As stated by Cohn in her article " 'Endgame': The Gospel According to Sad Sam Beckett" there is much evidence given relating to the many comparable instances between the Bible and Beckett's Endgame. With this interpretation as well as the discussion about the significance of the title, and the constant reference to the end of the world, it is nearly impossible to see Beckett's Endgame as anything other than a post-apocalyptic tale. I found particularly interesting Cohn's relation to Beckett's Hamm and the Bible's Ham. Ham being the son of Noah, as Cohn states, he is responsible for the survival of life. In the Bible, Ham obeys the wishes of his father, and thus God, and devoted his life to the expansion of humanity and the earth's mere existence. As the Noah story tells, God, unhappy with the world, creates a mass flood that kills the entire world's population, barring a male and a female of every species. This boatload of beings was to start the world anew, to try and make it a better place.If Hamm is supposed to be a comparison to the Biblical Ham, could it not also be considered the Biblical Ham if things had gone wrong? Hamm, throughout the story welcomes the apocalypse, curses God and is contemptuous to his own existence. If the Biblical Ham had been his contemptuous person, could God not have sent yet another apocalypse to yet again end the world and try again? Is Beckett trying to say that it took more than one try for God himself to get it right?I find this a much clearer reading then one of each character being part of the brain. The text supports this in many ways, most already supported by Cohn. Her evidence, however, lead me to this conclusion. Her description of the resurrections also works with this theory. The world had many resurrections, all in the pursuit of a better place. Basically I find this play an instance of "What if?" What if Ham (Biblical) had screwed up? What if God great plan of the flood d...
