'Waiting For Godot' By Samuel Beckett : A Brief Discussion.

Introduction : This blog is a response to the Thinking Activity assigned by my professor Dr Dilip Barad sir regarding the absurd play 'Waiting for Godot' (1952) written by one of the prominent figures belonging to the Theatre of the Absurd - Samuel Beckett.

In this blog, we want to discuss some chief aspects of the play. 

(1) In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this 'coming of night and moon' when actually they are waiting for Godot? 

Answer : The 'falling of evening into night' and 'rising of the Moon' can be interpreted as 'falling of hope into vast abyss of meaninglessness of existence' and 'rising of sorrows everytime after hope runs in vein.' 

Well, in the play it is just presented to display the passing of time which is aggravated by the constant waiting of Estragon and Vladimir for someone whose name is 'Godot.' 

There are many layers of meaning of the scene. 

(2) The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play? 

Answer : First of all, let us see that how the debris of setting is found in the play : 

'A country road. A tree. 

Evening. 

Estragon, sitting on a low mound, is trying to take off his boot. He pulls at it with both hands, panting. 

He gives up, exhausted, rests, tries again.' 

(Act I) 

As it has been the feature of any of the absurd plays, that lack of proper setting or sometimes no setting at all is felt. There is a meaning, but it is Existential one, that life is a brief series of meaningless events which cannot be defined and understood throughly, we have to live, for "we are condemned to be free." 

(3) Do you agree: "The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what - atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything - life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." ? (Source: E.G. Marshal said so - he played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s) 

Answer : As far as positivism of the play is concerned, it is open to interpret the play as a negative and positive one. When we use the word 'Life' we have to keep in mind that it is something beyond our control as well as imagination or knowledge. So, if one is suffering in the life, one would consider it as negative whereas another is joyful at the same time, the person would think of life as something positive thing to be lived. So, the ideas of 'Life' being positive or negative is entirely based upon individual experience, no one can claim that 'Life' is entirely negative or positive, it is open to be experienced in both ways. 

(4) Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable? 

Answer : The way Lucky is obeying his master Pozzo is a bit unsettling for  readers or spectators : 

'Enter Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo drives Lucky by means of a rope passed round his neck, so that Lucky is the first to enter, followed by the rope which is long enough to let him reach the middle of the stage before Pozzo appears. Lucky carries a heavy bag, a folding stool, a picnic basket and a greatcoat, Pozzo a whip.' 

(Act I) 

The description of Lucky and his slavishness are the evidences of to the extent he was enslaved by Pozzo. Lucky indeed is a slave who seems to have imposed slavery by himself rather than by his master Pozzo. 

It is flabbergasting to see that how can a person be a slave by his/her own will! The character of Lucky shows timidity in his character, his persona is not as what his name indicates it should be. 'Lucky' in fact 'Unlucky,' because slaves can never be lucky or fateful, they are always miserable under whip of their masters, even if the master is good, slavery is slavery by all means. 

(5) Do you think that plays like this can better be 'read' than 'viewed' as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to 'think'? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play? 

Answer : I opine that both the reading and watching should be done respectively. 

Both aspects have their pros and cons, but if rely on the pros of both the ways, then we will get better understanding of the play. 

First, the utmost intuitive reading should be done in order to know the context of the language used in the play, and further to know and understand the allusions like 'The Messenger Boy,' motifs like 'evening falling into night' and 'rising of the Moon' and some other major contexts are to be read with concentration and understood clearly. 

Then comes the part of watching the play - either being screened in digital display or enacted on the stage. This will help in growing the memory of what has been read and pondered, for audio-visual technique blends both the aspect of any drama, which are 'Action' 'Setting.' 

(6) Which of the following sequence you liked the most : 

(i) Vladimir - Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting 

(ii) Pozzo - Lucky episode in both acts 

(iii) Conversation of Vladimir with the Boy - the messenger of Mr. Godot 

Answer : I liked the sequence dialogues between Vladimir and Estragon who were killing time in questions and conversations while waiting for 'Godot.' This, I think, shows the human beings' waiting to find meaning during the course of life and til the death knock the door. But humans are in constant search of 'ultimate' meaning which does not seem to be done, for like Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for 'Godot' who never comes even after spending a huge amount of time in waiting, so is with human beings too, for we also keep on arranging discussion and debates on the topic of existence of God, what is beyond the sapce, which is the ultimate form of existence, what is the minutest element into existence? and so on and so forth - any of which we are never be able to answer. 

Conclusion : The play being an absurd play has the meaning to the life lived by humans in this meaningless existence and plight is that humans are running after something which is unattainable with the help of intellectual and material means. 

Thank you!