Is Meg presented simply as a comic fool?

In The Birthday Party, Pinter makes Meg a fool so that the audience can feel above her. The establishment of the audience’s feeling of superiority is, for me, best exemplified in the discourse between Meg and Petey: PETEY. ‘there’s a new show coming to the Palace….’No singing or dancing’. MEG. ‘What do they do then?’ PETEY. ‘They just talk (pause)’ MEG. ‘Oh’. This device ridicules Meg, as the audience obviously comprises a group of people who enjoy shows in which ‘they just talk’. Pinter therefore uses mockery of class and lack of intelligent understating as a comedic device with Meg. Pinter uses dramatic irony to push this, like Meg’s speech in Act 2, which confirms her naivety. This conforms to conventional clichés of the comedy genre, in which class and social aspects are frequently used. Studies have shown[1] that the middle class use comedy to assert social authority as a form of veiled snobbery, suggesting that Meg is simply a comic fool.

However, I see Meg less as a simple source of humour but more as a moving representation of isolation. A lot of the humour when Meg is portrayed as a comic fool, and thus the conforming to the comic genre arises out of her general social awkwardness. The non-sequiturs and awkward pauses highlight her social ineptitude, contrasting deeply the mellow tones of Petey, like in the discourse: ‘PETEY: Yes, it gets light later in winter’, to which Meg replies simply ‘Oh. (Pause) What are you reading?’ For me, this creates a certain amount of sympathy for Meg’s domestic condition. We see Meg striving to please her housemates with a large amount of maternal fussiness. This can be seen with Meg’s incessant and perhaps paranoid need to ask Petey whether or not he likes his breakfast: MEG: ‘Are [the cornflakes] nice?’ PETEY: ‘Very Nice’.

On the other hand, some people could view Meg simply as a comic fool, as opposed to finding any deeper message for the humour created by her. This is because the irony, like the maternal instinct also prevalent in her discourse with Stanley: MEG: ‘I’m going to wake that boy’-supplemented by the tension felt by the audience of not knowing that Stanley is a middle aged man- makes Meg an object of comedy, as it is socially erroneous to act in such a motherly way to a ‘a man in his late thirties’. Critics like Merrit frequently refer to the Birthday Party as referential to ‘the womb’- an idea seen in Meg by her maternal behaviour, best shown regarding Meg’s relationship with Stanley; where Pinter creates an aura of unrequited love through this lack of maternal satisfaction. In this way, Meg seems more of a discontented and lonely woman rather than a simple comic fool.

Meg’s isolation takes form in her charade; best exemplified in the breakfast scene at the start of the play. Meg is the engine of the conversations; continuously trying to push the wheels of small talk into motion. Her impetus can be seen through her melodramatic language, like the dialogue concerning ‘Lady Mary Splatt’s’ baby. When Petey tells Meg that ‘Someone’s just had a baby’, Meg replies with the response; ‘Oh, they haven’t! Who?’ Petey’s unenthusiastic response, ‘Some girl’ suggests that Meg is in a perpetual state of failure in this attempt of conversation, shown by Petey’s reticent behaviour. I therefore see Meg as representative of the ‘bored housewife’ that dominated many kitchen-sink dramas. This melodramatic behaviour could either be interpreted as a charade, portending some darker secret as the characters only have awkward discourse, or simply represent the bored housewife of the ‘kitchen sink’ drama, like Helen in A Taste of Honey (1961). Meg’s repetition of the word ‘nice’ adds to these interpretations, as it is palpable to the audience that she is clutching for a conversation, only to be put down by Petey’s taciturn behaviour. It appears that the cornflakes and the newspaper are perhaps not ‘nice’, but more bland and generic; a metaphor for the couple’s life. It seems that Meg tries to play a game that Petey does not want to join in with, like when Meg tries to surprise Petey, saying: ‘I bet you don’t know what it is.’ Petey then ruins this charade by saying ‘Yes I do… fried bread’. In this way Meg’s socially erratic behaviour is simply symbolic of her continuous struggle against a realisation of boredom and romantic failure, and not a simply comedic device as could be initially interpreted.

I also believe that Meg could also be purposely presented to the audience as a comic character by Pinter to represent her as a moving proof of Goldberg and McCann’s impact. These agents of change usurp this charade in the boarding house and create a more powerful Meg; a character previously suppressed by a patriarch of Stanley and Petey. One can draw parallels to Sheila in An Inspector Calls who becomes more assertive after the arrival of the Inspector, a moral policeman who overthrows the stagnant and hateful order in the household. Meg is influenced by McCann and Goldberg, and their arrival changes the established order. For instance, Meg has nothing left to offer Petey because ‘the two gentlemen had the last of the fry this morning’, thus solidifying how McCann and Goldberg have effectively assimilated themselves in the household. Meg evidently welcomes this, as Goldberg is the only character that really pays Meg any true attention. In the party scene of Act 2, Goldberg says that Meg looks like ‘a tulip’, leading her to believe that she was ‘the belle of the ball’. Pinter does this to evoke sympathy from the audience, as Meg’s need of appreciation is finally being met.

Through Goldberg and McCann, Meg takes on a change from a socially inept and thus comic character, to a more confident and equal character, highlighted by the nuances of the beginnings of Act 1 and Act 3, which shows the changes of Meg’s character during the course of the play. In the opening of Act 3, Meg is a much more assertive character, providing less awkward conversation. For one, there are barely any awkward pauses in Act 3, something that is prevalent in Act 1. Meg also holds the floor more than Petey in Act 3, which makes her seem much more of a dominant character. Therefore I believe that Pinter uses similar dialogue in the opening of Act 3 to the opening of Act 1 to emphasise the differences. For instance, in Act 1 the opening words of the play are Meg’s ‘Is that you Petey?’, but in Act 3 they are ‘Is that you Stan?’ This focus on Stanley therefore highlights Meg’s breaking of the established order, and is a factor that allows the audience to see the change of a weaker Meg to a stronger one.

Therefore Meg’s initial discourse, replete with a plethora of social faux-pas, only exists to highlight Meg’s frustration with the established order. This is emphasised with the change that comes about by the arrival of Goldberg and McCann, who serve to correct this in the household. Their removal of Stanley is to improve quality of the lives of others around him.. This can be observed when Meg declares that she’s ‘never laughed like that [time in the party last night] in years’. As Stanley is palpably suppressed during the party scene, it proves that Meg’s life is significantly improved without him. Her social awkwardness disappears in Act 3 with Stanley’s submission, as the charade has somewhat disappeared through this change. Her happiness without Stanley can also be seen in these breakfast scenes; some of the only times where Meg is away from Stanley.

Meg’s development can also be seen regarding Stanley’s dramatic dialogue about the wheelbarrow on page 23, where he tries to scare her through her naivety. Pinter ostensibly does this to catch Meg and, therefore, the audience unawares, in order to make the wheelbarrow motif exemplify Stanley’s dominance even further. The melodramatic way in which Meg responds to Stanley- ‘MEG: (breathlessly) They haven’t’- shows how Meg is constantly in fear of the outside world, and how her pushing for change could only be a subconscious feeling. This fear that Meg displays is completely antithetical to the way in which she regards Goldberg’s car in the opening of Act 3. When Meg asks Petey whether or not there is a wheelbarrow the car outside, she is relieved to find out that it was Goldberg’s car: ‘MEG: (relieved) His car? Oh, I didn’t know it was his car.’ This shows that she represents far more than just the housewife, as it shows her role of proving Goldberg and McCann’s assimilation.

In conclusion, I believe that this idea is proof of Goldberg and McCann’s assimilation is Meg’s main role in the play, as it proves that they have effectively infiltrated the household and bypassed Meg’s naivety. Meg is more assertive in Act 3, and I believe that this shows the positive impact that Goldberg and McCann had, and how negative Stanley’s presence was..Therefore, Pinter uses make Meg as a comic character at the start of the play only to show the change to an assertive and confident Meg at the end of the play, brought about by Goldberg and McCann.