To this day, hundreds of years after their initial release, people continue to read and examine the works of playwrights like Shakespeare and Euripides. Their language was rich with metaphors, play on words, and much more. While language has evolved and we no longer speak in the same manner - and maybe because we don’t - current readers have found a certain beauty in analyzing and attempting to understand what, exactly, these authors meant. Perhaps one of the most commonly scrutinized playwrights of the modern era is Samuel Beckett. Though often overlooked by fans of the aforementioned writers, Beckett proves influential in changing the course of plays.

In Endgame Beckett creates a mini, almost closed world of absurdity. Hamm, who seems to be the main character, is physically impaired but retains his mental capacities. Clov, who seems to be his servant, is constantly scurrying around, performing his tasks and popping in and out of scene (he seems to be the only one that does this). Nagg and Nell, both contained in ashbins, are Hamm’s parents. Understanding the who’s who in Endgame is enough to confuse any reader. The play itself is written in language that is fairly easy to understand, but the fact remains, Endgame is very confusing.

HAMM

What's happening?

CLOV

Something is taking its course.

This exchange occurs frequently throughout the play. The words are simple, and some readers may glaze over them. I noticed they helped solidify the importance of life and death in this play. Clov believes life’s events and changes are not left to us. Does he really believe this? Has he always believed this and is that why he suffers and obeys Hamm? Or does he believe this because of how Hamm treats him?

So what is the point of this play? Why is it important? First and foremost, Beckett was an innovator and helped to power the emerging “theatre of the absurd”; a new type of playwriting that was characterized by a certain amount of confusion. Secondly, Endgame remains important because it allows the reader to determine for themselves what they think the play means. The language is intentionally simple and the scene established is left vague so that we can choose what direction to take and not be forced. With so much talk of death and the end, I, as many, noticed an overarching theme of death and understanding the point of life. Still, upon finishing the play I am left with questions, but I think that’s the point: create confusion so that the reader has to not only try and find answers, but find new questions to think about further.