Waiting for Godot Questions and Answers
1. Q. Discuss the concept of alienation as it appears in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. To what extent are the characters in the story alone? To what extent do they fear to be alone? What is Beckett saying about the human condition through these anxieties faced by the characters?
Or,
Q. What is the theme that is carried throughout the play and
Q. Discuss the concept of freedom in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for a Godot. Are any of the characters truly free? Be sure to deal with Pozzo in What Lucky as well as Estragon and freedom portrayed in the play tell you about Beckett’s understanding of the human condition?]
Waiting for Godot is a play that prompts many questions, and answers none of them. As the title suggests, it is a play about waiting: two men waiting for a third,
who never appears. ‘And if he comes?’one of Beckett’s tramps asks the other near the end of the play. ‘We’ll be saved’, the other replies, although the nature of that salvation, along with so much else, remains undefined: for both characters and audience, Waiting for Godot enforces a wait for its own meaning. faixo fon 290b “Waiting for Godot” is a play by Samuel Beckett that premiered in France in January 1953. The play, Beckett’s first, explores the meaning and meaninglessness of life through its repetitive plot and dialogue. “Waiting for Godot” is an enigmatic but very significant play in the absurdist tradition. It is sometimes described web bed as a major literary milestone. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett builds his themes through the minimalist setting and the characters’ absurd conversations and acters represent humanity, the setting represents human existence, actions demonstrate larger truths about the human condition. actions. Char and won Jell Bhusvona envedA er to encant Absurdity of Existence
One of the most noticeable features of the play is utter absurdity: Vladimir and as gadgang Estragon dress shabbily, engage in physically inept actions, and partake in clownish a prise d nonsensical conversations. They absurdly wait endlessly for an unchanging situation to change when it is clear Godot will never come. They occasionally discuss ending their wait by hanging themselves or simply leaving, but absurdly, they never take any action. Although they agree there is “nothing to be done,” they work absurdly hard to fill the time while they wait. The unavoidable conclusion is that human existence itself is absurd. Beckett’s emphasis on the absurdity of human behavior shows both the tragic and comedic sides of the existential crises. astu Purposelessness of Life
Yo None of the characters in Waiting for Godot has a meaningful purpose. Waiting for Godot might seem to give Vladimir and Estragon a purpose, but the fact that Godot never arrives renders their waiting meaningless. Likewise, Pozzo and Lucky might seem to be traveling toward something, but their travels are ultimately shown to be equally purposeless. Pozzo initially professes to be taking Lucky to the fair to sell him, but this purpose is never fulfilled. The second time they pass by, they express no purpose at all they are simply moving from one place to another. Their traveling may even be counterproductive because they cannot seem to go any distance without falling down.
The messages from Godot delivered by the boy are equally purposeless. Godot will never come, and it is not at all clear the messages are even meant for Vladimir and Estragon-the boy calls Vladimir “Albert.” All the characters seem to be trapped in their purposeless roles by little more than habit, which Vladimir calls “a great deadener.” The idea that life has no purpose is a recurring theme in the Theater of the Absurd, which Waiting for Godot helped define.
Although it is unclear who or what Godot represents, by waiting for him, Vladimir and Estragon are clearly seeking some type of meaning outside themselves. In Act 1, they remember making a “kind of prayer” to Godot, expecting it to give them some direction and they decide it is safer to wait and see what Godot says rather than die by hanging themselves. Godot, however, never comes, representing the futility and folly of such a search for meaning in an inherently meaningless existence.
Time is a slippery thing in Waiting for Godot. It seems to pass normally during the period the characters are on the stage, with predictable milestones, such as the sunset and moonrise, although the characters are sometimes confused about it. But the intervals between the two acts and various events are wildly uncertain. When Vladimir and Estragon return at the beginning of Act 2, the growth of leaves on the tree suggests a longer period has passed than the one day Vladimir claims it has been. Estragon and Pozzo retain little or no memory of their encounter the “previous” day, and other changes have mysteriously occurred “overnight.” Estragon and Vladimir have no firm idea of how long they have been together or how long ago they did other things, such as climb the Eiffel Tower or pick grapes in Macon .
The characters also seem to be trapped by time, endlessly repeating essentially the same day again and again. This creates a despair that leads them to repeatedly contemplate suicide, although they never remember to bring the rope they would need to actually hang themselves. Time is one of the main ways people organize their lives and memories, so the uncertainty of time in the play contributes to the feeling of meaninglessness.
In this richly evocative “story” about two men who wait for another who never comes, there are so many possible themes it is difficult to enumerate them. Those that are readily apparent include the issues of absurdity, alienation and loneliness, appearance and reality, death, doubt and ambiguity, time, the meaning of life, language and meaning, and the search for self. But one theme that encompasses many of these at once is the question of the human condition-who are we as humans and what is our short life on this planet really like?
We appear to be born without much awareness of ourselves or our environment and as we mature to gradually acquire from the world around us a sense of identity and a concept of the universe. However, the concept of human life that we generally acquire may be fraught with illusions. Early in his life Beckett dismissed the Christian concept of God and based his concept of the human condition on the assumption that human existence ends in the grave, that our most monumental achievements are insignificant measured by the cosmic scales of time and space, and that human life without illusions is generally difficult and sad. Vladimir and Estragon live in a world without comforting illusions about human dignity, the importance of work and achievement, the inevitability of justice, or the promise of an afterlife of eternal bliss. They live in a world where almost nothing is certain, where simply getting your boots off or sleeping through the night without having to urinate is a pretty significant achievement. They live in a world where violence and brutality can appear at any time, often victimizing them directly. They live without amenities, find joy in the smallest of victories, and are ultimately quite serious about their vague responsibility to wait for this mysterious figure who may or may not come and who may or may not reward them for their loyalty. It is a life lived on the razor’s edge of hope and sadness.
Strangely enough, Pozzo often voices most clearly what Beckett might have called the reality of this world. In Act I, for example, Estragon feels pity for the abused and weeping Lucky, who is sobbing because Pozzo has said aloud that he wants to “get rid of him.” As Lucky sobs, Pozzo brutally says, “old dogs have more dignity.” But when Estragon goes with a handkerchief to wipe his tears, Lucky kicks him violently in the shins and it is now Estragon in pain. Pozzo then offers this observation: “he’s stopped crying. [To Estragon.] You have replaced him as it were. [Lyrically.] The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep, somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh. [He laughs.] Let us not then speak ill of our generation, it is not any unhappier than its predecessors. [Pause.] Let us not speak well of it either. [Pause.] Let us not speak of it at all.”
As Beckett dismissed what most of us take for granted, he eventually dismissed language itself as a reliable source of security. Ironically, this man of words ultimately mistrusted them. He knew that the word could never be counted on to convey meaning precisely and that linguistic meaning was always an approximation. Thus he shows Vladimir and Estragon spending most of their time dancing around words, attempting vainly to pin them down, to use them as guiding stars as best they can. At the end of the play, for example, Vladimir is struck by Estragon’s suggestion that much of what Vladimir “knows” might be as unreliable as Estragon’s dreams, and nd Vladimir launches into a poetic monologue that begins,”Was I sleeping, the others suffered? Am I sleeping now?” But when he ends this lyrical moment of introspection he simply says, “what have I said?” words fail to wrestle our lives into consistently coherent patterns of meaning, a world where ere the human condition is radically insecure but where the struggle to find meaning is perhaps the only nobility left for us.
All of the characters (and thus the audience, as well) are unsure of exactly when the play is taking place. The time period of the play is unclear, as is the relative chronology of the play’s events. V Vladimir is rather sure that act two is one day after act one, but all the other characters disagree. Moreover, everyone except for Vladimir seems to have forgotten the events of act one by the time act two begins. In act two, Vladimir and Estragon e even disagree over what time of day it is. vne Amid all this uncertainty, the one thing that seems certain is that time is recursive in Waiting for Godot. That is, the same events occur again and again, while characters also repeat themselves. As Pozzo and Estragon forget their immediate past, they end up repeating much of act one in act two. Vladimir and f MEIS ragon wait in the same place, where the same two people (Lucky and Pozzo) encounter them, and where a boy delivers the same message from Godot. Vladimir mself wonders to what de degree the events of act two are an exact repetition of those in act n act one, as he asks w whether Lucky and Pozzo are the same characters from the previous day, and whe whether er it is th the same young boy, or a different one. The boy By claims to b be a different boy from that of act one, and Pozzo does not remember Vladimir or Estragon, but given all of the forgetfulness in the play, Vladimir’s questions remain unanswered.
With this strangely repetitive temporal structure, the characters of Waiting form Godot are trapped trapped wi within an infinite present time. “Time has stopped,” says Vladimir in act one. Indeed, the ending of the play seems somewhat arbitrary. It could have CREME PENH continued ntinued on for h for however many acts, endlessly repeating, as Vladimir and Estragon endlessly await the arrival of the mysterious Mr. Godot. Moreover, it is not clear that the beginning of the play was really the beginning of this story. How many days did Estragon and Vladimir come to the the same part of the road and have essentially the same conversation before the day of act one?
Vladimir and Estragon (especially Estragon) are starved for fo physical pain, and “bored to death.” Both fear an anonymous “they” who threaten to beat them at night, and are frequently unable to move of their Estragon mentions “billions of others,” who have been killed, but does not elaborate. Lucky, meanwhile, is treated horribly, pulled about by a rope ti tied around his neck, beaten by Pozzo, and kicked repeatedly by Estragon. All of this suffering has a dehumanizing effect, and robs characters of their dignity. Lucky, for example, is addressed by Pozzo as “pig,” and treated like a pack animal. Estragon is reduced to sucking on Pozzo’s leftover chicken bones pathetically. And . And even Pozzo, who imposes suffering on Lucky, is unable to get up from the ground when he falls in act two.
Amid all this, Vladimir and Estragon desperately seek two things throughout the play: some recognition of their humanity, and companionship. When the boy asks Vladimir what message he would like to send to Godot, he’s simply asks the boy to tell Godot that he saw Vladimir. In other words, Vladimir wants to be acknowledged as a person. This is particularly important to him because the other characters in the play forget and mix up their identities. Pozzo and Lucky don’t recognize Estragon and Vladimir in act two, whereas Estragon forgets about Lucky and Pozzo. In this environment where people are so easily forgotten, Vladimir wants some confirmation of his own identity and humanity. Beyond this, Vladimir and Estragon also desire companionship. Although Estragon repeatedly suggests that they go their separate ways, the two stay together out of a mutual fear of loneliness. When Estragon momentarily leaves the stage, Vladimir panics and becomes immediately lonely. And Estragon needs Vladimir as well-whether to have someone to talk to and ask questions of, or to help him put on his boots.
Vladimir is at first outraged at Pozzo’s treatment of Lucky, but soon gets used to it and even encourages Estragon to kick him. Vladimir and Estragon converse nonchalantly while Pozzo is stuck on the ground and crying for help in act two, and they first scheme how they might take advantage of him rather than help him. Vladimir and Estragon value their own relationship, but generally fail to sympathize with Pozzo and Lucky y as other potential companions. Beckett suggests that this kind of indifference to the pain of others is what allows the vicious cycle of suffering to continue on indefinitely, as it does in the play. 15 It is tempting to see Beckett as a “nihilist,” as someone who believed that there
was nothing of value or meaning in human life, but the friendship of Estragon and Vladimir clearly offers us something positive and even uplifting in the difficult world of Beckett’s play. In the unconventional banter of these two men it is sometimes easy to miss the intensity of their symbiotic relationship, but close attention to the theatrical qualities in their exchanges will show that they care deeply for one another and in many ways need one another to survive in their inhospitable world. Beckett, of course, is not sentimental about friendship he is stubbornly realistic about everything he sees-but on the whole the relationship between Estragon and Vladimir is an important focus for understanding Beckett’s most famous playpalv. ducIn many places in the action Vladimir and Estragon bicker, misunderstand, and even ignore one another, but in other places their relationship is clearly tender, such as in the moment of Act II when Vladimir covers the sleeping Estragon with his coat. But if one were to focus on one moment in detail the most logical place to start might be the entrances of the two men at the beginning of the play. As the play begins, Estragon is sitting on a mound trying to take off his boot. Estragon and Vladimir have been separated overnight, but Beckett doesn’t expect us to worry about why they have separated, any more than he expects us to give a moment’s thought as to how they first met or how long they have known one another. It is enough to know that they are friends and that as the play begins Estragon is alone on this country road struggling to get his boots off. He finally gives up, saying “Nothing to be done,” and at that moment Vladimir enters and responds to his friend’s words as if he had been there from the start of Estragon’s struggle “I’m beginning to come round to that opinion,” says Vladimir. The ease with which they are together again, as if they never were parted, is indicated deftly in die seamlessness of the second line of the play. Vladimir then says, more directly, “I’m glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever” and though the line is spoken casually the clear implication is that losing Estragon forever would have created a very considerable hole in Vladimir’s life. Jon ensriw yalq 6 Ye Vladimir expresses concern over Estragon’s beating, then quickly shifts into one of his annoyingly condescending roles as Estragon’s protector. Vladimir talks, almost as if he simply enjoys hearing the sound of his own voice, while Estragon resumes the struggle with the boot. Eventually, Estragon succeeds in removing his boot and it could easily be suggested that he does so in part because of the mere presence of his friend. It is certainly no accident that just as Vladimir echoes Estragon’s opening phrase, “Nothing to be done,” Estragon “with a supreme effort succeeds in pulling off his boot.” The removal of the boot, of course, is mundane. As Vladimir says, “Boots must be taken off every day.” But in Beckett’s careful art, the removal of the boot with the indirect emotional support of a friend is a metaphor for anything we attempt to do in our lives. In this life we face difficulties in the simple execution of daily affairs and ultimately we must face them alone or in the company of others who struggle as we do. aut montazns tsit nouongils
Lots of subjects are covered in this play. Its single theme “nothing to be done” gets good attention. Samuel Becket shows a purposeless life. It does not have any story or plot, therefore, success of “Waiting for Godot” is dependent only on its remarkable themes. Following are some major themes that Samuel Beckett presents in “Waiting for Godot”:
Importance of Hope
Without hope, there is nothing in life. Optimism comes to an end without it. Thus, hope is necessary if one wants to live. This play also depicts this important theme. It forces us to think twice on the importance of hope. Estragon and Vladimir have nothing to be done yet they are hopeful. It is only hope due to which they are alive and waiting for Godot. “Godot” may be a help or maybe God but one thing is clear that both of them are hopeful about their future. They think that Godot will come and change their lives. The play ends with nothingness but “wait and hope” never ends. Estragon and Vladimir will come again tomorrow at the same place and will wait for Godot until his arrival. In this way, hope is one of the major themes of “Waiting for Godot”…om dine prible et opstel eniged valą sod
Waiting and Nihilism pud Jilpimovo Le 16 cqp2 hood svar imibelV bns As Beckett’s title indicates, the central act of the play is waiting, and one of the most salient aspects of the play is that nothing really seems to happen. Vladimir and Estragon spend the entire play waiting for Godot, who never comes. Estragon repeatedly wants to leave, but Vladimir insists that they stay, in case Godot actually shows up. As a result of this endless waiting, both Vladimir and Estragon are “bored to death,” as Vladimir himself puts it. Both Vladimir and Estragon repeat throughout the play that there is “nothing to be done” and “nothing to do.” They struggle to find ways to pass the time, so they end up conversing back and forth about nothing at all-including talking about how they don’t know what to talk about simply to occupy themselves while waiting. The boredom of the characters on-stage mirrors the boredom of the audience. Beckett has deliberately constructed a play where not only his characters, but also his audience wait for something that never happens. Just like Estragon and Vladimir, the audience waits during the play for some major event or climax that never occurs. Audience members might at times feel uncomfortable and want, like Estragon, to leave, but are bound to stay, in case Godot should actually arrive later in the play. diw slrounde ort 29muzsi All of this waiting for nothing, talking about nothing, and doing nothing contributes to a pervasive atmosphere of nihilism in the play. Broadly defined, nihilism is a denial of any significance or meaning in the world. Deriving from the Latin word for “nothing” (nihil), it is a worldview centered around negation, claiming that there is no truth, morality, value, or-in an extreme form-even reality. This seems to describe the world of the play, clargely emptied out of meaning, emotion, and substance, leading to characters who blather on endlessly in insignificant conversation. Given the play’s deep exploration of the absurd humor and feelings of alienation that arise from this nihilistic understanding of the world, one could say that Waiting for Godot is, at its core, about nothing.
Waiting for Godot is a prime example of what has come to be known as the theater of the absurd. The play is filled with nonsensical lines, wordplay, meaningless dialogue, and characters who abruptly shift emotions and forget everything, ranging from their own identities to what happened yesterday. All of this contributes to an absurdist humor throughout the play. However, this humor is often uncomfortably mixed together with tragic or serious content to make a darker kind of comedy. Estragon refers to “billions of others,” who have been killed, and describes being beaten by an anonymous “they.” Lucky (whose ill-fitting name is itself darkly comic) is treated horribly and physically abused on-stage. And Vladimir and Estragon talk nonchalantly and pleasantly about suicide. All this has a discomforting effect on the audience, who is not sure how to react to this absurd mixture of comedy and tragedy, seriousness and playfulness. In act one, Vladimir says, “one daren’t even laugh any more,” and his comment could apply well to the audience of Beckett’s play, who don’t know whether to laugh or to cringe at the events on-stage. The absurdity caused by the seeming mismatch between characters’ tones and the content of their speech can be seen as a reaction to a world emptied of meaning and significance. If the world is meaningless, it makes no sense to see it as comic or tragic, good or bad. Beckett thus presents an eerie play that sits uneasily on the border between tragedy and comedy, in territory one can odw pritempe only call the absurd. Instroomi rburn tart a orl bna zemo To The play consists of conversations between Vladimir and Estragon, who are waiting for the arrival of the mysterious Godot, who continually sends word that he will appear but who never does. They encounter Lucky and Pozzo, they discuss their miseries and their lots in life, they consider hanging themselves, and yet they wait. Often perceived as being tramps, Vladimir and Estragon are a pair of human beings who do not know why they were put on earth; they make the tenuous assumption that there must be some point to their existence, and they look to Godot for enlightenment. Because they hold out hope for meaning and direction, they acquire a kind of nobility that enables them to rise above their futile existence.
2. The Significance of the Title.
[Q. What is the meaning of the title ‘Waiting for Godot? Discuss briefly.
Or,
Q. Justify the Significance of the title ‘Waiting for Godot.]
Though difficult and sometimes baffling to read or (even) view, Waiting for Godot is nonetheless one of the most important works of our time. It revolutionized theatre in the twentieth century and had a profound influence on generations of succeeding dramatists, including such renowned contemporary playwrights as Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard. After the appearance of Waiting for Godot, theatre was opened to possibilities that playwrights and audiences had never before imagined. bs Initially written in French in 1948 as En Attendant Godot, Beckett’s play was published in French in October of 1952 before its first stage production in Paris in January of 1953. Later translated into English by Beckett himself as Waiting for Godot, the play was produced in London in 1955 and in the United States in 1956 and has been produced worldwide. Beckett’s play came to be considered an essential example of what Martin Esslin later called “Theatre of the Absurd,” a term that Beckett disavowed but which remains a handy description for one of the most important theatre movements of the twentieth century, ud aibueds no of agju and Waiting for Godot’ is a modern play written by Samuel Beckett. It was written or we can call it was first performed on 5th January, 1953. This play has modern art in it as per critics. It is also known as an absurd play and it was performed under general of the absurd theater. It was originally written in French language but after that it was translated by its own author, Samuel Beckett himself, so we can say that originally and as translated version it is a genuine play by author only and because of it words can differ in both versions but basic concept and idea is not changing in it.
This play contains only five characters and only two of them are most important or protagonist, named Vladimir and Estragon. Three other characters are Pozzo, Lucky, A boy and last but not the list is Godot, for whom they are waiting in the entire play.
The protagonists of this play are waiting for Godot and so this play is named as ‘Waiting for Godot’. So we can understand easily that Godot is something which is something, who comes and who is that much important that two people are constantly talking about it and waiting for it. So it has its existence in the title of this play so here we can see the rule of Aristotle about tragedy that, tragedy’s name can be based on some important character’s name. This play’s title itself indicates waiting for something, quest for something, and wishes for something. It plays a vital role to create a curiosity among the audience about this play from the beginning. This title indicates that something will happen and be ready for it. Title has its important part in this whole play because it is the only reason for this play. This sentence is often used by the main character, Vladimir.pilns not tobo Estragon used to ask: “What are we doing here ?”don to brix super Vladimir replays: “Waiting for Godot.”
This how this title is used in whole play and so it is natural that anyone can understand that Mr. Godot must be a very important person and it must occupy an extremely chief place in both person’s life and in play and that’s why he is the only person who remains absent in the beginning and he will come later on in this play.
The source for the full title of the play caused similar anxiety. It creates some kind of vagueness in the mind of the audience. It is monotone by nature. The most convincing Marcadet’ and it was written by Balzec. In that play, Marcadet’, the return of a personal suggestion in this case of title is that it comes from Eric Bentley, who traces the title of another play, ‘named Godean is restlessly awaited. The frustration of waiting is a part of Balzec’s play and the same frustration we can find in Samuel Beckett’s play. Martin Esslin has heartily endorsed another suggestion and so have several commentators. According to another suggestion, the title of Beckett’s play comes from Simone Will’s play ‘Waiting for God’. It has been pointed out that Beckett and Simone knew each other well and that Beckett’s play appeared a year after the publication of Simone’s. The influence of will on Beckett is thus a distinct possibility. If this view is accepted, then ‘Waiting for Godot’ can be understood as a religious allegory. According to yet another view, the source of the title for the play was Odets ‘waiting for lefty’. It is believed that the name “Odets might have itself suggested to Beckett the name ‘Godot’. There is still another possibility Beckett’s title may have its source in Tom Kromer’s book called ‘Waiting for Nothing?”
This title, Waiting for Godot’ simply means that this play is about waiting. It just shows that waiting is happening or some story about waiting must be there in play. ‘To wait means to delay movement or action until the arrival or occurrence. It means this title shows lack of action on the stage. It is merely just about waiting for something named Godot nothing else. It is also known as action less plot and because of that it is also known as absurd play and modern play. But the main curious part of this title is named Godot. It is very curious. It has no meaning at all as one point of view. But as another point of view it has so many interpretations and meanings, too. So it depends on the viewer’s thoughts and director’s thoughts on how they look at Godot and what they are looking for as Godot. Characters can also be included in this point. So the same thing but in different visions, it is the basic thing in this title. When Samuel Beckett was asked about Godot’s meaning he replayed very calmly: “If I know I would say so in the play.”
But basically we can say that in French language Godo means ‘Eau (water), means something which is life of our lives and in English language Godo means God’ again powerful factor, which is deeply rooted in our life. In Iris language this word, Godo is usually uses for ‘God’. So these are some basic and meaningful meaning of this play’s title. These are some dotes and as we know that to see literature means to connect dots and see what emerges as a picture. But here we also can conclude that nothing clear picture of literature is emerges from this play. Something is visible but it is not clear, it is very vague idea about human life and society. It shows nothingness. This play creates nothingness in the human mind. In Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett produces a truly cryptic work. On first analysis of 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 Godot’s name. Some, taking an obvious hint, have proposed that Godot represents God and that the playeris centered on religious symbolism. Others have taken the name as deriving from the word from French language for a boot, godillot. Still, 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 realizes that this ambiguity in meaning is the exact meaning of Godot. of Godot. Though he seems to create greater symbolism and significance , 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. har This play is merely presenting boredom, waiting, ignorance, pain, suffering and that type of thing only. This play shows that humans are suffering from this type of thing only. Human life is full of alienation, loneliness, in quest of something, mainly in quest of his/ her identity only. If we want and we have such a thought for ourselves that we can relate ourselves with the two characters of the play named Vladimir and Estragon. They are mentioned as just two characters on the stage. They have no past, they have no future, what they are doing in present is not clear. They are just waiting for Godot to come, that is true but why?? It is not clear, either. They even don’t know who Godot is and where he comes from. They just know that he will come and they have to wait for him at any cost. They have no son, no daughter, no wife, no parents, no friends, no followers, nothing. They are just waiting for something to come. So we can also say that in our life the same thing happens. We are just going on waiting and waiting and waiting only. We also have no past, no future, just nothing. As we are alone we also haven’t friends, guide, philosophers, husband, wife, son, daughter, mother, father, relatives in our life. We are just alone and we have to play our role in life to just wait for something which is not even known to use and even which exists in this world is also not known to us. Samuel Beckett said in the play:
“We wait. We are bored. (He throws up his hand.) No, don’t protest, we are bored to death, there’s no denying it. Good. A diversion comes along and what do we do? We let it go to waste .
Here in these lines, Beckett’s existentialist ideas show through clearly in Vladimir’s comment. For these thinkers, life isn’t pleasant. “…bored to death…” has double meaning. Bored to the point of misery and bored “till death.” “Come, let’s go to work” implies that it doesn’t stop humans from trying to find meaning. Visqua den They two are known about all that stuff but they cannot leave that place. They cannot leave their greed to meet Godot. Even at a moment they also decide to leave that place but then even they stuck themselves at that place only. Vladimir said: “Let us not waste our time in idle discourse! Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late! Let us represent worthily for once the foul brood to which a cruel fate consigned us! What do you say? It is true that when with folded arms we weigh the pros and cons we are no less a credit to our species. The tiger bounds to the help of his congeners without the least reflection, sor else he slinks away into the depths of the thickets. But that is not the question.
What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come-“mtidors
If we minutely read these words spoken by Vladimir in this play then we can easily understand that he is just going on speaking things but nothing is done on the stage. There are only words, words and words.
Here I am adding some lines by Shakespeare: “This world is a large play and every man has its own role in it.” I think the same thing is happening here in this play. Every person has its own role without any other people nearby them. Every person has his own individuality. He has to perform his role lonely on the stage of the world.murt st
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 twos syllables and end in a vowel sound. Furthermore, if the silent, final letter ist 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.n His names cannot be distinguished from one another and are completely devoid of any real meaning.
There are six characters in the play: five are real characters and one, Mr Godot, is only mentioned. He never shows us, he only sends a message saying that he will come the following day but he never does. But who is Godot? God? Death?a person who can solve their problems? a manufacturer who can offer them a job? a play on word, that is ‘go+dot'(full stop) to reinforce ironically the idea expressed in the ending ‘Let’s go’ (they don’t move)? We are not given enough information to identify him; we only know what the boy says of him: ‘a man with a white beard . Some think that he might be God because the description fits the traditional
The name, too, seems to suggest it: God with the addition of the French final ‘ot’. Some critics think that he got the idea from the French maskirt Pierrot. Beckett himself does not know who Godot is. When he was asked about Godot’s identity, he said: “If I knew, I would have said so in the play”
The main theme is the waiting. It means that man, deprived of all traditional values and spiritual certainties, is waiting without knowing for who or for what, waiting for something which will never happen and that is the absurdity of his destiny: to know that there will be no change and nevertheless to keep on waiting just because the waiting fills the emptiness of his existence and helps him to kill the time. Martin Esslin wrote: “The subject of the play is not Godot but waiting, the act of waiting as an essential and characteristic aspect of the human condition.10 Throughout our lives we always wait for something, and Godot simply represents the objectiveof our waiting an event, a thing, a person,death”. The Audience, too, is involved in the absurdity of the waiting. They are kept waiting for what is going t to happen next and when the play ends nothing has happened at all and Vladimir and Estragon don’t leave the stage but remain there to convey the idea that their waiting is going on.
Godot, a meaningless word or mere sound, reveals the insignificance of alle 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 the 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 Godoty 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 an language that attempts to create meaning when none exists. Waiting for Godót is not a commentary on religion or really anything for that matter. Its meaning comes in its meaninglessness. That is the play’s greater truth.
********* For Remaining questions -answers [PAID-PDF], MSG ME IN JOIN CHAT.
****************************