From the Literary Encyclopedia's article on "The Caretaker," by Pinter:
"However, Davies is eventually invited to take up the position of caretaker, but his selfish and inconsiderate behaviour towards Aston leads to his being told by him to go."
Strike "to take up the position of," and replaced with "become." Strike "his being told by him to go." and replace with "his dismissal by Aston." At least I think that's who "by him" refers to; the article mixes up pronouns, also.
It's so poorly written, I would believe the author simply typed his own stream of consciousness. And this is a review of literature!
... more to the point, it's a review of literature from a lingustic perspective. The article is chiefly an explanation of the main charaters' apparent "bumbling inarticulacy."
(How bad is the article? It uses the mouthful, "discontinuities of register" in four consectuive sentences. By that phrase, the author means an abrupt shift in speaking styles, particularly between very formal and very coarse; apparently, this is the play's primary source of humor. Yet the reviewer cannot detect his own discontinuity, or redundancy, in the very phrase, "bumbling inarticulacy." "Bumbling" is such a basal word that it comes either from onomatopoeia or a blending of "bungle" and "stumble." On the other hand, "inarticulacy" is a combination of no less than five Latin roots; Even choosing the word "articulateness" could have introduced the slighest pastoral register.)