Harold Pinter by Guido Almansi and Simon Henderson (review)

Book Reviews 143 GUIDO ALMANSI AND SIMON HENDERSON. Harold Pilller. London: Methuen 1983. Pp. Ill. $4.25 (PB). Since 1969 there have been eight important book-length studies of Harold Pinter (including one of the best, by Martin Esslin, which is periodically updated; interestingly, Guido Almansi and Simon Henderson take Esslin to task - p. 71). [n addition, there have been another four or five shorter monographs, and approximately one thousand essays published. Approaches to the dramatist's work have ranged from thematic (Gale) to Freudian (Gabbard), mythic (Burkman), linguistic (Quigley), production (Sykes), and existential (Kerr). There have been historical, structuralist, computer-analysis, and reader-response studies. This output does not mean that there is nothing new to be said about Pinter, of course, but Almansi and Henderson's Harold Pinter cannot be justified on the grounds of providing important new insights. Harold Pinter includes a one-page "Biographical Note," an introduction, seven chapters - including "Games," "Questioning games: the early plays," "Hiding games: The Caretaker," "Endgames: a period of transition," "Memory games: Old Times, No Man's Landand Betrayal," "Different ball games: The FrenchLieulenant's Woman and Other Places" - notes, and a three-page bibliography. There is no index, something that all scholarly studies should contain. To begin, let me acknowledge a bias. [believe that works ofart are created to convey some sort of intellectual or emotional meaning. It would be oversimplifying to say that Almansi and Henderson claim that Pinter's dramas have no meaning, that they are merely to be "experienced in the moment of the theatre," as Styan has claimed. However, the authors do state that "no matter how fiercely you assault his plays ... you get nothing except the few truisms we all knew before we started" (p. 15). If this is so, why another volume? The authors go on to proclaim that critics are useless, "doomed to fail" in "motive-mongering about Pinter's characters" (p. 17). In order to avoid such a fate, Almansi and Henderson decided to examine the playwright's language, and they conclude that his characters use language strategically to control other characters. This approach to Pinter's plays is detailed in the "Introduction," the most controversial section in the book. The most illurrUnating sections are on the early plays, The Caretaker, and The Homecoming (chapters three, four, and five). The authors treat these plays with intelligence and insight. Essentially, they distinguish between the phatic and rhetorical modes of interrogation employed by Pinter's characters, and they demonstrate how utilizing one mode in circumstances that scem to call for the other results in evoking either menace or humor. The rest of the chapters are not so valuable. In chapter two, Almansi and Henderson contradict their own approach, first by offering value judgments (p. 26), and then by quoting Pinter on how characters can occasionally say what they actually mean (p. 29), though the authors have also said that we cannot believe Pinter anyway. Finally, they even engage in a little psychological criticism themselves (p. 3I), despite their harangue 144 Book Reviews against such an exercise. Chapter six considers Beckeu's influence. Chapter seven very briefly passes over Old Times, No Man's Land, and Betrayal, which is too bad, since although, as Almansi and Henderson note, the language has changed, it can still be examined in the context that they provided. Indeed, how do those changes relate to the authors' contentions? Chapter eight points out that the screenplay of The French Lieutenant's Woman "so far has not been fully analysed" (p. 95), though the authors certainly did not undertake to change this situation, their perusal being extremely superficial. In a sense. Almansi and Henderson can be considered reductionists of sorts. There is obviously no question about the importance of Pinter's use of language, but in Harold Pinter the authors have concentrated only on this element. Language is used by Pinter as a revealer, as an instrument (and a weapon), not as an end-all . Almansi and Henderson say some valuable things about this, yet the substance of Harold Pinter could be expressed in an extended essay (cutting the plot summaries and the rehash of old criticism, some of which is not...