Pinter’s Landscape: A Stylistic Treatment

Abstract

Harold Pinter’s work has the ability to express the inexpressible, to transcend the scope of language itself & in his own Landscape, he is able to show his ability with zest. Although the play seems to refuse to communicate with people, yet its language exposes a unique way of expressing things used by Pinter alone.It is a major difficulty encountered by many critics, as Hayman, Esslin, Quigley and other to solve some enigma with Pinter’s work concerning his language. There is also an agreement that Pinter’s language is doing “a loss of controlled contact between the details of the language & responses to those details.” And as Esslin has put that Pinter’s “words are of the utmost importance; not through their surface meaning, but through the colour & texture of their sound & their associations of meaning.These statements describe what is new in Pinter’s language by means of an appeal to some norm in language that he uses or ignores. In dealing with him as one who rejects the boundaries of normal language, assents given to a theoretical position. He has included many assumptions in his language. The implications of the assumption will become clearer if we return for a moment to the notion of style. The use of the word literary criticism leads to a distinction between form & content. This is inescapable when the notion of stylistic variation is indicated by the assumption that something in language is remaining constant. Some meaning, which is frequently “thought of in terms of the referent of a word, is investigated. In this context it becomes apparent that the urge perceives what is new in Pinter by contrasting his language with what is felt.