Language In Harold Pinter's Drama

Abstract

هارولد بانتر، إذ هذا المقال تحليل اللغة المستعملة في أعمال يتناول جائزة نوبل سنة 2005، يعد ذا أن هذا المسرحي البريطاني الحائز على موهبة فريدة من نوعها في استعمال لهجة لندن في العرض المسرحي وهو معروف بكونه لا يستعين بالحركات في عروضه، وقد تعرض بانتر إلى نقد من جهات مختلفة، ونحن في هذه الدراسة تعتمد على القراءة الفلسفية المسرح هارولد بانتر وخاصة على أعمال ويتنشتاین وهايديقر . Pinter's plays came almost after the Angry Theatre had fully settled on the English stage. The 'Angries' were angry with what the theatre was doing rather than focusing on life around them. Whereas the Theatre of the Absurd had already been a reality in France, it was still adjusting itself to public assimilation in Great-Britain. The new era on the British stage did not in fact come with the 'Angries' but with Beckett's Waiting for Godot, presented in London in 1956, and which Martin Esslin called the Theatre of the Absurd. The Theatre of the Absurd is double-fold: language and absurd action. Pinter joins the Absurdists, as it were, in the perception of the absurdity of man's existence. Like Ionesco, he wages a battle on language and thought, and Sartre's Nausea seems to be a remarkable account of this malaise. One may even make a link between Sartre's Nausea and Pinter's nausea of words. Indeed, he comes very close to Sartre in The Dwarfs where the similarity with Sartre's Roquentin is striking , while The Caretaker reminds us of both Sartre's Huis-clos and Beckett's tramps in Waiting for Godot. Yet, in the works of Beckett and Ionesco for instance, the poetry is not in the deliberately flat language but in the action. In addition to being static, the action is absurd. On the contrary, Pinter's theatrical poetry lies in the language itself.