Read Endgame by Samuel Beckett Online


'Endgame is a one-act play with four characters. It was originally written in French as Fin de partie. As was his custom, Beckett translated it into English. Published in '57, it's one of his most important works. Its protagonists are Hamm, an aged blind master who cannot stand, & his servant Clov, who cannot sit. They exist in a tiny house by the sea, tho dialog sugge'Endgame is a one-act play with four characters. It was originally written in French as Fin de partie. As was his custom, Beckett translated it into English. Published in '57, it's one of his most important works. Its protagonists are Hamm, an aged blind master who cannot stand, & his servant Clov, who cannot sit. They exist in a tiny house by the sea, tho dialog suggests there's nothing left outside—no sea, no sun, no clouds. Mutually dependent, they've fought for years & continue to do so. Clov always wants to leave but seems unable. Also present are Hamm's legless parents Nagg & Nell, who live in rubbish bins upstage & initially request food or argue inanely. The English title is taken from chess when there are few pieces left. The French title applies to games besides chess, Beckett lamenting there's no English equivalent. Beckett was an avid player. Ham's struggle to accept the end compares to the refusal of novices to admit defeat. Harold Bloom considers Hamm to allude to Hamlet: 'its time it ended...& yet I hesitate, I hesitate end.' He contends this is an intertext with the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy, in which doubt prevents action. Endgame is devoid of action, in Beckett's typical absurdist style. Possibly Hamm also relates to ham actor & Ham, son of Noah, while Clov is a truncated version of Clown, as well as suggesting cloven hoof & glove--a distant echo of hand & glove. Nagg suggests nagging & the German nagen, to gnaw, while Nell recalls Dickens' Little Nell. (Theodor Adorno Trying to Understand Endgame). Equally Hamm could be short for Hammer & Clov be clove (etymologically nail), hammer & nail representing one aspect of their relationship. In this light, Nagg & Nell, taken together, may suggest the German Nagel, nail. Ruby Cohn, in Back to Beckett, writes that "Beckett's favorite line in the play is Hamm's deduction from Clov's observation that Nagg is crying: 'Then he's living.' But in Berlin he felt that the most important sentence is Nell's 'Nothing is funnier than unhappiness.' & he directed his play to show the fun of unhappiness." The play's implication is that the characters are static. Each day contains the actions & reactions of that before, until each event has a ritualistic quality. It's made clear thru the text that the characters have a past--Nagg & Nell conjure up memories of tandem rides in the Ardennes. There's no indication they've futures. Even the death of Nell, which occurs towards the end, is greeted without surprise. The isolated setting & constant references to lost aspects of civilisation, have led many to suggest the play is post-nuclear. Beckett denied this.'...

Title : Endgame
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780571243730
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 50 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Endgame Reviews

  • Hailey (HaileyinBookland)
    2019-02-04 15:32

    Read for class*Beckett is most definitely not for me. Oh well!

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2019-02-23 11:33

    Fin de partie = Endgame: a play in one act, Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)Endgame, by Samuel Beckett, is a one-act play with four characters. It was originally written in French (entitled: Fin de partie); Beckett himself translated it into English. The play was first performed in a French-language production at the Royal Court Theatre in London, opening on 3 April 1957. It is commonly considered, along with such works as Waiting for Godot, to be among Beckett's most important works. Characters: Hamm – unable to stand and blind; Clov – Hamm's servant; unable to sit. Taken in by Hamm as a child. Nagg – Hamm's father; has no legs and lives in a dustbin. Nell – Hamm's mother; has no legs and lives in a dustbin next to Nagg.عنوانها: بازی برگردان: منوچهر لمعه؛ آخر بازی برگردان: عطاالله نوریان؛ دست آخر برگردان: مهدی نوید؛ پایان برگردان کیاسا ناظرانتاریخ نخستین خوانش: سال 1974 میلادیعنوان: آخر بازی: بازی در یک پرده؛ اثر: ساموئل بکت؛ مترجم: عطاالله نوریان؛ مشخصات نشر: تهران، نشر قطره، 1392، در 84 ص، فروست: نشر قطره 1478، تئاتر و ادبیات نمایشی 279، نمایشنامه های خارجی 105، شابک: 9786001195020؛ چاپ سوم پاییز 1392، موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان فرانسوی قرن 20 ما. شربیانی

  • Manny
    2019-02-20 18:58

    Celebrity Death Match Special: Endgame versus Secrets of Pawnless Endings[An almost bare stage containing only an armchair, a table and two garbage cans. The armchair is covered in a heavy drape. CLOV enters right, carrying a bag, and limps slowly towards the table. When he reaches it, he pulls out a chessboard and set. He places the board on the table and painstakingly arranges a few pieces on it, examining the position from different angles and adjusting the pieces accordingly. Finally, he moves to the armchair and removes the drape, revealing HAMM, an elderly man wearing dark glasses.]HAMM: Well?CLOV: I've set them up. We can continue. Rook and bishop against rook.HAMM: What do you mean?CLOV: It's an endgame, right? HAMM: You idiot! You don't understand anything, do you?CLOV: [Defensively] I understand as much as you do. Samuel Beckett was a keen chessplayer. I can well believe he had this one in mind.HAMM: Moron! This is a universal metaphor for the human condition, not some piece of games trivia!CLOV: Look. The position is theoretically drawn in almost all practical cases, but White can torture Black for 50 moves...NAGG: [Poking head out of garbage can] 75 moves!NELL: [Muffled voice from other garbage can] No, FIDE changed it back to 50 moves in 1992!CLOV: [Ignoring them] ... though as long as Black knows one of the standard defensive setups, he has nothing to fear. Personally, I favor Cochrane's method. Though the second rank defense also has many supporters.NAGG: If Black dies before reaching the fiftieth move, he forfeits. NELL: Yes, death ends the game. It's important in correspondence matches.HAMM: But what has this got to do with Beckett?CLOV: [Shrugging his shoulders] I admit it: nothing.NAGG: Nothing!NELL: [With a hysterical little laugh] Nothing! Nothing!!CLOV: So shall we play? It'll pass the time.HAMM: Why not?[Curtain]No winner announced due to absurdity of existence

  • KamRun
    2019-02-04 17:57

    دنبا نه با انفجاری مهیب، بلکه با ناله و هق هق گریه به آخر خواهد رسیدتی اس الیوتدست آخر( آخر بازی ) نمایشنامه ای است که به شدت در برابر هر تعبیر فلسفی، تمثیلی و نمادین مقاومت می کند. مانند دیگر آثار بکت، در اینجا نیز هرگز با تصویر کاملی روبرو نمی شویم و موقعیتی کاملا گسیخته در قالب نمایش عرضه می شود. دست آخر به جای بیان فقدان معنا، به نشان دادن بصری این فقدان روی آورده استنمایش با وارد شدن کلاو به صحنه، کناز زدن پرده دو پنجره، نگاه های دزدکی به بیرون و سپس برداشتن ملحفه ها آغاز می شود. هیو کنر در باب چنین شروعی می گوید: این حرکت چنان آشکارا استعاره ای برای بیدار شدن است که می توان تصور نمود کل صحنه و متعلقاتش معرف فضای درونی کاسه سر یک انسان است. اگر این برداشت درست باشد، می توان کل نمایش را معرف دقایقی در جهان درونی انسانی افسرده و به استیصال رسیده دانست. به همین علت است که این اثر بکت نسبت به آثار دیگرش طرح داستانی کمتری دارد. انسانی که چشم به راه چیزی نیست، مگر قرص های مسکنش. سخنان آغازین کلاو اشاره به همین موضوع دارد : تمام شد. تقریبا تمام شده، باید که تقریبا تمام شده باشد. ذره به ذره، یک به یک و ناگهان روزی کپه ای از آن ها، کپه ای کوچک، کپه ای تحمل ناپذیر. پس دست آخر روزی معمولی ست، چون باقی روزها. با این تفاوت که سرانجام تراکم روزها به کلیتی به نام زندگی بدل گشته است. در پایان نیز دیالوگی به همین مضمون را "هم" تکرار می کند : لحظه به لحظه، شرشر فرو می ریزد، همچون دانه های ارزن ِ (تردید می کند)... آن یونانی پیر و تمام عمر منتظر می مانی تا شاید این کپه وانگهی دریا شود عبارت تمام شد آغازین نمایش را می توان تلمیحی به آخرین سخنان مسیح بر صلیب دانست، آنجا که مسیح مصلوب فریاد زد "تمام شد" و سپس جان سپرد. همین کلمات درون مایه کلی نمایش را مشخص می کند.در بخش های مختلف نمایش، معنا به طور واضح به سخره گرفته می شود :هم: نکنه یک وقت حرف های ما معنی پیدا کند؟کلاو: معنا پیدا کند؟ حرف های من و تو معنا پیدا کند؟(خنده کوتاه) این هم از آن حرف های خوشمزه بوددر دستورهای اجرای صحنه نیز امده که باید درون اتاق، تصویری رو بر دیوار آویخته شود و پشت آن به تماشاچیان باشد که استعاره ای از غیاب معنا در نمایش استنگ و نل، دو کاراکتر درون سطل های زباله، پدر و مادر "هم" هستند. هم دردی میان این دو را می توان برجسته ترین ارتباط احساسی درون داستان در نظر گرفت. نگ می تواند سالخوردگی استراگون باشد و نل سالخوردگی ولادیمیر. رابطه ی مابین کلاو و هم نیز یادآورد رابطه لاکی و پوتزو است. میان هم و کلاو رابطه خدا و بندگی وجود دارد. به نظر می رسد بین نام این دو و نقش شان ارتباطی باشد. کلاو در فرانسه به واژه میخ و هم در انگلیسی به واژه چکش شبیه استبر خلاف نمایش های سنتی خانوادگی که در آن ها ارزش های خانوادگی پاس داشته می شود، در "دست آخر" اصالت این ارزش ها در کنار باقی چیزها از بین می رود و نمایش به ورای تراژدی منتقل می شود. آگاهی شخصیت ها از پوچی و آنچه از دست رفته است بیشتر از شخصیت های موازی در انتظار گودو ست و از همین جهت اینان متحمل درد و عذاب بیشتری می شونداتفاقات نمایش در جهانی می گذرد بسیار ناآشنا و غریب. بیرون، تماما خاکستری و متروک و مرده است. خاطرات شخصیت ها متعلق به جهان ماست، اما جهان فعلی آن ها خالی و مملو از روح مرگ است. کاراکتر های "دست آخر" بارها به خاطرات خوش گذشته پناه می برند،با این حال این خاطرات سرابی بیش نیستند. بکت بر این باور است که یادآوری خاطرات ذاتا مخدوش و نامعتبر است و بیشتر از نیازهای درونی ناشی می شود تا از تجربه ای واقعی. داستان نمایش در عین حال که رو به سوی پایانی آخر الزمانی دارد، همزمان مبتنی بر وقایع دلگیر زندگی روزمره است. عنصر انتظار بر خلاف در انتظار گودو متوجه نجات و امید به تعویق افتاده نیست، بلکه تسلی پایان و فرجام است: کلاو با ماتم می گوید که چیزهای هولناک زیادی وجود دارد و هم پاسخ می دهد نه! حالا دیگه خیلی زیاد نیستندبرای هم و کلاو که در انتظار پایان اند، چشم انداز شروع تکاملی دیگر بسیار آزاردهنده است. دلیل به وحشت افتادن "هم" با دیدن کک در شلوار کلاو و موش در آشپزخانه نیز همین موضوع است: هم: نژاد بشر ممکن است دوباره از همینجا آغاز بشه! محض رضای خدا بگیرتش! و بعد نوبت پیدا شدن یک موش است. در پایان نمایش، یک پسربچه، عامل بالقوه تولید مثل دیده می شود. آیا این روند تکاملی کک به موش و موش به پسربچه در دست آخر، روزنه ای از امید است؟ در داستان "هم" نیز با یک پسربچه روبرو هستیم.این پسر کیست؟ آیا ارتباطی با پسرک بیرون پنجره دارد؟ و یا با کودکی کلاو؟ بکت در پاسخ این پرسش مطابق انتظار چنین گفته است : نمی دانم این داستان کودکی کلاو است یا نه، نمی دانم، همین. مانند در انتظار گودو،در دست آخر نیز با دوگانگی زمان روبرو هستیم.از یک سو زمان به مثابه عامل تکرار و اسارت و تسلسل (نمایش همان گونه که شروع می شود، پایان می یابد) و از سویی دیگر به مثابه عامل فساد و نابود (واقعیات از دست رفته، قرص ها و خاک اره تمام شده و ...). بنابراین شخصیت های این نمایش علاوه بر مکان،از حیث زمان نیز در بند هستند.کاربرد عناصر فرانمایشی نیز در دست آخر برجسته است.این عناصر تنها جنبه نمایشی نداردند، بلکه در عین حال وجه اجرایی، تکراری و نمایشی زندگی را نیز مشخص می کنند. به عنوان مثال عبارت "تمام شدن" و "چیزی دارد می گذرد" اشاره ی آگاهانه به گذشتن و پایان یافتن نمایش دارد، زمانی که کلاو دوربینش را به سوی نماشاگران می گیرد و یا هنگامی که کلاو تهدید به رفتن می کند و هم می گوید او نمی تواند صحنه را ترک کند، به خاطر دیالوگ! نمونه ی برجسته ی دیگر، ادغام دلهره وجودی کلاو در نقش و تکرار نقش به عنوان جز لاینفک بازیست. چنانکه کلاو و هم می گویند " این مسخره بازی هر روز خدا چه فایده ای دارد؟" خواندن آثار بکت برای آن دسته از مخاطبینی که در انتظار روبرو شدن با اتفاقات تراژیک و هیجان انگیز در نمایش را هستند اشتباهی بزرگ است. با این حال برای عده ای دیگر،این آثار آینه ی تمام نمای زندگی آن هاست،روبرو شدن با حقیقتی تلخ.زندگی ای خالی از معنا و ارزش،غرق در روزمرگیبه این اثر بکت 5 ستاره امتیاز می دم و به این نسخه ترجمه شده کمتر از 1!

  • Ahmed Ibrahim
    2019-02-06 14:53

    يقول النقاد بأن نهاية اللعبة هي بمثابة جزء ثاني لمسرحية في انتظار جودو التي تمركزت هو عدمية الحياة، لكن في هذه المسرحية تناول بيكيت النهاية، الموت.كالعادة في مسرح العبث لا وجود للوقت، تدور المسرحية في مكان واحد في غرفة بها أربع شخصيات كلهم ذوى عاهات، لا أحد فيهم كامل ومتعافي جسديًا، هام الذي لا يستطيع الوقوف وهو الذي يتحكم في الجميع، وكلوف الذي لا يستطيع الجلوس ولا يفعل شيئًا سوى إطاعة أوامر هام ويظل يسأله لماذا يطيعه لكنه لا يعرف، هو يشبه استراجون في تكراره بأنه سيرحل لكنه لا يستطيع الرحيل.. وأبوان هام وهما نيل وناج اللذان يعيشان في صندوقي القمامة.. لا معنى لأي شيء هنا سوى في الحوار، والذي سنجده مكررًا ومبتورًا. مسرحية رائعة، في نظري أن الحوار والإطار المسرحي هنا أقوى من في انتظار جودو، لكن الثانية أعجبتني أكثر من الأولى بالرغم من هذا.

  • Chris_P
    2019-02-22 14:56

    -Nature has forgotten us.-There's no more nature. -No more nature! You exaggerate. -In the vicinity. -But we breathe, we change! We lose our hair, our teeth! Our bloom! Our ideals! A play that reads like a poem written in a twisted dream. No words. Only silence is suitable after this one.

  • Trevor
    2019-01-26 11:57

    My youngest daughter took me to see this during the week. We had our first beer together prior to the performance in a pub – a highly significant moment for a father, obviously, especially here in the land of Oz, the land of the amber fluid.Then a minute ago I read the Wiki article on this play. I wanted to be sure it was written post-WW2. You see, it is so obviously a post-nuclear war play that I would have been very disappointed if it had been written in 1922 or something. You know, the way TSE’s line, “I’ll show you fear in a handful of dust”, really ought to be a reference to nuclear war, and yet it just can’t be. It is very amusing that Beckett would say this isn’t about post-nuclear war. Exactly the sort of thing you would expect him to say.Anyway, this is a comedy about things it should be impossible to find funny. If the Irish can claim to have done anything for Western Civilisation, perhaps that is it, to have tried to find ways to get us to laugh about things we really shouldn’t laugh at. It is, I believe, what helps to form the strange connection I have in my mind between Jews and the Irish. Although, perhaps the Irish were lucky enough not to be chosen, not only not chosen, but hardly even picked. The mother in this says, “Nothing is funnier than unhappiness” – which is easily the funniest line in the play – and also the play’s most important line. If you are writing a play and can achieve that, you’ve done well. Like I said, the question here is how do you make a comedy out of this material? When all you have are the last people on earth perishing away for want of everything, two of them even actually living in rubbish bins. It is probably only possible to think to do this, or even think it necessary to be done, if you are Irish or Jewish.And yet, this is a remarkable play. Even the constant farce seems to only heighten the pathos of the thing – and bathos too, obviously.

  • K.D. Absolutely
    2019-02-18 19:53

    The title is taken from that stage in chess wherein there are only few pieces so you cannot mate your opponent. This is the second play written by Samuel Beckett that I've read. It still felt very much like Waiting for Godot (3 stars) with it absurdity, strangeness and at some point senselessness. I have been reading the works of Samuel Beckett so I am used to his style and because of it, I still liked this play of his.Unlike Godot however, I had to read the existing reviews of my friends here on Goodreads because I wanted to get other people's interpretation of the play. There is one, and Beckett denied this, that says he thinks that the setting is post-nuclear war and I think I'd agree with this. Maybe Hamm cannot stand up because he and his legless parents Nell and Nagg are crippled because of radiation? But can't Clov stand? My romantic side at some point during my reading would like me to believe that this is about friendship like Vladimir and Estragon in Godot but here Hamm is consistently critical of Clov as if the later is the former's slave or inferior. However, they compliment each other because Hamm cannot stand and Clov cannot sit. I have not seen this play on stage so I cannot imagine but if I try to imagine about this, the post-nuclear war does enter my mind. Fueling to this is the references that there is nothing outside the house and the legless parents are living in a dustbin.I hope to see this play someday.

  • Carmo
    2019-02-07 14:35

    Lê-se em pouco mais de uma hora, mas fica colado à pele; um dia, uma semana, uma vida. Beckett não se esquece. Assim como não se esquece a inquietação que as suas peças provocam: a confusão de sentimentos, o vazio, a angústia…porque leva-nos ao limite, faz-nos rir e sabemos que não era para rir, era para chorar, caramba! Era para gritar!Foi a peça mais sombria que li de Samuel Beckett, agora, é apanhar os cacos e tentar restaurar a ruína emocional.

  • أحمد جابر
    2019-02-13 19:33

    أولى قراءاتي لبيكيت، نهاية اللعبة.مسرحية في مكان واحد، هام المقعد الضرير، كلوف يخدمه، ناج ونيل الابوان المقعدان أيضاً ويحبسهما هام في صندوق.هام يعطي الأوامر لكلوف الذي ينفذها حسب ما يريد هام.لن أتحدث عن هذه المسرحية إلا بما ورد فيها، كلما أقلب صفحة أجد حواراً صغيراً عميقاً غريباً فلسفياً، وإليكم بعضها:- كلوف: لماذا تنظر إلي؟- هام: ليس هناك شخص آخر***- هام: كيف حال رجليك؟- كلوف: سيئة- هام: لكنك يمكنك أن تتحرك- كلوف: نعم- هام: إذن تحرك!***- هام: الموج؟- كلوف: من رصاص- هام: والشمس؟- كلوف: عدم- هام: إنه الليل إذن- كلوف: لا- هام: إذن ماذا؟- كلوف: رمادي- هام: رمادي! قلت رمادي؟- كلوف: أسود خفيف يلف الكون***- هام: ألا ترى أننا نعني شيئاً- كلوف: نعني؟ نحن؟ نعني! نكتة!أيما شيء أراد بيكيت في هذه المسرحية فإنني لم أستطع منع خيالي من سرد مسرحيته بتأويل وطريقة أخرى، أنا مطمئن لما وصلت إليه وإن ناقض كل المسرحية، سأسرد لكم هذه الحكاية:هام مقعد ضرير، كلوف خادمه، نهاية العالم في لحظاتها ما قبل الأخيرة، لم يتبق في هذا العالم إلا هام، كلوف، ناج، نيل، تم قتل الجارة بيغ، يأمر هام كلوف بأن يضع أبويه في صندوق القمامة لبتخلص منهما، إنه يبحث عن آخر مسافة للبقاء، فإن كانت النهاية تعتمد على الرقم، فإنه يحاول البقاء حتى الرقم الأخير، أو ما قبل الأخير، الأبوان سيموتان قريباً، كلوف يخدمه وينفذ أوامره من باب الشفقة فهو يعلم أنه الباقي الأخير في هذا العالم، الكل موتى خارج المبنى، يرى شخصاً بمنظاره، فيأمره هام بأن يقتله، إثبات لمحاولة البقاء أكثر، سيموت الكل، ويبقى كلوف، الناجي الوحيد من هذا العالم المليء بالجثث، ثم يواجه كل الموتى ويموت كما قال له هام: لن يكون معك أحد، فراغ لا نهائي يحاصرك وكل الموتى يبعثون من كل العصور فلا يستطيعوا سد هذا الفراغ، ولن يكون هناك من يشفق عليك. تنتهي القصة بخروج كلوف من المكان، لتحقيق نبوءة هام، هام الذي يقبل أن يكون الرقم ما قبل الأخير، كلوف هو الأخير، أو بمعنى آخر، هو الرقم صفر في العد التنازلي للعالم، الرقم الذي كرره كلوف مرتين، المرة الأولى عند سؤال هام له: ماذا وجدت؟ فأجاب صفراً، والمرة الثانية بعد فترة: عندما قال كلوف وهو ينظر بالمنظار ولم يجد شيئاً: صفر صفر صفر فقال هام: لا شيء يتحرك، فرد عليه كلوف: صفر

  • Fabian
    2019-02-15 16:47

    Looks bad in print. Perhaps up on the stage it functions as it should, as bizarro entertainment. The stuff is emblematic, yet I cannot help but place him in the company of Lewis Carol in his overenthusiastic use of randomness, meaninglessness, senseless unseriousness. Makes me think that the play is an experiment that's just altogether useless.

  • Bogdan Liviu
    2019-02-15 13:30

    You're on earth, there's no cure for that!

  • Emily
    2019-02-12 19:35

    I read this in English, for my British Lit class this semester. I thought I should actually start reading the assignments, and I read this after reading The Power and the Glory and Regeneration. My professor said this piece would be slow moving, and he said something about it not really have a plot, but I could see one if I squinted. I actually really enjoyed this piece. And because I took notes on it for my class, I have a lot to say. One of the biggest things, is obviously that it represents a chess game, even by the title. I'm not a chess player, nor do I know chess language, but my professor explained most of it (the title, how Clov moves around the step ladder at some points is like moving chess pieces, and how Nell & Nagg's faces are very white, while Clov's and Hamms' are very red), and I know that sometimes chess can be a little slow moving, like life seems to be for these characters (and like the play itself). It ties in nice with the chess theme. There were a few parts that I found very humorous for no apparent reason. It's more ironic because these characters contemplate laughing a few times throughout the play, but never actually do. There are three things I found funny: Hamm: Sit on him! Clov: I can't sit. Hamm: True. And I can't stand. I found myself smirking to myself when I read that part. Perhaps because it's such an odd thing, but the oddity does fit with this play. Another somewhat humorous part was when Hamm said "lick your neighbor as yourself," and it's basically just a parody of the saying "love your neighbor." The other funny part was when Nagg was giving his speech to Hamm about his boyhood and he says, "...we let you cry. Then we moved you out of earshot, so that we might sleep in peace." That part is odd. It's like, what parent does that? But it struck me as humorous nonetheless. The plot I saw if I squinted was just them basically waiting around to die. My professor said the setting in this reminded him "of a nursing home where the patients are just waiting to die." And then he said that he can just picture Samuel Beckett standing behind him whispering, "so are we." Life is always dying, and most of us are just waiting for it. On the first page, Clov says something is "finished, it's finished, nearly finished, it must be nearly finished." I feel like he's talking about his life. A few pages later, Hamm cries out that it must nearly finished too, and then asks Clov if "this thing" has gone on long enough - it really feels like they're waiting for death. Another thing that was pointed out by my professor is the fact that Clov and Hamm discuss the fact that this is a play. On one page Clove asks what there is to keep him around, and Hamm replies with "the dialogue." On another page, Hamm says that there'll "be no more speech" and "it's time for his story" as if he had thumbed ahead in the script. On the last page of the play, when Hamm is talking, he pauses a lot and I got the feeling that he was almost reading from a script. Hamm always seems to be the one who brings up the script, and coincidentally the word "ham" means bad actor, according to my professor. So I found that interesting. The whole thing represents the deterioration of humanity, I think. We have four characters in this piece - 1) Hamm, who can't stand up and who is blind. 2) Clov, who can't sit down and limps. 3) Nagg, who is going deaf4) and Nell, who only has stumps for legsThat just further points out the theme of just waiting around to die. A quote that really stuck out to me was "the end is in the beginning and yet you go on." Overall, I found the concept/theme really interesting, and I'm glad I decided to read it.

  • Elahe Yari
    2019-02-17 19:30

    نفهمیدمش. شاید به خاطر صوتی گوش دادنش بود، هرچند "در انتظار گودو " رو هم اگه نقد انتهایی کتاب رو نمیخوندم متوجه نمیشدم...شاید فهمیدن آثار بکت نیاز به تجربه و تخصص داره...

  • David Sarkies
    2019-02-22 16:49

    An absurd masterpiece13 April 2014 One of the interesting things that I find about Beckett's plays is that he resists the temptation to offer any interpretation to what is going on within the play, or what the play is about. In fact he seems to do completely the opposite in actually denying certain interpretations (while not offering any reason as to what it is about). For instance, when asked if Godot is supposed to be God, his response is no, and asking whether Endgame is set in a post-apocalyptic world, once again his answer is no. However, the title of the play 'Endgame' suggests that this is a play about endings, but not any old endings, but rather an ending in which the protagonist does not want to accept has arrived. The term Endgame applies to a part of a game of chess coming, surprisingly, at the end. It is suggested by some that at this part of the game the winner has already been defined, however the loser still struggles against all odds in a vain attempt at victory. In a way it plays well into this classic example of the theatre of the absurd with the idea of continuing one's existence, and fighting, despite the fact that one has lost and that there is no way out of that existence. The main character within the endgame in the play is Hamm, a blind man who cannot stand and is entirely dependant upon his servant Clov (who cannot sit). While most of Hamm's interactions are with his servant Clov, there is an occasional interaction with Nagg and Nell, Hamm's parents, who are confined to a couple of barrels (and it is suggested sometime during the play Nell dies). In a way Hamm seems to vainly clasp on to an idea of hope despite the fact that, for him, the end has arrived; while Clov, the one who actually holds all of the power, is torn between leaving and staying – he desires to leave because Hamm is a demanding and cruel master, but he desires to stay because of his obligation to Hamm. I feel that the question of whether the world is post-apocalyptic is a moot point because that, I believe, is beyond the scope of the play. However, there is the suggestion that there is nothing left – everything has gone, which brings us back to the question of whether the world is post-apocalyptic. This, in a way, plays into the theme of the title in that for those living in a post-apocalyptic world the end has arrived, however they are not quite there yet and are fighting a vain battle to not just survive, but to win. In another sense, it is a situation that we have brought ourselves into, and in a way we are blind to the fact that we are in that position. Then there is the motif of blindness, which is something that Sparknotes doesn't seem to touch upon (this is actually a pretty decent website to consider the ideas that come out of various pieces of famous literature). In a way, just as the players in the Endgame may be blind to their predicament, Hamm is himself blind to his own predicament. He is the king of the piece but he is completely reliant upon Clov, who is the queen. Without Clov Hamm is defenceless. However he refuses to realise this and continues to push Clov around. However Clov is also in the same predicament in that there is nothing outside of the four walls of the room (just as there is nothing beyond the chessboard) and as such, while Clov may leave, there is nothing for Clov outside of the place. Thus for Clov to have any meaning, Clov must be here because, well, Clov is Hamm's servant, and that is the definition that he is given himself – without that definition Clov is effectively nothing. I recently saw a permformance of this play, and have written up some further (and similar) thoughts on my blog.

  • Comfortably
    2019-01-23 11:45

    Δεύτερη ανάγνωση και σα να μην ήταν αρκετή ούτε και αυτή τη φορά. Αφήνω το έργο να ρθει σε μένα και περιμένω. "Το τέλος βρίσκεται μέσα στην αρχή κι ωστόσο συνεχίζουμε". Η ανάμνηση των στιγμών με φως - αν υπήρξαν ποτέ - έχει χαθεί όμως πια. "Δεν είναι ηλιαχτίδα αυτό που νιώθω στο πρόσωπό μου? Όχι". Οι μάσκες πέφτουν για τον Χαμ. Απόκαμε πια από τις ιστορίες. Πριν δυο χρόνια, στην πρώτη επαφή, είχα γράψει ότι ο Ναγκ και η Νελλ.. που γελανε με τη δυστυχια του κοσμου και εχουν τις καρδιες στο κεφαλι τους, μου φέραν στο μυαλό το ποίημα του Σαχτούρη, η Σκηνή. Θα μείνω στο ίδιο βάρος που ένιωσα και τότε. Αυτό που έκανε τη διαφορά τώρα είναι η συνειδητοποίηση του πόσο τρυφερά στέκεται ο Μπέκετ δίπλα στους τυραννισμένους ήρωες του, που βλέπουν τώρα χωρίς κιάλια την απάνθρωπη μοναξιά τους.*Πολύ καλό το βιβλίο από τις εκδόσεις Ύψιλον "Ἀπάνω στὸ τραπέζι εἴχανε στήσειἕνα κεφάλι ἀπὸ πηλὸτοὺς τοίχους τοὺς εἶχαν στολίσειμὲ λουλούδιαἀπάνω στὸ κρεβάτι εἴχανε κόψει ἀπὸ χαρτὶδυὸ σώματα ἐρωτικὰστὸ πάτωμα τριγύριζαν φίδιακαὶ πεταλοῦδεςἕνας μεγάλος σκύλος φύλαγεστὴ γωνιάΣπάγγοι διασχίζαν τὸ δωμάτιο ἀπ᾿ ὅλεςτὶς πλευρὲςδὲ θά ῾ταν φρόνιμο κανεὶςνὰ τοὺς τραβήξειἕνας ἀπὸ τοὺς σπόγγους ἔσπρωχνε τὰ σώματαστὸν ἔρωταἩ δυστυχία ἀπ᾿ ἔξωἔγδερνε τὶς πόρτες"

  • Amir
    2019-02-07 14:46

    یه نمایش آخرالزمانی تاثیرگذار. یه ارباب و نوکر که آخرین بازمانده‌های نسل بشری هستن. دو نفری که روزهای آخرشون رو محکوم هستند به هم. دو نفری که با این‌که سال‌ها پیش هم بودن توانایی برقراری کوچک‌ترین ارتباط انسانی رو هم ندارند. آشنا نیست؟ یه جورهایی قصه‌ی همین روزهای ماست.کلا نمایش‌نامه‌خون خوبی نیستم. چون تا میام توضیحات نمایش‌نامه‌نویس رو در مورد واکنش بازیگرا و طراحی صحنه بخونم رشته‌ی کلام دیالوگ‌ها از دستم میاد بیرون و هی باید برگردم و اون‌جا رو از اول بخونم، مخصوصا توی دیالوگای پینگ‌پونگی. اما این روزا یه راه خوب پیدا کردم برای خوندن نمایش‌نامه‌های بزرگ. اکثر این نمایش‌ها یه نسخه‌ی سینمایی یا تئاتر تلویزیونی دارن که رو یوتوب هست. همین ساموئل بکت همه‌ی کارهاش تحت عنوان پروژه‌ی «بکت آن فیلم» بازی شده و اکثرشون رو میشه رو یوتوب پیدا کرد. آخر بازی رو با کمک این نسخه خوندم. گذاشتم همین‌جور پخش بشه و یه چشمم به مونیتور بود و یه چشمم به متن نمایش‌نامه. این روش جواب داد. لینک یوتوب این نمایش رو این پایین میذارم. پروفسور دامبلدور هری پاتر رو تو نقش هام از دست ندید:

  • Kain
    2019-02-07 19:51

    لا من مسعف ولا من منجد، لا من هنا ولا من هناك.

  • Greg Talbot
    2019-02-02 16:51

    Unless it's Shakespeare, never read a play without some type of textual notes. Having read “Waiting for Godot” and now “Endgame”, I'm familiar with Samuel Beckett's minimalist approach. He emphasizes silences, physical positions and stage props. All of this is to say, Beckett is probably best translated to the plays (as intended), but trekking through textual notes gave me a deep appreciation for this play. The first time I read the play it took me under an hour, but I really didn't get it. The second time took me over 3 hours and I needed the companion notes. So on to the text! Clov visits moribund Hamm and arguments about life and its meaning are exhausted. It's all very heavy and existential. Biblical allusions (“It is finished” John 19:30) and Shakespeare puns (“My Kingdom for a nightman!) are layered within the banal actions – killing a rat, trying to find painkillers, looking out windows. At one point Hamm demands a bug be killed. His fear is anything living will evolve over time, develop human existence and thus know suffering. Not exactly uplifting. As it's a play script, there is little formal information about these characters and their whereabouts. But the focus is always about suffering, needless suffering, suffering from having been brought to existence, and in Hamm's case facing finality and futility.That brings in the other side of the story, “game” aspect. The chess allusions, the basic plot to get Clov into the kitchen, Clov, younger and maybe more optimistic is able to leave the dwelling and find some meaning. He appeals to Hamm about the pillars of nature, friendship, love. But Hamm does have the last word, and levels with Clov that only bleakness awaits. There is a dark humor to all this, an absurdness of all the moments that never add up to meaning or awakening.For a myriad of reasons it's a very hard text to recommend “Endgame”. It's not particularly literary, it doesn't have the complexity of other plays (think Shakespeare) , and frankly it's fatalism is a huge turn off for me. But Beckett's work is inventive, and it boldly delivers an original work within the confines of limited setting and events.

  • ✨jamieson ✨
    2019-02-08 17:37

    “HAMM: We're not beginning to... to... mean something?CLOV: Mean something! You and I, mean something!(Brief laugh.) Ah that's a good one!” Absurd theatre and existentialist lit isn't for everyone ... but I really enjoy it. I couldn't tell you why, but something about the themes and the pointlessness (?) of it all really appeals to me. I know some people find the idea of Hamms parents living in Ash bins and Clov not being able to sit ect ect reallt stupid but something about that stupidity is charming to me. “Use your head, can't you, use your head, you're on earth, there's no cure for that!” The whole thing just kind of appeals to me, sort of intellectually? Its weird because I wouldn't call myself an existentialist but I think that they at least pose interesting question and observations about life and meaningless“Nothing is funnier than unhappiness, I grant you that… Yes, yes, it's the most comical thing in the world. And we laugh, we laugh, with a will, in the beginning. But it's always the same thing. Yes, it's like the funny story we have heard too often, we still find it funny, but we don't laugh any more.”

  • Bettie☯
    2019-01-24 17:28

    Beckett directs Beckett - Endgame (Finale di partita) : Hamm - unable to stand and blind Clov - servant of Hamm; unable to sit. Nagg - Hamm's father; has no legs and lives in a dustbin. Nell - Hamm's mother; has no legs and lives in a dustbin next to Nagg.whahahahaha

  • Bruce
    2019-02-01 12:33

    As with so many of Samuel Beckett’s plays, this one can leave the reader or viewer both entertained and bewildered. Set in one room, it has only four characters: Hamm, blind and unable to walk; Clov, unable to sit; Nell and Nagg, who have no legs and live side by side in ash cans. It might be possible to view the play on one level as simply presenting a statement about existential despair, about the meaningless of life and the inevitability of death. Yes, for each of us there are aspects of life that are routine, even banal. Yes, each of us is inevitably fated to die, try as we might to deny or avoid it. But I think the play’s fascination comes not only from its details and obviously entertaining creativity and bizarreness but from the many different questions it raises and by the diversity of responses it elicits. I suspect that each person in the audience brings his and her own anxieties and questions to the play-going experience and thus is struck by different aspects of the issues that Beckett raises. Is it true, as Sartre asserts, that hell is other people, or are we drawn inexorably into community, no matter how unsatisfactory that might at times seem? How does each of us deal with those aspects of life that seem tedious and pointless? How do we negotiate the unpredictable and often frustrating shoals of interpersonal interaction? How does each of us deal with the fact that we are ultimately alone and isolated and on the road to death? And, using such a play as a personal mirror, what is it about the play that we like or dislike, and, more important, why? What is it that triggers our individual response, and what does that say to us? What makes us most uncomfortable, and how can we open ourselves to admit, face, and respond to that?I found this play fascinating and am eager to see it produced in three weeks.

  • Mat
    2019-01-31 16:48

    One of Beckett's most famous and best plays. Hamm and Clov are an unforgettable pair. Hamm is a miserable person, confined to his chair, and somewhat accepting of his fate, slowly waiting for death - the end to come. But the end is slow in coming so why don't they continue to play this game, this game of life, this game of routines, of talking to each other, pretending to care etc. Clov is Hamm's patient caretaker who generally has the patience of a saint, irrespective of the occasional emotional outburst or tantrum (but rightfully so). Nagg and Nell are Hamm's parents and make the occasional appearance out of their trash bins like Oscar from Sesame Street. This is a very weird, bleak and forlorn play. I read that critics were not happy with the stark feeling of helplessness that the play gives off but its Beckett's humour, once again, that saves it from being impossibly dark. In fact, the humour pulls the play back from Nietzchian territory and lands it square and fair in the field of art. Beckett is once again questioning and making fun of the 'meaning' of life. By that I mean he is highlighting how pointless and how meaningless much of it seems to be, especially in this case in old age when everything has already been said and done, friends have gone, lovers have gone and all you have left is yourself and those who still stand by your side.A very interesting play that can be read in a single setting. I enjoyed this as much as Waiting for Godot, but this one was possibly funnier. This gave me a good tickle and laugh so 4 stars.

  • Hamid Hasanzadeh
    2019-01-31 15:36

    "هام : توی خونه ی من . یه روز کور میشی مثل من . اون جا می شینی ، عین نقطه ای تو خلا ، تو تاریکی ، برای همیشه ، مثل من . یه روزی به خودت میگی خسته ام . می خوام بشینم ، بعد میری و می شینی . بعد میگی ، گرسنه ام ، بلند می شم و یه چیزی برای خوردن بر می دارم . اما بلند نمی شی و هیچ چیزی برای خوردن بر نمی داری . کمی به دیوار نگاه می کنی ، بعد می گی ، نباید می نشستم ، کمی بیشتر می شینم ، بعد بلند می شم و یه چیزی برای خوردن برمی دارم . اما بلند نمی شی و هیچی برای خوردن برنمی داری . کمی به دیوار نگاه می کنی ، بعد میگی چشامو می بندم ، شاید قدری بخوابم ، بعدش حالم بهتر می شه ، بعد اونارو می بندی . بعد دوباره وقتی بازشون می کنی دیگه هیچ دیواری نیست... خلا بی پایان ، اطرافت رو می گیره . مردگان همه ی اعصار هم اگه زنده شن نمی تونن اون خلا رو پر کنن ، و اونجا تو مثل یه سنگریزه ای تو بیابون...آره، یه روز می فهمی که چیه ، مثل من میشی ، جز این که هیچکی باهات نیست ، برای اینکه به کسی رحم نکرده ای و برای اینکه کسی نمی مونه که بهش رحم کنی "-ساموئل بکت - آخر بازی

  • John Molina
    2019-02-10 16:35

    This is my second time reading Samuel Beckett's play "Endgame" and I must say that I am a lot more impressed with it this second go around. I read it for a British Literature class last year and didn't get the point of it. The play seemed to center on nothingness and the play had no discernible plot or development of characters. After reading it again, I've come to the conclusion that that is the point of the entire work. Beckett has his characters argue endlessly and change their minds about what they just said in the next sentence. The play has a very dark sense of humor which I appreciate and this touch of humor helps one get to the essence of the story. The story is a satire on the absurdities of life and the ways people connect/don't connect with one another. It is a very short read-the subject matter can be a bit difficult to grasp- but ultimately one that I found humorous and satisfying.

  • جابر طاحون
    2019-01-31 14:37

    بيكيت اكتشف كل شيء .في العدم طبعا .العالم تزامنية التساقط لا حاجة للذهاب بعيدا، هذا هو المكان ، تملَّ كل هذه الروعة ، فكر في الأمورة و ستري كيف يصير كل شيء واضحًا .كل شيء ينتهي ، تظن أنك لن ترحل ولا شيء سينتهي ؟ ذات يوم ينتهي الأمر .تقول لنفسك انطفأت الأرضمع أنك لم ترها مضيئة أبدًا .العب و اخسر و انته من هذه الخسارة، مر زمان و انتهي و ستُختم الحكاية .هذه حال الأرض . أنت احتفظ بك ._ المنزل كله يفوح برائحة الجثة_ كل العالم _ ماذا يحدث ماذا يحدث ._ شيء يتبغ مجراه_ أيه أهمية ؟_لماذا تبقي معي ؟_ لماذا تبقيني ؟_ أنهضتك للتو _ و إن يكن ؟

  • Mojan
    2019-02-21 18:58

    "Use your head, can't you, use your head. You're on earth, there's no cure for that!"

  • Yasiru (reviews will soon be removed and linked to blog)
    2019-01-28 12:44

    I read this in English at, glad that Beckett provided the translation himself (of passing curiosity is that Wilde's Salome, another play translated by the author from the original French, lately impressed me also). Spoilers of a sort may follow, but this is not the kind of work where these might be summarily unwelcome.This is a claustrophobic play, stark for all the clutter of its setting (being in one act), and very effectively conveys a slow spiral towards the inevitability hinted at by its title (a chess term; with various nods and allusions to the game strewn about through the play). In the characters there is a sense of inertia before all else; they suffer, but unable to stir themselves to much, whimsically forget they do and go through motions that Beckett makes seem as though they have gone on forever and may further still (there are too, signs of an unconcerned awareness of their own tragedy as a performance). Deliberate and languishing in comparison to classical theatre and even Shakespeare, but evoking something of the portentous power of the aforementioned Salomé, the play apprehends through black and absurd humour the nature of 'new' tragedy familiar from Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra-'O man! Take heed!What saith deep midnight's voice indeed?"I slept my sleep—"From deepest dream I've woke and plead:—"The world is deep,"And deeper than the day could read."Deep is its woe—"Joy—deeper still than grief can be:"Woe saith: Hence! Go!"But joys all want eternity—"Want deep profound eternity!"'(translation by Thomas Common)For if tragedy is the spectacle of being overcome despite the noble or pathetic character of one's plight, a natural response (where all response is superfluous) is grim mirth.There are signs of nostalgia from the sense-deprived Hamm (along with never fully expressed regret), Nagg and particularly Nell, but these serve to highlight its lack in the still somewhat whole Clov (see Wikipedia for the significance of these names), who is the only one still able to move about of his own accord (though he knows this too shall diminish). He isn't still in the way of the others, but when Hamm asks what he does in his kitchen, Clov replies that he looks at the wall and sees his light dying, and the impression is given that he has lost without having a thing to lose unlike the others, and that this may be why he responds when he is called upon despite frequently wondering why (and why his manner, despite the reduced perceptions of the other occupants of the room, is so strangely methodical- he also does useless things, like trying to kill the rat lest it die). Hamm is disdainful, and throughout the play he sees Clov's fate and options through his own eyes.Laughter, or the lead-up to laughter, comes a few times, but loses momentum and falters as soon as it is acknowledged, though a grim humour pervades the manner of each character (save perhaps Nell, who seems too much in the past despite uttering an important line that casts this fact into the light, and then not at all).Hamm's confused inquiries from time to time make us wonder at the setting, but it gains a new terror in being abstract (though some deductions, or rather, abductions are encouraged- for instance, Clov's origin). A closed feeling to the world even beyond the sterile mess of the room (where a fleeting eternity is contained) is enforced, with each utterance with the slightest hue of hope being soon (and sometimes gladly) crushed. In this way there is a feeling of accumulation to the static nature of the story, where means of relief are soon shattered, but then malevolently reform to in some way 'progress' events.While there are many more minutiae worth comment, I have no more to say of the play at present, but I go now with enthusiasm to tackle Waiting for Godot, and would not pass up an opportunity to see the present work enacted.

  • Jeffrey
    2019-02-15 14:48

    when I see the Goodreads rating for Endgame is 3.9 I lose my faith in the internet democracy of letters. I mean, how can anyone not read this brilliant piece on the end of the world and not be entranced.But then I just looked up Waiting For Godot and it's rating 3.8, so any faith I have in the judgement of the masses is completely shattered.Beckett is memorable and funny. He holds in his hands the bleeding black heart of our lives. The characters of Endgame muse on the end of their existence (or of our existence) with grim and humorous determination. They don't want to live but they live. The world outside is bleak and gray but still tempting. And they never give up the petty desperation, the craving for a painkiller or a sugar plum, the very striving to continue.But for all the depth and poetry, the most important thing is these characters come alive on a page as they do on the stage. Ultimately they're vaudville / music hall skits written onto the deepest, most primal questions of our life. That Beckett doesn't seem to recognize the kingdom of children is just a fact of life in this kingdom.It's been 30 years since I last saw Endgame, yet reading it now gives me as much pleasure as seeing it then. Here in Seattle there was a Beckett festival this fall and I didn't go. My loss. Whether it's Happy Days, Krapp's Last Tape, Waiting for Godot or Endgame, Beckett uses the trenching tools of compassion and humor so we may feast on the sad and strange paradoxes of our condition.

  • Joey
    2019-02-06 18:29

    It is my first book of Samuel Beckett, and I intended to read a thin one in order to get an idea of how remarkable the writer is since I have read a plenty of positive feedbacks about his writing styles from the literati . Unfortunately, this one is soooo confusing to make out. I cannot get at the sequence of the story- the characters just seem to talk incessantly. There are apparently two characters who seem to talk to one another philosophically; then, another characters appear out of nowhere making ala cameo appearances. I said to myself , “ What’s going on in here? “ (laughs) Still, I kept on going. But when I looked it up in Wikipedia, I found out the real concept of the play: I was impressed. I have never seen nor read such kind of play that two characters have conversation next to their own habitats- dustbins. What an out-of-this world scene! The play has just four characters: Hamm , unable to stand and blind; Clov , servant of Hamm; unable to sit; Nagg , Hamm's father; has no legs and lives in a dustbin; and Nell , Hamm's mother; has no legs and lives in a dustbin next to Nagg.In the end, I am still boggled at the philosophical discourse among the characters- a challenge I might get through in an attempt to read his other books, particularly his trilogies.If I watch its stage play, I will enjoy it more.^^