HOMEWORK

It is easy to draw parallels between Pinter’s play “The Lover” and language in
general, its structure (signifier – signified dichotomy), modernism and poststructuralism.
When we analyse the relationship between the husband and wife, we notice how the
ambiguity of their language allows the reader to interpret the text in a variety of ways. The
acting can’t be differentiated from the real “truth” – both the husband and the wife roleplay
so much that you can’t help but feel confused and try to find some closure. If we are aware of
the structuralist approach to language, we must understand that the relationship between the
world and language is arbitrary. Bertens says that “it does, however, not really examine the
possible consequences of that gap between language and the world” (121). What we are
offered by their “language” is not enough to paint the full picture; there is no solid evidence
that any of the partners is really enjoying or hating the little charade they have made up for
themselves. We can connect this to deconstruction, as “all deconstructionist interpretations
are similar, because they always lead us to différance, to the impossibility of final meanings”
(133).
The other important concept is the awareness that we, as the users of language, do not
function outside the structure – we are always part of the structure. We cannot look outside
the structure of language without simultaneously being a part of it. In that way, our notion of
truth is inevitably contaminated, be it in literary texts or everyday phenomena. “Whatever our
intentions, they are never fully transparent to ourselves because there is nothing that can
escape language” (127). Everything we think, say or do is shaped by language; in some way,
everything is text, as Derrida claims.
Childs noticed that “if the idea that identity exists through difference (…) is taken as a
starting point, then Modernism can be understood through what it differs from” (2). All the
elements we have touched upon accentuate the differences inside the play, between the usual
play structure and the differences created by the unique Pinter’s approach that destroys our
expectations, denies us the closure and leaves the “meaning” open to our and actors’
interpretation.