nothing. Nothing. Mick. What's your name? Davies. I don't know you, I don't know who you are. Pause. Mick. Eh? Davies. Jenkins. Mick. Jenkins? Davies. Yes. Mick. Jen...kins. Pause. You sleep here last night? Davies. Yes. Mick. Sleep well. Davies. Yes. Mick. I'm awfully glad. It's awfully nice to meet you. Pause. What did you say your name was? 117 Davies. Jenkins. Mick. I beg your pardon? Davies. Jenkins! Pause. Mick. Jen...kins. Mick. What's your name? Davies (shifting, about to rise). Now look here! Mick. What? Davies. Jenkins! Mick. Jen...kins. Davies makes a sudden move to rise. A violent bellow from Mick sends him back. (A shout) Sleep here last night? Davies. Yes... Mick (continuing at great pace). How'd you sleep? Davies. I slept - Mick. Sleep well? Davies. Now look - Mick. What bed? Davies. That - Mick. Not the other? Davies. No! Mick. Choosy Pause. (Again amiable). What sort of sleep did you have in that bed? Davies (banging on floor). All right! (II: 30, 33) 118 The conversation is evidently casual and repetitive. But it has a very definite and devastating purpose. Its apparent irrelevance points to the underlying reality of exercise of dominance and exhaust of Davies' devious strategy. Mick adopts a circulatory verbal movement to threaten Davies. Baker and Tabachnick (1973:87) observe the underlying pattern: The rhythm now is not that of desultory conversation but rather a highly aggressive interrogation conducted under the veneer of false ease and familiarity. This is reminiscent of Goldberg and McCann's interrogation of Stanley: Mick opens the conversation with a threatening 'Well?' Davies immediately responds with a repeated 'Nothing'. Davies' repeated 'Nothing' suggests his underlying fear and his attempt to obstruct any physical advance by Mick. Mick asks him his name and Davies implements his evasive strategy by responding that he does not know him and he has no right to trouble him. Mick senses that Davies is putting up a bit of resistance by evading the focus of the question. To counter his move, he comes out with a menacing 'Eh?' The inarticulate 'Eh' is a suggestion that Mick can physically inflict him. The pause comes to suggest a moment of tension and a sudden shift in the topic. It offers Mick time to fall back on his physical power. Davies quickly notices this change and tells his name. Mick contemptuously repeats his name and insulting splits it 'Jen...kins.' Richard Dutton (1986:103) reads Mick's demonstration of Davies' outsidedness in this verbal dissection: Mick's repeated breaking of his name into 'Jen...kins' is a way of emphasizing its strangeness, its not belonging, and the whole process culminates in the direct question: You are a foreigner? 119 Certainly Mick is questioning Davies' identity and holding out his outsidedness. He smashes the apparent familiarity of the name and suggests the underlying non-belongingness. It is a suggestion to Davies that he does not belong to the house and he will not be given any space to settle. Mick's next three questions, 'Born and bred in the British Isles? What did they teach you? How did you like my bed?' remind us of Goldberg's questions in the interrogation scene in The Brithday Party. Baker and Tabachnick's (1973:80) comment provides a useful parallel: Mick's Goldberg-like questions reveal his suspicions, and his falsely exaggerated tone of politeness reveals that he has taken Davies' social measure and confined him to outer darkness. Like Goldberg's, Mick's questions are apparently irrelevant. But they are there to intimidate Davies. His questions strip Davies off his semblance. They signify that Davies has no social standing, his claims are not true and his intentions are not good. Mick alternates between scaring and befriending Davies. He repeatedly asks his name, asks about good sleep and about the use of bed. All this is meaningless and irrelevant. But it is there to create an intolerable burden on Davies. Davies has to be subservient. Hollis' (1970:84) observation explains Davies' problem with the verbal medium: Language is either too much for him or not enough for him: It either bewilders him or tells him obvious. 120 We notice Davies failing even on verbal level to defend himself. Mick is too strong for him both on physical and verbal level to defend. Occasionally he tries to assert himself by refusing to admit Mick's presence and authority. But Mick's threatening 'Eh?' and vehement repetitions evoke menace in him and he gives in. Davies' reactions like-'Now look here-,' 'Now look here!', 'Now look -', are expressions of the degree of pressure he suffers. Mick supports his verbal violence with physical movement when he sends Davies back to his position with a violent bellow. Mick subsequently displays a dazzling and confusing verbal piece of his furniture business. David Thompson (1985:120) underlines Mick's intention in employing the technical Jargon: Mick's trick of using the technical jargon of the furniture business ... and the legal and insurance profession has been noted as a weapon he uses to impress and frighten the ignorant intruder, Davies. He uses the furniture terminology to assault Davies. This is an attempt to show that he is misfit and incompetent. Like the interrogation scene in The Birthday Party, there is abundant use of repetitions, irrelevance, non-sequiturs and pleonasm in Mick's cross- examination of Davies. They work as verbal ammunition in Mick's factory to reduce Davies to an insignificant object. The non-sequiturs like: Mick. What bed? Davies. That - Mick. Not the other? Davies. No! 121 Mick. Choosy, are used to keep Davies in limbo. Mick uses redundant words to destabilize Davies and render his evasive strategy ineffective. Pauses are used in the passage to indicate moments of tension and threat. They work as gears to take sudden shifts. They work as gaps to anticipate the reaction of the other partner. Thus, these verbal accessories enable Mick to pour devastating verbal debris on Davies to make him feel horrified and out of place. Pinter's characterization in this play resembles to that of in The Bhthday Party. He departs from the realistic convention of logically developing characters and their progressive attempts at resolving the problems of their lives. The characters here realize no change in their state of being; they do not succeed in establishing relationship with others and do not achieve anything special. In short, their exposure to new situations does not produce any consequence in their lives. Pinter skillfully reveals their inability to establish meaningful relationship by throwing them into an absolutely natural situation. He keeps their background vague and motives undisclosed in order to make them signify the realities beneath their realistic and familiar appearance. The researcher proposes to analyze the characters in terms of their identity, words and actions since they reveal the underlying states. Characters appear strictly naturalistic on surface level. They live in a realistic house. They speak in extremely realistic manner. Their physical appearance creates a very realistic impression about them. Mick wears a leather jacket thereby showing superiority and success in the material world. Aston wears an old tweed overcoat, a thin shabby suit, faded shirt and tie. Davies 122 wears worn brown overcoat, shapeless trousers, no shirt and sandals. Their appearance is untidy and unimpressive but nevertheless it is absolutely lifelike. But their realistic appearance, words and actions are seemingly familiar and plausible. They do not explain their mysterious background and strange behaviour. This is because Pinter does not provide exposition. He introduces the elements of ambiguity, unverifiability and indeterminacy in his characterization. Characters thus conceived in The Caretaker signify the underlying realities of human existence. Their unknown motives, inauthentic words and unverifiable actions suggest the loss of identity, certainty and insecurity in their lives. Arnold P. Hinchliffe (1967:106) underlines the mystery that surrounds the three characters in the play: Davies admits his pretences, but the identities of the two brothers are not much clearer. One lives elsewhere and owns a house that his brother lives in; and in spite of the details amassed through the play, neither has a historical existence. Davies, Aston and Mick's background remains mysterious. Their identity, words and actions continue to mystify us. We never come to know who Davies is; why he avoids going to Sidcup; why he has left his identity papers at Sidcup. We do not know anything more about Davies than an old tramp picked up from the cafe brawl by Aston. His intentions remain concealed. The mystery prevails right from his name. He tells Aston that his assumed name on the insurance card is Bernard Jenkins (p.20). In the next dialogue, he tells that his real name is Mac Davies (p.20). He tells Mick 'Jenkins' as his name (p.30). When Aston abruptly asks Davies ' Welsh, are you? (p.25), Davies is baffled. His response is a baffling 123 and evading 'Eh?' On being further pressed about his birthplace, he avoids the point and speaks unintelligible words. His words and actions are equally unreliable and unverifiable. Whatever he speaks of his past is absolutely unconvincing and self-contradictory. He tells that he deserted his wife fortnight after he married her on account of a 'pile of her underclothing, unwashed' (p.9). We have no reason to believe that he had got married and that he left his wife for such a petty reason. Further he tells Aston that he was forced to do manual jobs in the cafe. He was forced to do what was not his assigned work (p.9). He looks for dignity in his job and expects others to respect his old age. He tries to hide his incompetence and vulnerability under his old age and assignment. His hatred for the Blacks is another topic that he projects to the extent of nausea. His references to the Blacks are contemptuous. It is very ironic that a tramp like Davies who cannot spell out his origin and identity calls the Blacks 'aliens' and attributes everything wrong and bad to them. The Blacks become unidentified and unpredictable form of menace for him. So his apparent spiteful words about them suggest his fears. His constant reference to Sidcup where he claims he has left his identity papers (p.19) is another very notable instance of his falsification. He tells he is waiting for good shoes and clear weather to go to Sidcup. It is evidently clear that he never desired to go to Sidcup. He uses words to conceal his intentions and balloons them out to persuade slow-witted Aston. It seems that he employs verbal tricks to avoid the uncertain state of his life and to justify his present stay in Aston's room. 124 Davies' present state is an inevitable words and strange behaviour. Ronald Knowels very convincingly argues this point: Davies' existential identity is manifestly there before us in its uncompromising starkness. Davies is what he has become- that existential imbalance between what he has made of life and what life has made of him (Bold, 1984:117). His mean nature and refusal to any kind of intimate relationship precipitates his expulsion and reduces him to his earlier state of homelessness. Aston's character is no less mysterious. He has lost his identity, has no social position and is incapable of any interaction with the outside world. However there is a notable difference in his and Davies' character. Unlike Davies and Mick his words are reliable. Because of the shock treatment, he cannot use the verbal medium strategically to the evasive and concealing ends. So his words are not as deceptive as that of Davies' and as coercive as of Mick's. He tells 'I like ... working with hands' (p. 17). He substitutes hands for words. But his acts mystify us. In the opening scene of the first act, while Davies speaks Aston concentrates on rolling a cigarette unmindful of Davies' words. By means of this small act, as J. R. Brown (1972:64) points out, Aston "cuts himself off from Davies." In the third act, when Davies dismisses his offer of a pair of shoes, Aston quietly exits, unnoticed. Davies continues to prattle and Aston is not there to listen him. This exit is an act of indifference to Davies. In the succeeding scene, he wakes Davies up from his sleep in the night. This is an act to show Davies his fault and mind his position in the house. These acts which show Aston's impertinence and indifference to the guest Davies and seem to reinforce 125 his superiority as the owner of the house are countered by his acts of generosity. He offers clothes, money, bag, shoes, and the caretaker's job to Davies. These are the acts of generosity. Such apparent lack of link in his acts creates contradiction. Davies misunderstands his intentions and imposes his intentions on him. Aston's abnormality, contradiction in his acts and inarticulateness make his character unverifiable and his motives indistinct. In some definite respects, he becomes a counterpart of Davies. Simon Trusseler (1974:79) suggests: Aston, too, is an outsider in his turn, a man who has been rejected by society and who is now struggling painfully back towards contact with it. He had been a gifted man. But the people about him forced him to social acceptability by smashing his power. Consequently Aston has developed feelings of insecurity. He lives in his brother's house under his supervision. He is like an outsider in the house as much as Davies is. He is dependent, submissive and passive. Quigley (1975:150) precisely spells out the similarity between Aston and Davies: Aston has already revealed similarities. His plan to go out and buy a saw is as easily thwarted as Davies' projected visit to a cafe for job. The renovation of the house that he has promised to undertake for Mick is no nearer commencement than Davies' visit to Sidcup, and the barrier to his progress, the building of the shed is confronted no more systematically than Davies' intermittent search for shoes. Aston partakes the similar existential condition that Davies does. Like Davies, he is a parasite, incapable of putting up with the world, in search of security and 126 human contacts. His past extraordinary behaviour made him a misfit and his present slow-wittedness shows him incapable of any work or contact. Simon Trusseler (1974:79) calls Mick "the most conventionalized character." But viewed from the other side, his character becomes unverifiable in its own and distinctive way. He is sure of himself and he knows how to deal with others. His identity is apparently clear. He is an authoritative owner of the house and a successful businessman. His expertise in using the verbal medium creates a superior position for him. His words are not as mysterious as his acts. As Boulton points out: Mick is a spiv who has a remarkable flow of language but whose activities are mysterious (Ganz, 1972:103). His attitude to Davies is simply complex and indecipherable. He alternates between violence and false ease and familiarity. He terrorizes Davies, blows down to the floor at a time and becomes polite, offers him the job of the caretaker and some time later discloses his dream to him. His relationship with his brother is equally mysterious. They do not directly confront nor understand the attitudes of each other. Mick keeps watch on his brother but does not appear to practically help him overcome his present condition. He maintains a certain distance from Aston and it becomes clear as he is not living with him in the same house. The only evident communication between them is on the matter of repairing the house. Mick's acts in the play impart added sense of mystery to his character. His inspection of the room at the beginning of the play is strange. His 127 silence here is very mysterious in relation to his later verbosity. His sudden entry at the end of the first act to outwit Davies is an act similar to that of Goldberg and McCann's sly entry in Meg's boarding. He inflicts terror on Davies, twists his arm and blows him down on the floor. He does all this unexpectedly and unreasonably as Goldberg and McCann afflict Stanley in The Brithday Party. His use of electrolux in the darkness further mystifies us. His smashing of the statue of Buddha is an equally unreasonable and unconvincing act. Thus Mick's character despite being conventional betrays its surface appearance and defies any logical explanation to his behavior. All the three characters in the play deceive their surface appearance and signify the underlying realities. They may not be as absolutely mysterious and strange as Goldberg and McCann are in The Birthday Party but they certainly do not live up to their apparent claims. None of them is able to avoid the painful condition of their lives and able to realize their dream. Davies cannot secure a safe place for him in the house, Aston cannot build an intimate relationship with Davies and Mick is not able to turn his house into a luxurious penthouse. The characters suffer from the crisis of identity. Their appearance does not constitute their identity and they have not been able to discover one. They are forced to live under false identities. Davies lives under many identities and with concealed motives. In the subsequent course of action he is expelled from the house. He returns to his previous state of having no identity. Sidcup now does not mean and matter for him. All this reflects his eternal quest for identity 128 and impossibility of discovering it. Aston also suffers from the loss of identity. After his stay in a mental hospital, he finds it very difficult to make sense in the practical world. His identity is lost and his capacity to think and interact is paralyzed. He cannot live with 'present' and cannot return to his 'past'. Situation in the play reflects Pinter's realism in its own way. As it is the case with the earlier aspects of the play, Pinter introduces the intermingling of surface appearance and underlying reality in the formation of the situation. Pinter's own observation explains the importance of situation in the play. For me this play is nothing more than a particular situation that which is created by the relationships between three persons (Diamond, 1985:66). Situation in the play creates occasions for the characters to interact. Of course, it is not as completely grotesque as in The Birthday Party, but it continues much the same pattern of construction. It follows the A-B-A like pattern. Richard Dutton (1986:102) elucidates the introduction-usurpation-ejaculation pattern of the play and concludes that: The play thus passes through a perfect cycle ending effectively where it began, with no discernible progress made. The act wise illustration of the situation may help to see how it suggests the underlying realities. Situation in the first act remains largely realistic. It is banal in nature. Aston brings an old tramp, Davies in the room. He pities him and tries to make him feel at home. He shows concern for the tramp by offering money, pairs of shoes and a badly needed place until he finds his own. Davies on the other hand, speaks of the attack at the cafe, and at the monastery down in Luton. He 129 tells he was forced to do manual jobs and was treated inhumanly. Intermittently he speaks about the identity papers, shoes and weather which are connected to Sidcup, a place which he plans to go. The situation here is thus very familiar and ordinary. It has nothing exciting or mysterious. But its banality serves to point to below the surface reality. Aston needs human company because he does not find any possibility of attuning with his younger brother or reviving his spirit in relationship. He does not wish to be a dependent. He wants to establish relationship with Davies because he wants to interact with the outdoor life. He adopts Davies as an indoor experiment of the outdoor interaction. He thinks this would lead him to rediscover his past abilities. Davies can prove an alternative for him to relate with and assert his independence from his brother. Davies, on the other hand, needs a place where he can live safely. He has been tortured and deprived of the dignity of his 'being'. Aston's room can prove a protective shell for him against the outdoor menace. The subtext is that both of them need the warmth of the indoor life and the company of each other for different reasons. The situation abandons its realistic surface and makes explicit the underlying intentions on two occasions in the first act. First when Aston complains that Davies was making noises in the sleep. His complaint suggests that they cannot live together. Secondly, when Mick seizes Davies suddenly by entering the room. This makes explicit Davies' fear of menace and Mick's mysterious attitude to Davies. Situation in the second act is largely bewildering and strange. It dislocates the surface realism and makes explicit the underlying intentions. 130 Mick's cross-examination of Davies in the opening of the act is the first instance of such dislocation. Mick's questions and comments are baffling and irrelevant. His attitude to Davies constantly changes between politeness and aggressiveness. Mick's motives to strip of Davies' semblance, to terrorize and woo him away from Aston are made explicit in his absurd cross-examination. The bag-snatching incident continues the dislocation of surface realism. It is the only incident in which the three characters actively engage with one another and explicitly display their desire to hold the possession of the bag. The bag pulls the underlying contest for domination and possession on the surface. Mick's use of electrolux adds the ring of mystery and menace to the situation. The darkness, loud noise of the electrolux, and the lurid figure of Mick dislocate the realistic plane and make explicit the underlying menace and violence. Davies' fears come on the surface. His movements and words display the underlying tensions in him. Aston's monologue withdraws focus from the outward realistic plane and sheds on the underlying, mysterious plane. Only Aston remains visible and focused. Aston journeys back in his past where he was devastatingly treated. He reminisces the incident aloud. The situation on the stage and the details of his speech create a very grotesque and horrifying atmosphere. We feel into Aston's intense suffering. The darkness on the stage suggests Aston's complete blindness to the world around due to the terrible shock treatment. Thus the dark stage and Aston's speech make explicit the 131 underlying reality of his suffering and his intercession to Davies to establish relationship with hina. Situation in the third act again becomes realistic. It hits at the subtext by means of its extreme surface realism. The act opens with Mick and Davies conversing on various matters. Mick tells Davies his dream and Davies speaks ill of Aston. Aston enters with a pair of shoes. He is very solicitous about Davies but Davies denies the shoes on the score of size and laces. This casual and ordinary incident reveals Aston's effort to bring Davies on friendly terms notwithstanding Davies' denials. The next incident in which Aston wakes Davies from his sleep points to the other side of Aston's attitude. It suggests underlying rift in their relationship. Aston complains Davies of making noises in the sleep. Davies of course denies and fiercely retorts him. He explicitly asks Aston to leave the house. It is here that Davies' underlying motives become explicit. Mick's speech that begins with 'What a strange man you are...' (p.73) brings the subtextual tension on surface. His smashing of the statue of Buddha demonstrates clearly that he is not interested in keeping useless and harmful items in the house. Davies is a hopeless and troublesome object and Mick wishes to see him off the house. Thus the realistic situation in this act demonstrates the underlying reality of rift in relationship and failure of holding contacts with the outdoor life. Search for security and seeking after relationship is futile and that Aston and Davies have to inevitably return to their previous insecure and painful conditions. Any attempt on their part to break away from their torturous present is rendered ineffective. Aston cannot overcome his mental 132 abnormality by holding contacts with other people. Davies can never find a safe place for himself. They are restored to their previous vulnerable, footless and faceless state. They have to live without identity or with many identities. Aston's building a shed and Davies' going to Sidcup can never become the realities of their lives. Mick's luxurious penthouse equally remains a dream. Their illusions are shattered and the existential reality finally prevails. 133