Waiting For Godot

Waiting for Godot
(Samuel Beckett)
Waiting for Godot (/ˈɡɒdoʊ/ GOD-oh) is a play by Samuel Beckett in which two
characters, Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), engage in a variety of discussions and
encounters while awaiting Godot, who never arrives.
PLOT / SUMMARY
Two men, Vladimir and Estragon, meet near a tree. They converse on various
topics and reveal that they are waiting there for a man named Godot. While they wait,
two other men enter. Pozzo is on his way to the market to sell his slave, Lucky. He
pauses for a while to converse with Vladimir and Estragon. Lucky entertains them by
dancing and thinking, and Pozzo and Lucky leave.
After Pozzo and Lucky leave, a boy enters and tells Vladimir that he is a
messenger from Godot. He tells Vladimir that Godot will not be coming tonight, but that
he will surely come tomorrow. Vladimir asks him some questions about Godot and the
boy departs. After his departure, Vladimir and Estragon decide to leave, but they do not
move as the curtain falls.
The next night, Vladimir and Estragon again meet near the tree to wait for Godot.
Lucky and Pozzo enter again, but this time Pozzo is blind and Lucky is dumb. Pozzo does
not remember meeting the two men the night before. They leave and Vladimir and
Estragon continue to wait.
Shortly after, the boy enters and once again tells Vladimir that Godot will not be
coming. He insists that he did not speak to Vladimir yesterday. After he leaves, Estragon
and Vladimir decide to leave, but again they do not move as the curtain falls, ending the
play.
“Waiting for Godot” as an Absurd Play

Critic Martin Esslin wrote a book titled “Theatre of the Absurd” that was
published in year 1961. It dealt with the dramatists who belonged to a movement called
“Absurd Theater” though it was not regular. Samuel Beckett was one of those dramatists
who had largest contribution in “Absurd Theater”. His play “Waiting for Godot” also
belonged to the same category and was called absurd play.
No clear definition of theater of absurd is available. However, Martin Esslin
provided an informal definition of absurd plays and “absurd theater” in following words:
“If a good play must have a cleverly constructed story, these [plays of absurd] have no
story or plot to speak of; a good play is judged by subtlety of characterization and
motivation, these are often without recognizable characters and present the
audience with almost mechanical puppets; a good play has to have a fully explained
theme, which is neatly exposed and finally solved, these often have neither a beginning
nor an end; if a good play is to hold the mirror up to nature and portray the manners
and mannerisms of the age in finely observed sketches, these seem often to be
reflections of dreams and nightmares; if a good play relies on witty repartee and
pointed dialogue, these often consist of incoherent babblings.”(Martin Esslin on absurd plays)
Characteristics of Absurd Theater:
From the above said remarks it is crystal clear that absurd plays were entirely
different from traditional plays. These remarks provide us following characteristics of
absurd theater:
 No story or plot
 No characterization and motivation
 Neither a proper beginning nor ending
 Unexplained themes
 Imitation of dreams or nightmares instead of nature
 Useless dialogues
“Waiting for Godot” fulfills every requirement of an absurd play. It has no story, no
characterization, no beginning nor any end, unexplained themes, imitation of dreams and
nightmares and above all it contains useless dialogues.
No story or plot:
“Waiting for Godot” does not tell any story nor does it has a plot. The play starts with
waiting and ends with it. Characters do not go anywhere. They stand still in front of
audience and do nothing except passing the ball. They talk and pass the time. The play
lacks action. Actions of characters are not related to plot but to themselves. Vladimir and
Estragon wait for Godot and audience perceive that perhaps real story of the play will
start after Godot’s arrival but Godot does not appear on stage nor is he introduced to the
audience. Eventually, play ends with waiting. In this ways, “Waiting for Godot” fulfills
first requirement of an absurd play.
“Waiting for Godot” is Absurd Play due to Lack of Characterization :
We don’t know past of the characters. They are not introduced to the audience. We
know only their names and their miserable situation. Their motifs are unclear. Although it
is explicit that they are waiting for Godot yet it is not told to the audience that what
purpose Godot will serve if he comes. Hence, lack of characterization proves that
“Waiting of Godot” is a play of absurd theater.
No Beginning and End:
It has no beginning nor has any end. It starts with a situation and ends with it. Both
the acts start and end in same way. For instance, when characters come on stage they
reveal their purpose. They say they are waiting but Godot does not come and the act ends
with waiting. Second act is also the copy of first act with minor differences. The play
goes on and eventually ends with wait. Hence, there is no proper start of the play nor
does it has a proper end. It is a journey from nothingness to nothingness as observed by
an eminent critics.
It is a play in which nothing happens twice….

“Nothing happens, nobody comes … nobody goes, it’s awful!”.
Fulfillment of this requirement also proves that “Waiting for Godot” is an absurd play.
Useless Dialogues Make “Waiting for Godot” as an Absurd Play:
Most of the dialogues of this play serve no purpose. Incoherent babbling is also
important ingredient of theater of absurd as mentioned by Esslin. Whole play is based on
delivery of dialogues but most of them have no apparent meanings. Every dialogue is full
of symbols. Every word refers something in hidden meaning but it lacks the interest of
audience because it lacks action.
Dialogues create action in every play. Action looses its importance without worthy
dialogues. In case of “Waiting for Godot”, no action has been presented, therefore,
dialogues are boring and they are written just to pass the ball. Thus, they are meant to
pass the time. Word “nothing” has been repeated numerously in the play. It actually
indicates nothingness in it. Thus, dialogues of the play are nothing but incoherent
babbling. “Waiting for Godot” can be called an absurd play due to this trait of absurd
theater.
Unexplained Themes:
Unclear themes also make “Waiting for Godot” a play of absurd theater. Audience do
not observe any obvious theme in the play. Superiority of a play is always dependent on
its themes. “Waiting for Godot” has no obvious theme. If there is any, it is hidden.
Moreover, it presents individualistic vision of the writer. There is an effect of alienation
in the play with respect to themes.
Imitation of Nightmares:
This play does not hold the mirror up to nature. It does not portray the manners and
mannerisms of the ages. Esslin is true in his definition of theater of absurd. This play
“seem[s] often to be reflection of dreams and nightmares”.
At last but not the least, “Waiting for Godot” is entirely unconventional play. Samuel
Becket violated all dramatic conventions. Indeed, every ingredient of theater of absurd
has been fulfilled by him. Regardless of that this play is successful. He wrote this play to
break the rules of traditional dramatists. “Waiting for Godot” completes every factor of
theater of absurd, therefore, it can successfully be called the play of absurd.

Waiting For Godot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waiting For Godot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waiting for Godot

“Waiting for Godot” as an Absurd Play

Characteristics of Absurd Theater:

No Beginning and End:

It is a play in which nothing happens twice….

Useless Dialogues Make “Waiting for Godot” as an Absurd Play:

You might also like