Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Part I Text and Context
- 1 Pinter, politics and postmodernism (1)
- 2 Pinter and the 1950s
- 3 The sacred joke: comedy and politics in Pinter’s early plays
- 4 Tales of the city: some places and voices in Pinter’s plays
- 5 Pinter and twentieth-century drama
- 6 Harold Pinter, screenwriter: an overview
- 7 Speaking out: Harold Pinter and freedom of expression
- Part II Pinter and Performance
- Part III Reactions to Pinter
- Bibliography
- Main Index
- Works Index
- Series List
1 - Pinter, politics and postmodernism (1)
from Part I - Text and Context
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2009
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Part I Text and Context
- 1 Pinter, politics and postmodernism (1)
- 2 Pinter and the 1950s
- 3 The sacred joke: comedy and politics in Pinter’s early plays
- 4 Tales of the city: some places and voices in Pinter’s plays
- 5 Pinter and twentieth-century drama
- 6 Harold Pinter, screenwriter: an overview
- 7 Speaking out: Harold Pinter and freedom of expression
- Part II Pinter and Performance
- Part III Reactions to Pinter
- Bibliography
- Main Index
- Works Index
- Series List
Summary
Pinter's plays have fascinated many people over the years for many reasons, not the least of which is their capacity to resist large-scale generalisation. The emphasis in the plays on complex and diverse local detail makes it very difficult to argue that the plays as a group exemplify the large general truths of any existing theory about the nature of society, personality, culture, spirituality, anthropology, history or anything else of similar scope. This is not to say that insights into the plays cannot be derived from all these sources. Indeed they can, as several astute Pinter critics have demonstrated. The trouble is that these various perspectives serve best as ways into the texture of the plays rather than as summations of the implications of that texture, and if excessively relied upon, they begin to obscure what they seek to clarify. Stoppard uses an illuminating phrase to characterise the baffling experiences of the leading characters in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead when he describes them as constantly being intrigued without ever quite being enlightened. That sense of being fascinated by something we do not fully understand is, as Van Laan has argued, an irreducible aspect of the experience of Pinter's plays, and we have, I think, over the years come to recognise that the role of the critic is to increase the sense of enlightenment without diminishing the sense of intrigue. To insist on defending the intrigue against any enlightenment is, of course, to reduce all experience of a play to the first experience, to insist on each play's inviolable particularity and thus effectively to abandon the task of criticism. To insist upon full enlightenment is to erase the sense of intrigue, to allow the critical perspective to supplant the play, and thus effectively to undermine the play's capacity to function as a Pinter play. What we appear to need from criticism is the kind of enlightenment that clarifies and enhances the subtlety of the intrigue rather than the kind that, in explaining the nature of the intrigue, explains it away.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter , pp. 7 - 26Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
- 2
- Cited by