Pinter Splinter

After more controversy than usual, the Nobel committee gave the Literature Prize to Harold Pinter. While there is some talk he got it due to his anti-Iraq War stance--a form of childishness in award-giving which has already tarnished the Peace Prize--let's concentrate on his writing. (To his credit, Pinter admits his politics may have helped him.)

There's no question Pinter is one of the most famous living playwrights. And his style, all menace and pauses, was revolutionary. But he's always struck me as the emperor's new clothes. His plays feel like something is happening, but there's nothing there. (To be fair, I have only read his plays--I've never seen a production. Some playwrights act better than they read.)

I'm not saying he has no talent, I'm just saying it's a mediocre talent. Plays like The Birthday Party or The Caretaker are somewhat interesting because of the style, but add up to less than the sum of their parts. Worse are his later plays, like No Man's Land or Betrayal, where his style is trickier and more polished, but even emptier.

Compare Pinter to a true talent like Samuel Beckett. Not only was his style more revolutionary, but his work has greater depth and power. I think within a generation or two, Pinter will be considered a curiosity. The Nobel people have bet on the wrong horse.