Response
When we analyze Samuel Beckett’s work, Endgame, we are able to observe different interpretations. At first glance, the viewer might assume that the purpose of the work was to show a typical family scene, represented by elderly parents, their son already advanced in age and his servant dissatisfied with his labor, but always helpful. If it is analyzed in greater depth, we can find other interpretations such as, seeing the work, from a psychoanalytic point of view, consider it as the mind of an elderly man in the last days of his life or, finally, think through it as the last moment within a game of chess.
To begin with, the first interpretation analyses the play from a psychoanalytic point of view. Such an interpretation sees the …show more content…
We might say that Beckett’s intention was to show a game of chess because he loved to play chess and in fact, he played against some prominent players of it. Inside the game of chess, there are three moments, heading, middle and final. Beckett’s work is showing us the last instant in the game of chess, it is the moment when the outcome is finally decided but the player continues with the game. We can contemplate the position of each of the characters as parts of the game, firstly the character of Hamm is positioned in the middle of the chessboard, representing the king, which is the most important part for the whole set but, at the same time it is the more vulnerable part of it. In addition, the piece of the king defines when you win and when you lose. In turn, Hamm depends constantly on his servant Clov. Any king without people to command is nothing; he needs and depends on each person. On the other hand, the people are unsafe without their king. Subsequently, Clov is always positioned at Hamm’s side, except when his is doing his job. The piece of the bishop could be a clear representation of Clov. Bishops are defined as the ones that serve the king, or else, as the kings’ assistants, but, at the same time, they could be considered as an unnecessary part whose movements are relatively limited. The bishops can only move diagonally. At the Endgame, they become extremely vital parts to protect the king and …show more content…
This is because the work is out of the ordinary, it seems to me almost impossible to imagine a play established in a single act, with four characters all of them located in the same room. In addition, each character in turn is exceedingly rare. Where it has been seen that mother and father are living in garbage cans, merely by the fact that they do not have legs? Even the main character Hamm is out of the blue. Personally, I like the fact that a work that at first sight seems to be boring manages to become so entrancing and popular. Also, it is obvious that the work success is due to the fact that it was created in a post-modernist time. A work such as this one could not be accepted some years before the post-modernism, besides it, also would be considered as
When we analyze Samuel Beckett’s work, Endgame, we are able to observe different interpretations. At first glance, the viewer might assume that the purpose of the work was to show a typical family scene, represented by elderly parents, their son already advanced in age and his servant dissatisfied with his labor, but always helpful. If it is analyzed in greater depth, we can find other interpretations such as, seeing the work, from a psychoanalytic point of view, consider it as the mind of an elderly man in the last days of his life or, finally, think through it as the last moment within a game of chess.
To begin with, the first interpretation analyses the play from a psychoanalytic point of view. Such an interpretation sees the …show more content…
We might say that Beckett’s intention was to show a game of chess because he loved to play chess and in fact, he played against some prominent players of it. Inside the game of chess, there are three moments, heading, middle and final. Beckett’s work is showing us the last instant in the game of chess, it is the moment when the outcome is finally decided but the player continues with the game. We can contemplate the position of each of the characters as parts of the game, firstly the character of Hamm is positioned in the middle of the chessboard, representing the king, which is the most important part for the whole set but, at the same time it is the more vulnerable part of it. In addition, the piece of the king defines when you win and when you lose. In turn, Hamm depends constantly on his servant Clov. Any king without people to command is nothing; he needs and depends on each person. On the other hand, the people are unsafe without their king. Subsequently, Clov is always positioned at Hamm’s side, except when his is doing his job. The piece of the bishop could be a clear representation of Clov. Bishops are defined as the ones that serve the king, or else, as the kings’ assistants, but, at the same time, they could be considered as an unnecessary part whose movements are relatively limited. The bishops can only move diagonally. At the Endgame, they become extremely vital parts to protect the king and …show more content…
This is because the work is out of the ordinary, it seems to me almost impossible to imagine a play established in a single act, with four characters all of them located in the same room. In addition, each character in turn is exceedingly rare. Where it has been seen that mother and father are living in garbage cans, merely by the fact that they do not have legs? Even the main character Hamm is out of the blue. Personally, I like the fact that a work that at first sight seems to be boring manages to become so entrancing and popular. Also, it is obvious that the work success is due to the fact that it was created in a post-modernist time. A work such as this one could not be accepted some years before the post-modernism, besides it, also would be considered as