Harold Pinter's works question traditional views of language and communication, asking audiences to reconsider the hierarchical relationship between speech/silence, presence/absence and the role of each opposition in the struggle for power and domination, both in the context of class and gender structure. Is silence the absence of speech, what is truly present in vocal speech? In his essay “Language”, Martin Heidegger writes: “We always speak, even when we do not utter a single word”, silence is not a nothing, a lack or an absence; speaks and communicates – leading to Pinter's theory of the “two silences”. The two categories of silence are: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayOne when not a word is said. The other when perhaps a torrent of language is employed. This speech speaks of a language locked beneath it… The speech we hear is an indication of what we do not hear. It is a necessary avoidance... When true silence falls, we are still left with the echo but we are closer to nakedness. In this case, vocalized speech becomes an escape, an interruption, a repetition; a sign that always refers to something else, which refers to the presence of our true intention, with the hope of misleading - it is silence. What is true silence? Pinter disagrees that his work is a “failure of communication” – silence interpreted as an alienated and broken void – “I think we communicate only too well, in our silence, in what is unsaid… Communication is too alarming… To reveal to others the poverty within us is too frightening a possibility”; true silence is like an open, gaping wound. Language is both weapon and shield in a battle of dominance and submission; there is an attack, a retreat, an evasion and an unanswered question, which results in a silence of refusal or perplexity. In Homecoming (1965), the battle is between the mental and the physical, including the power struggle between men and women. Issues of power and control begin early in the first act between Max and Lenny, father and son; introducing the family's overwhelming physical proclivities. Max asks Lenny, "What did you do with the scissors?", and there is no response, only a silence of refusal and dismissal. Max reveals that he wants to cut something out of the newspaper, and then Lenny finally responds, "I'm reading the newspaper" – a short declarative statement, which says more than his words reveal. The paper could be any object, and even scissors; the surface of the dialogue is absurd. Under the tongue there is a very instinctive territorial power struggle for the role of alpha male. The situation escalates, Max shouts: “Do you hear what I'm saying? Am I talking to you?”, and softly, in opposition to Max's anxiety, Lenny calmly asks: “Why don't you shut up, you stupid idiot?”. Max's next tirade is interrupted only by a contemptuous insult: “You're going to you stupid fuck, I'm trying to read the paper,” and ends with Lenny's sarcasm: “Oh, Daddy, you're not going to use your attack me, are you?” (521). Max sits hunched, retreating into silence, while Lenny wins, perhaps not the first time. The episode between Max and Lenny sets the mood for the introduction of Teddy and Ruth. When Teddy and Ruth enter the house, they start a little argument parallel to the one between Max and Lenny, about who is going to bed and when. Teddy first tells Ruth that she should go upstairs and get some rest; Ruth, however, responds with a clear refusal: “No, I don't want to”. Ruth turns the conversation around, takes control, and Teddy ends up being the one who goes upstairs to bed: the physical wins over the mental. After Teddy leaves, Ruth and, 1994. 517-551.