Plays, Words, and Meaning

The aesthetic appreciation of literary works appears to hinge, in part, on the capacity to discern both explicit and implicit meanings within a text. Yet how are we to approach works that deliberately resist interpretation or refuse to offer coherent meaning? Consider Samuel Beckett’s plays, where language often seems stripped of conventional significance, and the referential power of words—even within imaginative frameworks—dissipates, leaving communication fragmented and purposeless. If we adopt the perspective of actual intentionalists like Carroll (1992), who liken literary works to everyday utterances or conversations, one might interpret Winnie’s exclamation “Another heavenly day!” in Happy Days as ironic (Grice 1967 or Sperber & Wilson 1981). However, this reading falters: irony typically implies an underlying message or critique, whereas Beckett’s text rejects such intentionality. Winnie’s words are neither subversive nor implicative; she engages in no rational or cooperative dialogue. Instead, her speech serves a primal function—to fill silence, stave off isolation, and distract from the bleakness of her existence. If this analysis holds, it underscores a profound divergence between literary art and ordinary communication, reinforcing the autonomy and irreducibility of aesthetic experience as a realm distinct from pragmatic, meaning-driven discourse.