My reaction? In word: weird. No, maybe I wuld put sad first.
The conversation between Hamm and Clov seems riddled with odd, sad memories and a sensical type of nonsense. The odd comments of the conversation don't seem to phase the characters in any way besides carrying out the conversation.
Only in the absence of one of the characters does the scene really seem to change. The give and take between the characters disappears though Hamm tries to call out to Clov. With no avail. The ending is a realization as much a sad moment. Hamm throws the whistle away, a play on commentary earlier where Clov said that one day he would leave and when Hamm whistled he would not come. In the end Hamm comes to the sad conclusion that this is now the case and hurls the whistle away. Shows that maybe he has come to terms with the situation at hand.

I remember the rant that Hamm goes on about the madman that was a painter and engraver. Says he met him in an asylum. Says the man couldn't recognize what Hamm was showing him, maybe that's playing with the idea that it may be Hamm that's mad. It never says why he's at teh asylum, maybe he was a patient there. Than again maybe it's a play asking what is real. Is it a game to know what is and sin't reality? beckett through what can seem like nonsensical conversation with stage tags seems to be asking what reality is. Are perspective and interpretation just games to play in life? And perhaps that life itself is just a game itself.

I want to talk about the act without words in teh back of the book. Another jab at interpretation I think. Everything the guy sees and tries to acquire are nothing more than items to taunt him. At the end of the day all he has is his thoughts. Perhaps that is signifying that things are not important and that the greatest life is one that can see that in order to be happy, one has to be happy with themself first. Also I saw a kind of homage to Job, the original version, not the sappy version where God gives him everything back. I mean the old school one where the man is robbed of everything that he has and is left alone and with nothing to call his own, the end. Maybe that was intentional and maybe beckett is trying to stab at the heart fo religion, the thing that most of society was built upon. Maybe society is a game of it's owna nd our beliefs help construct it.

As far as the title goes, I thought that Endgame was a perfect title. The book seems to ask what will happen when things are over, when people are gone and what will happen when you reach the game. The book seems to have some serious religious undertones if you ask me. Other than that I think Beckett asks some seriosu questions. What happens when it's all over? And how will you deal with it?