No Exit and Three Other Plays

Sartre is sometimes given a reputation that far precedes him, as with many Nobel recipients. These plays are a testament against the skeptic's mindset.

"No Exit" is a modern-day interpretation of the antiquated "fire and brimstone" hell we are so accustomed to hearing about. Sartre adroitly picks up on the small idiosyncracies of human behavior and capitalizes on them with his version of hell. Three incompatible personalities are locked in a hot, stuffy hotel room for eternity, unable to get along with one another or reconcile their personal differences. The lights are always a bit too bright, the furniture a bit too stiff, and the wonder at "what lies down the hall" eats at the occupants for eternity. This is a far cry from biblical interpretations of hell, where an individual can mentally will themselves against pain. Instead, Sartre focuses on the interpersonal nature of unhappiness, and gives his spirits "one of those days" for eternity.

"Dirty Hands" is perhaps my favorite piece of literature. It plants its focus on a young intellectual revolutionary intent on assassinating a corrupt party leader. As he grows closer to Hoederer, the man he is sent to kill, he comes to realize that pure intellectual theories will always become muddied in the waters of reality.

"The Respectful Prostitute" depicts a young woman, a prostitute, who spends the night with a man who turns out to be a politician. The man completes his sordid mission, but the next morning scorns the woman. An lesson in objectivity and the two-faced nature of those who tend to preach loudly.

"The Flies" is set in Ancient Greece, but possesses Sartre's aptitude for human behavior. Just as good as all the others, though not as indicative of how humans behave.

These are all plays, making them quite easy to read. The characters are not hard to keep straight. The ease of reading doesn't detract from their literary quality. These four plays are elegant simplicity at its finest.

I have read this little collection countless times over the years. I have seen Huit Clos (No Exit) performed several times (generally poorly) but it has never quite lived up to the power that I find in the written version. I realize that this is unusual for a play, and may reflect a fault in Sartre's work rather than a strength.

It is important to remember, however, that Sartre's work is always more about the ideas behind it than it is about the form he is using. Sartre wrote novels, plays, essays, and criticism during his long career. Through it all, he was a philosopher-- struggling with the notion of freedom and indifference.

People (particularly students) tend to stop with No Exit, neglecting its less famous cousins. This is a shame, as both The Flies and Dirty Hands are fascinating pieces. Particularly if you have an interest in the Oresteia then The Flies is a wonderful interpretation.

A must read book.

These four plays were good plays- they are easier to understand if one is familiar with Sartre's philosophy. The plots in all these plays were both unique and exciting yet at times, especially in dirty hands and the flies, the plays seem to drag on and on. Had the plays been shorter, Sartre's main point would have been made clearer and more forcefully. In plays, it's hard to communicate character background yet with a novel the author can just describe it from third-person perspective. I think perhaps these plays would have been more successful and more dramatic had they been written as short novels with more description and character analysis. At times I felt that the characters were explored and described in superfical ways. All in all, these were good plays yet I cant say I loved them. This might just be me though since I have never been too fond of the format of plays- i feel like it never gets to the heart of the character since you only get dialogue with little analysis.

This book is an answer to a question many people have been avoiding all their lives. And when you finally develop the ability to ask it to yourself, Sartre provides his suggested answer for you, though it may not be the answer you wanted.

The premise of the main play, "No Exit", is that many people have chosen to exist in misery, even when the exit to that misery presents itself clearly. For these people, there is "no exit". Their existance is defined by their misery. If they make the concious decision to exit, then they have nothing to live for.

All four plays are written in non-pretentious and easy to understand styles, unlike many philisophical writings. They don't require a great deal of effort to read or understand. In fact, they are quite enjoyable and I found myself reading each play many times before moving on to the next one.

Don't expect to feel uplifted about the state of humanity while reading these plays, however. Sartre's message about human existance can be a dismal one. It is quite helpful, though, to come to terms with the fact that many of our fellow humans are just puzzled about their lives, and sharing a social existance with these people can be precarious to your own search for meaning.

This is the best lit that Sartre produced. He was one of the first "intellectuals" who I dutifully followed like I did Rock Stars once their original groups broke up: once I found something good, I sought more and was continually disappointed. That is not a criticism of the plays as they are here, but of the man in a wider context.

No Exit is a great masterpiece of European literature, with echoes of modernism, surrealism, and the theatre of the absurd. I did not think it was all that deep, but it is a wodnerful theatrical experience and full of potential for later analysis. Like the best of Brecht, the viewer is left in a state of conflict and ferment, ready to talk after the work of art is over. Sartre's work meets this standard, and is very close to first-rate literature.

Warmly recommended as a quintessential link in leftist, existential literature. It opened a world to me.