Category: Drama

The “Theatre of the Absurd” was a dramatic philosophic movement in France during the 1950s. This metaphysical theory was thought to be influenced by World War II considering that the Nazi’s were infiltrating France. With people feeling hopeless to the inhumane treatment of other’s it is hard to think that there is a meaning to life. “Absurd” is a term in philosopher Albert Camus’s work that “refers to the contradiction between humanity’s quest to find meaning in the Universe and the Universe itself, which is meaningless.” Plays were created displaying themes of what happens when faced with the absurdity of the universe. The plays themselves became the anti-plays and essentially confronted the audience with disorder, randomness and nothingness which was unlike the audience had experienced before however spoke to them due to the climate of its time.

Traditionally, characters in plays come with a personality to draw the audience and conduct themselves in a way that make sense to the public. In the Theater of the Absurd, playwrights have a way of “shaping the characters with the sense of absurdity and tries to dig out their hopelessness to life and society.” In “Waiting for Godot” we are met with two wanders who are compelled to stay in place, where they are unsure of is the right spot, waiting for a man, which they are unsure of what he looked like or what was said, for an unknown opportunity. Estragon and Vladimir oppose each other in speech and manner almost every step of the way yet are so tightly intertwined. The two men explore their options as they wait for Godot but physically walk and talk in circles. Not only does their situation become stagnate, they themselves acknowledge their own lack of growth “Estragon: Very likely. They all change. Only we can’t”. One of many times the men state their hopelessness facing the reality of nothingness.

Language has its own way in the Theater of the Absurd. In plays, language comes with a certain logical order and the audience can follow and sometimes even predict what is going to be said. This is another aspect in which the Absurd defy. “Language has no fixed or settled form and regularities. The protagonists usually speak or talk in disorder. What the character has said sometimes is not the words that his partner has asked or wanted to get. Sometimes a character asks his partner something, but the partner says another thing that is irrelevant to what they are talking about. That is to say, language has no regularity to infer or obey.” Vladimir and Estragon continuously talk in circles, sometimes possibly talking to each other, while other moments it’s clear they are not. The moments that they talk to each other doesn’t sound as if they are listening or just doesn’t follow what the audience would think of as proper dialogue in the way that it would make sense. They repeat words that it loses meaning, reflective that their days mesh together and lose track of start to finish. They also ask each other the same question, never really answering each other mimicking the uncertainty throughout the play.

Plot usually forms from regular patterns and order from time, place or logic. “Waiting for Godot” the scene is set so vauguely on a country road by a tree. This could be any rocky road by any tree, to the point that the character themselves don’t know if they are waiting for Godot in the right road near the right tree. Vladimir and Estragon argue of the setting, establishing the scene for uncertainty:

“ESTRAGON: Looks to me more like a bush.

VLADIMIR: A shrub.

ESTRAGON: A bush.

VLADIMIR: A—. What are you insinuating? That we’ve come to the wrong place?

ESTRAGON: He should be here.”

We are unclear of the day, and the only perception of time passing is with the sun setting and moon rising. The second act could have taken place the next day, days later, or even longer. The tree by which they waited has a few leaves. Vladimir insists they were there the day before. Every other character, not so much. It is apparent that none of this matter and the only thing we do know is that the men are waiting. Nothing happens. The Theater of the Absurd has done it again with the broken and isolated plot.

Faced with meaningless of their existence, the men are forced to explore their options while remaining in the same place. Waiting for this man is possibly the only meaning they can fathom which keeps them coming back day after day rather than facing yet another uncertainty. During this time their emotions range from joy to despair. Vladimir sings and wants to embrace Estragon to discussing suicide… only if they had the means to and only if they were certain that it would work. The talk of suicide excites them. But the audience has already heard the relief in the men’s voice when it comes to death.

VLADIMIR: I don’t know. A willow.

ESTRAGON: Where are the leaves?

VLADIMIR: It must be dead.

ESTRAGON: No more weeping.

Didi and Gogo try and to distract each other. Even eating a carrot becomes a debate. They play games with Gogo’s boots, taking them on and off. With the bowl hats, taking them on and off. Just shows that games are just arbitrary acts to bring temporary joy. When the men meet Pozzo and Lucky, they are concerned with Lucky’s position but have no problem asking for him to entertain them. It isn’t often “a diversion comes along”. In the end, nothing happens. The are right back to where they started, days are a blur, conversations a blur, waiting for a man that never comes.

Being face with nothingness can be liberating as in you are accepting that nothing is meaningful and that things just randomly happen. Even with that possibility that the Theater of the Absurd propose, we still try and find meaning. Theater of the Absurd is the anti-play as we know it and beyond 50 years later, we still are discussing the meaning. “Waiting for Godot” purposes how society reacts when faced with nothingness. We try and create meaning, if not we search for purpose to keep going, distract ourselves from the futility of daily living or even find relief in contemplating suicide.

Works Cited

1. Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot: Tragicomedy in 2 Acts. New York: Grove Press, 1954. Print.
2. Philosophy Tube. “’Waiting for Godot’ Explained with Philosophy | Philosophy Tube” Youtube, 25 November 2016, https://youtu.be/nsxkEs6G-9s
3. Zhu, Jiang. “Analysis on the Artistic Features and Themes of the Theater of the Absurd.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 3, no. 8, Aug. 2013, pp. 1462–1466., doi:10.4304/tpls.3.8.1462-1466.

With no apparent meaning, people attempt to impose meaning on it through patterned behaviour and fabricated purposes to distract from the fact that their situation is hopelessly unfathomable. Samuel Beckett’s 1950s play Waiting for Godot captures this feeling and view of the world, characterising it with archetypes symbolising humanity and its behaviour when faced with this knowledge. The protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, wait endlessly for an unchanging situation to change, wasting time with mindless distractions. Beckett’s play is arguably the most known of the Theatre of the Absurd, a movement emerging after the Second World War and found artists struggling to find meaning in devastation (TED-Ed, 2018). The Theatre of the Absurd strives to express its sense of the senselessness of the human condition and the inadequacy of the rational approach by the open abandonment of conventional literacy standards within its plays (Esslin, 1991). In the Theater of the Absurd, multiple artistic features are used to express tragic theme with a comic form. Through use of conventions of the genre, specifically minimalistic yet symbolic set design, nonsensical dialogue, and non-specific stagnated characters, Beckett forces audiences to confront the ideology that life is just marking time until death, time too often squandered and wasted. Through the effective use of these conventions, Beckett causes viewers to question their existence and promotes thoughts on how they spend their lives.

As a rule, every type of theatre has its own artistic features influenced by the context and social demands when formed (Zhu, 2013). Influenced by the feelings produced by two World Wars, the settings of plays from the Theatre of the Absurd are often minimalistic though bleak (Cash, 2015). “A country road. A tree. Evening” (Beckett 1955, p. 7). The barren set pieces barely denote location nor the flow of time, two essential aspects by which people organise their lives and memories, creating uncertainty within viewers that only contribute to the feeling of meaninglessness within the lives of the characters. The setting is so ambiguous that when asked to describe if he recognised it, Estragon replied: “Recognise! What is there to recognise?” (p. 61). The empty setting causes audiences to focus on only what the characters are doing, providing no distractions. This is juxtaposed by the characters who go to great lengths to fill their time with distractions over inconsequential objects. Following on, the two identifiable set designs Beckett allowed become highly symbolic. It is noteworthy that the two protagonists are on a road, an item universal for choice and journey. However, the road might as well lead nowhere as it becomes clear the two will never progress along it. On a road, the only logical options are to retreat or move forward, yet absurdly the two refuse to move, preferring to remain in inaction and wait for the elusive Godot, highlighting their want for distraction instead of confrontation. The tree offers another means for escape from the endless waiting but again they cannot bring themselves to leave their predicament, preferring not to take the risk it can’t support both and thus leave one man alone. Even after the tree has been determined useless, the characters come back to it again in Act Two, highlighting their refusal to cease distraction and move. Filled with open spaces and limited props, Beckett has created a world largely emptied of meaning, emotion and substance. This deliberate use of the Absurdist convention forces viewers to remain in the moment, ironic considering no characters can. This juxtapositioning serves to reinforce the central message as audiences watch these characters deliberately waste their purposeless lives despite escape being nearby.

Language is an important constituent of literary work, yet in the Theatre of the Absurd, language is reduced to a subordinate role (Zhu, 2013). Absurdist plays are filled with nonsensical and illogical dialogue that fails to provide any insight into the minds of the characters. Like the critical speculation and maddening plot, the dialogue in Waiting for Godot remains cyclic as the two protagonists struggle to find ways to pass the time, ending up conversing back and forth about nothing at all simply to occupy themselves while waiting (Beckett 1955, p. 63);

Long silence

Vladamir: Say something!

Estragon: I’m trying.

Long silence

Vladamir: (in anguish) Say anything at all!

Estragon: What do we do now?

Vladimir: Wait for Godot.

Estragon: Ah!

Silence

Vladamir: This is awful!

The most important means of communication no longer conveys any coherence message and so it follows viewers do not focus on the dialogues but on what is unfolding on stage (Speri, 2011). In this manner, it becomes evident to the audience that the dialogue serves as a distraction for the characters from the confronting truth of the purposelessness of life. Instead of actively living their lives until their ultimate deaths, the characters would prefer to endlessly wait, “blathering about nothing in particular” (Beckett 1955, p. 66). Beckett uses dialogue as a tool to demonstrate how people will distract and waste their short lives with mindless actions, promoting audiences to consider what they, like Vladimir and Estragon, are distracting themselves with, to distract from our purposeless existence.

In the Theatre of the Absurd no heroes have their fate displayed on stage, instead basic situations of the individual are presented on stage and carried out with a type of alienation effect (Speri, 2011). As is the convention of the genre, characters lack motivation and rational thought, yet this essential for Beckett to convey his central message (Cost, 2015). The characters on stage act in a way mostly unintelligible for audiences as they are lost in an incomprehensible world. The aim is viewers cannot identify with the characters on stage, because only then can they see the whole play from a critical perspective (Speri, 2011). Audiences observe each character’s method for dealing with the hopelessness of their situation – all of them being patently absurd and ineffectual. People all experience a desire to have meaningful lives, and this is what Godot represents for Vladimir and Estragon. Yet, despite despair in not having this meaning, they remain passive observers, whiling away the hours for something to come rather than taking action (Beckett 1955, p. 18);

Estragon: Don’t let’s do anything. It’s safer.

Vladimir: Let’s wait and see what he says.

Estragon: Who?

Vladimir: Godot.

Estragon: Good idea.

Although the two agree there is “nothing to be done”, they work absurdly hard to fill the time while they wait (Beckett 1955, p. 11). Instead of leading fulfilled lives, the two protagonists decide to waste time by filling their lives with distractions; waiting for an unknown someone, mindless conversations and, absurdly, boots. Even Pozzo, who exercises some relative power, must distract himself from his purposeless life with endless wandering, Lucky and his vaporizer that plays the same role as Estragon’s boots: an everyday object that occupies an absurd amount of time. Interestingly, Pozzo explicitly links his blindness and his refusal to deal with time, choosing to go blind to stop thinking about time and is own inevitable death after a life wasted. In Lucky, Beckett created the only character who has a purposeful life, one truly fortunate – at least compared to the others. Partaking in no distractions, Lucky has recognised the inherent purposelessness of life and has made his own purpose in choosing to carry bags of sand. Beckett uses the character as a remainder to viewers of the importance of consciousness and certainty. The fact that the life of a slave is desirable is testament to how bad off everyone else is. All the characters are trapped in their purposeless roles by little more than habit, called “a great deadener” by Vladimir (Beckett 1955, p. 91). These characters are hurtling towards their graves and yet fill their lives with so much emptiness. By utilising the alienation felt by audiences towards absurdist characters, Beckett distances viewers, allowing them to critically analyse the actions of the characters. Following, viewers can compare the themes found in the characters and apply it with their own lives.

Waiting for Godot is arguably the most significant play of the twentieth century, dealing with the illogical and irrational aspects of life to emphasise its innate pointlessness (Scott, 2013). Samuel Beckett has created a play featuring two protagonists hurtling towards their graves yet fill their lives with so much emptiness. This deliberately constructed play allows viewers to realise the insignificance of their own lives and therefore the senselessness of human existence in general. Beckett has done this using the conventions of the Theatre of the Absurd, notably minimalistic yet symbolic set design, nonsensical dialogue, and non-specific stagnated characters. All the conventions together provokes the audience to feel confused and curious, questioning their own existence and the absurdity of life. Beckett’s central message leaves viewers with two suggestions moving forward; firstly we must gather courage and make choices in our life; and secondly, we must always be ready to bear the consequences of our actions rather than live with the horrific illness of self-denial. Beckett reminds viewers that like our daily lives, the world onstage does not always make sense, and although a tidy narrative still appeals, the best theatre keeps us thinking.

Human life is ultimately purposeless, to cope with this confrontation, we employ an array of distractions, in futile attempts to dispute this harsh truth. The Theatre of the Absurd emerged after World War II and found artists struggling to find meaning amongst man’s self-induced devastation (TED-Ed, 2018). “Waiting For Godot” (1955) is a grim tableau, enshrined as a turning point in the Theatre of the Absurd. Samuel Beckett’s tragi-comedy had the most strikingly profound impact on theatrical productions, commencing the trend widely renowned as the “theater of the absurd”. The fragmented plot follows the meaningless characters, Vladimir and Estragon, in a setting where nothing happens, it evaluates humankind who, helplessly, in each segment of life, await a new Godot. Human beings, like Vladimir and Estragon, are searching for the meaning of life repetitiously and without purpose, always trying to find somebody or something to bring purpose to our lives. The vague and omnipotent figure, Godot, is open to speculative and interpretation, however, ‘Godot’ suggests the Irish translation of “go-deo” which equates to “forever”. Vladimir and Estragon, alike humans, endure strenuous and prolonged periods of ‘waiting forever’. Absurdist Theatre often confronts the paradoxical desire for seeking meaning in a meaningless existence, Beckett utilises this convention in “Waiting For Godot” where the humane compulsion to find meaning where no meaning exists overrides characters’ harmony. Beckett employs illogical plot structure; purposeless characters and; combined realistic and non-realistic movement, common Absurdist Theatre conventions, to address the humane problems such as purposelessness, and confront the importance of human connection in “Waiting For Godot”. Through the effective use of Absurdist conventions, Beckett encourages the audience to critically analyse life itself and how precious human connection is, in such a pointless universe, we must create our own meaning.

The Theatre of the Absurd, although initially appearing unpredictable and incomprehensible, beckons audiences, because alike human existence, absurdist theatre plots are illogical and unstructured. Absurdity breaks the shackles of predetermined concepts, which have resulted in complacency in a perfectly ordered and rational universe (Hooti, 2011). Absurdist theatre revolts against accepted stage conventions, where plot and structure appear illogical and irrational, in surreal worlds with enigmatic characters. “Waiting For Godot” presents Vladimir and Estragon reciprocating feelings of dependency on each other, while they await the mysterious ‘Godot’. Beckett analyses the pointlessness of existence but denotes the importance of human connection, without Vladimir, Estragon would be “a little heap of bones at the present minute, no doubt about it.” (pg. 9). Philosopher Camus (1942), declared, “the divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.”. However, “Waiting For Godot” exhibits this ‘divorce’, from which feelings of isolation and loneliness incur, can be counteracted with human interaction, and thus, human connection. Ultimately humankind is alone in a meaningless world, but, in a senseless world, we have each other (Esslin, 1960). At a time when Vladimir and Estragon consider hanging themselves, Estragon refuses to be the first to hang himself because he is afraid his weight will break the branch and Vladimir would be left alone (Shams, 2012). Humans, absurd by nature and stuck in a meaningless existence struggle to communicate or express their existential despair, and human connection provides solace. In spite of the absurdity of human existence itself, Beckett displays that affection and connection are innately craved, to uphold sanity.

“Waiting For Godot” is distinctly empty of purpose and characterisation, common conventions of Absurdist Theatre. The Theatre of the Absurd employs a loss of purpose and originality of thought, where characters are insignificant and the dialogue is obscure and unconventional. Beckett incorporates cryptic dialogue and circular reasoning where characters are locked in an existential conundrum, Estragon: “Well, shall we go?” Vladimir: “Yes, let’s go.” (They did not move).” (pg. 94). It’s a vexing cycle, the two debate when Godot will come, why they’re waiting and whether they’re even at the right tree. Absurdist Theatre is bleak but perversely humane, Ionesco (1957) defines, “absurd is that which has no purpose, or goal, or objective.”. This is evident throughout “Waiting For Godot”, Beckett employs caricatures of Absurdist Theatre; characters have inconsequential dialogue, lack of conceptual rationalisation, devoid of logical motivation where there is no obvious or convention sense. Every time Estragon suggests: “Let’s go”, Vladimir reminds him that they cannot go, they are waiting for Godot. Although the acting and characterisation are devoid of purpose, the co-dependency of the pairing is significant and intentional. The co-dependant nature of their platonic relationship suggests meaning, “It is not every day we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed.” (pg. 79). Beckett delves into the minds of human beings, their relationships, the sufferings they go through, therefore, the absurdity of life itself (Shams, 2012). “Waiting For Godot” introduces hope in a strange form, romantic and platonic companionship, to induce meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence.

Beckett reminds us, much like our daily lives, the world onstage doesn’t always make sense, “Waiting For Godot” explores both reality and illusion, the familiar and the strange. Although a loose narrative appears, the theatre of the absurd keeps the audience in suspense by maintaining an elusive. Absurdist Theatre employs a combination of realistic and nonrealistic conventions where the audience can relate to sections, and yet, completely disregard others. French playwright Apollinaire (1960) declared, “theatre should not be an imitation of reality” (Esslin, 1960). The audience must relate on some level, for it is the core purpose of art and theatrical productions, however, theatre is not a mere imitation of surface-level reality, it has theatre should not be an imitation of reality are more insightful than reality (Esslin, 1960). Human beings are inherently indolent, Beckett makes a distinct connection between the audience and the characters on stage through this cardinal sin, Estragon: “Don’t let’s do anything, it’s safer”, Vladimir: “Let’s wait and see what he says” (pg. 18). However, other parts of the play are unrealistic wherein Beckett (1955) states, the only thing he, and the audience for that matter, can be sure about is that, “Vladimir and Estragon are wearing bowler hats.”. The prevalent word in “Waiting For Godot” is, “perhaps”, and the idea itself is repetitive: perhaps they will wait, perhaps they will leave, perhaps they will live, perhaps they will die? The only usage of communication is just to prove their existence, Estragon states, “We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist.” (p. 14). The dialogue presents a realistic component to an otherwise indistinguishable piece, spectators can latch onto familiar terminology and relate to Vladimir and Estragon in that sense.

“Waiting For Godot” shows the world as an incomprehensible place. The spectators see the happenings on the stage entirely from the outside, without ever understanding the full meaning of these strange patterns of events. The spectators of the Theatre of the Absurd are thus confronted with a grotesquely heightened picture of their own world: a world without faith, meaning and, genuine free will. In this sense, the Theatre of the Absurd is the true theatre of our time (Esslin, 1980). The play begins with waiting for Godot and ends with waiting for Godot, alike humane reality, one day is just like another, the day we are born indistinguishable from the day we shall die. Beckett asserts, through conventions of Absurdist Theatre although we live in a senseless world, we have one another. Human connection remains essential because alike Beckett’s fictitious reality, the real world has an illogical plot and setting, all involved characters lack purpose and remains both realistic and unrealistic. Beckett displays, through conventions of Absurdist Theatre, relationships bring about a sense of belonging and without such vital links we would live isolated in our existential dread, alone. Beckett confronts the realities of existence, but encourages us to accept the inexplicable, onstage, and embrace it in our lives.

“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett and “The Goat” by Edward Albee are plays characterised by their genre-bending approach to storytelling. In the tradition of tragedy and comedy, both authors focalise on producing an emotional response in their audiences in a manner that recalls Barthes’ “Death of the Author”. Beckett’s play seeks to expose reality to be in perpetuum, “a random continuum of phenomena, devoid of any meaningful design” (Counsell, 112). Within the theatre of the absurd that Waiting for Godot is staged, the absence of meaning finds expression in its conspicuously strange characters. In contrast, The Goat utilises elements of tragedy and comedy to address taboos within a familiar domestic setting, disrupting the familiar with a sitcom-like timing that dares its audience to laugh at the strange and tragic circumstances that the family find themselves in. As plays, both Beckett and Albee consciously created pieces that are “only of tissue of signs, an imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred” (Barthes 147), encouraging their audiences to stay with the tensions brought forth in their work and reflect upon its implications on the human experience.

Waiting for Godot’s meandering narrative structure creates a dreamlike quality that disrupts temporality and logic, and addresses the tyrannical absence in human existence. The story follows the experiences of two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, who while away the time waiting for the mysterious figure Godot. Throughout their banal dialogue and frequently contradictory thoughts and feelings, the play evokes Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind:

Logical laws of thought…do not apply. Contrary impulses exist side by side, without cancelling each other out or diminishing each other. There is nothing [here] that could be compared with negation; and we perceive [the] exception that space and time are necessary forms of our mental acts…There is nothing that corresponds to the idea of time; there is no recognition of the passage of time, and—a thing that is most remarkable and awaits consideration in philosophical thought—no alteration in its mental processes is produced by the passage of time. Wishful impulses [and] impressions, too…are virtually immortal.

By capturing this essence, Waiting for Godot can find resonance amongst its audience through the universality of a subconscious state of mind, despite the deliberate strangeness of the characters and their predicaments. Scott describes how the characters are initially presented to us as “strangers alienated from themselves and the normal world” (454), however as the events of the play unfold on the stage and not the “normal world”, the audience is moved into a space where they are observers who in their impartiality, are able to empathise and make sense of the character’s world. This ability to find resonance in a story with no plot, is a subconscious conglomerative process, the assemblage of a fragmented dialogue that draws on slapstick comedy to make the strange familiar.

Much of the discursive, dreamlike dialogue occurs between two protagonists Vladimir and Estragon, who are emblematic of two human states. In Freudian terms, the more instinctual Estragon follows “primary process”, governed by the pleasure principle and is therefore driven purely by instinct. In contrast, the rational Vladimir follows “secondary process”, more capable of evaluating his environment and adapt his responses. Working together as a dyad of two polarised states, they remained isolated within each of their prescribed roles of being driven by affect and cognition to the absolute extreme. The most explicit example of Estragon’s primitive nature is his inability to recall information or follow logic – multiple times in the play, he needs to be reminded of where he is, and why he is there. Thus it is Estragon’s mental deficiency necessitates Vladimir’s rationality and ability to survey the past, thereby establishing their camaraderie to be better seen as a symbiotic codependence. This mutually beneficial relationship allows them both to “act with a single goal in mind: to avoid sustained conversation about wasting, pining and final oblivion” (Gordon 145), a state they would fall into without the other to redirect their attention to something else. Their dialogue hints towards a shared suffering – the opening sequence has Estragon struggling to remove his boot, and Vladimir alludes to his physical ailments. He asks Vladimir to help him, which Vladimir responds with:

VLADIMIR. It hurts?

ESTRAGON. (angrily) Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts! (2)

However, it is their non-verbal communication and shared understanding of not wanting to dwell on the futility of their circumstances that keeps them polarised within their assigned positions of primary and secondary process. They are left to echo each other’s words:

ESTRAGON. It hurts?

VLADIMIR (angrily). Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts! (2)

In this slapstick style of comedy, we see Vladimir and Estragon retreat from a meaningful discourse of their pain, by deriding the others ability to understand him. Despite this constant avoidance of addressing the wounds of their existence, they still come back to the conclusion “nothing to be done,” a notion that is echoed throughout the play as the much-repeated phrase “‘Let’s go.’ (They do not move.)’’ In this way, Didi and Gogo are perpetually moving towards action in a meaningless world, but are ultimately paralysed by the tensions of the human condition and human nature. It is through the digressive and circular dialogue that does not reach a resolution, that disrupts the temporality of traditional storytelling while reflecting how cognitive and affective states both resist and complement each other.

As seen above, Waiting for Godot departed from traditional narrative form to convey its meaning – that is, the physical limitations to an earthbound human existence that circles towards purposelessness. In contrast, Albee’s The Goat, while also comedic in tone, also utilises the recognisable storytelling form of tragedy to convey the taboo subject matter. In some ways, the play adheres to the Aristotelian unities; that is, unity of action, place and time. Aristotle claims:

“Plot is an imitation of an action, the latter ought to be both unified and complete, and the component events ought to be so firmly compacted that if any one of them is shifted to another place, or removed, the whole is loosened up and dislocated; for an element whose addition or subtraction makes no perceptible extra difference is not really a part of the whole.”

Aristotle extends upon Barthes claim that a book is “an imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred” (147), to say that it is possible to reduce a narrative to essential components. This is a crucial difference between the achievement of Waiting for Godot and short Aristotelian tragedies such as The Goat: Godot focalises on the moments that would have been subtracted by Aristotle to expose the “perpetuum”. The Goat moves towards the structure of an Aristotelian tragedy, employing other comedic tropes and archetypes to deliver political statements on the fragile myth of the white-collar American family. Comedy in this play functions not to make the strange familiar as it did in Godot, but to make the familiar strange, and thereby expose aporias in the myths of daily life.

Within the tradition of the Aristotelian tragedy, The Goat’s tragic hero is Martin Gray, a well respected, award-winning architect who is about to design “The World City…set to rise in the wheatfields of our Middle West” (24). Aristotle claims that the downfall of the hero “should come about by some kind of error, not evil and depravity” (Wagoner 314), however, the play obscures whether Martin’s affair with Sylvia is transgression or inherent vice. As much of the play’s “comic constructions…derives from a substitution of goat for human in the conventional script about marital infidelity” (Weitz 161), the play employs puns and The play instead stays with this ambiguity, and it is the comedy of the piece that encourages ridicule of Martin’s bestiality, while simultaneously sympathising with his predicament. This sympathetic stance is only enabled by bringing the strange – Martin’s bestiality – into the registers of the familiar – a tragic love triangle.

The repercussions of this love triangle result in the literal and metaphorical destruction of the home, foreshadowed by a one-line erudite quip. As Ross performs a soundcheck for Martin’s interview, he picks up on some background noise:

ROSS. I hear a kind of…rushing sound, like a …whooooosh!, or…wings or something

MARTIN. It’s probably the Eumenides.

ROSS. More like the dishwasher. There; it stopped.

MARTIN. Then it probably wasn’t the Eumenides; they don’t stop.

ROSS. (agreeing) They go right on. (12)

Comedy within this sequence is delivered by the plurality in the sound’s interpretation – while Ross perceives it to be a household appliance, Martin associates the sound to a cosmic level of impending doom. Wagoner asserts that the use of name “Eumenides” rather than “the Furies” is a signifies Martin’s perception of Stevie, of how she would react upon discovering his affair (315). This nomenclature captures Martin’s interpretation and his hope that Stevie will be merciful and kind like the Eumenides, rather than vengeful and retribution seeking like the Furies. To elevate Stevie, to a mythological status adds in another shade of drama that highlights Martin and Stevie’s marital dynamic, depicted to have the capacity to be an unstoppable destructive force. She later unleashes destruction on the house, breaking all ceramics within her reach to punctuate her grief, thereby simultaneously shattering the myth of the perfect American family and the conventions of tragedy that the play breaks.

The immediacy of her destruction and her grief is inseparable from the comedy of the situation – as it is with Godot, this physical, slapstick style of comedy highlights the absurdity of the scene and cuts through the story’s tragic elements. The comedic value keeps the audience from fully empathising with Stevie’s grief that would otherwise obscure the ideas that Albee seeks to bring forth. In other words, the “strange” concept of Martin’s bestiality must first be accepted by the audience as the “familiar”; the following events which follow the familiar tropes of tragedy are then made strange. Ultimately, the absurd dramatic circumstance that Albee creates “[places] us momentarily in that uncharted territory beyond cultural inscription” (Weitz 167), and exposes the limits of any preconceived biases the audience may hold about tragedy, comedy, love and sex. Like Godot, the use of comedy undercuts the dark subject matter, Drawing upon aspects of tragedy and comedy, Albee combines the genres to reach a conclusion that follows the conventions of neither, creating a unique piece that also falls within the theatre of the absurd.

In Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play, Waiting for Godot, written in 1949, through the individual characterisations and the portrayal of the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon, Beckett provides insight into the human condition through an emphasis on the interdependency present within relationships and its subsequent effects on individuals. During the period of time following World War II, in which society was recovering following the devastation caused by the war, individuals found that suffering was a constant, with hope being a futile concept. In fact, such individuals realised that free will lacked importance and began to lose their autonomy, using others to provide the moral support that would have once been their own responsibility, and thus, became dependent on others in lieu of possessing any individuality. Thus, Beckett subverts the existential perceptions which are associated with humanity’s free will, such that individuals are unable to remain independent from others. Beckett’s characterisation of Vladimir and Estragon, and the portrayal of their interactions convey such interdependent tendencies, having profound impacts upon the characters’ actions. This essay will examine Vladimir’s superior characterisation in contrast to his dependency on Estragon, Estragon’s inept, inferior characterisation as a result of Vladimir’s constraint, and their combined inability to progress due to the interdependency permeating their relationship.

Beckett’s superior characterisation of Vladimir is ironically falsified by his need for Estragon’s dependence unto him. Reflecting the society in which Beckett wrote, the pair exist in an environment where suffering is presented as the norm and a constant state of being. In spite of this, Vladimir acts as the ‘optimist’ while representing the intellectual side of the relationship, elevating himself above the mentally inept Estragon as to influence his behaviour. This is seen when Estragon asks him to “Tell [him] what to do. / There’s nothing to do.” The futile connotations of “nothing” coupled with Vladimir’s didactic tone in contrast to the hopeful tone employed by Estragon revealing Vladimir’s self-conceived sense of superiority, while establishing Estragon’s dependence onto him. In fact, as a means to maintain this superiority, Vladimir insists upon Estragon’s dependence for himself, as he reflects: “When I think of it… all these years… but for me… where would you be… Decisively. You’d be nothing more than a little heap of bones at the present minute, no doubt about it.” The degrading connotations of “little heap of bones” in conjunction with the definite tone used in the stage direction, “Decisively”, reveals Vladimir’s pitiful view of Estragon. This insistence on Estragon’s need for him directly contrasts the existential notion that individuals are unable to impose existential meaning upon others. However, Vladimir’s ironic inability to separate himself from his ‘inferior’ counterpart provides further insight into his characterisation. This is alluded to, in the beginning of the play, as Vladimir states: “I’m glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever”. The relieved connotation of “glad” conveys a mutual need and interdependency between the two characters, although it is outshone by Vladimir’s superior characterisation and his inability to express these needs. His inner conflict for such expression is further explored as Estragon complains that he “…was asleep! Despairingly. Why will you never let me sleep? / I felt lonely.” Vladimir’s flat, emotionless tone, coupled with the truncated sentence, is contrasted to the despondent connotations of the stage direction “Despairingly”. This emphasises the notion that despite Vladimir’s desire for Estragon’s dependence, the fact that he is unable to convey this in a meaningful manner undermines his self-imposed sense of superiority. In essence, he relies upon Estragon to depend on him, cementing the notion of interdependence within the relationship. Thus, despite the sense of superiority that Vladimir holds over Estragon, it is falsified by his inherent need for interdependence within their relationship.

In direct contrast, Beckett characterises Estragon as the lesser, helpless character who struggles with independency, catalysed by Vladimir’s disdain and constraint. Mirroring the disillusionment from autonomy and a disregard for hope which had permeated within Beckett’s society as a result of the aftermath following World War II, Estragon acts as Beckett’s vessel through which he portrays his personal thoughts concerning this notion. While Vladimir acts as the “intellectual”of the pair, with the majority of his personal issues affecting his mentality, Estragon is instead focused on the physical aspects of his unchanging environment, with his afflictions instead affecting his emotions and physicality. However, due to this ineptitude, Estragon is portrayed as the less capable character, with this portrayal being amplified by Vladimir’s imposed constraint. This is established in the dialogue between Vladimir and Estragon: “… then the day after tomorrow… And so on… / You’re merciless. / We came here yesterday.” The contrast between Vladimir’s use of the exclusive pronoun “you’re” in conjunction with his blunt tone and the inclusive pronoun “we” creates a clear divide between the pair, while emphasising Vladimir’s dismissive and callous nature towards Estragon, thus establishing this imposed inferiority. Despite this, Estragon is momentarily able to put his inner conflict with his autonomy at ease, coming to a revelation that his existential purpose of waiting for Godot, and in turn, his need for Vladimir’s companionship, was naught, as he states: “Feebly. We’re not tied? Pause. We’re not—”. The anaphora of “We’re not” in conjunction with the stupefied tone created by the stage direction and hyphenation emphasises the extent to which their collective need to wait for Godot dictates Estragon’s inability to comprehend his own autonomy. Due to this, Estragon has a momentary revelation that he is, in fact, capable of independency. Despite this epiphany, Estragon almost immediately returns to a state dependency, complaining: “Violently. I’m hungry! / Do you want a carrot? / … / Give me a carrot.” The forceful tone created by the stage direction “Violently” coupled with the truncated sentences highlights the immediacy of his reversion, suggesting that his conditioning to his dependency has subconsciously led him to disregard the notion that they are “not tied”. Thus, reflecting the society in which Beckett writes, Estragon’s dependent characterisation acts as a commentary which emphasises the importance which should be placed on

Through Vladimir and Estragon’s interactions with one another, Beckett explores the subsequent effects of the pair’s interdependent relationship on their actions, as it creates an inability to attain dependency. Writing in a society where individuals had fallen into a state of hopelessness following the widespread horrors of war, Beckett’s portrayal of Vladimir and Estragon reflects his perspective that such individuals had become more dependent in lieu of being concerned about their individuality. In fact, while Beckett characterises these two characters as two halves of a human being, creating a complementary relationship, their interdependence ironically results in an inability to progress or develop their identities.. This dual inability is first explored as Estragon laments that he is “…tired! Pause. Let’s go. / We can’t. / Why not? / We’re waiting for Godot.” The truncated sentence coupled with an urgent tone creates fast-paced dialogue which is directly contrasted to the stage direction: “Pause.” This indicates a moment of reflection which overshadows Estragon’s futile attempts to progress the conversation, contrasted by the repetition of this dialogue throughout the text, which inevitably draws both characters back into their routine as a result of Estragon’s conditioning as dependent on Vladimir. However, Estragon later re-attempts to bring progress to their relationship by questioning his state of dependency once more: “(Coldly.) There are times when I wonder if it wouldn’t be better for us to part. / You wouldn’t go far.” Vladimir’s dismissive, blunt tone and truncated sentence suggests that the pair’s progress from interdependency is hindered by their inability to have meaningful communication. This is emphasised as this same interaction is repeated further along, as Estragon states that “It’d be better if we parted. / You always say that and you always come crawling back.” Vladimir’s matter-of-fact, condescending tone, in conjunction with the definite connotation of “always” reveals his disdain for Estragon’s desires, which is combined with the contrast between Estragon’s inclusive pronoun “we” and Vladimir’s exclusive pronoun “you” to further emphasise this clash between their contrasting, yet complementary characterisations. This highlights the notion that Vladimir’s need for Estragon’s reliance is preventing either of their lives from progressing any further. Therefore, due to the inherent interdependency within their relationship, Vladimir and Estragon both possess an inability to progress, with neither their dialogue nor their characterisations seeming to develop past the point on which they began.

Through Waiting for Godot, Beckett conveys his concerns in regard to his societal and historical contexts, extending from his exploration of the human condition, reflected through the portrayal of the interdependent relationship between Vladimir and Estragon. By exploring how this interdependency has impacted the actions of both characters as a result of their destructive interdependence, Beckett has provided a commentary on how humanity requires their own autonomy and individuality in order to withhold their own life purpose, aligning with his existentialist beliefs. Therefore, through the individual characterisations and the portrayal of the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon, Beckett has provided insight into the human condition by emphasising the impact that interdependency has on individuals.

As a specific mode of fiction, Drama is different from the two previously introduced literary forms of expression (i.e. Prose Fiction and poetry) in that it is enacted (though there are some types of drama which are meant to be read). Dramatic arts, the rules which govern their performance on stage or even the very construction of dramatic texts, are conventionally designed according to “some collaborative modes of production and a collective form of reception” (Weidmann, 2009). From the classical Athenian Sophocles, up to the contemporary works of Beckett and Pinter, western drama has evolved to cover different movements and philosophical orientations, and engendered some of the finest masterpieces of world literature.

Defining Drama

The word “Drama”, is originally a Greek word meaning “to do”. It follows that Drama (in its artistic sense) is always associated with such concepts as “performance”, “action”, “actors” and “stage”.

Though -technically- drama is an independent third mode of literary expression (besides prose and poetry), It shares with them the language properties, as it is either expressed in prose or verse. However, it is different in that it is usually in a dialogue form.

A dramatic text contains many elements which are equally found in fiction, such as plot, characters, themes ..etc. This structure, which is suggested by the playwright himself, constitutes the primary text. However, when taken to the stage to be performed by actors and guided by a stage director, it (the primary text) evolves into what is called a secondary text, which gives life to the characters (dramatis personae), stage direction and to scene descriptions.

Dramatic Genres

The oldest examples of dramatic genres can be retraced to Aristotle’s Poetics (335 BC). Though he primarily made the distinction between the two major genres, several other subgenres have been suggested ever since.

The two main Genres are the Tragedy and Comedy. Accordingly, the two masks associated with theatre symbolize of the ancient Greek Muses representing each Genre: Thalia (the laughing face, the Muse of comedy), and Melpomene (the weeping face, Muse of tragedy).

1. The Tragedy

In Poetics, the tragedy is defined as:

The imitation in dramatic form of an action that is serious and complete, with incidents arousing pity and fear wherewith it effects a catharsis of such emotions. The language used is pleasurable and throughout appropriate to the situation in which it is used. (Aristotle, 335 B.C).

What characterizes the tragedy above all is the tragic hero, or the noble personage the plot revolves around. The Tragic Hero is ‘better than ourselves,’ according to Aristotle, he is a central character of a high stature and greatness, and the actions the perform are noble actions. The fall of the tragic hero has to arouse in the audience (or readers) the emotions of pity or fear.

Nevertheless, this greatness doesn’t mean “perfection”, because, one of the characteristics of the tragic hero is his tragic flaw (such as hubris, which is often excessive pride or passion), and also hamartia (some errors) which lead to his downfall.

Additionally, some other central features of the Aristotelian archetype include:

1. Free choice: The hero’s downfall her/his own fault, the result of his own free choice, not of pure accident or some overriding malevolent fate (the paranormal element is usually discarded from the perfect drama conception).
2. The punishment usually exceeds the crime: though the tragic hero is inevitably imperilled, his misfortune is not wholly deserved, as he remains despite his tragic flaw, admirable.
3. The tragic fall is not pure loss: though it may result in the hero’s death, before it, there is an increase of awareness, some gain in self-knowledge or, as Aristotle puts it, some ‘anagnorisis” (discovery).
4. Catharsis and emotional release: Though it arouses earnest emotion (pity and fear, according to Aristotle), tragedy (when well performed) does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Instead of that, the main feeling which must be experienced in the tragedy is the purgation and purification of the audience’s strong emotions (Catharsis).

Tragedies are of numerous kinds, to mention some, there is the Senecan Tragedy (five-acts stage play which is recited rather than performed), the Revenge Tragedy (which very popular during the Renaissance era and revolves around murder and revenge), The Domestic Tragedy (about middle-class characters and mainly targeting the feeling of empathy instead of fear), and the Modern Tragedy (the loose modern conventions are employed instead of the classical ones).

2. The Comedy

Comedies are essentially characterized by their depiction of human nature: Unlike tragedies, comedies are much more concerned with weakness and human limitation than greatness and individuality. If laughter, which has always been associated with the “comic element”, expresses something, thank it is the acknowledgement of irrationality and absurdity in humans.

In this regard, it should be remarked that the purpose of comedy is not just to divert and entertain the audience, but it also helps to “illuminate human nature and weaknesses by subtly reassuring the audience that even a disaster is something we can laugh about”.

Another difference which distinguishes the comedy from the tragedy, is that it (the comedy) is primarily social in nature; the protagonist is always representative of a group, and thus is an archetypal account of “commonness”. This is why comedies are named after the “type” the protagonist represents (unlike the tragedy which is usually named after the Tragic Hero)

As to the conventional progression of the comedy, the plot does not require an organic unity, and events are not always designed in a plausible way. Oftentimes, coincidence is what characterized events progression.

Comedies are of many kinds, some are created to criticise political prectices (Satires), some are meant to ridicule the artificial behaviour of the higher social class (comedies of manners), farces are also very common and they are about exaggerated and caricatured characters, plots or behaviours, and melodramas, which reinforce romantic or sensational plots with musical elements.

Dramatic Conventions

Though the primary aim of Dramatic arts is to bring real life onto the stage, it is impossible to reality as it is. Thus , drama is considered as a representation of an “illusion of reality”, performed thanks to some “unrealistic devices”, or “dramatic conventions” which are widely accepted by audience.

Dramatic conventions are defined as a set of “necessary or convenient devices, widely accepted by the public, for solving problems imposed by a particular artistic medium in representing reality” (ref), such as instances of characters talking to themselves, or dialogues held in verse (it is a classical convention), the three walls of the stage…etc.

Conventions cover a wide range of dramatic elements, they could involve the plot organisation, the characterization of actors and personas, …etc. Once again, and similarly to prose and poetry, dramatic works do not need to conform to any pre-existing conventional type, but what matters is how effectively a playwright makes use of these conventions to achieve an organic unity of the work.

Dramatic conventions include:

• a. Prologues: the introductory part of the play, which serves as an initial situation (as it foreshadows the events and gives the play’s background). It could take the form of an opening scene, a speech or an address. Prologues have the objective of preparing the audience, introducing the actions and characters.
• b. Epilogues: This is the direct opposite of the prologue. It is presented at the end of the play, and it sums up the action of the play and in some cases, makes a statement (an advice or a lesson to be learnt) on the action or events presented in the play.
• c. Interludes: similar to the prologue and epilogue, it is an address presented between the different acts or scenes. In some plays, the interlude can include some brief presentations and entertaining shows.
• d. Soliloquies: this is a dramatic device which was very common during the Renaissance years. A soliloquy is used to reveal the thoughts or the feelings of some characters (especially the central characters). It serves as a subjective narrative perspective as it allows characters to speak aloud, and it is equally used to provide commentaries on major events of the play.

Special Forms of Drama

The Opera

Operas are a very special form of dramatic art; they are tightly connected with (western) classical music. Throughout the four past centuries, the Opera was influenced by many factors which led to its current form. But probably the most complete format is the one influenced and created by the German 19th century composer Richard Wagner, who tried to create a balance between Greek drama and classical music, giving it the name of ‘music dramas’.

The Pantomime

This is a very popular and entertaining form of Drama, conceived in the tradition of fables and folk tales. Pantomimes pay tribute to moral issues and culminate into universal themes. Pantomime are performed through “stock characters” represented through symbolic masks (commedia del arte). Those stock characters encompass the good, the evil, the troubadour, the lover… etc.

Conclusion

Theatre and theatrical appreciation are culture-bound, since what is considered as a mere form of literary expression or as a means of story-telling in one culture, is taken as an indispensable aspect of the cultural life, similar to other spiritual practices in another. Either ways, readers of the genre must be attentive above all, to the both the broad thematic concepts and the narrow ones which lead people to question their ethical and moral senses.

This research paper primarily explores the impact of absurdism in Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot. Absurdism as a philosophy stands on the idea that the whole universe is irrational and meaningless and that the look for order brings the person into conflict with the universe. During the period of the two world wars, the mass killing of millions of people makes the writers of the age believe that the universe is meaningless. Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot lavishly deals with absurd tradition. Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is one of the best examples of absurd literature where the characters are unrecognizable, isolated setting, and the dialogues are meaningless in the traditional sense. The characterization of the characters is like mechanical puppets with their incoherent conversation. Though the characters are present in the play are not recognizable and whatever they present is meaningless. Beckett wonderfully presents the nothingness of life in every action of the character. This play is immensely exemplifies the absurdity of life that the reader could easily understand the concept of the author through the characters. This research paper reflects the conflict between the meaning of life and struggles of the life of the characters by using absurd elements like repetitiveness, desolate setting, puppet-like characters, no well-made plot, fantasy, and dark humor, indefinite time, meaningless dialogue and violation of tradition. Based on these elements, this paper shows the suffering of human beings, the boredom of life, struggles between body and mind that we cannot understand which one is right and which one is wrong.

Human beings are seemed to yearn for meaning, looking for it and give birth to it. We as a human being always trying to make up some stories from our lives to provide them a new meaning. And we seek out for explanation for the meaningless universe. For people or society, religion is the very preferred source of meaning. Many people make their lives meaningful by following the path of God, believing in a Holy Book, an afterlife, or practicing prayer and ritual. And religion is not the only one source, there are also so many possibilities here such as science, art, logic, nationalism, Marxism and many other beliefs. Absurdists think that all of these beliefs and practices are ultimately destroyed. As human being, we never escape from the absurdity, no matter what we do or try to do. Indeed the universe is not absurd, but the human being who is desperately search for meaning in the meaningless universe is absurd. Whatever the stories are that we are trying to give them meaning to our lives, they are just stories of fiction.

Absurdism is originated in the work of the 19th century Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. Though he was a Christian he does not ignore the criticism about the religion which he has heard around him. Alternately Kierkegaard has observed that criticism and he believes that there is no logical thing to believing in God. Indeed he finds those critics so logical that for him there is no rationality for believing in any kind of hopeful story or thing about the idea of existence. In these sense, absurdism starts off from a rejection of religion. However, when Europe goes through the bloodcurdling of World War I and World War II, and also the Holocaust achieves its believer. During World War I an entire generation have joined in the military force through the belief that this military service will give their lives meaning. But they are proved wrong. After World War I, the horrors of Nazism and death camps which force to European thinkers to think that the universe is meaningless.

Many philosophers and writers feel forced to cast off their belief and hope. Not only they abandon their faith but the philosopher also question that how the moral God could allow this misery, how could he allow this torture and suffering. Albert Camus, the French philosopher believes that life has no meaning that nothing exists could be a source of meaning. The Myth of Sisyphus asks a question that, if we think that life has no meaning then what is the point of living in this absurd world. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus is fated to push a rock up a mountain only to have it roll to the bottom again and again. Through this, we can see the meaninglessness of his task. Despite knowing that the rock roll back to the foot again and again, he willingly doing his task. Camus says that in real life it happens with the human that throughout life we are in search of our existence. But he also says that it is just a little attempt to find the meaning of life, we should find the meaning which makes our life worth living. And that is why Camus says that “One must imagine Sisyphus happy”

In 1950s Europe sees the rise of a new genre of theater. It is called the Theater of the Absurd. And it is named by British-Hungarian critic, journalist and dramatist Martin Esslin. This genre is the revolution against religion and tradition. It produces the themes and questions examined by Existentialism. The philosophical school of thought was popular at that time. Theater of the Absurd examines the absurdity in human life by exploiting meaningless repetitious dialogue, plots which are lack of reality, purposeless and confused setting, puppet-like characters. It is an exploration of the human conditions such as human anxiety, misery, ordeal, anguish, hopelessness in the face of a sleeping universe. The French philosopher Samuel Beckett is related to this genre. Because of his contribution to this genre, he is known to us as the grandmaster of the genre. Though there are also other playwrights have their significant contribution to this genre, but Samuel Beckett remains its individual, most magnificent figure.

Beckett in 1953 presents one of his masterpieces Waiting for Godot in a small theater in Paris and he is most famous for his dramas. In Waiting for Godot, the plot presents two characters who wait for the coming of a mysterious figure named Godot. The whole play details us about their wait for Godot. But the Godot ever arrives at the play. There is no indication that, is Godot exist or not exist. It is a play where actually nothing happens. The conversation of the Characters have no meaning. The non-appearance of Godot is illustrated the absence of God in the 20th century. Another interpretation is that Godot represents the things that we are waiting for and we will never reach those things. The Godot exemplifies an external force that we think will give the answers to our questions, which will stop the pain of modern insecurity. The Godot can be anything. It can be happiness or satisfaction of our life which never arrives.

The existential play Waiting for Godot, explores themes of absurdity, in particular, the absurdity of life, and furthermore how our actions to ascribe meaning to life is futile. Beckett displays the absurdity through irony and characterization of the characters. The play begins with no aforementioned context, with two tramps like character, Vladimir and Estragon. During the play, they are perpetually stuck living their days waiting by a dirt road for a man named Godot, while waiting they encounter two men, Pozzo and Lucky, one being a slave master and the other a slave respectively. The nonsensical actions and repetition of the characters encounters are used by Beckett to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of their actions to give meaning to their life.

Beckett wonderfully utilizes irony to depict the farce nature of life, through the juxtaposition in the characters actions with the setting of a dirt road. Estragon and Vladimir spend the whole play on the side of a dirt road waiting for Godot, whom they are not sure if they’ve met, or if they’re waiting for him at the right place, or if it is the right day, they’re not even sure if Godot is going to appear at all. As mentioned before they almost seem stuck in this monotonous cyclic life of waiting, Vladimir and Estragon fill their time with mundane activities and insignificant conversations, while never leaving or moving down the road. The road signifies movement, a set path, and progress, which completely contradict their meaningless actions. Their action of ‘waiting’ is virtually their only meaning and thing for them to do in their life, despite Estragon’s measly efforts to leave and move along with life, Vladimir insists on waiting. As we delve further in the play we learn that Vladimir’s incentive on waiting for Godot is like a prayer or vague supplication. “What exactly did we ask him for?… nothing very definite. A kind of prayer. Precisely. A vague supplication.”(Beckett 14) They paint Godot as someone who will give them meaning or an answer when in reality they’re not even sure that Godot exists.

Beckett’s keen use of naming Lucky should allude to him having some sort of luck, which we find to be quite the contrary at first glance, as he is a slave. He is abused physically and verbally by his owner, he is forced to work to the point of exhaustion, and is denied any chance to act on his own free will. However, when comparing him to the other characters, we can see Beckett’s brilliance in naming him Lucky. Considering that he is the luckiest character in the play, is a true testament to show how dreadful everyone else’s life is when a slaves role is desirable. Although Lucky does not have physical luck on his side, which can be seen through his physicalities like his hunchback, and sores, he is lucky due to the way he looks at life especially compared to Vladimir and Estragon. Lucky is fully aware of enslavement and his owner, which gives him a sense of purpose, and freedom since he has no expectations of life getting better, and in turn acknowledges that everything we do is futile in the end as we will all pass away. This contrasts with Vladimir and Estragon as they don’t have an absolute like Lucky, they’re enslaved to this idea of Godot, whom they themselves don’t know if he is real.

Additionally Lucky presents his viewpoint further through his confusing speech in act 1. In essence, his wordy speech pertains to the human condition, and how we try seeking for answers and meaning to life in different ways. He starts off with addressing those who find meaning in a higher being such as a deity or god. He indicates that believing in such a being and having faith is useless, through describing these beings as apathetic which alludes to them being absent and uninterested. Thus by calling a being apathetic, he says that these gods are indifferent to the issues humans face. Lucky also mentions these beings as “divine athambia and divine aphasia” as a result, by calling them athambic he is alluding to the fact that they have no need for humans since they have great self-assurance. He also speaks upon the nature of communication between these beings, by calling them aphasic, he is mentioning that these beings cannot communicate with us. Thus through questioning the notion of higher beings, he brings to light the faults in believing in a divine being and sparks the question in whether we want to find meaning and purpose from such a disconnected being.

Lucky proceeds to speak upon our human response to the condition of life, and how humans engage in various activities such as sport to improve themselves. He points out that this goal of self-improvement proves to be in vain, as he criticizes academics as “labours left unfinished.” and that these efforts are a matter of “alimentation and defecation.” Thus, he is calling upon the faults of our academic efforts, which is known to be the foundation of progress, as a fruitless exercise. Lastly, after calling upon all the uncertainties of life, he leads us to the ultimate certainty, death. The end/last part of his speech concludes with imagery of apocalyptic earth, where nature runs its course and darkness would prevail, “the earth in the great cold the great dark… the earthly abode of stones in the great cold…I resume the skull fading fading.” Beckett’s arouses imagery of stones and skulls to delivery the true bleak picture of life as we are all born to die. In the end, Lucky’s speech turns into incoherent ramblings, which suggests that the breakdown of his language and his inability to communicate represents the inability to give meaning and structure to life.

The play ends in the same fashion as it began, Vladimir and Estragon waiting by the side of the road, never having left the spot. Beckett’s use of concluding the play in this similar fashion simulates the monotonous cycle of life, and it’s repetitiveness. In the end, the two tramps Vladimir and Estragon are left without having met Godot, yet we know that they continue to wait. Will Godot ever appear? No one has an answer, similar to Lucky reiterating “for reasons unknown” in his speech, the tramps continue to wait, for reasons unknown, this represents our human condition and the uncertainty of life. We all wonder and seek purpose while living, and we do this through filling our time with activities that we feel are productive, but through the view of this play, we can see that in everything we do, we will eventually pass away, thus concluding our actions as futile and meaningless.

What does Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot suggest about the effectiveness of language as a tool of communication? Discuss, supporting your answer with evidence from the text.

Waiting For Godot is centered around the idea of hopelessness. Consist of two acts, the story revolves around Vladimir and Estragon who are waiting for Godot by the roadside. Waiting For Godot was written by Samuel Beckett and is considered to be part of the Theatre of the Absurd. There’s really no a dull moment in the play because the character often communicates with each other. But when you look closely, are they really communicating with each other and how effective is the language in said communication?

Language exists as a platform for both the characters and audience. With its own pattern, language serves its purpose to deliver certain information or address few problems. When the message is understood by both the speaker and listener, that is when language is deems as an effective tool of communication. But in Waiting For Godot, language does not seem to be utterly effective. When language is then use without any purpose, it becomes problematic in a sense that there is no context to what the speaker is trying to say which breaks the conversation.

Language, in the play, is not the key for communication. It is instead only used in an exchange of meaningless words between the characters. The language that Beckett is using in Waiting for Godot does not evolve into something comprehensible or understandable, instead it is empty and vague which left the audience bewildered. Vladimir and Estragon doesn’t really talk about things that are important but the conversation that they make are always short and interchangeable.

Reading the play text, the dialogues between the characters, mainly Vladimir and Estragon, does not make any logical sense nor they in a progressive order. However, when Waiting For Godot is seen in a stage perspective, the play text a lot more sense because the same meaninglessness, absurdity, and nothingness are difficult to express in language suggesting that language itself is insufficient.

Waiting For Godot is rich with stage direction and some of Beckett’s ideas cannot be convey only by spoken dialogue but also by stage language. “The stage directions achieve their special function when the coordination between expression and action is completely dissolved”, Iser (1996) Stage direction, in the play, took much part of it and therefore act as a narration when words utters by Vladimir and Estragon fail to tell what is really happening. For example, at the end of act one, Estragon suggest that they go somewhere and Vladimir agree to this idea but the stage direction said that they do not move. Then at the end of act two, the same dialogue was said by both Didi and Gogo. This introduce the idea that the character lives on beyond the play itself. The juxtaposition of the phrase ‘Let’s go’ and the stage direction ‘[They do not move]’ disrupts the causality between language and action.

Beckett uses repetition, whether through words, phrases or actions, quite often in Waiting For Godot. “Repetition of words often destroys the power of words, and also distance words from the time of the event which words try to describe”, Liao (2014). The phrase “waiting for Godot” was being constantly repeated in act 1 and doubled in act 2. The phrase loses its power to convince both Didi and Gogo to stay, hence the increase of the usage of the phrase because they want to further convince themselves to stay and keep on waiting for Godot.

The whole play itself is a repetition of actions with few variables. The characters are repeating what they have been doing in act 1 to act 2, mirroring one another. Surely, the characters have different topic of conversation but it is nonsensical nonetheless. This repetitive nature is giving the audience this idea that nothing is happening and life itself is stuck in a mundane cycle. Beckett’s use of repetition in action also able to convey this feeling of futility and lack of inherent meaning. Thus, it also proves how without language, message could be delivered and this could be related closely to the pantomime. “Beckett appears to be saying that communication through silence and gesture as in the pantomime is just as effective and perhaps more so than communication through the spoken word”, Oteiwy (2012).

Beckett’s most powerful attack on language would be the usage of silence. Silence, as we know, can be uncomfortable as they make seconds feels like minutes and even hours. Vladimir and Estragon does not create room for silence for a long time because they never wanted to acknowledge silence and that is when they started to communicate to avoid any silent moment. Here, Beckett uses one of the negative silences – avoiding, in which both of them talks but without addressing the real issues.

Through the play, Beckett manage to show a liberation in language that defies the rule of language itself and it was perfectly executed through Lucky’s speech. “In postmodern language games, the goal of the game is to make moves which expand the limits of the game, constantly disrupting its margins”, Nealon, (1988). In a sense, the speech could possibly be as Beckett himself as he also defies the rules of mainstream theatre.

There are two ways to see the idea of the speech unfolds, through the usage of the scientific and religious jargon or through the possible meaning that Beckett was trying to convey because nothing that Beckett do is purely accidental. Lucky’s starts of his speech with a hypothetical statement about the existence of a personal God. Though the whole speech was incoherent, Didi and Gogo are clearly affected enough by Lucky’s speech. There is no way of knowing whether they stopped him because they do not understand what he is trying to say or whether what he said had something to do with them. To an extent, language here is effective

Despite being incoherent, the speech is carefully structured around the repetition of some phrases and words. But one particular phrase, ‘for reasons unknown’, recurs more often than any other phrases. That phrase serves its functions as an effective concentration of Lucky’s message to the audience which is the impossibility of reasoning when causes are incomprehensible.

Ultimately, language is considered as an essential to a drama. In his play, Beckett uses language as a metaphor for the hopelessness of the human condition. Waiting for Godot showcased that both language and life have lost all of its meaning. Through this work, Beckett surely showed courage and his genius in creating dramatic dialogue of impossibility. Waiting For Godot also demonstrate Beckett’s expertise at contradiction where he uses language to create a sense of insignificance and the ineffectiveness of language.

After World War 2 there was a rise in political tension, societal changes and the decline of religious faith. As a result, a theatrical shift took place in which playwrights moved away from the objective aim of realism theatrical approach to explore the subjective attitudes and inner conflict that plagued people following World War 2. Theatre of the Absurd arose from the existentialist philosophy, with the purpose of exposing the lack of meaning in the everyday life of the society at the time to provoke the need for change. In the play, Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett deconstructed the conventional structure and development of literary theatrical elements such as plot, theme, dialogue, and character to comment on the human condition of the society after World War 2. By exposing the lack of meaning in everyday life, Theatre of The Absurd, voiced innovation in the society at the time by forcing audiences to question the meaning of their existence thus evoking change in the perception, attitude, and behavior of millions of people across the world.

The characters in Absurdist plays were a strong contrast to the fixed and psychologically convincing characters shown in Realism, as the Absurdist characters were dull and lacked identity and character development. In the play, Waiting for Godot, the pair of clown-like tramps, Estragon and Vladimir, often engaged in linguistic games, ritualistic behavior and improvised action that lead to nothing. In the opening scene of Waiting for Godot, Estragon struggles take off his boots and declares out of angst, “Nothing to be done.” Vladimir then responds by saying “I’m beginning to come round to that opinion.” The use of the play on words in this scene evokes a comedic effect on the audience, as Estragon is referring to the physical struggle of taking off his boot, whereas Vladimir is referring to the philosophical struggle that they have nothing to do but wait. Throughout the duration of the play Estragon focuses on the physical aspects in situations whilst Vladimir’s focuses on intellectual aspects of situations inhibiting them from adequate communicating and connected which each other, which forms a key theme explored in the play. The conclusion that can thus be drawn is that Estragon symbolizes the human body, whereas Vladimir symbolizes the human mind and in unity create a representation of humankind. By using the comic effect of the characters as a tool to allow audiences to search for a true deeper meaning, Beckett evokes change in the perspective of people in society at the time.

In the play, Waiting for Godot, the movement of the characters are eccentric and heightened and there is a large variety in rhythm and pace used. Beckett comments on the continuous and repetitive actions of humans in the society at the time through the movement of the characters. The characters, Vladimir, and Estragon show a number of realistic humanistic faults such as, the human tendency to spread rumors about others and tendency of repeating each others words and actions. Vladimir and Estragon have mutual dependency and rely on each other for comfort and for meaning however fail to communicate with each other. Beckett comments on relationship between people in society at the time because as just as Vladimir and Estragon feel compelled to be together but at the same time are in isolation from one another, people unconsciously in society tend to behave in the same way. The characters can thus be looked at as symbolic representation or “everyman” of the people in the society at that time. By pointing out the similarities between the people of society at the time to the unlikable miserable tramps, Beckett evoked a sense of realization among people of the society of the time and thus widen peoples perspective.

Throughout the duration of the play, the main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, wait for a character who never arrives to give them a sense of purpose, however their only sense of purpose comes from the act of waiting. By doing this Beckett comments on the fact that people adopt unconscious mechanical routines and ritualistic behaviour however fail to see their significance. This causes them to be stuck in an endless cycle, just as Vladimir and Estragon are in. Beckett is also commented on how people rely on hierarchical society just as Estagon a. We are stuck in a world where our actions dictate what our meaning is. The technique of repetition in the dialogue of the characters emphasise the characters unawareness of and inability to solving problems and thus remain stuck in cycle of similar thoughts and actions.

The setting in Absurdist Theatre is an important element which showcases purpose of the play and how it reflects on society. In Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon, exist in a bleak nameless wasteland. These characters are lost and are locked in an isolated incomprehensible world that is devoid of meaning. The space that the characters exist in gives the audience a deeper insight of the playwrights’ perception of the world and view on society at the time. Beckett presents a pessimistic view on human struggle, by allowing the characters in a hopeless situation. Beckett uses an important Absurdist theme of loneliness and isolation of man to reflect on how society is lost in a world deserted by God.

In Absurdist plays language is no longer used a communicative instrument though direct speech; it is rather used as a powerful subjective tool to reveal and conceal truth. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett re-invents language in an attempt to reflect on and expose the issues the people in the are experiencing in the society at that time society. The Absurdist theme of human irrationality, is shown through the irrational use of language in the play, Waiting for Godot. Beckett questions the meaning of language by dissociating the characters thoughts from their speech. The exchange of dialogue between main the characters Estragon and Vladimir consists of fragmentation utterances, repetitions, monologues, contradictions, and silence. Vladimir and Estragon’s incapability to adequate communicate with each other is emphasised through their meaningless conversations filled with poetic and figurative language that often leads nowhere and leaves questions unanswered. Beckett purpose is highlight the similarities between the communication of the characters and communication of people in society at that time. Beckett therefore shows that, the inefficiently communication in society can hinder people’s ability to understand and form meaningful connections with each other, just as it has done with Vladimir and Estragon. Through this, Beckett reveals truth about human connection voicing originality and persuading the audience to change their behaviour.

Absurdist plays, challenged preconceptions of theatre by breaking down structure elements. The structure of Absurdist plays are nonlinear and lack an adequate plot development. The form and action are of Absurdist plays are circular and static filled with an uneven tempo. The structure of Waiting for Godot is in two acts, with one being repeated with very little variation. Beckett took a unique approach to the development of Waiting for Godot, by using genre of Tragicomedy. In A Tragicomedy play the mannerisms of characters are created a comedic effect however contain an underlying dark message. The structure, left people thinking deeply about the message of the play and resulted in many questions being asked. Beckett never gave clear conclusion for the play, Waiting for Godot, thus creating cycle of ambiguity and speculation that mirrors the plot of the play itself, which voiced innovation and raised many questions about the play.

The purpose of the play, Waiting for Godot, was to unravel and face reality to reconcile and reconnect people with the modern world they live in without illusion. Absurdist plays commented on the failure of humanity in the society of the time to overcome absurdity through their everyday behaviours and actions. Tough a subjective approach of revealing the truth about the human condition to the audience, Samuel Beckett and other absurdist playwrights, voices innovation when reflecting on the society st the time.