Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit and Existentialis

981 Words2 Pages

No Exit and Existentialis

Jean-Paul Sartre's portrayal of Hell in No Exit is fueled with dramatic

irony, implemented in order to amuse the reader. Sartre's illustration

of Hades is very psychological, and instead of Satan agonizing you,

three roommates take to the task. They each in turn irritate and

aggravate one another, thus making themselves hysterical, and thus

producing dramatic irony. In addition to a door that will not open,

and living in a windowless room, all three characters possess no

eyelids, and thus are unable to sleep. For relief, they conspire with

one or the other, but that merely plunges them further into the

inevitable distress of Hell. Throughout the play, the dramatic irony

that occurs between Inez, Estelle, and Garcin enriches the meaning and

effect of the play in a postive form, despite the psychological plot

evokes a disturbing, aggravating scenario-- which is in accordance to

the typical view of Hell. This eerie play is successful in creating a

positive perspective to the existentialism philosophy, and in addition

stirs up a scenario in which readers learn from such provocative

characters.

Moreover, it is weighty to realize that the lessons of existentialism--

such as the role of personal responsibility, the bleak position of

mankind in the universe, and the fact that being stuck with boorish

people is the worst punishment ever conceived-- are no longer

revelations. What was avant-garde a half-century ago has since been

digested and regurgitated by the mainstream. The existential theme of

the play may be pass to modern society, that one may not learn, or even

so much as benefit from it.

Firstly, Sartre's strong association with the existentialism philosophy

is exemplified in No Exit. It is a portrayal that life in Hell is just

the same as life on Earth, perhaps the only difference being that their

travesties are magnified. As the lives of Inez, Estelle, and Garcin

continue in Hell, their main torment is the one thing that they were

never able to achieve on Earth. So due to the consequences of their

actions, they eternally suffer in Hell. This presents a contrasting

view to one tenet of existentialism, something which Sartre was heavily

affiliated with. If there were no ill consequences, on what grounds

would people be sent to Hell? Or Heaven for that matter? This new

view brings to light the absurdity of life. What did Garcin do in

order to be sent to Hell for all eternity? He was just a coward who

claimed to be a Pacifist.

Open Document