Harold Pinter's use of the absurd in his plays, reflective of Beckett's Waiting for Godot, has been scrutinized for its study of human relationships. Pinter puts forth a complex situation, and the resulting conflict is surprisingly representative of human life and emotion. As in Waiting for Godot, most conversation that occurs between Ben and Gus is pointless, and each character has trouble dealing with each other, and therefore, society.
             Martin Esslin's analysis of the play brings up the idea of society's alienation of the individual (73). In a community, such as a workplace or the army, the individual becomes nothing more than a cog. As in an army, according to Esslin, "men are sent to destinations where they have to await further orders as to when they are to start to shoot" (73). This is the same situation Ben and Gus face, just less formal. What are humans that such merciless action becomes commonplace in situations like war? Are humans so empty of free will that we do exactly what we are told no matter what it is? This is an interesting observation of the weakness of a single man against those in power. I think Esslin makes a strong point about how humans are constantly dominated, and our lives are never truly our own. Free will is not used except in unimportant decisions that not only do not affect others, but also rarely have a significant effect on us. To expand on the article about this point, free will is itself dominated by society, in the fact that most "free will" decisions reflect what the community thinks is important.
             Esslin continues to explore this point by saying, "ultimately what is being conveyed is a complex existential situation - through its emotional tone: and in this case it is the emotional situation of simple people in a social context which is beyond their powers of comprehension" (73). Just as Gus and Ben do not understand how their organization works or what t
             ...