Dan Mayer

Samuel Beckett Endgame

Gabriel Garcia Marquez Death Constant Beyond Love

Dignity and Death

Two of the stories we read dealt with the issue of death. This is a prevalent issue in our current society and recent times. Issues about assisted suicide, abortion, pulling the plug, and refusing medical care have brought a lot of attention to what deaths are acceptable. They have also changed how people think about and prepare for death. While death is not the only focus of the stories, I will mainly concentrate on this aspect.

The two stories were written by Samuel Beckett and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Both of the authors wrote during the same time and were only born 20 years apart. This means that over their entire lives the issues on death probably were fairly similar. One story, “Endgame”, focuses on the issue of death from the views of the people around the dying person. The other story, “Death Constant Beyond Love”, focuses on the person dying himself and how he deals with the thought of dying. The two authors have focused on different parts of the struggle with death, but both have examined dignity of death issue.

The issue of dignity I believe was agreed upon by the two authors. Neither author seemed to show that dying with dignity is as important as enjoying one's life and living on. In Marquez's story the Senator has a love affair that ruins his name and is only said to die, because he looses his love. The Senator has an affair before he dies and ruins his name loosing all his dignity. In Beckett's story, Hamm was basically insane and at the end of his rope, but Clov wouldn't give in to his requests to kill him. Hamm was so lost and erratic that he, much like the Senator, lost his dignity. Each of the authors seemed to have the character live on past the loss of their dignity. The Senator chose to give up his dignity and die without it mattering. Hamm pleads for death but Clov doesn't think his life should be ended yet. Preserving dignity while wasn't a focus of either author's story, but still a common theme between the stories. Other than this common theme each author went deeper into other issues of death.

Beckett covers the choice of assisted suicide, or a family to pull the plug. Hamm played the role of the dying person, while Clov represented those close to and caring for Hamm. In the case of assisted suicide Beckett seemed to avoid giving a full answer. He presented the issue of someone who has lost themselves and wishes death upon themselves. A person in declining health asks Clov to kill him. However, in the end Clov doesn't kill Hamm, but leaves him on his own in which case he will probably die unable to care for himself. This leaves the idea that killing Hamm wouldn't have been wrong, seeing as Clov does basically leave him to die. Clov also doesn't kill him which shows that it wouldn't have been the correct thing to do either. Clov's action showed the struggle between knowing it is time for someone to die, but not being able to take part in it. If Beckett does have a belief on assisted suicide, it would be that it is morally alright, but it is something most people wouldn't want to help with.

As this story was very absurd and removed from any specific society or way of life, I think it leaves room to look deeper than the original meaning. With this in mind I believe that Hamm can be seen as a character that doesn't even exist as far as a conversation is concerned. Hamm could be on life support throughout the whole story and Clov could be dealing with memories and feeling while trying to decide what to do. Clov is seeing only the craziness of Hamm as the characters health became worse and worse to the point where he required life support. The story showed that by the end of Hamm's life, Clov had to take care and serve to all the whims of Hamm because of his inability to take care of himself. Hamm really didn't do much to leave the reader believing that he had any sanity or rationality remaining in him. Clov, leaving Hamm behind, could be taken as the family leaving a person plugged in to life support, but waiting for them to die. It could also be seen as the family pulling the plug and letting the body that relied on others to stay alive to slowly die on its own. The death in either case is already accepted with the family as something that has occurred even if the body still technically remains.

In either of the two cases presented, Beckett shows a character that loses his dignity or sanity before they lose their life. In one case becoming so crazy and loosing it and pleading for death that they are left to die on their own, without help. This seems cruel but was wished by the character. In the second case Hamm lost his dignity and became more dependent on Clov before loosing his ability to live and needing life support. Hamm doesn't seem to have much sanity or dignity in either case.

Beckett shows the issues of death that truly affect the family and loved ones of someone that passes away. He focused not on the issues of the dying individual but the struggles other people face when someone close to them is dying. He specifically looked at how they can come to terms with the death before it actually occurs, as was the case shown in the examples with life support. He also addressed how a family can believe in and support a loved one that says they are ready to pass away. Allowing them to refuse medical care, or allowing them to not take proper care of themselves are issues of death that one day everyone will have to deal with as someone they care about becomes old or sick.

Marquez's story unlike Beckett's doesn't focus on the feelings and choices in the minds around someone dying, but instead on the feelings within a person who knows they are dying. A person that knows they are dying deals with many thoughts in their mind: fear, shame, and regret amongst others. Marquez's main character deals with each of these issues in one manner or another. The story shows that he internalizes the idea of death and eventually makes decisions that what is built in life has no value in death. With this decision he destroys his dignity before death, to enjoy a final love affair and his final days alive.

The Senator deals with the knowledge of his approaching death by following a tight routine that he has always followed. In this case, the routine is even tighter than usual since it is during the campaign. The Senator is hiding in his routine, keeping himself so busy that it is easier to avoid the thoughts of death. The thoughts he avoids during the routine is the method this character has dealt with the fear that comes when someone knows they are going to die. Since there is nothing the Senator can do to prevent his death and is afraid, he just removes anytime to worry or fear his own death. I think many people use this tactic for all types of fear, not only the fear of death.

The Senator is so shameful about his own death that he hides the knowledge from everyone around him. The only others that know about his impending death are his doctors. The Senator doesn't tell his wife, friends, or kids. The Senator wasn't ready in his life to die and feels shameful that he is dying so young and early in life. It is a painful thought for the Senator, so rather than acknowledge it and discuss it with his family he hides his death. Avoiding the issue and cheating death from the ability to change how the people in his life treat him.

While trying to hide from his fear and shame the Senator carries on with an election that's outcome is meaningless. He takes naps and goes campaigning making promises he knows will never be kept. If the Senator wins or looses he will die, unable to do anything with his position. During this election he notices a girl and falls in love with her. Normally worried about his life he wouldn't have been so bold to accept a bribe of a young woman likely to get him in trouble. At this point I think the Senator chooses that what he has done with his life is worthless after his death. The Senator decides that his image and memory doesn't have value, because once he is dead it is all over. He shames his name and his families, by having a love affair with the young girl until his death.

Marquez story about death is more of a commentary on the internal struggle while dying rather than an answer to any question about death. Marquez doesn't tell the reader in the end whether any of the approaches taken by the Senator is right or wrong. He simply describes the path that the character took until the end. The final line in the story reads, “weeping with rage at dying without her.” This statement doesn't seem to show any regret of loosing his dignity or betraying his wife and children, only to be angry with having to lose his love. Marquez's only true statement about death would be to die happy.

Marquez and Beckett are both commenting on an important issue that is relevant to everyone's lives. Their comments together cover a very broad range of the idea of death. The stories really seem to complement one another well in the topic, while not being similar or repeating any of the issues that each one examines. The stories are written in entirely different styles, but each seems to carry some absurdity into the story. Beckett has characters that are separated from the world with imaginary friends. Marquez has a character that is dying but has amazing health and travels around campaigning, while no one notices. The authors in the end seem to only answer and agree upon one thing in these stories.

The agreement between two authors was that dignity isn't important in death. These authors of entirely different cultures, one French and another Latin American, no doubt had many different opinions and beliefs on death, but still alluded to this single point in their works. There are many possibilities of why they agreed on this point. Perhaps it was the similar time they lived their lives and that it was a prevailing belief in the world. Perhaps they both were raised with the same religion that expressed a belief that at the time of one's death mistakes could be made. Perhaps it was the fact that Marquez was heavily influenced by French novelists. In the end both seemed to have a high respect for life, but allowed straying in a person's actions as they were dying. Allowing their characters to act out, go crazy, and loose those who were around them during their lives, which is an interesting result of combining the ideas of two incredible stories about different parts of death.