Talk:Theatre of the Absurd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This article uses the following optional standards for Style elements.

Contents

[edit] structure seems odd

Esslin uses a structure that I think is a little more sensible than that given here (and he's probably worth paying attention to, since he's the one who coined the phrase in the first place):

1) Playwrights of the Absurd: Beckett, Adamov, Ionesco, Genet

2) Descendants of the Absurd: Pinter, Albee, Arrabal, etc.

3) Ancestors of the Absurd: Jarry, Buchner, Witkiewicz, etc.

Furthermore, as this page is entitled _theatre_ of the absurd, perhaps the novelists should be relegated to another page, such as "absurdism"?

It's probably worth noting, also, that Jarry's presence here as a novelist isn't wholly accurate; his primary contribution to the theatre of the absurd was as a playwright, with the Ubu plays.

Theatre of the absurd is very important and i hope that you do fix this up because it didn't help me any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.250.223.114 (talk • contribs) (16:45, 7 January 2005)

You're right of course. Do feel free to fix the article up - it's something I've been meaning to do for a while, but it might be years before I do. --Camembert

[edit] On the Summary of Camus' philosophy

The representation of the philosophy of Albert Camus on this page is highly misleading. Yes, Camus believed life was meaningless; however, this idea did not originate with him, and his philosophy of life went far beyond this. His central belief was that though humans exist for no purpose and are headed towards nothing, there is no reason why we should not be happy and content. The pessimism and nihilism present in the work of many of the writers mentioned on this page is much more akin to Jean Paul Sartre's existentialist ideas, which Camus was opposed to (although many lazy people lump Camus in with the exies for easy categorization). (arevolvingonob) 19:37 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absurdism vs. Surrealism?

Is anyone familiar with conflicts between Absurdists and Surrealists, or possibly Dadaists (as precursors of the Absurdists) and Surrealists? The English Surrealists, and George Melly in particular, may have been involved. Andy Dingley 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absurdism=Surrealism

I'm concerned about the underrepresentation of Surrealism on this page. To respond to several of these previous posts: I don't know about any conflicts between the Surrealists and the Absurdists but I would like to know more. To say that the philosophy of Sartre or even Camus falls in line with the philosophy of the actual writers of the Theatre of the Absurd I fear is perpetuating a common misrepresentation of Absurdism as a whole. I know most about Beckett and Ionesco so I'll refer specifically to them (feel free to respond with info about the other writers in case my assessment misses the mark). Both Beckett and Ionesco hated existentialism but had an admiration for Surrealism. Beckett's philosphy is rightly called pessimistic, but it's much more like nihilism than like Sartre's existentialism. Beckett had a mixed relationship with Sartre that can be called perhaps healthy respect without necessarily adherance to the philosphy. Beckett also had a mixed view of Surrealism. He loved it as an art form (and that's really what's most important when talking about an artform: not the philosophy but the artform itself); he translated many Surrealist poems into English, and he was friends with many of the Surrealists. But they hated Joyce so he could never fully join their cause. Ionesco on the other hand was a major admirer of Breton and the Surrealists. Ionesco once said he'd never consider himself an existentialist but instead either a Pataphysician (because he loved Jarry) or a Surrealist. If you read carefully Esslin's section of pre-cursors, half of the section is devoted to either Dadaists or Surrealists. Tzara and Breton are mentioned nowhere on this page. An even more shocking ommission: Antonin Artaud. His "Theatre of Cruelty" is considered a major foreshadowing of the Theatre of the Absurd, not to mention his direct connection to several Absurdists through the Alfred Jarry theatre. To leave this information out does noone a favor and perpetuates common misconsceptions. F. Simon Grant 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existentialism

The Theater of the Absurd seems to deal somewhat with types of plays and stories in which a higher power is not involved (existentialism). This varies greatly from that of the Elizabethan Theater which was firmly rooted in the Great Chain of Beings. That is to say God is at the top of the chain with angels below him saints below them, etc. That is why we see in plays such as Shakespeare's Hamlet the urgent need to correct the problem created by someone interrupting the Great Chain of Beings. God is supposed to give and take life. Yet in Hamlet, Claudius takes King Hamlet's life, therefore Prince Hamlet must correct it by avenging his father's death. Thus i'm not sure Theater of the Absurd has anything to do with Monty Python. MLT--74.242.21.92 01:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page needs attention

I haven't visited this page in a while (since June, I suppose) but I'm shocked it's still in such a sloppy state. I will try at some point to work on this page, but it's in need of some serious attention. It has ridiculous sentences like this:

"Most exemplary is Beckett's Waiting for Godot, a play about two bums that would have shocked the French audience, to say the least, attending the premiere performance at the Theatre de Babylone."

Both uniformative and way too informal. And it's still furthering the common misconception that Absurdism is Existentialist. Few Absurdists gave credence to Existentialism. Ionesco hated Sartre, for goodness sake. I'm sure he rolls over in his grave anytime somebody calls him an Existentialist. Esslin never said they were Existentialist. He said they embodied Camus' concept of the absurd. Camus didn't even call himself an Existentialist. To call them Existentialists is just lazy and insulting. And all the citations on this page are wrong. And most of the citations are either from Esslin or from anthologies -- is that really scholarly to have only two sources by the same author that's specifically about the subject? I will give it some attention as soon as I can. But please somebody out there help this sloppy, sloppy page.

One more just amazingly sloppy sentence:

"The 'Theatre of the Absurd' is thought to have its origins in Dadaism, nonsense poetry and avant-garde art of the 1910s – 1920s."

Okay, where to begin? Agreed, Dadaism had a big influence, but equal or greater influence came from the Surrealists, especially Antonin Artaud (see my rant above, though I didn't actually do anything about it -- that's a mistake I'll remedy soon). Nonsense poetry I assume refers to Lewis Carrol, Edward Lear, etc. That wasn't 1910's-20's. That was the late 1800's. Is the time frame meant to refer to nonsense poetry too? It's unclear. Finally, avant-garde is a very broad term. Dadaism is often categorized as avant-garde. Why go specific and broad in the same list? Why not give a specific list of influences? Why not say Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi, Tristan Tzara's Gas Heart, Appolinaire's The Breasts of Tiresias, etc.? The page, as it is now, gives precursors in two or three or four different places. As I said, quite sloppy.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is full of plagiarism from unacknowledged sources and from pages of cited sources wherein the pages are not cited and there are missing quotation marks; material appears lifted from sources. The article needs extensive cleanup. I do not have time to do it; I just happened upon this article via a link in a related article. I've put templates indicating where the citations are missing both at top and in sections and added some editorial interpolations visible in show preview (edit) mode. The article needs a lot of work. The format of footnotes mixed up citations formats; it should use MLA format (see The MLA Style Manual); it is a literary topic and that format is consistent with literary topics. Footnotes are not alphabetized and there is no need for last name first name of authors in footnotes/notes in articles about literary topics. The references list is alphabetized and thus last name, first name order is used. It needs page number references in citations throughout and adequate documentation of many statements which appear to be plagiarized from sources (both those listed and perhaps those not listed). The most recent ed. of Esslin's book should be the one cited for statements in the article that are not making a distinction between what he published in 1961 and the most recent version of the book on "The Theatre of the Absurd." Parenthetical references are possible with MLA format; some of the notes could be converted to them throughout. --NYScholar (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on just a second there buddy. I've rewritten most of this page, please do tell me what is plagiarized. If it's something from this page that existed before I started fixing it, then I can't lay claim to it. If you're claiming my stuff is plagiarized, please let me know and I can prove it's not. As for the citations, I've acknowleged those need help. How bout you spend a second or two doing something useful and fix up a few of those citations. Some of us do this in our free time because we have a life and a job and don't have time to be nitpicky about every detail in a citation. On the citation front, this page was about a thousand times better than some of the wikipedia pages I've seen. Why don't you go ahead and criticize them without actually doing anything yourself to fix it. Notice, most of the earlier posts in which I complained about the quality of the page, I actually did something about it. Do I get a thank you? Yes, from the very polite and helpful RepublicanJacobite who actually does some work to fix things. There was a tremendous amount in this page to fix, pal, so why don't you shut up and get to fixin'. I personally don't have that couple of hours to spare at the moment. If you want to know where I got any of this info, please let me know. And, by the way, Fragments of a Journal is not a secondary source. Put a little leg work into your criticisms next time will ya!F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, here's an indication of what the page looked like before I seriously started working on it, it's just a little frustrating to go this far and have somebody drop some nitpickbitchings all over me: it's like you're working on The David and you take a break and somebody comes along and says, "Why, that doesn't look like a person at all, that just looks like a bunch of rocks." The citations will be fixed, pal, just don't get your panties in such a wad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theatre_of_the_Absurd&diff=179192235&oldid=179065067
Also, I can't vouch for the stuff on here before I started working on it: if you're calling me a plagiarizer, please do it in specific terms so I can prove you wrong. If your plagiarism claims are based on faulty citation, well then I'll fix it, but don't go throwing accusations like that around without the upfront proof.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also list

This article has one of the longest "see also" lists of any article on my watch list. I have to wonder how many of those names are really relevant to the topic. Those who are truly relevant should be integrated into the article somehow---Vaclav Havel, and perhaps others, for instance, could be discussed in a section on the impact of the Theatre of the Absurd on later playwrights. Those names which are not relevant should be deleted. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Before I started working on this page, the only writers mentioned were Beckett and Pirandello (and maybe another, can't remember) -- so one goal is to make sure all the significant writers get a mention. I know enough about Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter to write about them and fill in the citations later (another goal: work on the citations) -- but I need to do a little research on some of the people I want to add. Havel is definitely someone who deserves more of a place in this article. Also, Sam Shepard also needs a mention and some brief mention of Susan Lori Parks and Peter Weiss. I'm unfamiliar with most of the writers on the "see also" list, so I'll have to do some research. I would encourage anyone who is familiar with them to please integrate them into the article.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What ends up happening, in my experience, is that the "see also" list becomes a dumping ground for names---whether of people, movements, ideas, or whathaveyou---that people think are related, but which are not relevant enough to mention in the article. In this article, as I said, the "see also" list is entirely too long, and could easily be cut in half. Thank you for your efforts, Simon. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay so I approached the elimination of the "see also" list by working on a section I've been wanting to work on for a while: the homebase blurb which was originally rather limited and by creating a "legacy" section (which is admittedly rather limited as it is). I think Parks is very deserving of mention there, but I don't yet buy that the Wykes guy and the other one are worth mention. Some people might object to Mamet's place in the legacy and I'm fine if you feel like he should be deleted, but he has acknowledged several times his debt to the absurdists, Pinter especially. I know I haven't added Havel, but I think he deserves a more substantial mention than just "he's Czech" but I haven't gotten around yet to researching to make sure I get it right. If there are any Havel-ophiles out there, please do him justice. Also, please, if any of the names I transfered from the "see also" list aren't even important enough to be on this page to begin with, feel free to delete them. I would definitely defend inclusions like Shepard, Mrozek, Guare, and Erdman, and ones I added like Weiss and Parks. It makes no difference to me if the other ones from the "see also" list stay or go.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, who the hell are these guys -- Wajdi Mouawad and Walter Wykes -- Parks won a McArthur Genius Grant. Wykes was in a Star Trek show in Las Vegas. Do they really belong in the same list? With Wykes' inclusion on the "see also" list, I get a strong wiff of self-promotion. Somebody please tell me if this Wykes guy is really note worthy. And the Mouawad guy too.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now edited the "see also" list down to those names which are not already mentioned in the article. I know nothing of those two individuals. If their notability is questionable, let's get rid of them. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)