Category: Drama

Waiting for Godot is a play composed by Samuel Beckett in French between 1948 and 1949. It first premiered in 1953 in Paris and later, in 1955, in London. The theatre of that time consisted of plays, which mirrored everyday life. They were, above all else, grounded in reality. Beckett’s play, compared to its contemporary theatrical counterparts, was quite detached from any “traditional realism” rules.

Realism in the sphere of theatre was a movement which began in the 19th century. Its goal is to portray everything in the play as realistically and accurately to normal life as possible. This includes believable, detailed stage settings and décor, authentic costumes, characters which are ordinary people, normal dialogue consisting of everyday language, etc. This way the audience is able to identify with and relate to the characters and the world of the play. There is also a chronological, linear sequence of events that transpires during the play. The antithesis of this “realistic” theatre is what is sometimes called the “theatre of the absurd”.

Absurdity is any type of discord or lack of logic. Such a situation is devoid of meaning or a goal for the person involved in it. A good example of an absurd situation is Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. The name itself hints at the goal of the play: two people, Vladimir and Estragon, await the arrival of a man called Godot. The absurdity comes from the fact that Godot does not appear at all throughout the entire story, leaving the two protagonists in an endless loop of meeting each other, waiting in vain for somebody to come, and eventually leaving, only to do the exact same thing the next day. This scenario is akin to Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), where the titular character is cursed to endlessly push an enormous boulder up a mountain, only for it to roll down, forcing him to begin from scratch. Vladimir and Estragon spend each day waiting for Godot, only to be told at the end that their endeavors had been pointless and that they should begin anew the following day.

Waiting for Godot’s stage is quite simplistic: it consists of a single tree near a road and a low mound or a stone, on which Estragon would sit. This barren scenery provides a sense of emptiness and unfamiliarity, which is very different from the traditional, “realistic” theatre, where the décor tried to be as welcoming and recognizable to the audience as possible. The play is comprised of two Acts, spanning over two days. The repetition of the characters’ “actions” as well as some of their lines of dialogue throughout the two acts can be viewed as a sign that this this is neither the protagonists’ first, nor last time that they’ll be meeting each other near the solitary tree.

Vladimir and Estragon’s clothes are another marker for the presence of absurdity. When performing the play, the actors are often times dressed as tramps who wear shabby clothes, but at the same time have bowler hats which are associated with businessmen and middle-upper class members of society. Such a contrast in attire is seen as unrealistic and even comedic by the audience, which can further distance them from the story.

The major feature of Beckett’s play is the lack of knowledge and certainty it offers. At the start of Waiting for Godot we are not properly introduced to Vladimir and Estragon, who they are, what they have been through, how they have come to know each other. All we know is that they are waiting for another person, Godot. Unfortunately, we never learn who he is, or why the two protagonists are waiting for him. The lack of any distinguishing features in the scenery also does not give us a proper understanding of where and in what time period the story takes place.

The mysterious, almost mythical, character’s name, “Godot”, has been interpreted in an interesting way – some English speakers have related it with “God”. The two main characters of the play are waiting for a “God” who never appears before them. It is believed by some that this is similar to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s popular statement that “God is dead… and we have killed him” (Nietzsche 120). After the Age of Enlightenment and the subsequent rise of science, more and more people became skeptical of religion, which in turn “killed” God. Without the existence of God in their lives, many people no longer find any meaning in the world. On the other hand, the theory that Godot is God, as intriguing as it may be to some, can be refuted by the fact that the play was originally written in French, where “God” is actually “Dieu”, meaning that Beckett most likely did not intend for this to be the character’s identity.

VLADIMIR: […] the best would be to take advantage of Pozzo’s calling for help –

POZZO: Help!

VLADIMIR: To help him –

ESTRAGON: We help him?

VLADIMIR: In anticipation of some tangible return.

ESTRAGON: And suppose he –

VLADIMIR: Let us not waste our time in idle discourse! [Pause. Vehemently.] 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? [ESTRAGON says nothing.] 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, or 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 –

ESTRAGON: Ah!

POZZO: Help!

VLADIMIR: Or for night to fall. [Pause.] We have kept our appointment, and that’s an end to that. We are not saints, but we have kept our appointment. How many people can boast as much?

ESTRAGON: Billions

Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot was first written in French in 1949 and was called En attendant Godot (Brater, 2011:4) The English version we read today is his own translation thereof. The play established Beckett’s credentials as a playwright as he is determined to do more and more with less thus raising his aesthetic as his drama develops and matures.( Gordan, 2010;31)Waiting for Godot is a play about the problems of human survival and the meaning of life ,both in its pleasures and hardships, its humor and brutality. (Gordan, 2010; 32) The play is an enigmatic but a very significant play in the absurdist tradition.(Lombardi, 2019;1) With close reference to the above passage from Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, this essay analyses Vladimir’s understanding of ‘help’ while commenting on the cynicism and irony in his speech as well as his view of humanity, Furthermore it looks at Estragon’s deflation (‘Billions’) of Vladimir’s final triumphal assertion that ‘we have kept our appointment and What he implies about the human condition.

In order to understand this passage better we need to provide a summary of the backdrop of the play. Then first act begins on an evening country road with two men named, Vladimir and Estragon talking fitfully about their lives near a stalked tree. They are expectantly waiting to meet someone named Godot. While waiting to pass time they meet a landowner Pozzo and his animal-like servant Lucky. After their strange encounter Lucy and Pozzo move on and they meet a boy informing them that Mr Godot would “surely come tomorrow’’ As night falls Vladimir and Estragon contemplate suicide but decide to leave The second act begins much the same as the first as they wait to pass time and Lucky and Pozzo arrive and depart, the bot reappears to deliver the same message ‘surely tomorrow” and after again considering suicide the two men prepare to leave but at the final curtain do not move.

The backdrop of this essay provides an important understanding for this discussion. The question above takes place in the second act as Pozzo and Lucky now respectively blind and dumb, return to the country road near the stalked tree where Vladimir and Estragon await Godot’s arrival. Lucky and Pozzo slip and are unable to get up by themselves. Pozzo plead with the two men to help him up but instead if helping they talk incoherently about waiting for Godot and consider taking revenge on Lucky. It is not until that Pozzo offers then money in return for their help that Vladimir decides to help him.

When looking at the passage provided (Beckett, 1952:439) we can note that Vladimir’s understanding of help is both ironic and cynical

‘VLADIMIR: […] the best would be to take advantage of Pozzo’s calling for help –

POZZO: Help!

VLADIMIR: To help him –

ESTRAGON: We help him?

VLADIMIR: In anticipation of some tangible return.

He is cynical in the way in which, he is concerned only with his own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them. It is socially acceptable that we help other in need not for any gain but as it is morally correct to do so. However, Vladimir’s first response is that of self-gain ‘In anticipation of some tangible return’(Beckett,1952:439) The irony of this passage is that he speaks of humanity as selfish yet he does not freely help Pozza until he thinks he will receive the monetary gain he wants we

Vladimir: we wait. we are bored………

Pozzo: Two hundred!

Vladimir: We coming!( Act 2 page 450-451)

but also, at the slightest turn of events he is willing to leave Pozza helpless and leave with Estragon.

Estragon: I’m going.

Vladimir: Help me up first, then well go together.

Estragon: You promise?

Vladimir: I wear it! (Act 2 page 452)

It is his actions above that informs us of his view on humanity., his cynicism and irony shows us that Vladimir’s view of humanity is negative.

Pozzo: Help!

Estragon: He’s all humanity (Silence)……

Vladimir: well? what is there so wonderful about it (Act 2 page 467)

Estragon makes Vladimir suddenly lose confidence and feel dispirited, as he deflates Vladimir’s final triumphal assertion that ‘we have kept our appointment.’ Through this statement Estragon asserts that the human condition is flawed. Vladimir sees this as an achievement but in fact it should be seen as a normal act of decency, for one to keep your appointment says something good about ones character In keeping with the absurdist tradition of the play this passage it is key in that in highlighted the way in which Beckett explores the meaning and meaningless of life through the repetitive plot and dialogue

With close reference to the above passage from Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, this essay analysed Vladimir’s understanding of ‘help ‘and commented on the cynicism and irony in his speech as well as his negative view of humanity, Furthermore it looked at Estragon’s deflation (‘Billions’) of Vladimir’s final triumphal assertion that ‘we have kept our appointment and his implication that the human condition is flawed.

Reference list

1. Brater, E (2011) “10 ways of thinking about Samuel Beckett: the falsetto of reason”. Bloomsbury Methuen drama. Great Britain
2. Graver, L (1984) Beckett waiting for Godot. A student guide 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York
3. Lombardi, E. (2019). 11 Quotes From Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’. [online] ThoughtCo. Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/waiting-for-godot-quotes-741824 [Accessed 22 Oct. 2019].

“Where I am, I don’t know, I’ll never know, in the silence you don’t know, you must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on.” ( Beckett ………..)

There is no doubt that the absurd playwrights are looking for ways to discover the new meaning of life from the apparent inconsistency, meaninglessness and uncertainty of the world through their plays. In addition, it happens through the interaction of the play and audience – deep inside the audience’s minds. Distinguished dramatist Ataur Rahman opines that:

Theatre of the Absurd is a medium for searching the meaning of life of the fallen people in a courageous way. Absurd Theater tries to illustrate the anguish at the loss of certainty of life through a strange contradictory truth. Such play tries to answer subtle question regarding life of today’s colorless world as well (Rahman, 1973, p.96).

On the other hand, Martin Esslin believes that the dignity of man depends on his ability to face the senselessness and meaninglessness of their existence “to accept it freely, without fear, without illusions – and to laugh at it” (Esslin, 2004, P.429). The researcher believes the laughter Esslin and Beckett talk about has to do with acceptance. The laughter that might come out of our acceptance of the meaninglessness of our situation is painful and destructive, because it makes us see a reality we were trying to avoid looking at. It takes courage and strength to accept that actions are useless, as Waiting for Godot and The Thing show us “This is this, this is that, this is all (Ahmad, 2012, p.22). The audience notices that Vladimir and Estragon mirror the fact that man spends his trivial lives continuing his habit of’ a ‘great deadener’. Therefore, at the moment, in which they notice the fact, they take it seriously, because they find the similarity with Vladimir and Estragon as fools. That is, they caught in an illusion that they might be Vladimir and Estragon or Convict and Man. Vladimir, Estragon, Man and Convict can also be seen as guides, who lead the audience to the awareness and acceptance of the absurdity of life. In other words, they help us to face the reality of life, and there is the sense of needing to endure and continue.

Beckett’s Waiting for Godot ( ) is considered as mirror that reflects modern man’s state; their chaotic sense of defeat and senselessness of the era of confusion and decadence. The playwright depicts the time where human suffering has reached the climax of its existence. Two tramps, two representatives of mankind are repeating the tiresome exercise of waiting for Godot without any change in routine. The characters seem to represent human destiny in a vague manner, of course with a note of ‘hope’ for a change.

In 1995, The New York Times published a theatre review by Wilborn Hampton where he states that: Like all great plays, ‘Godot’ defies easy analysis. Two tramps — Estragon (Gogo) and Vladimir (Didi) — wait under a tree daily for the arrival of Mr. Godot, who never arrives but sends a messenger each evening assuring them he will be there tomorrow. As they wait, they encounter a traveler and his slave. They quarrel, they try on boots and hats, they eat a carrot or a turnip, they urinate, they sing, they play games, they discuss theology and metaphysics, they think (or think they think). They always find something, as Gogo points out, ‘to give us the impression we exist.’ It all helps to pass the time (Hampton, 1995).

What does it mean? This is typically the major question from anyone who watches the play for the first or dozens time. The truth is that it can mean as much as what we find in it: Some see in its poetic absurdities and blind resilience a thread of hope; others hear quite the opposite, more a dirge of despair. Certainly, one will find, as Eric Bentley put it, ‘the quintessence of existentialism’. “There you are again,” Didi greets Gogo at the outset. “Am I?” Gogo responds ” ( Hampton, 1995).

Thus, they start their journey or once again start from the unending end. If Vladimir and Estragon are there, one can regard that in one of two possibilities, first, their presence in that location should be for a reason which must be ‘waiting’; it is for the promised arrival of Godot. Or, second, they are there because they have no other place and/or option to go to, nor are they capable of moving due to many reasons – physical, emotional, psychological, and economical reasons. So, they preoccupy themselves with the self-invented illusion, it is the arrival of Godot and that gives them hope and energy to cope with the difficulties encountering them. They are confused, lost and uncertain whether the alternatives are better or worse. They do not know where that road would lead them to. Therefore, they convince themselves that Godot will come, even when this has been repeated frequently without the arrival of Godot. They invent excuses by blaming themselves and speaking of uncertainty of the exact days where Godot is supposed to arrive, or even suspecting that there must be some kind of misunderstanding regarding the tree, precisely whether there is another tree or the very bare tree nearby which they keep waiting.

Beckett did not feel that his plays must be taken to mean as nothingness, as he opines, “a sense of restlessness, of moving about in the night” (quoted in Ward, 2015).

As noted by Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2011) that “for more than 30 years drama has been promoted as a valuable teaching tool for language learning.” As a graduating teacher who is specialising in educating EALD students it is important to develop creativity and teacher artistry that is beneficial in enhancing language learning for students who need additional support. Learning from personal experiences, students who migrate from foreign countries find it hard to integrate in the classroom as there are main barriers to disadvantage students to developing further learning. Furthermore, language barriers cause students to lose motivation and decreases engagement in learning as students struggles to find their own identities in schools. Through my teacher education and artistry development I found that motivation is a big factor for students or even adults to strive and achieve a certain goal or dream as it is the driving force that helps push them in working hard and better. Student at a young age are developing their own motivations and values of education. When students believe that educations are unimportant and worth their time, students will be disengaged and unwilling to participate in their own learning. Thus, through my developing understanding of teaching, I believe that the 21st century classroom needs to provide engaging and motivating lessons that further enhances student’s language learning. This is further emphasised through Ewing et al. (2008) as he highlighted that drama strategies further support students writing and has a positive effect student engagement and motivation while enhancing language and literacy development in creative and imaginative ways. Through this, critical analysis of creativity and teacher artistry, I would be exploring ways in which teachers’ artistry and use of various creative pedagogies such as drama be an essential skill to help enhance and engage students in language learning.

The use of drama in the classroom is explored to have positive effect on teaching and learning outcomes specially to enhance language learning. As shown through Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2011) research they have discovered from both their own studies and from other researchers that the use of “a series of drama lessons were found to have a positive impact on oral language acquisition and development.” (p. 622). There studies have shown that the use of drama, students has significant improvement of student learning. Furthermore, the teacher’s artistry effects the learning outcomes of EALD learners. Cremin, Goouch, Blakemore, Good and Macdonald (2006) further emphasizes that “primary-aged learners who engage in drama prior to writing write more effectively and at greater length, using a richer vocabulary that contains more emotive and expressive insights” (2006, p. 274). Thus, through drama lessons it is important to incorporate various of drama strategies to help enrich and support student writing. One example of a drama strategies that I have used to enhance students learning is the use of ‘Conscious Alley’. This activity is supported by Ewing, Millar and Saxton (2008), as they mention how students are able gain understanding of multiple perspectives a certain problem while allowing them to critically reflect on the difficult decisions. Furthermore, this activity allows students to explore evaluative languages and emotive languages that help convince the walker on the best decision. The example highlights the use of drama that enhance student’s language learning as it allows additional language learners to practice and develop their speaking ability. This is supported by Gill. C (2013) as he states the benefits of using drama as he cited from Davies (1990) that “Drama activities facilitate the type of language behaviour that should lead to fluency, and if it is accepted that the learners want to learn a language in order to make themselves understood in the target language, then drama does indeed further this end.” (as cited in Gill. C, 2013, p. 30.).

Furthermore, Ewing. R and Simons. J (2014) underlines how drama allow students ‘opportunities to practice the higher-order language functions and structures so necessary for academic achievement.” (p. 95). Developing teacher’s artistry in drama, is beneficial for both teacher and student as it provides various of new strategies that will allow teachers to effectively teacher and improve student’s language outcomes. Ewing. R, Hristofski. H. Gibson. R, Campbell. C, and Roberston. A portrays through their research that not only has student’ literacy development has improved but the teachers who participated in the research enhance their own professional learning. This is exemplifying that drama is beneficial for more reasons than enhance student’s language outcomes but allows teacher to develop creative artistry for better teacher and learning lessons.

Motivating and engaging your students in learning is a one of the top priorities a teacher has as students need to be motivated in their own learning if they aim to academically achieve. As part of the curriculum, it is important to engage students in their own learning and by having students engage students can actively learning and easier for students to take in knowledge. As mentioned by Cicerchia (2016) that “motivation to learn correlates with success at school”. This is the bases of all research projects as researchers all believe that to academically excel students need to be motivated to learn and therefore strive to achieve their goals. In the 21st century classroom, a critical issue that arise is motivating the unmotivated learners which often links to students who are disadvantage in the classroom including EALD students. Due to the language barriers, additional language learners find it difficult to understand teachers and therefore disengage in the learning before it begins. Hidi. S and Harackiewicz. J.M explores this issue in which they address that to motivate students 2 main variables are essential in students’ academic performances which are interest and goals.

Providing students with motivation to learn can be explored and utilised through creative pedagogies such as applying drama into the classroom. By applying macro-planning as mentioned in Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2011), students and teachers are able to develop rich experiences through drama that can be motivating and engage students in their own learn. Furthermore, through their research they have “suggested that pretext materials must provide a ‘hook’ for the learner – enticing them to learn by engaging with their interests and needs.” (p. 626). Bournot-Trites. M, Belliveau. G, Spiliotopoulos. V, Séror. J research explores the use of drama to engage students in their own learning as it has shown in various other studies that drama can assists in “enhance literacy, motivation, and help the development of intercultural sensitivity in second language classes” (p.3). As a result of their research, a strong link is between motivation and drama was emphasised as teachers were able to see students more interested in writing and engage in their own learning.

As teachers, we need to be able to create and develop a safe and comfortable learning environment for all students especially with new arrivals as a new environment is always daunting for a new student in a foreign school. Drama is an excellent strategy in welcoming and creating a safe and comfortable learning environment as students are able to place them in a different role. Furthermore, through drama students are able to delve into other people’s shoes and learn different perspectives which allows them to understand their peers and become more emotionally engage in the lesson. Heyward. P investigates the how emotional engagement through drama enhance students learning. Through his research, his outlines that those who partake in drama activity are able to engage on emotional level known as the ‘existential mode’ which is where students “ are more likely to engage emotionally with their role and the roles played by others, as they are spontaneously living through the experience in real-time” (p. 199). By using drama, students can develop empathy skills in which can be used to learn difficult topics that require careful teaching. In addition to this, Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2011) emphasises that “Being able to change direction suddenly, to move with the group, to be responsive to their needs, to reinstate a lost mood or to rebuild lost tension, are important skills and are only able to be learned through experience.” (p. 628). This skill is important to have as students should learn to improvise and adapt to real life situations and drama is an excellent tool in allowing students to home in these skills and utilising in other areas of learning. Being flexible and adaptive links and promotes creativity as students will develop skills to think outside of the box. Moreover, students are able to freely express their thoughts and feelings, and critically reflect on their peers’ and their idea as they develop social skills through their interactions with their peers. Pang. W (2015) emphasises this point through her article as she states that “Allowing students to explain their ideas also helps them develop their intrapersonal evaluation skills, as well as metacognitive monitoring.” (p. 125).

From personal experiences as a student, learning has always been a series of repetition, memorisation and rote learning where creativity was rarely explored. This is highlighted by Lin, Y.S research as she investigates into creative learning where she contrasts learning creatively and learning by authority. As she discusses that learning creatively allows students to explore and learn in a creative manner while learning through authority is learning that is instructed to learn and be accepted. However, in the 21st century, learning through authority cause students to disengage and discourage students willingness to participate in their own learning. While allowing students a creative learning environment such as exploring through the use of drama grasps student’s attention and interest to engage in the learning outcomes.

By creating a safe learning environment, students are encouraged to share and reflect on difficult concepts, learnings and communicate with peers. Thus, creating a safe space for students to explore through drama, students to be able to learn through creativity while develop essentials skills.

Through Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2011) research it has exemplified that to enhance learning the use of drama and teacher’s artistry can be used as a new strategy that will both engage and encourage student to partake in their learning experiences. Furthermore, motivation throughout my teacher education has been a strong focus as it is the driving force that push teachers and students to achieve the teacher and learning outcomes. Therefore, as a graduating 21st century teacher, I need to utilise various creative strategies to help motivate and engage my students to learn as it will benefit my students to reach their academic goals. It is important for teachers to understand creative strategies that can cater and enhance additional language learners as well as other students. Furthermore, drama allows students to not only enhance their learning but allows students to become more motivated and engaged in their learning which is a key issue that has been discussed throughout the 21st century. An important understand to gain from Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2011) is that “The teacher/artist requires flexibility, ingenuity, personal creativity and the ability to exploit opportunities as they occur.” (as cited in Dunn, J., & Stinson, M., 2011, p. 628). This statement is important as not only is it important for students to develop this skill, the teacher must be able to use demonstrate them as they are to explicitly teach and model for students. Thus, through the use of creative learning strategies such as drama, the teachers are able to gain professional learning while enhancing students learning outcomes.

References

1. Bournot-Trites, M., Belliveau, G., Spiliotopoulos, V., & Séror, J. (2007). The Role of Drama on Cultural Sensitivity, Motivation and Literacy in a Second Language Context. Journal For Learning Through The Arts, 3(1), 1-35. doi: 10.21977/d93110058
2. Cicerchia, M. (2016). The importance of motivation for kids [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.readandspell.com/us/importance-of-motivation-for-kids
3. Cremin, T., Goouch, K., Blakemore, L., Goff, E., & Macdonald, R. (2006). Connecting drama and writing: seizing the moment to write. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 11(3), 273–291. doi:10.1080/13569780600900636
4. Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2011). Not without the art!! The importance of teacher artistry when applying drama as pedagogy for additional language learning. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(4), 617- 633.
5. Ewing, R. (2008). Drama and contemporary picture books in the middle years. In Drama and English teaching : imagination, action and engagement (pp. 121–135).
6. Ewing, Robyn; Hristofski, Helen; Gibson, Robyn; Campbell, Victoria and Robertson, Alyce. Using drama to enhance literacy: The ‘school drama’ initiative [online]. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, Vol. 19, No. 3, Oct 2011: 33-39. Availability: ISSN: 1320-5692.
7. Gill, C. (2013). Enhancing the English-Language Oral Skills of International Students through Drama. English Language Teaching, 6(4), 29-41. doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n4p29
8. Heyward, P. (2010). Emotional Engagement Through Drama: Strategies to Assist Learning through Role-Play. International Journal Of Teaching And Learning In Higher Education, 22(2), 197-203. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930153.pdf
9. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the Academically Unmotivated: A Critical Issue for the 21st Century. Review Of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179. doi: 10.2307/1170660
10. Lehtonen, A., Kaasinen, M., Karjalainen-Väkevä, M., & Toivanen, T. (2016). Promoting Creativity in Teaching Drama. Procedia – Social And Behavioral Sciences, 217, 558-566. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.046
11. Lin, Y. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education – A Conceptual Framework of Creative Pedagogy. Creative Education, 02(03), 149-155. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.23021
12. Pang, W. (2015). Promoting creativity in the classroom: A generative view. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 122. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930153.pdf

Many question the relativity and the importance of philosophical theories and actions expressed throughout various philosophical works. Many also elude the perception of humanism. In Existentialist Philosophy (EP) by Nathan Oaklander, in the text from Albert Camus, it had stated, “Men, too, secrete the inhuman. At certain moments of lucidity, the mechanical aspect of their gestures, their meaningless pantomime makes silly everything that surrounds them” (p. 359). This is in relation to Camus and to Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot where they both present a similar perspective on the accuracy of human life and how they [humans] present themselves.

Albert campus was a French writer and philosopher that is most known for highlighting and shedding light on the problems of human conscience as well as his perspective on suicide. In his writing from The Myth of Sisyphus, from EP, he discussed the idea of absurdity and how the world is absurd. In the ext, he wrote,

“This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart, the absurd depends as much on man as on the world. For the moment it is all that links them together” (p. 362).

What Camus defines, or states as absurd, is the human tendency to seek value from the meaning in life and the human inability or thus ability to find any in a purpose in it. What is absurd is the separation of two ideals of life and relationship. Samus further insights this perspective. Continuing the quote, Camus further writes,

“If I hold to be true that absurdity that determines my relationship with life, if I become thoroughly imbued with that sentiment that seizes me in the face of the world’s scenes, with that lucidity imposed on me by the pursuit of a science, I must sacrifice everything to these certainties adnI must see them squarely to be able to maintain them” (p. 362).

For Camus, absurdity is the contradiction that cannot be reconciled. Attempt to reconcile the contradiction an attempt to escape from it. Forcible separation is looked at being ludicrous. Camus believes that if life is void of meaning and man could not know the meaning [if it were to exist] then that is something that should be embraced. In continuation of the quote, Camus concludes that there must be an adaptation to the certainties.

Samuel Beckett was an Irish writer and In Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot play, the plot of the play is that two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, wait for the arrival of someone named Godot, who ultimately never arrives, but while waiting they encounter other characters along with the wait. The absurdity of the situation, the plot, is there hope for a meaningful life, the possibility of hope that never arrives. In the absurdity of hope, they pass the time with endless philosophical discussions and repetitive conversations and questions that have no purpose. In Act one at the beginning of the play, Vladimir and Estragon said,

“Estragon: I’m asking you if we’re tied.

Vladimir: Tied?

Estragon: Ti-ed.

Vladimir: How do you mean tied?

Estragon: Down

Vladimir: But to whom? By Whom?

Estragon: To your man

Vladimir: To Godot? Tied to Godot! What an idea! No question of it.

For the moment” (p. 17).

Throughout the play, they continue to wait for a person the name of Godot, whom they think is named Godot. In spite of all their waiting, Vladimir and Estragon are not even sure if Godot exists. However, the two men still force themselves into the belief that Godot will one day come and save them. At the end of Act 2 towards the end of the play, they say,

Estragon: I can’t go on like this

“Vladimir: That’s what you think

Estragon: If we pated? That might be better for us.

Vladimir: We’ll hang ourselves to-morrow. Unless Godot comes.

Estragon: And if he comes?

Vladimir: We’ll be saved” (p. 109).

When looking at Estragon and Vladimir and their wait and hope, what Beckett’s play is, is an “allegory” of modern man’s wait for personal salvation. In order to achieve their goals, individuals must take action instead of waiting for fulfillment to arrive on their own. As Vladimir says, “There’s man for you, blaming his boots the fault of his feet.” The absurdity is having hope on the other than yourself and then blaming the other and not yourself and lacking the effort in doing so.

Camus’ discussion and Beckett’s “performance” present simple accuracy on how and what humans expect from the world and others; attempting to find the answer from another rather oneself only. What was similarly expressed in Camus and Beckett’s work is talking about suicide. At the end of Waiting for Godot, the characters proposed suicide if Godot were to not show up and in The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus defined suicide as a “serious philosophical problem”. For Camus, as expressed from Beckett, is that killing oneself amounts to confessing to the absence of a reason for living and if you cannot find that hope. This thought is common to be experienced amongst suicide along with other reasons alongside it. Camus’ means by absurd is seeking the value of human life and the ability to finding the purpose in it, if there is any. How that is represented in Beckett’s play is that the characters, Vladimir and Estragon, are attempting to find this person named Godot and finding this person means finding ultimate truth and having life-purpose. What Camus was trying to get at, in regards to Beckett, is that Godot [purpose or whatever else] is something that has to be found within themselves.

The distinction of clock time and subjective time is one of the themes found in Waiting For Godot. Time in the play is subject to one’s mental condition. Didi and Gogos’ perception of time differs from other characters, as they doubt their very own concept of time. This leads them to doubt their very own existence. Actions are meaningless to them, their time does not flow with others, their very own existence can be mistaken for one of their dreams, they do not have a grip on their own reality. Time plays with them leading them in to sense of self and quickly taking it away as if they are being played with. Their life is characterized as purposeless, almost like a life without time. Time is given importance by our own thoughts and goals, Vladimir and Estragon have no such need for such concepts, this leads to play to have no need for time to exist either.

All that will remain are their hats of empty knowledge and vague memories of those they will come to meet or have already met. They wait by the only thing they know, a tree, and as they wait for Godot, the man who they hope will give them gold-dyed salvation, they wait aimlessly, wandering around a tree, wandering around time. After a while, this spiral movement gives the impression of being standing still alongside with time. It is in this very act that we experience the flow of time. When we are lively, we neglect the passage of time, but if we are waiting compliantly, we are confronted with the notion of time itself. Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot’s’ coming that will bring their flow of time to a stop.

At the start of the play they start to wait for Godot however Estragon realizes that they had already been here before.

ESTRAGON We came here yesterday.

Vladimir Ah no, there you’re mistaken. (Beckett 7)

It is Estragon who realizes that they are repeating their actions again, not Vladimir. Although Vladimir is considered to be the more intelligible one why is it that he cannot realize that he has been repeating his actions. This is due to his dulled senses of waiting without a purpose, he does not even realize why he is waiting, when he had started to wait, what he is waiting for, and even where he should be supposedly waiting.

The setting in the play is unknown and the two main character’s not having their own sense of time enforces the theme of time being subject to their understanding.

ESTRAGON (very insidious) But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday? (Pause.) Or Monday? (Pause.) Or Friday?

VLADIMIR (looking wildly about him, as though the date was inscribed in the landscape) It’s not possible!

ESTRAGON Or Thursday? (Beckett 7)

This reminds us that words such as Thursday and Friday are ultimately words we use to label time. These words however are also made up in themselves, and so in our own reality, we do not know what day it could be, because we gave it meaning ourselves.

POZZO You are severe. (To Vladimir.) What age are you, if it’s not a rude question? (Silence.) Sixty? Seventy? (To Estragon.) What age would you say he was?

ESTRAGON Eleven.

POZZO I am impertinent. (Beckett 21)

The notion of keeping track of time is absurd once more, with this portrayal of time in the play Estragon call Vladimir “eleven” just as easily as he could call him “seventy”. Answering Pozzo’s question and completely disregarding anything else, they see human interaction as a method of passing the time, however they are unable to grasp what human interaction is and simply ignores it all, enjoying it without an understanding of it.

POZZO That was nearly sixty years ago . . . (he consults his watch) . . . yes, nearly sixty. (Beckett 26)

Pozzo is the only character with a watch in the play, signifying he might have an idea of what the concept of time is. However he consults his watch to not tell minutes or hours but years. This further shows that Beckett has no intention of allowing the audience or the main characters gain a sense of self or time as he skews Pozzo to have lost or never have had common sense, using a watch to tell the time in years.

Vladimir comments on how fast time had passed since they had met Pozzo and Lucky, saying that their meeting only served to pass time faster than it would have normally.

VLADIMIR That passed the time.

ESTRAGON It would have passed in any case.

VLADIMIR Yes, but not so rapidly. (Beckett 38)

Passing the time until nightfall has become Vladimir’s sole objective; because of this obsession with time, people have become nothing more than entertainment, and he is unable of seeing people only as objects for his own amusement, not as humans.

VLADIMIR It’s always at nightfall.

ESTRAGON But night doesn’t fall.

VLADIMIR It’ll fall all of a sudden, like yesterday.

ESTRAGON Then it’ll be night.

VLADIMIR And we can go.

ESTRAGON Then it’ll be day again. (Pause. Despairing.) What’ll we do, what’ll we do! (Beckett 63)

We get a small glimpse of Estragon realizing that his time is motionless and when he does come to this realization he falls into despair only to be distracted moments later by his own surroundings. He realizes that time has stopped but is soon distracted by his own empty thoughts showing that they do not have a need for time because even if they came to the realization that time has stopped, they will simply forget about it, causing an endless cycle.

POZZO (violently) Don’t question me! The blind have no notion of time. The things of time are hidden from them too. (Beckett 80)

The realization that Pozzo has become blind leads the play into despair. Pozzo as the only character with a sense of time has lost it. He was obsessed with his watch but now he has resigned himself to being timeless, admitting that he has become blind to it and is unable to understand it. Without his notion of time he has been characterized as purposeless, before itching to progress throughout his day on he now lacks the concept of time to progress through his day.

ESTRAGON (violently) You let me alone. (Advancing, to the Boy.) Do you know what time it is?

BOY (recoiling) It’s not my fault, Sir. (Beckett 40)

Estragon seems to berate the boy for leaving him alone. Asking him whether or not he knows the time. This is an odd remark because not only should he have never met the boy as the boy does not remember him, but he asks what time it is. This quote strikes the theme of time because Estragon despite having no regard for time or a sense of it asks the boy for the time. Estragon realizes his purpose and why he is waiting when he sees the boy as he inches closer towards his “goal”.

‘You cannot take your bath twice in the same river’ ― Heraclitus

There is a ceaseless flow of water. So also there is a ceaseless flow of time. In Waiting for Godot, however, the flow of time has stopped. The play is static, the characters static. In fact, everything in the play has stopped. As the situations and the dialogues are being repeated, nobody seems to notice it. For everybody has lost their memory. The main characters suggest that they should move, and yet they remain unmoved as if terrified.

“A man who dares to waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life.” ― Charles Darwin

Vladimir and Estragon waste their time, waiting and hoping for Godot to come, spending days, weeks and even months. Just as the quote says Gogo and Didi haven’t discovered the value of life. They wait for someone to give it to them, leading them in an endless cycle of boundless suffering and waste.

“Time is a game played beautifully by children.” ― Heraclitus

The concept of Waiting for Godot is much like a child. A dreadful barrier, in which they can do nothing but endure. Waiting for someone who might never come, time plays with them like children, unable to do nothing but endure and go on with the wishes of time.

All children bless their parents in their own unique way. Hester’s only daughter Pearl continues as a true blessing in Hester’s life. Hester the wearer of the Scarlet letter is punished for committing adultery with the minister. The setting in the book takes place in the 1600s Boston in a Puritan society so the people remain extremely harsh and treat her like a disgrace to the town. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s, The Scarlet Letter, portrays Pearl as a blessing to Hester’s life because Hester only has her daughter as a companion, her only reason to live, and saves her from a life of darkness.

Hester has only her daughter Pearl as her only companion because in the start of the story they show Hester’s loneliness and her true depression with her life and only as a baby she still brings happiness and joy to Hester. When the townspeople yell nasty comments or even charities deny her service as a seamstress because of her scarlet letter, Pearl always supports Hester and loves her dearly. In the novel for example “Measured by the prisoner’s experience, however, it might reckoned a journey of some length; for, haughty as her demeanor was, she perchance underwent an agony from every footstep of those that thronged to see her, as if her heart had been flung in the street for them all to spurn and trample upon. (Hawthorne 17). They show how mistreated and disrespectful the townspeople treat Hester and Pearl. The charities or people in need will not even accept her donations because of the scarlet letter. Only Pearl treats Hester truly kind and truly loves her.

Hester’s one reason to stay alive and live her life is her daughter. Hester almost has had Pearl taken away from her by the magistrates because they saw her as an unfit mother, Hester begs and said they will have to kill her until they took Pearl from her. Hester already lost her husband and the man she truly loves, her daughter is her only form of happiness. She says “God gave me the child! He gave her, in requital of all things else, which ye had taken from me. She is my happiness” (Hawthorne 101). They look at Pearl as a demon or elfish child and as the living version of the Scarlet letter because of her mother and that she’s full of evil. Hester truly expresses how much she would sacrifice for her daughter. It shows the legitimacy of Hester’s love for her only daughter.

Pearl keeps Hester away from a life of darkness and sorrow. Hester was forsaken after she believed her husband passed away and fell in love with Dimmesdale, she would have lived a troubled lonely existence without Pearl being there to bring cheer in her mother’s life. Hester says ‘This child hath come from the hand of the almighty, to work in many ways upon her heart. It was meant for a blessing, for the one blessing of her life! It was meant, doubtless, for a retribution too, a torture to be felt at many an unthought of moment; a pang, as sting, an ever-recurring agony in the midst of a troubled joy’ (Hawthorne 105). This quote shows the appreciation and true significance of what Pearl means to Hester. Pearl is Hester’s only family and she would do anything for her daughter, Pearl gives Hester a new meaning to life. When Hester sees Pearl full of light and happiness it makes her peaceful. She opens Hester’s eyes to a better liveliness and a new positive way to look at life.

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s, The Scarlet Letter, portrays Pearl as a blessing to Hester’s world because Hester only has her daughter as a friend, her only reason to live or to be happy, and saves her from a life of dark sorrow. Pearl remains the light and joy that Hester needs to survive her miserable life. Her daughter can be a wild child and hard to handle but her existence means more than anything to Hester. Pearl opens the door of hope for her mother to enjoy her life and have a chance to live a blissful and fulfilled life.

One of the most prominent themes throughout Beckett’s works is the passage of time. This essay will explore the presentation of the passage of time in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Molloy. The characters in these works are utterly constrained by the ways in which time passes, has passed and will continue to pass; from Vladimir and Estragon who are condemned to spend their lives waiting for a person that may not even exist, to Molloy and Moran who find continuous loops in time and bend and contort it to fit their own needs and wishes. This essay will seek to compare and contrast these two separate treatments of time by focusing solely on the works themselves, rather than looking to contextualise them in the timeframe of Beckett’s own life (“his life was separate from his art” ); the understanding of the interpretation of time in each of these works is so uniquely different that an entirely new essay would be needed to explore the manner in which Beckett himself went from one presentation of time to the other. Thus, this essay will explore the presentation of time relative to the work in which it is portrayed.

The opening scene of Waiting for Godot immediately introduces the idea of the cyclicality of time. Estragon, we are told, “is trying to take off his boot. […] He gives up, exhausted, rests, tries again. As before.” The first spoken words of the play become the simple, thoroughly Beckettian phrase: “Nothing to be done.” The play’s second character, Vladimir, whilst “musing on [Estragon’s] struggle”, remarks that he, too, is “beginning to come round to that opinion.” The emphasis here is on the recurrent and repetitive nature of the passage of time, the cycle of struggling, giving up, and trying again, “as before.” That Vladimir is “beginning” to come “round” to this idea offers a paradoxical view of time, for there is no beginning nor end of a circle, just as there is no real beginning or end to Vladimir and Estragon’s struggle (of waiting for Godot). Thus, this very first concept of the play is not merely an observation of the cyclical perception of time, but that this cyclical notion is based solely on the endless suffering of humanity, seen by Estragon’s problem with his boot. Several lines later, there is an intriguing exchange between the pair, seemingly mimicking each other:

Estragon: [Feebly.] Help me!

Vladimir: It hurts?

Estragon: Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!

Vladimir: [Angrily.] No one ever suffers but you. I don’t count. I’d like to hear what you’d say if you

had what I have.

Estragon: It hurts?

Vladimir: Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!

This mirroring of words seems to portray the same idea of perpetual suffering; Vladimir up until this point is unconcerned with Estragon’s endeavour, instead offering his companion something of a conceited conviction: “all these years . . . but for me . . . where would you be . . .? […] You’d be nothing more than a little heap of bones.” Vladimir seems to emerge, briefly, from his supercilious obliviousness to ask Estragon if the boot is hurting him, but quickly retreats when he ignorantly (almost childishly) declares “I’d like to hear what you’d say if you had what I have.” Vladimir is manipulative, orchestrating his interaction with Estragon in such a way as to ensure the attention of his companion remains on Vladimir’s struggle, rather than offering assistance to a fellow man who not only needs it but repeatedly asks for it. When Estragon enquires “Why don’t you help me?”, the present tense of the question ‘why do you not’ rather than the future tense ‘why won’t/will you not’ draws the audience in to the present moment of time, where there is no looking to the future for relief or aid, but rather remaining in the current and existing distress and hardship. Vladimir repeats Estragon’s initial line, “Nothing to be done,” once again affirming the repetition of life’s struggle(s), whilst facing his own hindrance in the form of his hat: “He takes off his hat, peers inside it, feels about inside it, puts it on again”, reproducing the moment of Estragon’s original boot struggle. Both characters are trapped inside of their own issues, and their individual perceptions of life and the manner in which they spend their time stem directly from these issues. The same idea echoes in the title of the play, wherein its characters and audience remain trapped in the endless experience of ‘waiting.’ In making conscious efforts to focus in on the present moment throughout most of the play, Beckett appears to exhibit the continuous and perpetual strife of humanity.

Similarly, Molloy makes use of a present tense narrative, of which the namesake character states: “I speak in the present tense, it is so easy to speak in the present tense, when one is speaking of the past.” Molloy’s use of the present tense, however, is to fortify his “adamant refusal to believe that any sequence of events is causally connected.” Molloy disrupts his own narrative timeline, denying his own recollections: “Don’t talk to about the chambermaid. I should never have mentioned her, she was long before, I was sick, perhaps there was no chambermaid, ever, in my life. Molloy, or life without a chambermaid.” Of this unreliability of Molloy’s timeline, Brian Richardson claims:

Molloy’s fusion of recounting and invention ensures that we will never know what actually transpired and points to the tenuous foundations of any purported representation of events: it presupposes a causal connection between past actions and present narration that, as we see in this text, can easily be disrupted. […] Without causality, there can be no fidelity of representation.

Molloy’s treatment of time is irregular and erratic, and for this very reason it is near impossible to form an accurate understanding of his timeline. Molloy’s manner of perceiving time is very different from that of Vladimir and Estragon, who seem to accept the cyclicality of their time; for both Molloy and Moran, their existence lies within their own narrative: “If I go on long enough calling that my life I’ll end up believing it.” By writing their own lives, these characters render themselves completely unreliable as narrators. The time in their narrative changes as and when they decide it does; the laws of nature within their individual existence do not parallel or reflect those of the reader’s. They aren’t even certain that their own inventions hold any truth in their existence:

And truly it little matters what I say, this or that or any other thing. Saying is inventing. Wrong, very rightly wrong. You invent nothing, you think you are inventing, you think you are escaping, and all you do is stammer out your lesson.

This treatment of time means that they, too, are perpetually suspended in an endless form of suffering (“For in describing this day I am once more he who suffered it, who crammed it full of futile anxious life”); only when they cease to write do they cease to live and only then may they terminate their own suffering.

This idea is echoed in Waiting for Godot, when Vladimir and Estragon contemplate hanging themselves from the tree in the stage background. I will not attempt to argue for any Biblical allegory in the play, but I will postulate that Beckett assimilated Biblical references into Waiting for Godot perhaps to juxtapose the idea of eternal salvation with a meaningless existence. The tree is the only background prop in the play, and immediately invokes connotations of the crucifixion, whereby Jesus died for the sins of mankind. On the one hand, if Vladimir and Estragon were to ‘crucify’ themselves on the tree, it would mean that they gave their lives for nothing, parodying the story of the death of Jesus; it would also mean that where Jesus, the Son of God, was the only person that could take on all of the sins and suffering of the world, Vladimir and Estragon, two nobodies, could end their own suffering (and, subsequently, enter a state of non-suffering, which may or may not be paradisiacal) by ending their repetitive timelines. However, they decide against it, much like they decide against parting ways at the end of Act One; even though Estragon claims that they “weren’t made for the same road,” Vladimir replies that “it’s not certain”, and Estragon agrees that “nothing” is. The ‘nothingness’ could be interpreted as death, or the unknown; certainly, it must partly refer to the direction of the single road that leads to a place of uncertainty next to which the entire play takes place. In this moment, they know what they are doing –

Vladimir: […] 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.

Beyond that, to follow the road they can’t be sure of where it will lead to, is to look beyond what they know and attempt to exist beyond what the unsubstantiated and unreasonable authority of Godot will allow. Their entire existence, confined to this specific setting, will forever be encompassed by the theatricality of a stage setting, signifying the meaningless of their timelines.

On the other hand, the tree is alluded to in Act One when Vladimir attempts to recall Proverbs 13:12: “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life.” In Act Two, the next day, Vladimir acknowledges that “things have changed since yesterday” and continues to explain that the tree has been “covered with leaves” “in a single night.” According to the proverb, then, the unexpected fruitfulness of the tree would suggest that a desire has been fulfilled—of course, no desires have, as they find out that they are to wait another day for Godot’s arrival, making Vladimir’s declaration that something has changed nothing but an ironic one. This renders some of Beckett’s allusions and references without truth, sense or reason; they are completely spontaneous, as Vladimir and Estragon are not, and provide superficial or ostensible hope and relief in a world that ensnares humanity in a relentless cycle of time that does nothing but pass. It is as if they are content to continue their lives in passive waiting. That Estragon is aware that time “would have passed in any case” makes it all the more frustrating that even though he “can’t go on like this,” he is bound to the first line of the play that he utters: there is nothing to be done about their struggle. The passage of time in Waiting for Godot follows a cyclical timeline, and so does its logic. Beckett seems to mock the character of both Vladimir and Estragon, writing in Molloy: […] there have always been two fools, among others, one asking nothing better than to stay where he is and the other imagining that life might be slightly less horrible a little further on.

Vladimir and Estragon are these two fools: Estragon, proposing to part ways or leave their waiting place, and Vladimir, persistent in his refusal to admit that there might be something “slightly less horrible” in life than waiting for Godot. Contrastingly, Molloy decides “Molloy could stay, where Molloy happened to be.” In making this decision for himself, based upon nothing but whim, Molloy decides his own future, whereas Vladimir and Estragon are constrained to a future of perpetually waiting.

Beckett also makes use of the cyclical motif in the logic, rather than the direct time, of Molloy. Of course, to follow logic is an action that will take time. He writes: Having heard […] in the days when I thought I would be well advised to […] kill time, that when a man in a forest thinks he is going forward in a straight line, in reality he is going in a circle, I did my best to go in a circle, hoping in this way to go in a straight line […] and if I did not go in a rigorously straight line, with my system of going in a circle, at least I did not go in a circle, and that was something.

Although here Molloy is speaking of physically being lost in a forest, it follows that he himself refuses to allow the constraints of a consecutive, linear timeline to dictate his life by ensuring that his version of his life is something that is changeable and reflexive. However, in spite of Molloy’s everchanging life story, he does acknowledge the beginning of his life by acknowledging his mother. Beckett’s work is well known for the revulsion his characters feel at the idea of sexuality, reproduction, and the body in general. In Molloy, there is a sense of disgust at the sin of being born, something Beckett is known to have spoken about: “I know she did all she could not to have me, except of course the one thing.” For Molloy, the beginning of his life is where it all went wrong, and he takes his repugnance out on his mother for giving birth to him in the first place by treating her rather unkindly: “I got into communication with her by knocking on her skull,” and when his original method of administrating a certain number of knocks is lost on her, he decides instead to “[replace] the four knocks of my index-knuckle by one or more (according to my needs) thumps of the fist, on her skull.” Molloy states that he forgives her for having “spoiled the only endurable, just endurable, period of my enormous history” but clearly his treatment of his mother says otherwise. This shows that Molloy finds the passing of his time unendurable, and since Molloy is the narrator of his life, guarantees that his audience is aware of it.

Molloy’s mother appears to have at least a partial visual impairment, if not completely blind, and this could be said to be an indication of her incapability of looking beyond what she knows. Molloy states that “To know nothing is nothing, not to want to know anything likewise, but to be beyond knowing anything, to know you are beyond knowing anything, that is when peace enters in, to the soul of the incurious seeker.” Molloy’s mother, according to him, seems quite happy in her state of unawareness: “She knew it was me, by my smell. Her shrunken hairy old face lit up, she was happy to smell me. She jabbered away with a rattle of dentures and most of the time didn’t realize what she was saying.” Time, for Molloy’s mother, passes by peacefully for her, because although she may come across as being in a state of despair or suffering, she is in fact almost blissfully unaware of her own state and in this way perhaps understands that she is “beyond knowing anything.” Molloy himself has spent his time in search of peace, but he believes that the only way to reach this peace is to know that ‘knowing’ is nothing. Wolfgang Iser explains: “This knowledge in turn is directly relevant to those experiences which we know exist, but about which we also know that insight into their very nature is denied us. One of these is, of course, the end.” Iser continues that Molloy is incapable of reaching the peace he is searching for because he is incapable of not visualising ‘the end’ without images, which in turn become his “obstacles to peace, for one only creates images in terms of one’s own human reality, and it is exactly this reality of which one seeks to be free.” Where Molloy’s mother can spend her time tranquilly, Molloy cannot reach the same level of peacefulness because the notion of not-knowing is something that Molloy cannot achieve in the passage of his lifetime.

Sightlessness or impaired vision in Waiting for Godot can also be construed as an inability to look forward, to the future; again, confining the characters of the play in their present state of suspense. In Act Two, Pozzo becomes dependent on his servant, Lucky, because his eyesight has mysteriously deteriorated overnight. Perhaps this is to indicate that Pozzo can only see himself in life and is too selfish to look beyond himself. At the same time, Lucky himself also appears to show the signs of physical aging; Pozzo states that he has become “dumb. He can’t even groan” despite having launched into an extended monologue of nonsense and creating entertainment by dancing for Pozzo, Vladimir and Estragon the day before. This would indicate that there has been a further worsening of the communication between the pair, though they do remain interdependent. In fact, the laws of duality surface several times in the play. Pozzo and Lucky embody, of course, the Hegelian model of a master-slave relationship. Vladimir and Estragon are opposites, and dependent on each other; Estragon needs Vladimir to help him with mundane tasks such as removing a boot, whilst Vladimir relies on Estragon’s presence to give himself some kind of feeling of fulfilment, telling Estragon he should be happy:

Estragon: Happy about what?

Vladimir: To be back with me again.

Estragon: Would you say so?

Vladimir: Say you are, even if it’s not true.

And, later, Estragon invokes the story of Cain and Abel when mocking Pozzo. The play is full of opposites who are co-dependent of one another. Plato, when speaking on the unity and struggle of opposites, stated that “Existence is singular and plural, it is permanent and transitory, it is static and changeable, and it rests and moves. Contradiction is a necessary condition for the soul’s stimulus to thinking.” Both of these pairs, Pozzo and Lucky and Vladimir and Estragon, are necessary for each pair’s continued existence: Pozzo needs Lucky, even if he “can’t bear it . . . any longer” because the duality of their relationship requires them to stay together to sustain their meaningless existence. Similarly, Vladimir and Estragon, in spite of the several attempts to part ways, will continue their existence together because each of them requires the other in order to survive:

Vladimir: We can still part, if you think it would be better.

Estragon: It’s not worth while now.

[Silence.]

Vladimir: No, it’s not worth while now.

[Silence.]

Estragon: Well, shall we go?

Vladimir: Yes, let’s go.

[They do not move.]

The passing of time is limited to the relationship itself; Vladimir and Estragon, like Pozzo and Lucky, are destined to spend the rest of their lives together. That they are consistently annoyed, irritated and distressed by each other, yet they cannot live without each other. These characters must pass their time in struggle. Again, Beckett’s idea of human suffering is incorporated into the idea of opposites and the binary existence of which they are predetermined.

This essay has looked at the ways in which the passage of time is presented in both Waiting for Godot and Molloy. Beckett employs many different techniques to ensure that the portrayal of time becomes something unique for each of his works; for Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot, their time is a meaningless cycle of suffering, whereby these two characters are forced to share their existence together because of the duality of their relationship. For the characters of Molloy, Beckett relies heavily on writing the meaning of both Molloy and Moran’s existence on the terms of both individual characters. All of Beckett’s works are individual and unique to their own degree, but the importance Beckett places on the ideas of the cyclicality of time and human suffering are relevant to each piece of literature he has produced.

This essay will analyse and discuss the duality of pairing, doubling and binary oppositions in Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’. Waiting for Godot is an ambiguity which permits for a variety of readings, the play consisting of many interpretations that can exist alongside one another without being jointly exclusive. Duality is an important part of the play as it permits the use of foils, through the use of foils it highlights the practice of these doublings or pairings, to demonstrate the need for co-dependency. Pairing and doubling is also utilized in order to emphasize Becketts ideas on existentialism, applying this technique in the play through characters such as Pozzo and his slave lucky and Vladimir and Estragon. Lastly, Beckett at times may apply binary oppositions to emphasize underlining themes of freedom and confinement, also linking these themes to religion. Godot being the representation of a metaphorical God, present in the minds of many yet physically absent, omniscient. In regard to the binary opposition, religion can be embodied as a confinement, waiting and praying for something that will never reveal itself or come just like Godot, but can also be interpreted as liberating as religion often speaks upon humankind being given free will and morals. The play is said to conceal these literary techniques due to it being a successful representation of ‘absurd theatre’.

In ‘Waiting for Godot’ binary oppositions are illustrated through the themes of freedom and confinement. In the play many of the characters that we are exposed to in ‘Waiting for Godot’ seem to reside in a prison of their own making. The characters seem to be restricted to a state of passiveness and immobility by their absence of choice to act on their own accord. Beckett uses the character lucky, who is no more than a slave, to demonstrate that he is no more restricted than the others who consider themselves free; in actual fact, Lucky may be less restricted than the others because he is at least conscious of his confinement. Although Lucky is a slave, his masters are in more of a prison in their own consciousness, Lucky may be owned by someone and not in charge of his body or actions, however Vladimir and Estragon are in a confinement of their own mentality. This is evident where Vladimir and Estragon are shown to be metaphorical slaves bound to the concept of Godot and slaves to Pozzo whereas Lucky is given orders and told what to do, this at best offers Lucky a sense of security, something which the others crave. Another example of where this is evident is in Act 1, we gather that Pozzo deems that his doing is beneficial to lucky, that he is doing Lucky a service by enslaving him; and, in one manner, he is. This could be the explanation behind Beckett selecting that particular name for a slave who merely plays the part of a submissive slave, that Lucky should be considered lucky—someone is there to tell him what to do. If Lucky was left to his own devices much like Vladimir and Estragon, he would be just as helpless and miserable.

In Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’, pairing, doubling, is used to reflect that the conventions can be subverted, in this case to highlight the concept of human dependency. Beckett himself suggested that in order to survive, human beings must rely on each other in order to flourish and develop. Therefore, doubling is cleverly utilized through the characters in the play by pairing the characters in doubles. An example of this is clearly shown through Pozzo and Lucky, Vladimir and Estragon, but also the two messenger boys that make themselves known at the end of Act I and reappear in Act II. Vladimir and Estragon can be seen as a paring as the relationship between the two is something that is unbreakable, in ‘Waiting for Godot’, Vladimir acts as a metaphorical mind, combatting with theological and philosophical thoughts, whilst Estragon embodies the body, Beckett often portrays Vladimir as an intellectual whilst also portraying Estragon as the more materialistic individual who also only ever seeks bodily pleasures. One can say that the reason for Becketts pairing is that the characters fear loneliness and therefore are tied together, clinging onto the hope that they can establish any type of communication with one another. Another instance when doubling is used, is evident at the End of Act I and once again at the end of Act II as mentioned before, the messenger boy appears but as different people, the boys approach the tramp with the information that Godot will be coming that following day and displays no familiarity of coming with the similar message the day before. This is Beckett’s way of delivering the repetitive theme of hope as an illusion, however, is also his way of highlighting the cyclical sequence of everyday life. This theme is central to the play as a whole, as Beckett manages to embed and express his existentialist beliefs throughout his work even though there is a very short encounter with the boy on both accounts. However, these doublings and pairings such as Pozzo and lucky in particular can also be deliberate in order to highlight Becketts ideals on existentialism. These characters act as antithetical to one another, and they are forcefully bound to each other thus developing the ideas around using doubles to depict the forceful need of human dependency, although it is a forced relation, Pozzo still depends of Lucky not only as his slave but someone to share a human connection with, even if through meaningless conversations.

Furthermore, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot repetitively displays the concepts of instability and/or decidability, thus allowing a variety of interpretations whenever these binary items substitute places. The structure of play also highlights the dramatic divisions made by Beckett in order to make a statement about his ‘absurd’ play, to reveal the plays circular structure. It can be argued that the structure of the play in general acts as a pairing and division. A pairing because of its repetitive nature in which the actions in the first act are often repeated in the second act. A few example of where this is evident is once analysing the larger concepts of the play such as the repetition of trying to make time pass, waiting for Godot who never appears and their attempts to part with one another; these similarities are a pairing in itself. In summarisation, this altogether comes to be a juxtaposition in itself, however, it can go on to being interpreted that Beckett has written a two-pronged play in which both has no meaning. In continuance of this idea One could argue that there is no actual set in stone pairing or doubling or binary oppositions and is just one of the many forced interpretations because in reality Beckett wrote the play to have no simple meaning, with its no structure or plot or sense of time. It is an uncomplicated play with no plot, at the face of value it could be described as a play about nothing.

In the World War II, People lost their almost everything and the there is a gloomy life in thisperiod. Some play writers transferred this into literature by writing theatre, novel and poem. After all lived things, The Theatre of the Absurd showed up. The Theatre of the Absurd (French:théâtre de l’absurde[teɑtʁ(ə) də lapsyʁd]) is a post– World War II designation for particular plays of absurdist fiction written by a number of primarily European playwrights in the late 1950s, as well as one for the style of theatre which has evolved from their work. Their work focused largely on the idea of existentialism and expressed what happens when human existence has no meaning or purpose and therefore all communication breaks down. The structure was in a round shape and the finishing point was the same as the starting point. Logical construction and argument give way to irrational and illogical speech and to its ultimate conclusion, silence.

There are many representer of absurd theatre like Albert Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus ,1942 ) , Samuel Beckett (Waiting for Godot, 1952), Eugène Ionesco, Jean Genet, Arthur Adamov, Harold Pinter. Samuel Barclay Beckett (13 April 1906 – 22 December 1989) was an Irish novelist, playwright, short story writer, theatre director, poet, and literary translator. A resident of Paris for most of his adult life, he wrote in both French and English. Beckett’s work offers a bleak, tragicomic outlook on human existence, often coupled with black comedy and gallows humor, and became increasingly minimalist in his later career. He is considered one of the last modernist writers, and one of the key figures in what Martin Esslin called the ‘Theatre of the Absurd.’ Beckett was awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize in Literature ‘for his writing, which in new forms for the novel and drama in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation.’ He was elected Saoi of Aosdána in 1984. His the most popular work is ‘’Waiting for Godot’’. Waiting for Godot is a kind of ‘’The theatre of Absurd’’ .

Also the theatre has no introduction-body-conclusion like other theatres. It turns continuously where it started so it doesn’t like and undestand by viewers. However, Samuel Beckett dicussed ‘’extentialism’’ in this work. What is existentialism? Existentialism is a tradition of philosophical enquiry which takes as its starting point the experience of the human subject not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. It is associated mainly with certain 19th- and 20th-century European philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the belief in that beginning of philosophical thinking. It is exposed to a lot of criticisms by critics and playwriters. It was written after World War I , so we can see its effects on this work. People are hopeless about future and they starts to wait a hope saving them. Waiting for Godot has no certain place or time and it consists of two men , Viladimir and Estragon. In the Act I Vladimir and Estragon wait a man who never comes , Godot. They prefer to wait instead of act and they never do anything while they are waiting Godot. They never change their lives and this repetition is endless cycle of their lives.

Characters don’t move in any meaningful way and they claim this is because they have no uncertain consequences. The portrait of daily life in Waiting for Godot is depressive and reiterated. The solution seems like to act but the characters don’t do this because they wait Godot to save them. People generally wait another person to save them or they accuse another person or an object when they don’t want to take responsibility. We can see these in Waiting for Godot. Viladimir says ‘’ There is man all over for you , blaming on his boots the faults of his feet.’’ The central action of the play : waiting. They have nothing to do while they are waiting, they only sit, talk or stare. These things a test of their ability to endure. Their everday repeat in the same place and time lost its meaning in their life because they don’t know what they did yesterday or they don’t know what time is. Also they have no idea what will happen in the future. The other thing has no certanity is religion. Characters in the theatre try to understand religon but they are left in the dark. Religion is tied to uncertanity because there is no way to reason crisply about religion. But in Act I, Pozzo submit himself ‘’Fatalism’’. He says ‘’ Remark that I might just as well have in his shıes and he in mine. If chance had not willed otherwise. To each one his due.’’What is ‘’Fatalism’’? . Though the word “fatalism” is commonly used to refer to an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable, philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. Also in the theatre, we can see friendship between Vladimir and Estragon. Friendship is the another central of the play.

They are fundamentally isolated from each other. Reletionship between of them is about a fear of loneliness and an essential inability to connect. In the theatre stage, there is only a tree. Tree symbolises ‘’ Jesus’s cross’’. Jesus was crucified on a cross, but sometimes that cross can be referred as a tree. Characters , Vladimir and Estragon, want to hang on to this tree themselves to escape from everything because life is meaningless. When you kill yourself, you escape all responsibilities of life. Dead is the perfect escape. In the work, there are 5 characters , Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo, Lucky and a child. Vladimir is one of the two characters of the play. Estragon calls him Didi, but child calls him Mr. Albert. He wears a derby hat but it disturbs during the play.

However, it symbolises existentialism anxiety in his head. He is a reasonable, intellectual and sentimantal person. He tries to remember the past to understand him the meaning of existing. Estragon is the other main charater in the play. Vladimir calls him Gogo. He seems weak and helpless so he is destitute to Vladimir. He has a poor memory , every time he don’t remember what happened yesterday or who met they. He evokes sentimental aspects of people. He never thinks about human values and the problem of existing. Vladimir reminds him everthing. He wears a boat but it continuously disturbs him and he eates carrot. Like Vladimir’s deby hat , Estragon’s boat represents existentialism anxiety with pyhsical necessities. Estragon only thinks his feet or hunger.

Vladimir and Estragon don’t says their name’s because neither their existing nor their name is important. Also they don’t break up from each other because they know that they don’t achieve anything seperate from each other. Vladimir and Estragon represents people’s life because people remain between their physical necessities and thoughts. Pozzo represents ‘’power’’. He has a slave , Lucky, and he badly behaves him and never cares him. Lucky represents the intellectual and physical effort. Pozzo and Lucky go end of the Act I without knowing where they are going. In the Act II, Pozzo and Lucky come back as blind and mute. After this, Pozzo needs Lucky. This refers the downfall of society. The last characcter of the work is child. It represents the purity because he does what is said him.

Bibliography

1. Existentialism – https://www.wikizero.com/en/Existentialism
2. Fatalism – https://www.wikizero.com/en/Fatalism
3. https://www.wannart.com/
4. https://www.wannart.com/
5. https://www.wikizero.com/en/Fatalism
6. https://www.wikizero.com/en/Existentialism