How It Is (Comment c’est, 1961; English version 1964) by Samuel Beckett (Characters Analysis)

 

How It Is (Comment c’est, 1961; English version 1964)

by Samuel Beckett

(Characters Analysis) 

Character Analysis of the Narrator in How It Is by Samuel Beckett

The narrator of Samuel Beckett’s How It Is is not a conventional literary character but a fragmented consciousness struggling to assert existence in a hostile and meaningless environment. Stripped of name, history, and stable identity, the narrator functions as both subject and object of the narrative, embodying Beckett’s vision of the human condition reduced to its barest essentials. Through this voice, Beckett explores the limits of language, the instability of selfhood, and the persistence of suffering.

At the most immediate level, the narrator is defined by physical degradation and endurance. He crawls through mud in complete darkness, his body reduced to a laboring mass that moves with difficulty and pain. This physical state is not merely descriptive but constitutive of his identity. The narrator does not act upon the world; he is acted upon by it. His existence is governed by effort, exhaustion, and compulsion rather than choice or intention. Beckett uses the narrator’s bodily condition to strip away illusions of autonomy and dignity, presenting a self shaped by circumstance rather than will.

Psychologically, the narrator is marked by fragmentation and uncertainty. His thoughts appear in broken phrases, repetitions, and corrections, reflecting a mind unable to achieve coherence. He frequently questions his own memories and perceptions, unsure whether they are genuine recollections or borrowed fragments from books and voices heard long ago. This uncertainty undermines any stable sense of identity. The narrator does not possess a continuous self; instead, he exists as a series of momentary impressions and roles that shift without warning.

The narrator’s relationship with language is central to his characterization. Language is both his only means of self-assertion and a source of constant frustration. He speaks because speaking confirms his existence, yet his speech continually fails to provide clarity or meaning. The absence of punctuation and conventional syntax mirrors his mental state, turning language into a physical act akin to crawling or breathing. In this sense, the narrator is defined less by what he says than by the act of saying itself—an ongoing struggle against silence and annihilation.

The narrator’s interaction with Pim reveals another crucial dimension of his character: his capacity for cruelty and domination. As Pim’s master, the narrator inflicts pain without justification, using violence as a means of communication and control. However, this cruelty is not portrayed as moral corruption but as a function of the system in which he exists. The narrator gradually realizes that he may once have been in Pim’s position and may occupy it again. This awareness destabilizes the distinction between oppressor and victim, suggesting that the narrator’s identity is contingent and reversible.

Morally, the narrator resists traditional evaluation. He neither seeks redemption nor expresses guilt in any conventional sense. His actions are not guided by ethical principles but by necessity and habit. Beckett presents him as a being beyond moral frameworks, existing in a world where right and wrong have lost relevance. This moral emptiness reinforces the novel’s bleak vision of existence as a process rather than a moral journey.

Ultimately, the narrator of How It Is represents human consciousness at its most reduced and exposed. Deprived of social context, narrative continuity, and moral structure, he persists through voice alone. His character is not defined by development or transformation but by endurance. In Beckett’s hands, the narrator becomes a universal figure—an embodiment of humanity’s struggle to continue speaking, moving, and existing in a world that offers no answers and no escape.

 

Character Analysis of Pim in How It Is by Samuel Beckett

Pim is one of the few named figures in Samuel Beckett’s How It Is, yet he is far from a conventional character. Rather than possessing psychological depth, personal history, or independent voice, Pim functions as a symbolic and structural figure within the novel’s bleak existential framework. Through Pim, Beckett explores themes of power, identity, suffering, and repetition, revealing the impersonal mechanisms that govern existence in the world of the novel.

At a basic narrative level, Pim is encountered lying inert in the mud and becomes the narrator’s subordinate. He is beaten, commanded, fed, and forced to crawl. Pim rarely, if ever, speaks; his presence is defined almost entirely through the narrator’s actions toward him. This absence of voice reduces Pim to a body rather than a subject, emphasizing Beckett’s portrayal of dehumanization. Pim exists not as an autonomous individual but as an object upon which power is exercised.

Symbolically, Pim represents the role of the victim within a cyclical system of domination. The narrator’s authority over Pim is not earned or justified; it is simply assumed. This arbitrary power reflects Beckett’s vision of a universe in which hierarchy exists without moral foundation. Pim’s suffering is not portrayed as exceptional or tragic but as routine and systemic. Through Pim, Beckett suggests that victimhood is not a personal condition but a structural position that anyone may occupy.

Pim also functions as a mirror of the narrator’s own identity. As the narrator reflects on his condition, he begins to suspect that he may once have been in Pim’s place—or may be again in the future. This realization destabilizes the boundary between self and other. Pim becomes a projection of the narrator’s past or future self, embodying the interchangeable nature of roles within the novel’s closed system. In this sense, Pim is less a separate character than an extension of the narrator’s fractured consciousness.

The physical passivity of Pim is crucial to his symbolic role. His limited responsiveness and eventual failure to continue crawling suggest the limits of endurance. Pim’s breakdown exposes the fragility of the system itself, as the narrator depends on him to maintain structure and purpose. When Pim ceases to function, the narrator is forced back into solitude, revealing that domination is not merely an assertion of power but also a form of dependence.

Pim’s eventual abandonment underscores the theme of impermanence and replaceability. There is no mourning, no lasting bond, and no transformation resulting from their relationship. Pim disappears from the narrative as abruptly as he entered it, reinforcing the idea that individuals are interchangeable within Beckett’s universe. What persists is not the character but the pattern: encounter, domination, abandonment, repetition.

In conclusion, Pim in How It Is is not a character in the traditional sense but a function within an existential cycle. He embodies victimhood, reflects the narrator’s unstable identity, and exposes the mechanical nature of power and suffering. Through Pim, Beckett denies individuality and moral resolution, presenting human relationships as transient configurations within an endless process of endurance.

 

Character Analysis of the Implied Others (Crawlers) in How It Is by Samuel Beckett

The implied others, often referred to as the “crawlers,” form an essential yet largely invisible presence in Samuel Beckett’s How It Is. Though they never emerge as individualized characters, their existence profoundly shapes the novel’s meaning. These unseen figures expand the narrator’s private suffering into a collective condition, suggesting that the experience described is not unique but universal. As such, the crawlers function less as characters than as a symbolic population within Beckett’s existential landscape.

At the narrative level, the crawlers are only inferred through the narrator’s reflections. He imagines—or knows—that countless other bodies inhabit the same world of mud and darkness, each engaged in the same repetitive cycle of crawling, encountering others, dominating or being dominated, and moving on. Their absence from direct description emphasizes the isolation that defines existence in the novel. Even in a populated world, the individual remains fundamentally alone, aware of others without ever truly encountering them.

Symbolically, the crawlers represent universality and anonymity. Their lack of names, voices, or distinguishing features reinforces Beckett’s rejection of individuality. Each crawler is interchangeable, defined only by position within the cycle. This anonymity suggests that suffering is not personal or exceptional but systemic. The narrator’s condition is not a singular tragedy but one instance of a larger, impersonal process that encompasses all beings in this world.

The crawlers also reinforce the theme of cyclical repetition. The narrator understands himself as one element in a vast, repeating pattern shared by all. This awareness eliminates the possibility of progress or transcendence. No crawler advances toward an end; each merely continues. By implying the existence of many others engaged in the same futile labor, Beckett transforms the narrator’s experience into a model of existence itself.

From a psychological perspective, the crawlers function as projections of the narrator’s consciousness. They may exist independently, but they are never verified. As such, they can be read as imagined counterparts—alternative versions of the self occupying different positions within the same system. This interpretation further destabilizes identity, suggesting that the boundary between self and other is porous and uncertain.

The implied crawlers also serve to undermine moral judgment. Since everyone participates in the same cycle, distinctions between guilt and innocence lose their force. Today’s master is tomorrow’s victim; today’s solitary crawler may soon dominate another. The presence of innumerable others normalizes cruelty, presenting it as a structural condition rather than a moral failure.

In conclusion, the implied others in How It Is extend the novel’s vision beyond the individual narrator to encompass a collective, dehumanized humanity. They symbolize universality, repetition, and anonymity, reinforcing Beckett’s portrayal of existence as an endless, impersonal cycle of endurance. By remaining unseen and unnamed, the crawlers embody the unsettling truth at the heart of the novel: suffering is shared by all, yet experienced in isolation.

 

Character Analysis of the Past Self (Implied) in How It Is by Samuel Beckett

The implied past self in Samuel Beckett’s How It Is is not a distinct character but a conceptual presence that haunts the narrator’s consciousness. This former version of the self—possibly existing before the mud, or in an earlier phase of the crawling cycle—functions as a fragile point of reference through which memory, identity, and time are interrogated. Beckett uses the past self to undermine the idea of a stable, continuous identity and to expose memory as an unreliable construct rather than a source of truth.

The narrator frequently alludes to a time “before,” a period associated with light, language, culture, and social order. This past self seems more articulate, more human, and more connected to the world of meaning. However, the narrator is never certain that this self truly existed. He suspects that these memories may have been borrowed from books, heard from others, or fabricated by the mind in an attempt to impose coherence on the present. As a result, the past self remains ambiguous—less a factual identity than a narrative possibility.

Symbolically, the past self represents the illusion of continuity. Traditional narratives rely on memory to create a sense of personal history and development. Beckett dismantles this assumption by presenting memory as fragmentary and secondhand. The past self cannot offer explanation, consolation, or purpose; it does not anchor the narrator’s identity but destabilizes it further. Instead of confirming who the narrator is, memory raises doubts about whether the self has ever been whole.

The implied past self also serves to highlight the erosion of language and meaning. The contrast between the narrator’s present, broken speech and the remembered world of structured language emphasizes the loss inherent in existence. Yet this loss is uncertain, as the narrator cannot verify that the past self ever truly possessed coherence or mastery of language. Beckett thus questions whether meaning was ever fully present, or whether it too was always precarious.

From a philosophical perspective, the past self reinforces the theme of temporal disintegration. Time in How It Is does not move linearly; it collapses into a perpetual present punctuated by unreliable recollections. The past self does not belong to a completed phase but hovers indistinctly, suggesting that identity does not develop but dissolves. This challenges conventional ideas of growth, progress, and self-realization.

The past self also functions as a warning rather than a source of hope. If the narrator once existed in another form—perhaps as a victim like Pim—then the present self is merely one temporary configuration within an endless cycle. The past self implies future reversal, reinforcing the novel’s fatalistic vision in which roles repeat and no position is secure.

In conclusion, the implied past self in How It Is is a destabilizing presence that exposes the fragility of identity and memory. Rather than grounding the narrator, it reveals the self as a shifting construct shaped by uncertainty and repetition. Through this elusive figure, Beckett denies the possibility of coherent personal history, presenting existence as a series of momentary states unconnected by reliable memory or meaning.