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?

FRANKENSTEIN

First things first. The opening to the book, the foreword by Walter James Miller. It's well-written and everything but it starts out with the outlook from like th eearly 1900's. By the year 2000 (or in this case 2035) we will cure diseases, engineer food to feed all the world's people, find an answer for death and be catered to by not only capable but sentient automatons. Aren't we getting a little carried away?
Sorry, anyway.
I suppose if I were to find athe biggest problem in the book it would have to be who the monster is described as being. Sure the creation is hideous and unstable buut it was made that way by Dr. Frankenstein. The whole setup with the letters seems to give Shelley a way to have Walton try and idolize and immortalize Frankenstein as this tragic hero. I mean sure he wanted to do right, but he's the real monster here. I just think Walton has a boner for Victor. Two egotistical men who have nothign but their ambotions ruling their lives and are the only ones capable of comforting one another. Get a room guys.
Walton constantly conveys to his sister that he is saddened by Victor's stories and feels bad for what has happened to him. WHAT!?!?!? I'm sorry but Victor brought this on himself and is wholly responsible for his own actions as well as the actions of his creation, whether he wants to do so or even believe it's his responsibility or not. Victor proves to be the worst possible father figure. He creates him for his own goals and then tries to throw him away.
Can you see him doing it with a baby? "Oh it's just not what I expected, it's too small and a little slimy, let's just throw this one away." ome on Victor, what happened to your conviction? He seemed so strong an ddetermined in the process to make it happen, but afterwards he just sort of fell apart.
Oh and let's not forget how high and mighty both Victor and Walton think they are, no wonder they get along so well. They're the kind of people who have never met a mirror they didn't like. it's no wonder in that they Walton is trying to justify what Victor has done, cause in some way he's created a monster as well, in himself. His ambitions are first and the lives of others seem insignificant as long as he can prove himself right. That fairly well goes for both of them though. They seem perfectly happy as long as things are going "perfectly" but once Victor saw the imperfections he was decimated by his own reality. Would Walton have the same issues? Are they learning from one another?
Victor is the real monster, that's my original point I never thought I finished. He abandones his creation when he realizes it's not exactly what he thought it would be. The real victim of the story is the crreation, which never even gets a name. the poor wretch is created to prove a point, maybe the point is that life isnt' a game and you lose when you try and cheat.