Waiting for Godot- Samuel Beckett (a Critical Analysis by Qaisar Iqbal Janjua) Good for Literature...

Qaisar Iqbal Janjua, Contact: (92) 300 94 678

[email protected], [email protected]

1

WAITING FOR GODOT

Samuel Beckett (1906-1989)

Beckett: "It's a beautiful day, isn't it?"

The friend: "Yes, it makes one glad to be alive."

Beckett : "Aw now, I wouldn't go that far."

(At Nobel Prize Awarding Ceremony)



2

LIFE AND WORKS OF SAMUEL BECKETT

Samuel Beckett was born near Dublin, Ireland, on April 13, 1906 into a Protestant, middle class home. His father was a quantity surveyor and his mother worked as a nurse. At the age of 14, he was sent to the same school that Oscar Wilde attended.

Beckett is known to have commented, "I had little talent for happiness." This was evidenced by his frequent bouts of depression, even as a young man. He often stayed in bed until late in the afternoon and hated long conversations. As a young poet, he apparently rejected the advances of James Joyce's daughter and then commented that he did not have feelings that were human. This sense of depression would show up in much of his writing, especially in Waiting for Godot where it is a struggle to get through life.

Samuel Beckett moved to Paris in 1926 and met James Joyce. He soon respected the older writer so much that at the age of 23, he wrote an essay defending Joyce's magnum opus to the public. In 1927, one year later, he won his first literary prize for his poem entitled "Whoroscope." The essay was about the philosopher Descartes meditating on the subject of time and about the transience of life. Beckett then completed a study of Proust that eventually led him to believe that habit was the "cancer of time." At this point Beckett left his post at Trinity College and travelled.

Beckett journeyed through Ireland, France, England, and Germany and continued to write poems and stories. It is likely that he met up with many of the tramps and vagabonds who later emerged in his writing, such as the two tramps Estragon and Vladimir in Waiting for Godot. On his travels through Paris Beckett would always visit with Joyce for long periods.

Beckett permanently made Paris his home in 1937. Shortly after moving there, he was stabbed in the street by a man who had begged him for money. He had to recover from a perforated lung in the hospital. Beckett then went to visit his assailant, who remained in prison. When Beckett demanded to know why the man had attacked him, he replied "Je ne sais pas, Monsieur." This attitude about life comes across in several of the author's later writings.

During World War II, Beckett joined the underground movement in Paris to resist the Germans. He remained in the resistance until 1942 when several members of his group were arrested. Beckett was forced to flee with his French-born wife to the unoccupied zone. He only returned in 1945 after Paris was liberated from the Germans. He soon reached the pinnacle of his writing career, producing Waiting for Godot, Eleutheria, Endgame, the novels Malloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable, and Mercier et Camier, two books of short stories, and a book of criticism.

Samuel Beckett's first play was Eleutheria, it involved a young man's efforts to cut himself loose from his family and social obligations. This has often been compared to Beckett's own search for freedom. Beckett's great success came on January 5, 1953, when Waiting for Godot premiered at the Theatre de Babylone. Although critics labelled the play "the strange little play in which 'nothing happens,'" it gradually became a success as reports of it spread through word of mouth. It eventually ran for four hundred performances at the Theatre de Babylone and was heralded with critical praise from dramatists such as Tennessee Williams, Jean Anouilh, Thornton Wilder, and William Saroyan. Saroyan even remarked that, "It will make it easier for me and everyone else to write freely in the theatre." An interesting production of Waiting for Godot took place when some actors from the San Francisco Actor's Workshop performed the play at the San Quentin penitentiary for over fourteen hundred convicts in 1957. The prisoners immediately identified with both Vladimir and Estragon about the pains of waiting for life to end, and the struggle of the daily existence. The production was perhaps the most



3

successful ever. Beckett's second masterpiece Endgame premiered on April 3, 1957 at the Royal Court Theatre in London.

All of Beckett's major works were written in French. He believed that French forced him to be more disciplined and to use the language more wisely. However, Waiting for Godot was eventually translated into the English by Beckett himself.

Samuel Beckett also became one of the first Absurdist playwrights to win international fame. His works have been translated into over twenty languages. In 1969 he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, one of the few times this century that almost everyone agreed the recipient deserved it. He continued to write until his death in 1989, but towards the end he remarked that each word seemed to him "an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness."



4

EXISTENTIALISM AND THE ABSURD THEATRE

Existentialism is a concept that became popular during the Second World War in France, and just after it. French playwrights have often used the stage to express their views, and these views came to surface even during a Nazi occupation. Bernard Shaw got his play Saint Joan past the German censors because it appeared to be very Anti-British. French audiences however immediately understood the real meaning of the play, and replaced the British with the Germans. Those sorts of hidden meanings were common throughout the period so that plays would be able to pass censorship.

Existentialism proposes that man is full of anxiety and despair with no meaning in his life, just simply existing, until he made decisive choice about his own future. That is the way to achieve dignity as a human being. Existentialists felt that adopting a social or political cause was one way of giving purpose to a life. Sartre is well known for the Theatre engage or Theatre 'committed', which is supposedly committed to social and/or political action.

One of the major playwrights during this period was Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre had been imprisoned in Germany in 1940 but managed to escape, and became one of the leaders of the Existential movement. Other popular playwrights were Albert Camus, and Jean Anouilh. Just like Anouilh, Camus accidentally became the spokesman for the French Underground when he wrote his famous essay, Le Mythe de Sisyphe or The Myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was the man condemned by the gods to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, only to have it roll back down again. For Camus, this related heavily to everyday life, and he saw Sisyphus an absurd hero, with a pointless existence. Camus felt that it was necessary to wonder what the meaning of life was, and that the human being longed for some sense of clarity in the world, since if the world were clear, art would not exist. The Myth of Sisyphus became a prototype for existentialism in the theatre, and eventually The Theatre of the Absurd.

Right after the Second World War, Paris became the theatre capital of the west, and popularized a new form of surrealistic theatre called Theatre of the Absurd. Many historians contribute the sudden popularity of absurdism in France to the gruesome revelations of gas chambers and war atrocities coming out of Germany after the war. The main idea of The Theatre of the Absurd was to point out man's helplessness and pointless existence in a world without purpose. As Richard Coe described it “It is the freedom of the slave to crawl east along the deck of a boat going west.”

Two of the most popular playwrights of this time include Samuel Beckett, whose most famous piece was Waiting for Godot, and Eugene Ionesco with Exit the King. Most absurdist plays have no logical plot. The absence of the plot pushes an emphasis on proving the pointless existence of man. Quite often, such plays reveal the human condition at its absolute worst. Absurdist playwrights often used such techniques as symbolism, mime, the circus, and the commedia dell'arte, which are quite evident in the more popular plays of the time, such as Waiting for Godot, The Bald Prima Donna, and Amedee.



5

A CRITIQUE OF WAITING FOR GODOT

Waiting for Godot qualifies as one of Samuel Beckett's most legendary works. Originally written in French in 1948, Beckett personally translated the play into English. The world premiere was held on January 5, 1953, in the Left Bank Theatre of Babylon in Paris. The play's reputation spread slowly through word of mouth and it soon became quite famous. Other productions around the world rapidly followed. The play initially failed in the United States, likely as a result of being misbilled as "the laugh of four continents." A subsequent production in New York City was more carefully advertised and garnered some success.

Waiting for Godot incorporates many of the themes and ideas that Beckett had previously discussed in his other writings. The use of the play format allowed Beckett to dramatise his ideas more forcefully then before, and is one of the reasons that the play is so intense.

Beckett often focused on the idea of "the suffering of being." Most of the play deals with the fact that Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for something to alleviate their boredom. Godot can be understood as one of the many things in life that people wait for.

The play has often been viewed as fundamentally existentialist in its take on life. The fact that none of the characters retain a clear mental history means that they are constantly struggling to prove their existence. Thus the boy who consistently fails to remember either of the two protagonists casts doubt on their very existence. This is why Vladimir demands to know that the boy will in fact remember them the next day.

Waiting for Godot is part of the Theatre of the Absurd. This implies that it is meant to be irrational. Absurd theatre does away with the concepts of drama, chronological plot, logical language, themes, and recognizable settings. There is also a split between the intellect and the body within the work. Thus Vladimir represents the intellect and Estragon the body, both of whom cannot exist without the other.

Although very existentialist in its characterizations, Waiting for Godot is primarily about hope. The play revolves around Vladimir and Estragon and their pitiful wait for hope to arrive. At various times during the play, hope is constructed as a form of salvation, in the personages of Pozzo and Lucky, or even as death. The subject of the play quickly becomes an example of how to pass the time in a situation, which offers no hope. Thus the beginning sets the theme of the play:

“Estragon: Nothing to be done. Vladimir: I'm beginning to come round to that opinion.”

Although the phrase is used in connection to Estragon's boots here, it is also later used by Vladimir with respect to his hat. Essentially it describes the hopelessness of their lives.

A direct result of this hopelessness is the daily struggle to pass the time. Thus, most of the play is dedicated to devising games that will help them pass the time. This mutual desire also addresses the question of why they stay together. Both Vladimir and Estragon admit to being happier when apart. One of the main reasons that they continue their relationship is that they need one another to pass the time. After Pozzo and Lucky leave for the first time they comment:

“Vladimir: That passed the time. Estragon: It would have passed in any case.”

And later when Estragon finds his boots again:

“Vladimir: What about trying them. Estragon: I've tried everything. Vladimir: No, I mean the boots.



6

Estragon: Would that be a good thing? Vladimir: It'd pass the time. I assure you, it'd be an occupation.”

Since passing the time is their mutual occupation, Estragon struggles to find games to help them accomplish their goal. Thus they engage in insulting one another and in asking each other questions.

The difficulty for Beckett of keeping a dialogue running for so long is overcome by making his characters forget everything. Estragon cannot remember anything past what was said immediately prior to his lines. Vladimir, although possessing a better memory, distrusts what he remembers. And since Vladimir cannot rely on Estragon to remind him of things, he too exists in a state of forgetfulness.

Another second reason for why they are together arises from the existentialism of their forgetfulness. Since Estragon cannot remember anything, he needs Vladimir to tell him his history. It is as if Vladimir is establishing Estragon's identity by remembering for him. Estragon also serves as a reminder for Vladimir of all the things they have done together. Thus both men serve to remind the other man of his very existence. This is necessary since no one else in the play ever remembers them:

“Vladimir: We met yesterday. (Silence) Do you not remember? Pozzo: I don't remember having met anyone yesterday. But tomorrow I won't

remember having met anyone today. So don't count on me to enlighten you.”

Later on the same thing happens with the boy who claims to have never seen them before. This lack of reassurance about their very existence makes it all the more necessary that they remember each other.

Estragon and Vladimir are not only talking to pass the time, but also to avoid the voices that arise out of the silence. Beckett's heroes in other works are also constantly assailed by voices which arise out of the silence, so this is a continuation of a theme the author uses frequently:

”Estragon: In the meantime let's try and converse calmly, since we're incapable of keeping silent.

Vladimir: You're right, we're inexhaustible. Estragon: It's so we won't think. Vladimir: We have that excuse. Estragon: It's so we won't hear. Vladimir: We have our reasons. Estragon: All the dead voices. Vladimir: They make a noise like wings. Estragon: Like leaves. Vladimir: Like sand. Estragon: Like leaves. Silence….. Vladimir: They all speak at once. Estragon: Each one to itself. Silence….. Vladimir: Rather they whisper. Estragon: They rustle. Vladimir: They murmur. Estragon: The rustle. Silence….. Vladimir: What do they say? Estragon: They talk about their lives. Vladimir: To have lived is not enough for them.



7

Estragon: They have to talk about it. Vladimir: To be dead is not enough for them. Estragon: It is not sufficient. Silence…..

Vladimir: They make a noise like feathers. Estragon: Like leaves. Vladimir: Like ashes. Estragon: Like leaves. Long silence….. Vladimir: Say something!”

One of the questions, which must be answered, is why the bums are suffering in the first place. This can only be answered through the concept of original sin. To be born is to be a sinner, and thus man is condemned to suffer. The only way to escape the suffering is to repent or to die. Thus Vladimir recalls the thieves crucified with Christ in the first Act:

“Vladimir: One of the thieves was saved. It's a reasonable percentage. (Pause) Gogo. Estragon: What? Vladimir: Suppose we repented. Estragon: Repented what? Vladimir: Oh . . . (He reflects.) We wouldn't have to go into the details. Estragon: Our being born?”

Failing to repent, they sit and wait for Godot to come and save them. In the meantime they contemplate suicide as another way of escaping their hopelessness. Estragon wants them to hang themselves from the tree, but both he and Vladimir find it would be too risky. This apathy, which is a result of their age, leads them to remember a time when Estragon almost succeeded in killing himself:

“Estragon: Do you remember the day I threw myself into the Rhone? Vladimir: We were grape harvesting. Estragon: You fished me out. Vladimir: That's all dead and buried. Estragon: My clothes dried in the sun. Vladimir: There's no good harking back on that. Come on.”

Beckett is believed to have said that the name Godot comes from the French "godillot" meaning a military boot. Beckett fought in the war and so spending long periods of time waiting for messages to arrive would have been commonplace for him. The more common interpretation that it might mean "God" is almost certainly wrong. Beckett apparently stated that if he had meant "God," he would have written "God".

The concept of the passage of time leads to a general irony. Each minute spent waiting brings death one-step closer to the characters and makes the arrival of Godot less likely. The passage of time is evidenced by the tree that has grown leaves, possibly indicating a change of seasons. Pozzo and Lucky are also transformed by time since Pozzo goes blind and Lucky mute.

There are numerous interpretations of Waiting for Godot and a few are described here:

Religious interpretations posit Vladimir and Estragon as humanity waiting for the elusive return of a savoir. An extension of this makes Pozzo into the Pope and Lucky into the faithful. The faithful are then viewed as a cipher of God cut short by human intolerance. The twisted tree can alternatively represent either the tree of death, the tree of life, the tree of Judas or the tree of knowledge.

Political interpretations also abound. Some reviewers hold that the relationship between Pozzo and Lucky is that of a capitalist to his labour. This Marxist interpretation is understandable given that in the second act Pozzo is blind to what is happening



8

around him and Lucky is mute to protest his treatment. The play has also been understood as an allegory for Franco-German relations.

An interesting interpretation argues that Lucky receives his name because he is lucky in the context of the play. Since most of the play is spent trying to find things to do to pass the time, Lucky is lucky because his actions are determined absolutely by Pozzo. Pozzo on the other hand is unlucky because he not only needs to pass his own time but must find things for Lucky to do.



9

ACT-WISE SUMMERY OF WAITING FOR GODOT WITH

CRITICAL COMMENTS

ACT I: INTRODUCTION & POZZO AND LUCKY'S ENTRANCE

SUMMARY

Estragon is trying to take off his boot when Vladimir enters. The two men greet each other; Vladimir examines his hat while Estragon struggles with his boot. They discuss the versions of the story of the two thieves in the Gospels, and Vladimir wonders why one version of the story is considered more accurate than the others.

Estragon wants to leave, but Vladimir tells him that they cannot because they are waiting for Godot, who they are supposed to meet by the tree. They wonder if they are waiting in the correct spot, or if it is even the correct day.

Estragon falls asleep, but Vladimir wakes him because he feels lonely. Estragon starts to tell Vladimir about the dream he was having, but Vladimir does not want to hear his "private nightmares." Estragon wonders if it would be better for them to part, but Vladimir insists that Estragon would not go far. They argue and Vladimir storms off the stage, but Estragon convinces him to come back and they make up.

They discuss what to do next while they wait and Estragon suggests hanging themselves from the tree. However, after a discussion of the logistics, they decide to wait and see what Godot says.

Estragon is hungry, and Vladimir gives him a carrot. They discuss whether they are tied to Godot when they hear a terrible cry nearby and huddle together to await what is coming.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The beginning of the play establishes Vladimir and Estragon's relationship. Vladimir clearly realises that Estragon is dependent on him when he tells Estragon that he would be "nothing more than a little heap of bones" without him. Vladimir also insists that Estragon would not go far if they parted. This dependency extends even to minute, everyday things, as Estragon cannot even take off his boot without help from Vladimir.

The beginning of the play makes Vladimir and Estragon seem interchangeable. For example, one of the characters often repeats a line that the other has previously said. This happens in the very beginning when the two characters switch lines in the dialogue, with each asking the other, "It hurts?" and responding, "Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!" In addition to demonstrating the way that the two characters can be seen as interchangeable, this textual repetition will be found throughout the play as an indicator of the repetitiveness of life in general for Vladimir and Estragon.

Vladimir's discussion of the story of the two thieves brings up the question of textual uncertainty. He points out that the four gospels present entirely different versions of this story, and wonders why one of these versions is accepted as definitive. This question about the reliability of texts might cause the reader (or audience) of this play to question the reliability of this particular text. Also, the repetition of the story by the four gospels might allude to the repetitiveness of the action of the play.

The repetitiveness of the play is best illustrated by Estragon's repeated requests to leave, which are followed each time by Vladimir telling him that they cannot leave because they are waiting for Godot. The exact repetition of the lines each time this dialogue appears, including the stage directions, reinforces the idea that the same actions occur over and over again and suggests that these actions happen more times than the play presents.



10

In this beginning section we get the only clue of the nature of Vladimir and Estragon's relationship with Godot. They mention that they asked Godot for "a kind of prayer...a vague supplication," which he is currently considering. This creates a parallel between Godot and God, also suggested by their similar names, and it seems that Vladimir and Estragon do consider Godot a kind of religious figure when they mention coming in on their hands and knees.

ACT I: POZZO AND LUCKY SCENE

SUMMARY

Pozzo enters, driving Lucky ahead of him by a rope around his neck. Vladimir and Estragon wonder if Pozzo is Godot, but he tells them that he is Pozzo and asks if they have heard of him. They tell him that they have not. Pozzo commands Lucky to put down his stool, and sits down and begins to eat some chicken. While he eats, Vladimir and Estragon circle around Lucky, inspecting him. They notice a sore on his neck and begin to ask him a question, but Pozzo tells them to leave him alone.

Estragon asks Pozzo if he can have the bones from his chicken, and Pozzo tells him that Lucky gets priority over them. Estragon asks Lucky if he wants the bones, but he does not reply, and Pozzo tells Estragon that he can have the bones. He comments that he has never known Lucky to refuse a bone and hopes that he is not sick.

Vladimir suddenly explodes with anger at Pozzo's treatment of Lucky, but then seems embarrassed at his outburst. Pozzo decides to go, but then decides to stay and smoke another pipe. Vladimir wants to leave, but Pozzo reminds him of his appointment with Godot.

Estragon begins to wonder aloud why Lucky does not put down his bags. Pozzo begins to answer the question, after much preparation involving his vaporizer spray, but gives a convoluted and contradictory response. Vladimir asks Pozzo if he wants to get rid of Lucky; Pozzo responds that he does and is taking him to the fair to sell him.

Lucky begins to cry and Pozzo hands Estragon a handkerchief to wipe away his tears. Estragon approaches Lucky, but Lucky kicks him in the shins. Pozzo tells Vladimir and Estragon that he has learned a lot from Lucky, and that Lucky has been serving him for nearly sixty years. Vladimir becomes angry that Pozzo is going to get rid of Lucky after so much time, and Pozzo gets upset. Vladimir then gets angry at Lucky for mistreating Pozzo.

Pozzo calms down, but he realises that he has lost his pipe and begins to get upset again. While Estragon laughs at Pozzo, Vladimir exits, apparently to go to the bathroom. He returns, in a bad mood, but soon calms down. Pozzo sits down again and begins to explain the twilight. When he finishes, he asks them to evaluate his performance and then offers to have Lucky perform for them. Estragon wants to see Lucky dance, while Vladimir wants to hear him think, so Pozzo commands him to dance and then think.

Lucky dances and Estragon is not very impressed. Pozzo tells them that he used to dance much better. Vladimir asks him to tell Lucky to think, but Pozzo says that he cannot think without his hat. Vladimir puts Lucky's hat on his head and he begins to think aloud, spouting a long stream of words and phrases that amount to gibberish. As he goes on, the other three suffer more and more and finally throw themselves on him and seize his hat to make him stop. Pozzo tramples on the hat, and the men help Lucky up and give him all the bags.

Pozzo is about to leave, but finds that he cannot. He decides that he needs a running start, so he starts from the opposite end of the stage and drives Lucky across as they exchange good-byes.



11

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Pozzo's statement about his pipe, that the second pipe is never as "sweet" as the first, can apply to experience in general it suggests that feelings and events dull with repetition.

Repetition of events in the play is emphasised by further textual repetition. When Vladimir and Estragon alternate short lines back and forth, Estragon often repeats himself at the end of a string of lines. This occurs for the first time in this exchange:

"Estragon: The circus. Vladimir: The music hall. Estragon: The circus."

This same trope will recur several times in a row at the beginning of the second act, always with Estragon repeating himself.

We see here that Vladimir supports Estragon after Estragon is kicked by Lucky: when he cries that he cannot walk, Vladimir offers to carry him, if necessary. This illustrates Vladimir's attempt to protect and take care of Estragon.

Vladimir is often very quick to change his mind. When he learns of Lucky's long term of service to Pozzo, he becomes angry with Pozzo for mistreating his servant. However, when Pozzo gets upset and says that he cannot bear it any longer, Vladimir quickly transfers his anger to Lucky, whom he reproaches for mistreating his master after so many years. This illustrates how Vladimir's opinion can be easily swayed by a change in circumstances.

In this section we see the first suggestions that Vladimir and Estragon might represent all of humanity. When Pozzo first enters, he notes that Vladimir and Estragon are of the same species as he is, "made in God's image." Later, when Pozzo asks Estragon what his name is, he replies "Adam." This comparison of Estragon to Adam, the first man, suggests that he may represent all of mankind; and this link between Estragon and Adam also relates to the idea of Godot as God.

Pozzo's inquiry about how Vladimir and Estragon found him suggests that Pozzo is giving a performance. This notion is reinforced when he has Lucky perform for them. It seems that Pozzo and Lucky appear primarily to entertain Vladimir and Estragon-after Pozzo and Luck leave; the other two men comment that their presence helped the time pass more rapidly.

Pozzo's failure to depart anticipates the way that Vladimir and Estragon remain waiting at the end of each of the acts, after saying they will depart. However, even after saying, "I don't seem to be able to depart," Pozzo does actually manage to leave. Pozzo moves on while Vladimir and Estragon remain fixed even as the curtain falls at the end of each act.

ACT I: POZZO AND LUCKY'S EXIT TO CONCLUSION

SUMMARY

After Pozzo and Lucky depart, Vladimir once again tells Estragon that they cannot leave because they are waiting for Godot. They argue about whether Pozzo and Lucky have changed, and Estragon suddenly complains of pain in his other foot.

A boy enters timidly, saying that he has a message from Mr. Godot. Estragon bullies the boy, who reveals that he has been waiting a while but was afraid of Pozzo and Lucky. When Estragon shakes the boy, badgering him to tell the truth, Vladimir yells at him and sits down and begins to take off his boots.

Meanwhile, Vladimir talks to the boy. He asks him if he is the one who came yesterday, but the boy tells him that he is not. The boy tells Vladimir that Mr. Godot will not come this evening, but that he will surely come tomorrow. Vladimir then asks the



12

boy if he works for Mr. Godot, and the boy tells him that he minds the goats. The boy says that Mr. Godot does not beat him, but that he beats his brother who minds the sheep.

Vladimir asks the boy if he is unhappy, but the boy does not know. He tells the boy that he can go, and that he is to tell Mr. Godot that he saw them. The boy runs off the stage and, as he goes, it suddenly becomes night.

Estragon gets up and puts his boots down at the edge of the stage. Vladimir tells him that the boy assured him that Godot will come tomorrow. He tries to drag Estragon offstage to shelter, but Estragon will not go. Estragon wonders if they should part, but they decide to go together. As the curtain falls, they remain still.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

This section begins with the most commonly repeated dialogue in the play, in which Estragon wants to go and Vladimir tells him that they are waiting for Godot. This section provides evidence for a religious reading of the play as Estragon compares himself to Christ when he decides to go barefoot. When Vladimir tells him not to compare himself to Christ, Estragon responds that "all my life I've compared myself to him."

Vladimir's statement that he pretended not to recognise Pozzo and Lucky suggests that he has met them before. This indicates that the actions presented in the first act of the play may have happened before, calling attention to events that occur outside the frame of the play. The same thing occurs when Vladimir asks the boy if he came yesterday, revealing that they were waiting yesterday with the same result. This suggests that the same events have been going on for some time; the two acts of the play are merely two instances in a long pattern of ceaselessly repeating events.

The end of Act I establishes Vladimir and Estragon's hopelessness. Even when they both agree to go, and Vladimir says "Yes, let's go," the two men do not move. Even their resolution to go is not strong enough to produce action. This inability to act renders Vladimir and Estragon unable to determine their own fates. Instead of acting, they can only wait for someone or something to act upon them.

ACT II: INTRODUCTION & POZZO AND LUCKY'S ENTRANCE

SUMMARY

Act II takes place the next evening, at the same time and place. The tree now has four or five leaves on it. Estragon's boots and Lucky's hat remain onstage when Vladimir enters, looks around, and begins to sing. Estragon enters and suggests that Vladimir seemed happier without him. He says that he does not know why he keeps returning to Vladimir, since he too is happier alone, but Vladimir insists that it's because Estragon does not know how to defend himself.

Vladimir suggests that things have changed since yesterday, but Estragon does not remember yesterday. Vladimir reminds him about Pozzo and Lucky, and they begin to argue about whether Estragon has ever been in the Macon country. Estragon once again says that it would be better if they parted, but Vladimir reminds him that he always comes crawling back. They decide to converse calmly but soon run out of things to say, and Vladimir grows uncomfortable with the silence.

Vladimir looks at the tree and notices that it is now covered with leaves, although yesterday it was bare. Estragon says that it must be spring, but also insists that they were not here yesterday. Vladimir reminds him of the bones that Pozzo gave him and the kick that Lucky gave him and shows him the wound on his leg. He asks Estragon where his boots are and-when Estragon replies that he must have thrown them away-points out the boots on the stage triumphantly. Estragon, however, examines the boots and says that



13

they are not his. Vladimir reasons that someone must have come by and exchanged his boots for Estragon's.

Vladimir gives Estragon a black radish, but since he only likes the pink ones, he gives it back. Estragon says he will go and get a carrot, but he does not move. Vladimir suggests trying the boots on Estragon, and they fit, but Estragon does not want them laced. Estragon sits down on the mound and tries to sleep. Vladimir sings him a lullaby, and he falls asleep, but soon wakes up from a nightmare.

Vladimir is pleased to find Lucky's hat on the ground because he believes it confirms that they are in the correct place. He puts on Lucky's hat and hands his to Estragon, who takes off his hat and hands it to Vladimir. This switch occurs several times until once again Vladimir wears Lucky's hat, and Estragon wears his own hat. Vladimir decides that he will keep Lucky's hat, since his bothered him. They begin to play Pozzo and Lucky's roles, with Vladimir imitating Lucky and telling Estragon what to do to imitate Pozzo. Estragon leaves, but quickly returns because he hears someone coming.

Vladimir is sure that Godot is coming, and Estragon hides behind the tree. He realises that he is not hidden and comes out, and the two men begin a watch with one stationed on each side of the stage. When they both begin to speak at once, they get angry and begin insulting each other. After they finish their insults, they decide to make up and embrace. They briefly do some exercises and then do "the tree," staggering around on one foot.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Vladimir's song about the dog who stole a crust of bread is repeated perpetually. The two verses follow each other in succession so that it can be sung forever, although here Vladimir only sings each verse twice. This song is a representation of the repetitive nature of the play as a whole and of Vladimir and Estragon's circular lives. Like the verses of the song, the events of their lives follow one after another, again and again, with no apparent beginning or end.

The hat-switching incident is another illustration of the endless, often mindless, repetition that seems to characterise the play. Like Vladimir's song at the beginning of Act II, the hat switching could go on perpetually and only stops when Vladimir decides arbitrarily to put an end to it.

Vladimir and Estragon's discussion about the noise made by "all the dead voices" brings back the theme of Estragon repeating himself to end a string of conversation. Three times in a row, Estragon repeats his phrase, with silence following each repetition. Estragon's repetition of the phrases "like leaves" and "they rustle" emphasises these phrases, especially since Estragon comes back to "like leaves" in the third part of their discussion.

In this section we see again Vladimir's desire to protect Estragon. He believes that the primary reason Estragon returns to him every day, despite his declarations that he is happier alone is that he needs Vladimir to help him defend himself. Whether or not Vladimir actually does protect Estragon, Vladimir clearly feels that this duty and responsibility defines their relationship.

Estragon's statement that he will go and get a carrot, followed by the stage directions "he does not move," recalls their immobility in Act I's conclusion, and is another illustration of the way that the characters do not act on their words or intentions. Vladimir recognises this problem after he decides that they should try on the boots; he says impatiently, "let us persevere in what we have resolved, before we forget." Vladimir's clear awareness of his own problem makes his inability to solve it-to act and to move-seem even more frustrating and unfathomable.



14

ACT II: POZZO AND LUCKY SCENE

SUMMARY

While Vladimir and Estragon stagger about pitying themselves, Pozzo and enter. Pozzo is blind and runs into Lucky, who has stopped at the sight of Vladimir and Estragon. They fall, along with all the baggage. Vladimir welcomes their arrival since it will help to pass the time. Pozzo calls for help while Vladimir and Estragon discuss asking him for another bone. Vladimir decides that they should help him, but first he and Estragon discuss how they have kept their appointment.

Pozzo continues to cry for help, and eventually Vladimir tries to assist him. However, he falls also while trying to pull up Pozzo. Estragon threatens to leave, but Vladimir begs him to help him up first, promising that they will leave together afterward. Estragon tries to help him up, but ends up falling as well.

All four men now lie on the ground, and Vladimir and Estragon begin to nap. They are woken shortly by Pozzo's shouting, and Vladimir strikes Pozzo to make him stop. Pozzo crawls away, and Vladimir and Estragon call to him. He does not respond, and Estragon decides to try other names. He calls out "Abel," and Pozzo responds by crying for help. He wonders if the other one is called Cain, but Pozzo responds to that name as well, and Estragon decides that he must be all of humanity.

Vladimir and Estragon decide to get up, which they do with ease. They help Pozzo up and hold him, and Pozzo tells them that he does not recognise them since he is blind. They tell him that it is evening, and then begin to question him about the loss of his sight. He tells them that it came upon him all of a sudden and that he has no notion of time.

Pozzo asks the men about his slave, and they tell him that Lucky seems to be sleeping. They send Estragon over to Lucky, and Estragon begins kicking Lucky. He hurts his foot and goes to sit down. Vladimir asks Pozzo if they met yesterday, but Pozzo does not remember. Pozzo prepares to leave, and Vladimir asks him to have Lucky sing or recite before they leave. However, Pozzo tells him that Lucky is dumb. They exit, and Vladimir sees them fall offstage.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Here again Vladimir seems to recognise the problem of inaction when he decides that they should help Pozzo. He becomes suddenly vehement and shouts, "Let us not waste our time in idle discourse! Let us do something, while we have the chance!" This call to action seems like an urgent rally against the trend of inaction he and Estragon have been following throughout the play; however, Vladimir still takes plenty of time to begin to help Pozzo to his feet. This suggests that, even with good intentions and resolution, the habit of inaction cannot be broken immediately.

In this speech Vladimir also declares that at this point, "all mankind is us, whether we like it or not." This continues the theme of Vladimir and Estragon's representation of mankind as a whole and shows that Vladimir is himself aware of this comparison. Estragon also illustrates the parallel between the two men and the rest of humanity when he tells Vladimir that "billions" of people can also claim that they have kept their appointment. In this case Vladimir attempts to distinguish them from the rest of mankind, but Estragon insists that they are actually the same.

Another biblical allusion is presented here through the comparison of Pozzo and Lucky to Cain and Abel. However, when Pozzo responds to the names Cain and Abel, Estragon decides, "he's all humanity." This suggestion indicates once more that the characters in the play represent the human race as a whole.

Vladimir's need of Estragon's help in order to get up is somewhat of a role reversal. For a brief exchange, Estragon holds the power in the relationship as Vladimir calls to him for help. However, when Estragon does finally stretch out his hand to help Vladimir



15

up, he only falls himself. This seems to indicate that Estragon does not belong in this position of power and responsibility and cannot act to fulfil it.

ACT II: POZZO AND LUCKY'S EXIT TO CONCLUSION

SUMMARY

After Pozzo and Lucky leave, Vladimir wakes Estragon. Estragon is upset at being woken up, but Vladimir tells him that he was lonely. Estragon gets up, but his feet hurt, so he sits down again and tries to take off his boots. Meanwhile, Vladimir reflects upon the events of the day. Estragon dozes off again after unsuccessfully struggling with his boots.

The boy enters and calls to Vladimir. Vladimir recognises the routine and knows what the boy is going to say before he says it. They establish that the boy was not there yesterday, but that he has a message from Mr. Godot saying that he will not come this evening, but definitely tomorrow.

Vladimir asks the boy what Mr. Godot does, and the boy replies that he does nothing. Vladimir asks the boy about his brother, and the boy tells him that his brother is sick. Vladimir asks if Mr. Godot has a beard and what colour it is. The boy asks Vladimir what he should tell Mr. Godot, and Vladimir tells him that he should say that he saw him. The boy runs away as Vladimir springs toward him.

The sun sets. Estragon wakes up, takes off his boots, and puts them down at the front of the stage. He approaches Vladimir and tells him that he wants to go. Vladimir tells him that they cannot go far away, because they have to come back tomorrow to wait for Godot. They discuss hanging themselves from the tree, but find that they do not have any rope. Estragon says that they can bring some tomorrow. Estragon tells Vladimir that he can't go on like this, and Vladimir tells him that they will hang themselves tomorrow, unless Godot comes. Vladimir tells Estragon to pull up his trousers, which have fallen down when he removed the cord holding them up in order to determine whether it would be suitable for hanging. They decide to go, but once again do not move as the curtain falls.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

By this point in the play, the dialogue about waiting for Godot has been repeated so many times that even Estragon knows it. Every time he asked Vladimir to go previously, they went through the entire dialogue about why they could not go. However, this time, Estragon goes through a miniature version of this dialogue by himself: "Let's go. We can't. Ah!" It seems that the numerous repetitions of this dialogue have finally impressed its hopeless resolution upon Estragon's mind.

Similarly, by the time the boy arrives in Act II, Vladimir already knows what he will say, and the boy does not have to tell him anything. This suggests that this dialogue has occurred many times before and furthers the indication that the play is just a representative sample of the larger circle that defines Vladimir and Estragon's lives.

The play's conclusion echoes the end of Act I. Even the stage directions reflect this similarity: after boy's exit and the moonrise, the stage directions read, "as in Act I, Vladimir stands motionless and bowed." While a live audience would not read these directions, they serve to emphasise the parallel between the two acts for readers and for actors performing the play.

The repetition of the final two lines from the previous act at the play's conclusion shows the continued importance of repetition and parallelism in Waiting for Godot. However, the characters have switched lines from the previous act, suggesting that ultimately, despite their differences, Vladimir and Estragon are really interchangeable after all.



16

MOST EXPECTED QUESTIONS

Q: DISCUSS WAITING FOR GODOT AS AN ABSURDIST PLAY.

Q: WHAT IS THE THEATRE OF THE ABSURD? HOW WAITING FOR GODOT CAN BE CALLED AN ABSURD PLAY?

Ans:

“Waiting for Godot”, “Big Feet”, “Stampeding Rhinoceroses”, and “Barren Sets” are typical of the theatre of the absurd. The dramatic content, symbolism, and spectacles presented in these pieces are amazing things to see and an impossibility to comprehend. The philosophy of the absurd and the dawn of mankind influenced these plays in the twentieth century. The main proponents and works of the theatre of the absurd and philosophy were influenced by the chaotic actions of the early and mid-twentieth century. These chaotic actions led them to search for something in literature and drama never seen before.

The phrase “Absurd Drama” or the theatre of the absurd gained currency as a result of Martin Esslin’s book “The Theatre of the Absurd” published in 1961. In his attempt to show in what way the Absurd Theatre produces something really new, Esslin suggests that it is “the unusual way in which various; familiar attitudes of mind and literary idioms are interwoven” and the fact that this approach has met with a, “a wide response from broadly bared public.” Esslin makes certain important suggestions while discussing the significance of the Absurd. According to him the number of people for whom ‘God is dead’ has greatly increased in the present century. The Theatre of the Absurd is one of the ways of facing up to a universe that has lost its meaning and purpose. As such it criticises a society that is petty and dishonest.

Samuel Beckett is considered to be an important figure among the French Absurdists, more particularly his creation “Waiting for Godot” is looked upon as one of the masterpieces of Absurdist literature. The absurd world, which Beckett presents, is a fright rending one that has in it no norms, no absolutes, no consoling certainties, and no direction. It simply exists; nobody living in it has preordained sense or purpose.

Waiting for Godot is a dramatic re-enactment of the unrecognized absurdity of the world. In other words, Theatre of the Absurd transfers irrationality of life on the stage. The talks and actions of the characters do not convey any meaning. There is in fact, no plot in these plays. The time is static. The place is not specific. As a whole “Waiting for Godot” is totally an unconventional play.

After the first performance of “Waiting for Godot” in 1953, some critics were of the view that Beckett has contrived an absolute negation of human existence. But after thirty years of serious critical discussion, critics have reached the conclusion that the situation depicted in “Waiting for Godot” is symbolic of man’s general position in this world. In the world of Godot there is complete impossibility of rational action. Estragon’s struggle with his boats is as absurd as his effort to commit suicide. The striking dialogue, “There is nothing that I can do about it”, repeated so often by Vladimir and Estragon is an epitome of the whole play. This dialogue has metaphysical implications. It is a comment on the absurdity of life.

Placed in the perspective of eternity, in the shadow of death that the living can never forget, the antics with which the characters fill their short span are ludicrous. All are levelled down to the same laughable status. Estragon laments over his aching feet, Vladimir’s complaints of his friends’ sweaty socks, games of losing, finding, swapping hats and boats, suicide attempts, debates on damnation. Beckett’s black, absence, pantomime humour is an attempt to bring life preserving detachment into a situation so atrocious that to view it head on could only produce a formless cry of despair. Geoffrey Brereton is of the view,



17

“nihilism……… Beckett suggests a state of thing, which is so appalling that it must be meaningless. If it had a meaning, it would be unbearably horrible”.

The play is in two acts, each of which follows exactly the some pattern. On an empty stage representing a country road with a single tree, two men, Vladimir and Estragon, dressed in tattered clothes and ancient bowler hats, are trying to keep an appointment. They are not too sure whether they really have this appointment nor are they too sure with whom the appointment is to be made and what its purpose is. They are dependent upon each other and yet want to get away from each other, and above all they are convinced of the desirability of doing away with themselves. But each time, they attempt to commit suicide, they fail through sheer incompetence. In each of the two acts Vladimir and Estragon meet another pair of characters; Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo is big, fat and opulent while Lucky is thin old with a rope round his neck. The second act depicts the tramp’s loss of identity. Although both the characters are bound in a friendly bond, they are unable to communicate with each other throughout the play, their relationship verges on uncertainty.

The play also depicts the difference in the attitudes of the two tramps. Vladimir is of a speculative turn of mind, while Estragon is weaker and more temper a mental. Yet both are at the mercy of Godot absolutely who has asked them to wait for him. The two tramps are in such a mental state in which nothing happens twice. The time stands still and their only pre-occupation is to pass time. They are accurately aware of the futility of their existence and they are merely filling up the hours with painless activity. They deliberately even abuse each other so as to get their conversation going. All that Estragon can do is to eat a carrot or pull off and put on his boot. All that Vladimir can do is to remove his hat, pear inside, shape it thoroughly and put it on again. They are totally helpless in the presence of their mental condition. Hence whatever they do is highly farcical but at some time it is deeply tragic. In the treatment of comedy and tragedy, Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”, thus comes very close to the concept of tragic comedy of the theatre of absurd.

Like committed absurdist, Beckett combats the traditional notions of time. The principal theme of this play is “Waiting”; the act of waiting is an essential and characteristic aspect of human condition. Throughout their lives human beings wait for something, an event, a thing a person, or death. Moreover, it is in the act of waiting that people experience the flow of time in its most evident form. To wait means to experience the action of time “Waiting for Godot” is a dramatic statement of the human situation itself. It lacks both character and plot in the conventional sense but it tackles its subject matter at a level where neither characters nor plot exists Vladimir and Estragon are not human characters but embodiment of basic human attitudes and what posses in this play are not events with a definite beginning and a definite end, but types of situation that will forever repeat. That’s why the pattern of Act I is repeated with variations in Act II. The two tramps have no ambition, no special purpose, no place to go, only a place to wait. In fact Godot is nothing but the name for the fact that the life, which goes on pointlessly is wrongly interpreted to mean as “Waiting for something” what appears to be a positive attitude of tramps amounts to be a double negation their existence is pointless, and they are incapable of recognizing the pointlessness of their existence. They are like men who, despite living on a desert island and never having been married continuously expect the return of their wives. In fact, they are ruined by their habit merely because they happen to exist, and because existence does not know of any other alternation but to exist. Thus absurd drama becomes a kind of modern mystical experience, says Esslin;



18

“… the dignity of man lies in his ability to face reality in all its senselessness; to accept it freely, without fear, without illusions—and to laugh at it”.

To say that life is an absurd; is to challenge the two great acts of faith; reason and religion. Confidence in reason is the basis of belief in human ability to order and control the material world. Religion gives an overarching assurance that every thing is in control. These are the two languages with which Vladimir and Estragon must make sense of their world, and they would seem to be just so many empty words. In Beckett’s own words, there is nothing but words, divorced from all meaning; “It all boils down to a question of words”.

In the end, it can be remarked that “Waiting for Godot” belongs to the theatre of Absurd, in its treatment of themes, delineation of characters, symbolic undertones, form and style. A recent critic named Roby Cohn looks upon “Waiting for Godot” as one of the master—pieces of Absurdist Literature.

Q: WHAT IS SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TITLE “WAITING FOR GODOT”?

Q: IT IS NOT GODOT BUT WAITING THAT MAKES THE WHOLE PLAY. HOW CAN YOU MAKE A CONVINCING CASE?

Ans:

Waiting for Godot is a multi—sided play with significant title. Its meanings and implications are complex. It is possible to look upon it as a clever farce or view it as a tragic exposition of human predicament. Its themes have certain topicality but at the same time, they possess a timeless validity and universality. It is an existentialistic play but at the same time mocks at the attitude of existentialism. It seems to have some religious implications even though it seems of be questioning profoundly the Christian concept of salvation and grace.

The title “Waiting for Godot,” suggests waiting for a mysterious stranger who has obvious symbolic dimensions and implication. Godot may be a representative, in Beckett’s contemporary term of some authority, who has promised protection to the tramps. He may be regarded as a symbol of the hope of the ordinary French citizen in French under Germen occupation or he may be considered as the link in Resistance French Movement with Estragon and Vladimir two resistance workers who have been told to contact him. Obviously their men can come only when the coast is absolutely clear, or waiting for Godot may be a symbol of waiting for a Divine Saviour.

The significance of the title can also be explored in another way, as the fundamental imagery of “Waiting for Godot” is Christian for at the depth of experience into which Beckett is probing, there is no other source of imagery for him to draw on. His heroes are two tramps who have come from nowhere in particular and have nowhere in particular to go. Their life is in a state of apparently fruitless expectation. They receive messages, through a little boy, from local landowner, Godot, who always is going to come in person tomorrow, but never do come. Their attitude towards Godot is partly one of hope, partly of fear. The orthodoxy of this symbolism from a Christian point of view is obvious. The tramps with their rags and misery represent the fallen state of man. The squalor of their surrounding, their lock of a stake in the world represents the idea that here in this world we can build no conducive state to live in.

The ambiguity of their attitude towards Godot. Their mingled hope and fear and the doubtful tone of the boy’s messages represent the state of tension and uncertainty in which an average Christian must live in this world, avoiding presumption and also avoiding despair. Yet the two tramps Didi and Gogo, as they call each other, represent something far higher than the other two characters in the play, the masterful and ridiculous Pozzo and his terrifying slave Lucky. Didi and Gogo stand for the



19

contemplative life and Lucky and Pozzo stand for the life of practical action taken mistakenly, as an end in it.

As for as view of Godot as a Divine Saviour is concerned, it is strengthened by they did not request Godot to do anything definite for them, all they did, was to make a sort of vague prayer or supplication to him. Vladimir says more than once that if Godot comes they would be saved. The resemblance of “God” is too clear to be missed. Moreover, they are also afraid of him, when Estragon suggests that they might drop Godot, Vladimir reminds him that he would punish them if they do that.

Thus Godot may be God, terrible and white beard, as conceived in the Old Testament. The tramps waiting for him may thus be the representatives of human beings who must keep each other’s company, quarrelling and foolish talking, until they find a rope to hang themselves, or until final night makes the act of waiting unnecessary. Being poor and unprovided they are typical specimens of common, anti heroic humanity. The tramps like Pozzo and Lucky also seem to symbolize human regression, that is to say, the deterioration or “backward evolution” in human. In this way the title “Waiting for Godot” is applicable to act of Christianity.

As regards the relevance of the title of the play to the German occupation of France, we observe two men waiting for another name, which may not be his real name. A ravaged and blasted landscape, a world that was once ampler and more open, but is permeated with pointlessness now, mysterious dispensers of beating and the anxiety of the two who wait their anxiety to be as inconspicuous as possible in a strange environment. All this reminds the reader and the audience of France occupied by the Germens, in which its author spent the war years. It indicates how much useless waiting must have gone on that bleak world. As such the monotonous waiting is likely to create uncertainty and loss of hope. The tramps in the play are sitting in a similar condition of mind.

This view suggests that “Waiting for Godot” is a play about a mysterious world where two men wait. Only a fraction of human race had experienced the German occupation of France and only of fraction of that fraction waited for some Godot.

Nevertheless, the title of the play is also suggestive of the meaninglessness of life. The way the two tramps pass time his real name is indicative of the boredom and triviality of human activities, the lack of significance in life and the constant suffering which are the results of this existence. It also brings out the hollowness and insincerity of most social intercourse. Estragon and Vladimir question each other, contradict each other abuse each other and reconcile each other with out any serious meanings or intention. All these devices are employed to one end—to the end of making their waiting for Godot less unbearable. Estragon takes off his boots, gropes inside them, and shakes them out expecting something to fall out of them, but nothing happens. Vladimir does the same with hat with the same result. The very essence of boredom and triviality is concentrated in the scene in which Estragon and Vladimir repeatedly put on and take off the three hats their own and Lucky. It is utter lack of meanings which derives Estragon and Vladimir to the thoughts of suicide but the world of the play is one in which no significant action is permitted, therefore even suicide is not within their reach.

“Waiting for Godot” is so to speak, a play about the philosophy, which underscores the incomprehensibility and therefore the meaninglessness of the universe. The anxiety that, man feels upon being confronted with the fact of existence; thereby confirming the suitability of the title.



20

Q: WHAT ARE THE MAJOR THEMES IN “WAITING FOR GODOT”? GIVE A COMPREHENSIVE OVER-VIEW.

Q: “WAITING FOR GODOT” IS DRAMATIZATION OF MODERN ENIGMAS IN A COMICAL WAY. AGREE OR DISAGREE IN CONVINCING WAY.

Q: WHAT IS SIGNIFICANCE OF TIME IN THE PLAY “WAITING FOR GODOT”?

Ans:

“Waiting for Godot” appears as depthless play, “Nothing happens, no one comes, no one goes, it is awful”. However beneath its surface absurdity, there lie layer of meanings, presenting a coarse picture of human life. The play is composed of multiple themes. It has become a classic and provides the critics much to speculate on, when Beckett was asked who is Godot,? he replied, “If I knew, I would have said so in the play”.

“Waiting for Godot”, concerned with the hope of salvation through the working of grace has been considered as Christian or religious play. G.S. Erase is of the opinion that this is a modern morality play on permanent Christian theme; he mentions the play in the same breath as every man and the Pilgrim’s progress. The tramps wait for Godot who may represent God and their persistence in waiting for Godot shows their faith in God. The mutual attachment of two tramps and Vladimir’s protective attitude towards his friend has been interpreted as Christian virtue. When Beckett was asked about the theme of Waiting for Godot, he sometimes referred to a passage in the writing of St. Augustine, “Do not despair—one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume—one of the thieves was damned”.

However the theme of two thieves on the cross, the theme of uncertainty of hope of salvation and the fortuitousness of the bestowal of grace do indeed seems to be an insignificant observation. Godot is nothing but a name for the fact that the life which goes on pointlessly is wrongly interpreted to mean “Waiting for Godot”.

Disintegration and regression of man is another depressing interpretation of the play. The play represents the disintegration of human beings, the climax in the play occurs when all the four characters fall to the ground upon one another, creating of formless mass from which Vladimir’s voice emerges, saying, “we are men”. Nothing escapes the destructive force of this regression neither speech—torn to piece in the rhetoric of Pozzo’s monologue on twilight—nor thought—which is undetermined and destroyed by a whole series of absurd reasoning as well as by such passages as the incoherent speech delivered by Lucky. Lucky’s speech effectively represents the regression of man’s thinking intelligence.

According to yet another view, the world represented in this play resembles France occupied by German during World War II, when Beckett lived first in the occupied zone and then escaped to the unoccupied region. The play reminds us of the French Resistance organized by underground workers. How much waiting have gone in that bleak world. How many times must Resistance organizers have kept appointments with many who did not turn up? We can imagine why the arrival of Pozzo would have an unnerving effect on those who waited. Pozzo could be a Gestapo official clumsily disguised. The German occupation of France pervades the whole play. Godot himself is unpredictable on bestowing kindness and punishment. The parallel to Lane and Abel is evident. The fortuitous bestowal of grace, which passes human, understanding, divides mankind into those that will be saved and those that will be damned.

But these interpretations, says Martin Esslin seem to over look a number of essential features of the play—its constant stress on the essential uncertainty and the repeated demonstration of the futility of hopes pinned on him. According to this, whether Godot is meant to suggest his intervention as supernatural or whether he stands for a mythical human being, his exact nature is of secondary importance, So “the subject



21

of the play is not Godot but waiting… and Godot simply represents the objectives of our, waiting—and event, a thing, a person death”. The play is a picture of the antics of man as he tries to distract himself until Godot comes. The two tramps, thus, while away their time in a succession of never ending games. In the very opening of the play, Estragon and Vladimir agree “Nothing to be alone”. The only alternative left is, therefore, to wait for Godot Estragon, as time and again to be reminded of this fact:

“Let’s go We can’t Why not We, re waiting for Godot Ah!”

Having nothing to do they childishly engage in playing games? Both of them take off shake and peer inside their boot and hat.

Waiting is to experience the action of time, which is constant change. Yet the ceaseless activity of time is self-defeating, purposeless and therefore null and void. The more things change, the more they are the same. Pozzo exclaims in his final great outburst, “Have you not done formatting me with your accursed time?” They give birth astride to grave, the light gleams an instant, then its night once again.

Still Vladimir and Estragon live in hope and wait for Godot whose coming will bring the flow of time to a stop. Towards the end of the play when Vladimir is about to realize, he has been dreaming and must wake up and face the world as it is, Godot’s messenger arrives, kinds his hopes and plunges him back into the passivity to waiting.

The play is also considered to be a fable about a kind of life that has no longer any hope that is the meaninglessness of life. The way by, the two tramps pass time is indicative of the boredom and triviality of human activities. The lack of significance in life and the constant suffering which existence is, the two tramps are dimly aware of the want of action in their lives but they still want to go on. Majority of people in today’s world do not give up living when their life becomes pointless. The tramps are waiting for nothing in particular. They have even to remind each other of the fact that they are waiting and of what they are waiting for. Thus actually they are not waiting for anything. It should not of course be regarded as the “Key to the play”.

Another theme is that, suffering is an inseparable part of human condition. Vladimir cannot even laugh without suffering. Estragon’s feet make life a long torture for him. They have nowhere to rest their heads. This suffering pervades the episode of Lucky and Pozzo too. Lucky gives expression to the human condition by dancing what he styles the “Dance of the Net”. In Act-II both Lucky and Pozzo have suffered great physical affliction. The most is that suffering is both purposeless and without the consolation of hope for the end.

The theme of exploitation is only implicit in the main story but it is explicit in the episode of Pozzo and Lucky. The Net, in which Lucky believes himself to be caught, is an economic one. The exploited become so demoralized that are unable to offer any resistance to the exploiters. Pozzo states that it was just once that Lucky failed to obey his command. Even when Pozzo has become blinded, Lucky does not have the gusts to free himself from his enslavement.

Into this wonderfully suggestive and subtle play Beckett incorporates such minor themes as the inadequacy of human language as a mean of communication and the illusory nature of such concepts as part and future.

It is thus peculiar richness of a play like “Waiting for Godot” that it opens vistas to so many perspectives. It is an existentialist play at the same time, it also mocks at the attitudes of existentialism. It seems to have some religious implications even though it seems to question profoundly the Christian conception of salvation and grace. It is open



22

to philosophical religious and psychological interpretation, yet about all, it is a poem on time, and the mysteries of existence. It is the paradox of change and stability.

Q: WHO IS GODOT IN “WAITING FOE GODOT” BY SAMUEL BECKETT?

Q: WHY GODOT IS SO PUZZLING AND WHAT PARTICULAR PURPOSES ARE ACHIEVED BY BECKET TO MAKE IT SO MYSTERIOUS?

Q: GIVE A SATISFACTORY DISCUSSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF GODOT?

Ans:

Ever since its first production “Godot” has been a puzzle for critics. In 1958 Beckett was asked to explain Godot’s character. The dramatist promptly replied, “If I know I would have said so in the play”. This is to say in other words that Godot could be interpreted in many ways. To whatever extent we stretch our imagination it is never clear who he is? The majority of the critics are, however, of the view that Godot is God whom human being asks for help when they are helpless and miserable.

What we learn from the play is that Godot has made a promise to Vladimir that he would see him and Estragon near a tree on a country road. In compliance Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot’s arrival. They have a faint hope that Godot might bring some change in their lives. It is ironic that they do not know exactly what they would ask him for? Vladimir says, “Too nothing definite”. Godot did not promise anything to him. He is in absurd situation. The question arises, when the tramps know that Godot will not bring any change in their lives, then why do they wait for him? The answer is simple. Estragon and Vladimir wait for him as a mother of habit exactly in the manner as human beings think that some superpower can rescue them from the terrible situation in which they find themselves.

The play clearly shows that Godot has his own limitations. Before making a firm promise to the tramps, he has to consult his family, friends, agents, correspondents, books and bank accounts. From these details, the impression, which we get, is that Godot is either a bureaucrat or a minister. If Godot is God, then he is a bureaucrat God that is quite whimsical. Moreover, he has no sense of justice. He beats the shepherd boy for nothing. Lucky in his famous speech refers to personal God of men who is, of course, incapable of fairness. It means that God is not a time judge, because he rewards one with grace but punishes the other for nothing. If this interpretation is true, one thing becomes clear that “Waiting for Godot” is a satire on Christian concept of hope and salvation. But this critical judgment cannot be supported by further proof. Thus, the connection between God and Godot is immaterial. Certainly there is little resemblance between the two. Another interpretation of Godot is that he is a symbol of power and authority.

This can be confirmed from the dialogues of Vladimir and Estragon when Pozzo appears on the scene with a whip in his hand, they take him for Godot later on, and they themselves reject their assumption. At this point in the play another description makes us to imagine ‘Godot’ as God. The boy informs that Godot has white beard and has mastery over goats and sheep. According to biblical connotation human beings are the flock of God to whom people normally turn when they are in trouble. But the play is a tragedy in which no one comes to their rescue.

Godot can be interpreted in still another way. His arrival can be identified with prosperity and happiness. As no change occurs and nobody comes, this interpretation is also undependable. Psychologically, Godot could be unconscious of man. He is as inaccessible as the sub-conscious of man. But the physical descriptions with clear-cut features such as white beard do not support this meaning. Of course, it is highly illogical to gather our impression of Godot and show him to have any similarity or resemblance.

According to some critics, Godot’s failure to come is bitter comment of the second coming of Christ. This meaning is also purely fanciful because the act of waiting is essentially an obscure act. The purpose of waiting has never been defined by Beckett.



23

In finale, we can reassert our first contention that Godot is an enigma, a mystery, and a puzzle.

Q: DISCUSS POZZO-LUCKY RELATIONSHIP IN RELATION TO THE THEME OF “WAITING FOR GODOT”.

Q: EVEN THE RELATIONSHIPS IN “WAITING FOR GODOT” ARE ABSURD. DO YOU AGREE?

Ans:

Shaped as they are, by the same culture, the characters in “Waiting for Godot” share a number of common features. Each is split by the same contradiction. On the one hand, he knows himself chiefly as a separate isolated individual, which on the other hand; each is driven to form some kind of relationship with other by need, greed and sometimes by compassion.

A solitary existence is a material impossibility but relationships can be of different kinds. Pozzo and Lucky, master and slave, are joined artificially (because they do not like each other) and by force with their rope, while the partnership of Vladimir and Estragon, though not a voluntary one, seems to be based on genuine natural need and relative equality.

All the relationships between characters are, to different degrees, based on the exploitation and abuse that Beckett observed in a Europe occupied (based on tyranny) by Hitler, an Ireland occupied by Britain and the churches and the similar relationship we find in the Pozzo—Lucky pair where there is no co-operation Lucky is the paid entertainer who does all the work, while Pozzo takes all the credit.

In the play Pozzo appears like a brazen idol—massive, smooth and rigid walking ahead of Lucky, at far end of a long rope, where he is beaten. Although in stark contrast to each other, yet Pozzo and Lucky have one thing in common, they are both driven by a desperate attempt to evade panic, which would grip them if they lose their belief in what Pozzo stands for.

Lucky deserves his name because he has a master who, however, cruelly organizes his life for him. Once we are told, Lucky could by dancing and thinking amuse and inspire Pozzo, but his state of slavery has gradually put an end to all that. His thinking has deteriorated into the endless repletion of meaningless and reminiscent of the “word-salad” of schizophrenic.

The relationship between Pozzo and Lucky is reflected in the physical bond that holds them together—the link of the rope. Pozzo treats Lucky worse than an animal. He invariably refers to him as pig and hog. He attracts his attention by putting the rope violently, which surrounds Lucky’s neck. The tramps notice that the rope has eaten a running ulcer into Lucky’s flesh. Lucky is made to carry all sorts of baggage. Yet he does not resist or complain. According to Pozzo, Lucky keeps on holding the luggage all the time because he does not want to leave the Pozzo’s service, he hopes his zeal might favourably impress his master. However, Pozzo is determined to get rid of the slave. He announces in Act-1, that he is taking Lucky to a fair where he hopes to sell him for a good price. Lucky is vicious to strangers. He kicks Estragon painfully when the latter approaches him, in Act-1, to wipe away his tears. This is the only occasion when Lucky displays human feelings. Pozzo has remarked that creatures like Lucky ought to be exterminated; hearing these words Lucky begins to cry.

Everything about Pozzo resembles our image of the ringmaster of circus and Lucky as a trained or performing animal. Like a ringmaster, Pozzo arrives brandishing a whip, which is the trademark of the professional. In fact, we hear the cracking of Pozzo’s whip before we actually see him.

In the Act-II, we see this relationship in an entirely different pose. Pozzo of Act-I is vain and egotistical. He behaves with tramps as well as with Lucky like a lord. While in



24

Act-II Pozzo is blind and helpless. He needs Lucky to show him the way and is now dependent on him. Little wonder, therefore, that we no longer hear him talk of disposing of his slave. He can no longer command. Rather than driving Lucky as he did earlier, he is now pathetically dragged along by Lucky. From a position of omnipotence and strength and confidence, he has fallen and has become the complete fallen man who maintains that time is irrelevant and that man’s existence is meaningless.

In Pozzo, Beckett displays the operation of authority. He shows how power is won and kept, and at the same time, he demonstrates the viciousness and violence of rulers. Pozzo is powerful because he assumes power and because he knows how to wheedle others into his drama, whether by force or flattery. He wants servants and an audience to satisfy his every move, walking standing or sitting to make his figure into the “natural” centre of landscape.

Lucky, the bottom of the packing order in this drama must take much of blame for making the muck- heap on which they all now live. White haired, shaky legged sick, confused of speech in Act-I and dumb in Act-II, his role is to support Pozzo and all that belong to him. His very existence in the drama is a parody of human existence. In Act-II when he arrives completely dumb, it is only a fitting extension of his condition in Act-I, where his speech was virtually incomprehensible. Now he makes no attempt to utter and sound at all. Whatever part of man Lucky represents, we can make the general observation that, he as man is reduced to leading the blind, not by intellect, but by blind instinct.

Thus together they, Pozzo and Lucky, represent the antithesis of each other. Any number of Polarities could be used to apply to them. If Pozzo is the master, then Lucky is the slave. If Pozzo is it circus ringmaster, then Lucky is the performing, trained animal. If Pozzo is the sadist, Lucky is masochist, or Pozzo can be seen as the Ego and Lucky asid.

Q: TO WHAT EXTANT VLADIMIR AND ESTRAGON ARE METAPHORS OF HUMANITY IN “WAITING FOR GODOT”?

Q: VLADIMIR AND ESTRAGON ARE REPRESENTATION OF MAN IN GENERAL. ACCEPT OR REJECT THE STATEMENT.

Q: MAJOR CHARACTERS IN “WAITING FOR GODOT” ARE HUMAN BEINGS IN SEARCH FOR MEANINGS IN THE MEANINGLESS, HOSTILE UNIVERSE.

Ans:

Authors bring into play different modus operandi in their writings. Samuel Beckett makes use of allusions and references to characters to help the reader understand what the characters stand for.

In his drama Waiting for Godot, Beckett’s two main characters, Estragon and Vladimir, are symbolised as man. Separate they are two different sides of man, but together they represent man as a whole. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett uses Estragon and Vladimir to symbolize man’s physical and mental state. Estragon represents the physical side of man, while Vladimir represents the intellectual side of man. In each way these two look for answers shows their side of man. Estragon has his shoes. Vladimir has his hat. When Estragon takes off his shoes “he peers inside it, feels about inside it, turns it upside sown, shakes it...” Through this action it is relevant that Estragon is searching for something from his boot, but unable to recognize it. This symbolizes man’s side of using physical ability to answer questions. Vladimir on the other hand continues to look into his hat. Vladimir constantly “Takes off his hat, peers inside it, feels about inside it, shakes it, puts it on again”.

Through this action Vladimir is shown to be searching for answers in his hat, which symbolizes his using knowledge and his intellectual capability for solving problems. Both Estragon and Vladimir are searching for what the reader assumes to be the key to life’s problems. When they continue to do this throughout the drama, it expresses the fact



25

that they are searching and will continue to search until they find what they are looking for. Vladimir is more practical, and Estragon is more of a romantic. In the drama, Estragon wants to talk about his dreams. Vladimir doesn’t want to. He cannot stand to hear about the dreams that Estragon has. When Estragon wakes up from falling asleep he says, “I had a dream”. Vladimir answers with “Don’t tell me”. Another example is that Estragon often forgets events as soon as they happen or within a day, while Vladimir, on the other hand, remembers past events. This is shown when Pozzo and Lucky enter into the scene in the second act. Estragon and Vladimir see two men coming. Vladimir recognizes it as Pozzo, from the day before, but Estragon does not recognize him. The conversation starts with

“Vladimir: Poor Pozzo I knew it was him who? Godot. But it’s not Godot. It’s not Godot? It’s not Godot. Then who is it? It’s Pozzo.”

This exchange in dialog shows that Estragon does not recognize Pozzo, and Vladimir has to tell Estragon who it is. The two of them are dependent on each other. Estragon is beaten every night by mysterious men. Vladimir acts as his protector. He sings to him, helps him take off his boots, and covers him with his jacket. Every night they part, yet they find each other every morning and start another day of waiting. In each act, Estragon and Vladimir talk about hanging themselves form the tree. During this exchange of words, Estragon suggest that they hang themselves from a near by tree. Vladimir is the one who is particle and explains why they can’t hang themselves. The physical side and the intellectual side is shown through Estragon’s and Vladimir’s actions, as well as their words. They have a friend ship that is bonded by their differences. Without one another they would be lost, just like without the intellectual side of man, the physical side would be lost, and visa versa.

Q: WAITING FOR GODOT IS A PLAY IN WHICH “NOTHING HAPPENS, TWICE.” DISCUSS.

Q: COMMENT ON THE PAUCITY OF INCIDENT AND SITUATION IN “WAITING FOR GODOT.”

Q: “IN THE PLAY (WAITING FOR GODOT) PRACTICALLY NOTHING

HAPPENS. THERE IS NOTHING DONE IN IT; NO DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE FOUND: AND THERE IS NO BEGINNING AND NO END.” DISCUSS THIS VIEW.

Ans:

When Waiting for Godot was first presented on the stage, it offered to theatre-audiences an experience unknown before. It was a new kind of play, a play which broke entirely fresh ground. It was a wholly unconventional dramatic composition. It was unconventional in respect of its character-portrayal as well as its plot-construction. It was unconventional also in not depicting any dramatic conflict in the accepted sense of the word. In fact, there was an all-round deficiency of action, characterization and emotion in this play. And yet the play proved immensely popular, and its popularity has never declined.

The critic who said that Waiting for Godot was play in which “nothing happens, twice”, was not far wrong. The keynote to this play is to be found in the memorable words which Estragon utters with regard to his own life and the life of his friend, Vladimir, Those words are: “nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful!” Because of the strange paucity of action and situation in the play, a critic in sheer desperation has remarked that practically nothing happens in it: “There is nothing done in it; no development is to be found; and there is no beginning and no end.” Indeed, the entire action boils down to this:

On a country road, near a tree, two tramps, Estragon and Vladimir, idle away their time waiting for Godot. One takes off his boots, and the other talks of the Gospels. One



26

eats a carrot which the other offers. They have nothing substantial to say to each other. They address each other by two diminutives, Gogo and Didi. They cannot go away, because they are waiting for someone called Godot. Eventually a boy arrives with a message that Godot will not come this evening but surely tomorrow. The two tramps decide to go away and come back again the next day. But they do not move and the curtain falls. Earlier, two other characters, a cruel master called Pozzo and his half-crazy slave called Lucky, incomprehensible speech made up of disconnected fragments. In Act II the waiting goes on; Pozzo and Lucky pass by once more, but the master I now blind and the slave is dumb. The master and the slave stumble and fall and are helped on their way by the tramps. The same boy comes back with the same message-namely that Godot will not come this evening but that he will come on the following day. Everything remains as it was in the beginning. The two tramps would like to hang themselves, but they have not got a suitable rope. They decide to go away and come back again the next day. But they do not move and the curtain falls.

Waiting for Godot is a play made up out of nothingness. The spectator or the reader is fascinated by the strangeness of what he witnesses, hoping for a turn in the situation or a solution, which never comes. The play holds the audience from beginning to end, and that audience remains riveted to the two tramps who do nothing and say practically nothing. The two tramps are incapable of anything more than mere beginnings of impulses, desires, thoughts, moods, memories, and impressions. Everything that arises in them sinks back into forgetfulness before it arrives anywhere. They both live, to a large extent, in a twilight-state and though one of them, Vladimir, is more aware than his companion, complete physical listlessness prevails throughout. Their incapacity to live or to end life (and this is the opening and concluding theme of the play) is intimately linked with their love of helplessness and of which-dreams. They are full of frustrations and resentments, and they cling to each other with a mixture of inter-dependence and affection.

There had been in the pasts some attempts to do away with theatrical conventions regarding action on the stage. But this play marks a sort of climax. No dramatist had ever taken so great a risk before, because what this play deals with is the essential, without any beating about the bush, the means employed to deal with it being the minimum conceivable.

Waiting for Godot does not tell a story; it explores a static situation. Act II precisely repeats the pattern of Act I. Act I ends thus:

Estragon: Well, shall we go? Vladimir: Yes, let’s go

(They do not move)

Act II ends with the same lines of dialogue, but spoken by the same characters in reversed order. No dramatist had ever taken such an extreme position. Not only have conventions been done away with, but even some necessary information has been withheld form the reader. According to the conventional view, a play was to have a certain plot necessitating certain situations and actions, and characters who performed those actions and who were caught up in the tangles of the plot. But Waiting for Godot hardly offers a plot. It is as if we were watching a sort of regression beyond nothing. The little we are given to begin with soon disintegrates like Pozzo, who comes back bereft of sight, dragged by Lucky bereft of speech. “This is becoming really insignificant,” says one of the two tramps at this point. “Not enough,” replies the other. This answer is followed by a long silence. From beginning to end the dialogue seems to be dying.

At various stages one or the other of the two tramps suggests something to pass the time-making conversation, repenting, hanging themselves, telling stories, abusing one another, playing at Pozzo and Lucky. But each time the attempt fails; after a few uncertain exchanges they peter out, give up, admit failure. The words “we’re waiting for



27

Godot” occur again and again like a refrain. But it is a senseless and tiresome refrain; it has no theatrical values; it represents neither hope nor longing. A typical situation in the play is Pozzo and Lucky falling down, followed by the two tramps, and all of them lying or the ground in a helpless heap, from which one tramp’s face emerges to pronounce: “we are men.”

Waiting for Godot is based on Beckett’s dual obsession with journey and stasis. No doubt a number of adjustments are made during the interval between the two Acts: Pozzo goes blind and Lucky becomes dumb; the tree puts forth some leaves, Estragon’s boots are changed, and Lucky gets a new hat. These changes serve to show that something is till taking its course in time. The tree’s movement from winter to spring apparently in a single night is not something believable. The tree moves fast in relation to the tramps, reminding us that objective time proceeds, indifferent to their anguish. But otherwise there is very little movement. Sentences remain unfinished: stories are interrupted (for example, that of the English man in the brothel); Lucky is not allowed to complete his terrible speech; thoughts, like the speculation on the two thieves, do not reach a conclusion; actions, like the two attempts of the tramps to hang themselves, do not take complete shape; indeed thoughts and actions fade into a helpless uncertainty, confusion and silence. All the devices of the tramps to pass their time eventually collapse into nothing.

No one in the theatre had, before Beckett, dealt with the experience of ignorance and impotence. Nor could anyone do so as long as the dramatist and the public thought along the traditional lines of a well-made play with a strong story involving conflict, character-development, and a final solution. Impotence cannot produce action, and without action there can be neither conflict nor solution. Movement would, therefore, be clearly impossible under these circumstances. But, according to the traditional view, a static drama was a contradiction in terms. Beckett solved the difficulty by substituting situation for story, and direct impact of logical, indirect description. But he did more than solve on particular artistic problem. He created in effect the whole new concept of drama much as the Impressionists created a whole new concept of painting.

Thus, to a very large extent, Beckett has stripped down action, situation, emotion, and characterization. It may be noted, however, that the stripping down process can go much further as Beckett himself went on to prove in Endgame and Happy Days. The extreme, in this respect, is reached in Beckett’s novel How It Is in which the crippled characters crawl painfully along face downward in the mud and communicate by jabs with a tin-opener. Compared to any of these, Vladimir and Estragon are highly articulate persons possessing a sharp sensitivity. It is to be noted, also that despite the paucity of incident, the play achieves, with conspicuous success, its purpose of communicating the experience of waiting, of boredom, of helplessness, of impotence, and of ignorance to the audience.



28

Q: SAMUEL BECKETT SUB TITLED HIS PLAY WAITING FOR GODOT AS A TRAGI-COMEDY. HOW FAR IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE THE PLAY THUS?

Q: ELUCIDATE THE DESCRIPTION OF WAITING FOR GODOT AS A TRAGI-COMEDY.

Ans:

Waiting for Godot has appropriately been called a tragi- comedy. It is a play, which combines comic elements with tragic elements. It is true that the dominant, over all impression of the play is serious and tragic, but the comic elements occupy a considerable position in the play. There is much in the play to move us, but there is much to amuse us also. And then there are certain situations and remarks that simultaneously move and amuse us. Indeed, it is a curious play in which it becomes really difficult to demarcate the serious and tragic elements from the light and comic one. Even apart from the situations and the dialogue, the characters themselves are partly comic and partly tragic; we commiserate with them and at them same time we laugh at them.

The very opening of the play is funny. Estragon’s vain efforts to take off one of his boots are amusing, even though his remark “nothing to be done” proves to have serious implications in the light of later developments. If Estragon amuses us by his struggle with his boot, Vladimir amuses us by taking off his hat, peering inside it, putting it on again, taking it off again, peering inside it again, and then echoing Estragon’s words: “nothing to be done”. Vladimir taunting remark that Estragon is true to his character in “blaming on his boots the faults of his feet” is also amusing. Soon afterwards Estragon begins to tell the funny story of an English-man going to a brothel, but is stopped by Vladimir from completing it. When Vladimir and Estragon embrace as a mark of their mutual friendship, Estragon recoils saying: “You stink of garlic”, and Vladimir explains that he has to take garlic as a treatment for his weak kidneys. Later in the play there is a situation when Estragon and Vladimir put on different hats one after the other: they “permute” hats. This is a comic act that is bound to evoke peals of laughter from the audience. The act is obviously borrowed from the circus. Estragon’s trousers falling about his ankles when he loosens the cord holding them up is also a funny sight.

Much of the dialogue between Vladimir and Estragon is amusing, though it should be remembered that the two tramps are not consciously humorous and that it is not their object to produce fun. What they say is integral to the situation in which they find themselves, and much of what they say is funny from our point of view. Early in the play, for instance, Estragon says that “it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes,” thus giving a twist to the familiar proverb: “Strike when the iron is hot.” Some of the dialogues between there two friends consist of very brief remarks or comments or suggestions, and these exchanges by their very swiftness and conciseness, acquire a humorous quality, for instance when they refer to Godot’s commitment to them to think over that he can do for them, Vladimir says that Godot will “consult his family.” Thereupon we have the following exchange:

“Estragon: His friends. Vladimir: His agents. Estragon: His correspondents. Vladimir: His books. Estragon: His bank account. Vladimir: Before taking a decision.”

A little later, Vladimir remarks that a man’s reaction to eating (a carrot) is a “question of temperament.” Thereupon we have the following conversation:

“Estragon: Of character. Vladimir: Nothing you can do about it.



29

Estragon: No use struggling. Vladimir: One is what one is. Estragon: No use wriggling. Vladimir: The essential doesn’t change. Estragon: Nothing to be done.”

Yet another example of this kind of humour in the play is the conversation in which the two friends call each other names just to pass time. They call each other by such names as “ceremonious ape”, “punctilious pig”, “moron”, “vermin”, “abortion”, “morpion”, “sewer-rat”, “curate”, “cretin”, and the climax coming with the word “ritic”. At the end of this exchange Estragon suggests that they should make up the quarrel whereupon they address each other affectionately as “Godot” and “didi” and then embrace each other. This way of passing times is followed by a suggestion from Vladimir that they should do their exercises for which the two friends then use the following descriptive epithets: “our movements”, “our elevations,” “our relaxation”, of dialogue of this variety. This kind of conversation known as cross-talk is borrowed from the music-hall comedy.

The tragic element in the play is chiefly provided by the treatment, which Lucky receives, from his master Pozzo. Pozzo drives Lucky by means of a rope passed round his neck. Lucky carries a heavy bag, a folding stool, a picnic basket, and a greatcoat. Pozzo uses his whip upon Lucky mercilessly, and to each crack of the whip, Lucky has quickly to respond in order to minister to some or other need of Pozzo. The two tramps comment pitifully upon the plight of Lucky. The rope has caused a running sore on Lucky’s neck; the two tramps observe Lucky looks a “half- wit” to them. Vladimir says that Lucky is “panting” and Estragon says that Lucky seem to be “at his last gasp”. Lucky’s condition becomes all the more poignant in our eyes when Pozzo informs us that there was a time when Lucky used to be source of great pleasure to him, and when he used to teach him all the beautiful things of life. Beauty, grace truth of the first water”, were all beyond Pozzo in those days, and Lucky provided these to him. And yet this same man is now being taken by Pozzo to be sold at a fair. “The truth is you can’t drive such creatures away. The best thing would be to kill them,” says Pozzo and Lucky on hearing this callous remark, begins to weep. The Pozzo-Lucky situation gains even more pathos if we interpret it as representing the master-slave relationship or the exploitation of the have-notes by the haves. In Act II the situation becomes even more poignant. Now Pozzo, the tyrant, also becomes a pathetic character, having gone blind while Lucky has become dumb. Note whenever the two of them stumble and fall, they have to be helped by others to rise to heir feet. At this pint Pozzo makes what is one of the most moving speeches in the play. The word “when”, he says, is meaningless. One day is like any other day. One day he went blind, and one day Lucky went dumb. One day they were born, and one day they would die, and he goes on to say: “They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then its night once more.” This remark refers, of course, to the brevity of human life, the word “they” denoting mankind. Shortly afterwards Vladimir echoes Pozzo’s words, saying: “Astride of a grave and a difficult birth… We have time to grow old … But habit is a great deadener, and Vladimir’s words are moving also.

A tragic effect is produced also by the constant repetition by Vladimir of the fact that he and Estragon are waiting for Godot. The first time we learn that the tramps’ are waiting for Godot, the effect is one of pathos because Vladimir’s words are a repeated reminder to us of the two tramps state of hopelessness or vain expectancy. Estragon’s nightmares and his fear of the “Others” add to the poignancy of the situation. The “Others” and the unknown, mysterious persons who have been beating Estragon and of whom he feels terribly afraid, and, Vladimir being the only one, to provide him consolation and protection. In fact, we learn this fact about the beatings at the very



30

opening of the play when Estragon says that he spent the night in a ditch and was beaten by the same lot of persons.

On three occasion-at the outset, at the end of Act I, and at the close of Act II – the tramps plan suicide. The attempted suicide proves abortive, but their very thought of it, makes them pathetic characters. We are also informed that once, in days gone by, Estragon had jumped into the Rhine to drown himself and that he had been rescued by Vladimir, Vladimir’s speculations about the thief who was “damned” and the one who was “saved” have also an ominous ring. There is something pathetic about Estragon’s lament: “nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful, and “All my lousy life I have crawled about in the mud! And you talk to me about scenery.”

The general all-over impression that the play produces in us is on of helplessness and the boredom, which human beings have to experience in life. The author effectively conveys to us the pointlessness of human life in our times. Human existence is devoid of meaning and purpose. Thus a feeling of despair dominates the play, and this is in itself tragic even though farcical situations are employed to suit the author’s design of a tragic-comedy.

Certain elements in the play have a dual character: they are simultaneously tragic and comic. Such is the attempted suicide of the tramps. The possibility of their deaths is tragic, but their failure to commit suicide is comic: on one occasion they feel that the tree is not strong enough; on another occasion they do not have a suitable rope for the purpose. Then there is the monologue of Lucky-horrifying because it foretells mankind’s extinction but funny because of its incoherence and disconnectedness. It is amusing also to find that Lucky can “think” only when he puts on his hat, so that when he has to be stopped from continuing his rhetoric, his hat has to be snatched away from him. The decision of the tramps to go away at the end of both Act I and Act II and their immobility in spite of this decision are likewise tragic and comic at the same time.

Q: DESRIBE THE STRUCTURE OF WAITING FOR GODOT, WHAT DRAMATIC PURPOSES IT SERVE?

Q: GIVE THE PLOT CONSTRUCTION OF WAITING FOR GODOT.

Ans:

“Waiting for Godot” is an unconventional play in which traditional principles of dramaturgy of plot, action and structure do not apply. In fact, in the play, the writer has deliberately rejected dramatic principles on the superficial level; Waiting for Godot is completely formless. The plot is sparse to the extent of being almost non-existent. There is nothing that happens twice in the episodes either between Estragon and Vladimir or Lucky and Pozzo. But on a deeper level, the play meticulously shows a structural point of view. The structural devices can be seen in parallel and contrasting themes, religious and characterization.

The essential structural principle of “Waiting for Godot” is the theme of tiresome waiting. Estragon and Vladimir are absolutely at the mercy of Godot, who has asked them to wait for him at a certain place, without having made any definite promise that he would come. In each of the two acts, whatever the characters do is a futile exercise to pass their time during waiting. In each act, Vladimir asks Estragon how he spent the night. In both the acts Vladimir offers to embrace Estragon and latter does not appreciate this gesture. Even now and then Estragon says that they should go, to which Vladimir patiently answers that they cannot, Estragon wants to know why not and Vladimir replies that they must wait for Godot. This is followed every time by a sign from Estragon. In each act, the tramps are helped at a particular tedious moment of their waiting by the arrival of Pozzo and Lucky. The waiting of Vladimir and Estragon is terminated in each act by the arrival of a messenger from Godot with the message that he would come the next day. Both the tramps think of committing suicide in each act. In the



31

end of both acts, the tramps finally say that they are leaving but seem to be standing still when the curtain comes down. Although there are many things, which are repeated but there, is, in fact, nothing that happens twice. The purpose behind all this so-called activity is to show the futility of their existence. Beckett has reduced the action of play almost to the point of non-existence. The sparse activity of the tramps in Act-I is directly parallel to the activity in Act-II but their essential situation that dramatizes their waiting condition remains the same.

The rhythmic pattern in the dialogues not only divides the play into several phases but it also gives a structure and a form. The conversation of tramps also takes a rhythmic course. Anecdotes and incidents, arguments and contradictions, questions and meaningless answers move in a rhythmic manner. In the beginning of Act-l, Vladimir asks Estragon about his foot and Estragon in turn asks Vladimir about his Kidney trouble. Each of them is offended that the other should think it necessary if the trouble hurts. When Vladimir wants to relate Estragon an incident in the New Testament, Estragon is uninterested. And when Estragon, in his turn, wants to relate an anecdote about an English man, Vladimir is not prepared to hear, ultimately, Estragon requests to Vladimir to pretend to take interest in his conversation and the latter does so but in a much-exaggerated manner. Later on, in the play Pozzo does the same with Estragon and Vladimir. Both tramps affect a pretended enthusiasm for the speech Pozzo has made. In Act-I, Vladimir wakes Estragon up to the great resentment of the latter. He has been dreaming which he unsuccessfully tries to relate to Vladimir.

In Act-II, the situation reoccurs in almost the same way. Once again Estragon wakes up with a start, jumps and moves his arm widely around him. Once again, he has a dream, which he wants to relate to Vladimir, who is unprepared to hear his dream. Thus, there is a musical inter play of dialogues which lends a structural pattern to the play.

One aspect of the structure of “Waiting for Godot” is parallelism and contrast of characters. Estragon and Vladimir are both tramps who are facing a common situation of bore-some waiting, yet they are significantly different in their temperaments. Vladimir has a greater control over himself than Estragon. At crucial times Estragon goes to sleep, blames Vladimir for his troubles but the latter are comparatively tolerant. The same contrast of characters exists between Pozzo and Lucky. The relationship between them is reflected in the physical bond that holds them together the link of the rope. The relationship between them is that of slave and master. But there is a change in Act-II. The blind Pozzo is now helpless and he needs Lucky to show him the way. The roles in Act-l are reversed. Now the dumb Lucky leads the blind Pozzo. The obvious contrast is between two acts. The structural link is that the events and situations of Act-l are neatly repeated in Act-ll but there are marked variations that save the play from being monotonous. Although the time and place are same, a significant change has occurred in the tree on which five or six leaves have now grown.

The sub-plot that dramatizes Pozzo and Lucky relationship is a foil to the main plot but there is thematic link between the two plots. The waiting tramps, Estragon and Vladimir take Pozzo to be Godot for whom they are waiting. Moreover, the story of Pozzo and Lucky has close resemblance with the story of tramps. The acts of all the four characters remain purpose less which technically emphasize the theme of futility and helplessness.

Q: DISCUSS THE USE OF REPETITIONS IN WAITING FOR GODOT.

Ans:

“Nothing to be done,” is one of the many phrases that are repeated again and again throughout Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. Godot is an existentialist play that reads like somewhat of a language poem. That is to say, Beckett is not interested in the reader interpreting his words, but simply listening to the words and viewing the actions of his



32

perfectly mismatched characters. Beckett uses the standard Vaudevillian style to present a play that savours of the human condition. He repeats phrases; ideas and actions that have his audience come away with many different ideas about who we are and how beautiful our human existence is even in our desperation. The structure of Waiting For Godot is determined by Beckett’s use of repetition. This is demonstrated in the progression of dialogue and action in each of the two acts in Godot.

The first thing an audience may notice about Waiting For Godot is that they are immediately set up for a comedy. The first two characters to appear on stage are Vladimir and Estragon, dressed in bowler hats and boots. These characters lend themselves to the same body types as Abbot and Costello. Vladimir is usually cast as tall and thin and Estragon just the opposite. Each character is involved in a comedic action from the plays beginning. Estragon is struggling with a tightly fitting boot that he just cannot seem to take off his foot. Vladimir is moving around bowlegged because of a bladder problem. From this beat on the characters move through a what amounts to a comedy routine. A day in the life of two hapless companions on a country road with a single tree. Beckett accomplishes two things by using this style of comedy. Comedy routines have a beginning and an ending. For Godot the routine begins at the opening of the play and ends at the intermission. Once the routine is over, it cannot continue. The routine must be done again. This creates the second act. The second act, though not an exact replication, is basically the first act repeated. The routine is put on again for the audience. The same chain of events: Estragon sleeps in a ditch, Vladimir meets him at the tree, they are visited by Pozzo and Lucky, and a boy comes to tell them that Godot will not be coming but will surely be there the following day. In this way repetition dictates the structure of the play. There is no climax in the play because the only thing the plot builds to is the coming of Godot. However, after the first act the audience has pretty much decided that Godot will never show up. It is not very long into the second act before one realizes that all they are really doing is wasting time, “Waiting for...waiting.”

By making the second act another show of the same routine, Beckett instils in us a feeling of our own waiting and daily routines. What is everyday for us but another of the same act. Surely small things will change, but overall we seem to be living out the same day many times over. Another effect of repetition on the structure of Godot is the amount of characters in the play. As mentioned before, the play is set up like a Vaudeville routine. In order to maintain the integrity of the routine, the play must be based around these two characters. This leaves no room for extra characters that will get in the way of the act. To allow for the repetition of the routine to take place the cast must include only those characters who are necessary to it. The idea that the two characters are simply passing time is evident in the dialogue. The aforementioned phrase, “Nothing to be done,” is one example of repetition in dialogue. In the first half-dozen pages of the play the phrase is repeated about four times. This emphasizes the phrase so that the audience will pick up on it. It allows the audience to realize that all these two characters have is the hope that Godot will show up. Until the time when Godot arrives, all they can do is pass the time and wait. The first information we learn about the characters is how Estragon was beaten and slept in a ditch. We get the sense that this happens all the time. This is nothing new to the characters. They are used to this routine. The flow of the play is based around this feeling that the characters know where each day is headed. The audience feels that the characters go through each day with the hope that Godot will come and make things different. In at least three instances in the play characters announce that they are leaving and remain still on the stage. These are examples of how the units of the play are affected individually by repetition. Again, Becket emphasizes this for a reason. This is best shown in the following beat:

“Pozzo: I must go. Estragon: And your half-hunter?



33

Pozzo: I must have left it at the manor. Silence….. Estragon: Then adieu. Vladimir: Adieu. Pozzo: Adieu. Silence….. (No one moves.) Vladimir: Adieu. Pozzo: Adieu. Estragon: Adieu. Silence….. Pozzo: And thank you. Vladimir: Thank you. Pozzo: Not at all. Estragon: Yes yes. Pozzo: No no. Vladimir: Yes yes. Pozzo: No no. Silence….. Pozzo: I don’t seem to be able... (long hesitation)...to depart. Estragon: Such is life.”

The last two pieces of the excerpt is very literal. The idea that going someplace is doesn’t matter, because there is really nowhere to go. All you can do is find someplace else to wait. Also repeated in the beat is the stage direction for silence. Silence occurs in life and theatre is just a reflection of our lives. It is, in fact, a line of dialogue. Repeated silence outlines the awkwardness of the beat. The repetition then creates the tone of the beat. Many of the play’s beats are comprised of some type of repetition. “All I know is that the hours are long, under these conditions, and constrain us to beguile them with proceedings which-how shall I say-which may at first sight seem reasonable, until they become a habit.” Here Beckett has a character state flat out what is happening in the play. The plot of the play is based around repetition. All the pieces of their lives have become habit.

The habit that controls our lives is the same habit that fuels the characters in Godot. The same habit that makes the structure of Godot a repetition in itself. In the first act, the goings-on in the play may seem reasonable to the audience. Merely a way for these two people to pass the hours of their particular day. By making the second act the same routine, the tragic humour of their situation is revealed. Estragon and Vladimir are stuck in this way of life. Bound to making each day more of the same, because they can find no other way to deal with their lives then to try to pass the time. All the ideas of the play and all the questions that are raised are highlighted through the use of repetition. Therefore, the structure of the play is dominated by this single characteristic of the play.

Q: DISCUSS THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF LANGUAGE OF SAMUEL BECKETT'S WAITING FOR GODOT.

Q: EVEN THE SELECTION OF WORDS BY BECKETT IS ABSURD, DO YOU AGREE?

Q: DISCUSS THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF CHARACTERS.

Ans:

In Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett produces a truly cryptic work. On first analysing the play, one is not sure of what, if anything, happens or of the title character's significance. In attempting to unravel the themes of the play, interpreters have extracted a wide variety symbolism from the Godot's name. Some, taking an obvious hint, have proposed that Godot represents God and that the play is centred on religious symbolism. Others have taken the name as deriving from the French word for a boot, godillot. Still,



34

others have suggested a connection between Godot and Godeau, a character who never appears in Honore de Balzac's Mercadet; Ou, le faiseur. Through all these efforts, there is still no definitive answer as to whom or what Godot represents, and the writer has denied that Godot represents a specific thing, despite a certain ambiguity in the name. Upon study, however, one realises that this ambiguity in meaning is the exact meaning of Godot. Though he seems to create greater symbolism and significance in the name Godot, Beckett actually rejects the notion of truth in language through the insignificance of the title character's name. By creating a false impression of religious symbolism in the name Godot, Beckett leads the interpreter to a dead end.

For one to make an association between God and the title character's name is completely logical. In fact, in producing the completely obvious allusion, Beckett beckons the interpreter to follow a path of religious symbolism. Throughout the play, references to Christianity are so often mentioned that one can scarcely identify a religious undercurrent; the presence of religion is not really below the surface. In the opening moments of the play, Vladimir asks, "Hope deferred make something sick, who said that?” The real quotation, "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick," comes from Proverbs of the Bible. Shortly after, Vladimir asks if Estragon has ever read the Bible and continues on a discussion of the Gospels, the "Saviour," and the two thieves surrounding Christ during the crucifixion. By inserting religious discussions in the first few moments’ play, the playwright encourages the interpreter to assume the play's themes are greatly connected with religion. Then, when the discussion turns to Godot, Estragon associates their request from Godot with "A kind of prayer". The connection between God and Godot is seemingly firmly established, leaving room for a variety of interpretations. Vladimir and Estragon are the faithful adherents to God, and wait for Him, or a messianic figure, to come. Perhaps Vladimir and Estragon are representatives of hope by demonstrating unwavering faith to a God who does not present himself or, on the other hand, are showing the folly of blind faith as espoused by Beckett. Considering Lucky's burdens and suffering and his alteration on Jesus' last words in his speech, "unfinished," he could be a Christ figure. Pozzo could represent the earthly form of a God that treats his adherents like he treats Lucky. The range of possible religious interpretations is virtually endless.

In truth, the proponents of these interpretations have fallen victim to a ruse, for Godot does not represent God. Considering that the work becomes nearly incomprehensible at times, one finds the religious explanation too simple. If Beckett provides such clear references to religion, it seems he would simply call his title character God. Furthermore, Beckett, himself, has denied the existence of a key or myth to the play. The playwright did not produce religious ambiguities because Godot represents God; the ambiguities themselves hold the true significance. The word Godot is meaningless in itself, and those who associate the word with religious themes are fooled by Beckett's language. The play leads some along a long and tedious path of interpretation; ultimately, the path hits a dead-end. Language is not synonymous with truth, and the interpreter emerges with nothing.

The meaninglessness of Godot is further explained through its connection to godillot or Estragon's boots. The play begins as "Estragon, sitting on a low mound, is trying to take off his boot. He pulls at it with both hands, panting. He gives up, exhausted, rests, tries again as before”. When Godot is substituted for the boot, the meaning becomes obvious. The interpreter struggles with the significance of the word, exhausts himself, and begins again. Moments later, Estragon increases the level of intensity, tearing at the boot. Finally, Gogo "with a supreme effort succeeds in pulling off his boot. He peers inside it, feels about inside it, turns it upside down, shakes it, looks on the ground to see if anything has fallen out, finds nothing, feels inside it again, staring sightlessly before him". After much work, one can find the significance of Godot, and,



35

just as Estragon announces, "There's nothing to show". The meaning of Godot is nonexistent, and the effort to find one is futile and exhausting. No matter how many times one searches, one will not find significance in the word. The action continues in the second act, when the two discover that Estragon's boots have been changed. The two discuss the situation:

“Estragon: Mine were black. These are brown. Vladimir: You're sure yours were black? Estragon: Well they were a kind of grey. Vladimir: And these are brown. Show. Estragon: Well they're kind of green.”

The conversation shows the utter meaninglessness of Godot. Gogo cannot even decide the true colour of either pair of boots. Every thought or action to discover the meaning of Godot is ridiculous. The interpretations of the name vary, but, just as in the boots, there is nothing inside. Whereas the boots in the first act were too tight, Estragon decides that these are "too big" and concludes the discussion frustrated, saying, "That's enough about these boots". The search for meaning in Beckett's language is frustrating and futile, and, because there is no real meaning to Godot, the interpreter can never get all the significance to come together. An exact fit is impossible.

As the insignificance of Godot is established the lack of meaning expands to other names in episodes with Pozzo. Pozzo, himself, affirms the lack of meaning in a name as he periodically refers to "Godin . . . Godet . . . Godot . . . anyhow you see who I mean". He confuses the name with other words and seemingly feels no real need to learn the right one. Regardless of the language he uses, Vladimir and Estragon understand what he means. By correctly naming Godot, Pozzo would give too much significance to the name. In refusing to even regard the name as important, Pozzo communicates the misleading nature of Beckett's language and acts appropriately. In addition, Vladimir and Estragon expand the scope of meaninglessness to other names when Pozzo first meets the pair. Introducing himself, Pozzo exclaims, "I am Pozzo!" and asks "I say does that name mean nothing to you?” The name does, in fact, mean absolutely nothing. Just as Godot is meaningless, so are the play's other names. Vladimir and Estragon continue to repeat the name Pozzo, while interchanging it with Bozzo, and Vladimir concludes, "I once knew a family called Gozzo". The insignificance of all the words comes to the fore. Pozzo, Bozzo, Gozzo, and Godot are indistinguishable nonsense. When Vladimir and Estragon are referred to with their nicknames, all five names of the play have two syllables and end in a vowel sound. Furthermore, if the silent, final letter is removed from Godot, it appears as a mere variation of Gogo and Didi as Godo. In this way, characters' names are reduced to incomprehensible utterances that an infant might make. Beckett's language is totally separate from knowledge or truth. His names cannot be distinguished from one another and are completely devoid of any real meaning.

Godot, a meaningless word or mere sound, reveals the insignificance of all Beckett's language. While the play contains obvious ambiguities into the word's meaning, they are all for show. There is no real meaning. The interpretation of Godot's religious significance, while this significance is clearly alluded to, leads to interpreter into a long, blind alley of meaninglessness. Just as Estragon's boots contain nothing inside them, there is no central meaning to the word Godot. Furthermore, this meaninglessness can be expanded to all of Beckett's language; full of hints of a greater significance, language hides the triviality of all things described. Only after this revelation can one finally get towards the central meaning of Beckett's play; there is no meaning. His characters engage in ridiculous language to pass the time and to "give them the impression they exist". Illusions of significance continue throughout the play, but, in truth, the play comes from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing. Beckett exposes the pitfalls of a language that attempts to create meaning when none exists. Waiting for Godot is not a commentary on



36

religion or really anything for that matter. Its meaning comes in its meaninglessness. That is the play's greater truth.

Waiting for Godot- Samuel Beckett (a Critical Analysis by Qaisar Iqbal Janjua) Good for Literature...

Documents

Transcript of Waiting for Godot- Samuel Beckett (a Critical Analysis by Qaisar Iqbal Janjua) Good for Literature...