I was studying Absurd plays in my drama class when a statement by my teacher brought me to a very interesting point of view. A point of view that is possible though improbable but certainly very interesting.
First for the beginners in literature, let me define ‘Theatre of Absurd.’ Plays that are absurd in structure, dialogues and actions but the message that they convey is certainly not absurd. They have generally got a circular structure, that is, they play ends where it started from, gibberish language and no logic to actions and reactions. Absurd plays generally bring out themes like insignificance of life, communication barrier, absurdity of language etc.
Well that was totally textbook definition. I strayed away from it when our teacher told us that the probable irony in plays of Absurd is that the playwrights try to communicate that actual communication is impossible.
That is when this idea struck me that probably they are not trying to communicate at all. They are only trying to prove that maybe even if they present anything gibberish or meaningless, people tend to draw conclusions and meanings from it and probably that is where the absurdity in communication lies, that is, in being ‘over’understood. All words we say sometimes mean more or sometimes less than what we intend to and that beats the entire function of language. Language is meant to present thoughts clearly rather than twisting with it to use metaphorically by one person and then to derive endless meanings by all others.
I do not know whether I believe in this point of view or not but certainly language is not very transparent which makes those Absurd playwrights either ‘over’understood by the world or ‘under’understood by me.