The purpose of human life is an unanswerable question. It seems impossible to find an answer because we don't know where to begin looking or whom to ask. Existence, to us, seems to be something imposed upon us by an unknown force. There is no apparent meaning to it, and yet we suffer as a result of it. The world seems utterly chaotic. We therefore try to impose meaning on it through pattern and fabricated purposes to distract ourselves from the fact that our situation is hopelessly unfathomable. "Waiting for Godot" is a play that captures this feeling and view of the world, and characterizes it with archetypes that symbolize humanity and its behaviour when faced with this knowledge. According to the play, a human being's life is totally dependant on chance, and, by extension, time is meaningless; therefore, a human's life is also meaningless, and the realization of this drives humans to rely on nebulous, outside forces, which may be real or not, for order and direction. The basic premise of the play is that chance is the underlying factor behind existence. Therefore human life is determined by chance. This is established very early on, when Vladimir mentions the parable of the two thieves from the Bible. "One of the thieves was saved. It's a reasonable percentage" (Beckett, 8). The idea of "percentage" is important because this represents how the fate of humanity is determined; it is random, and there is a percentage chance that a person will be saved or damned. Vladimir continues by citing the disconcordance of the Gospels on the story of the two thieves. "And yet...how is it - this is not boring you I hope - how is it that of the four Evangelists only one speaks of a thief being saved. The four of them were there - or thereabouts - and only one speaks of a thief being saved" (Beckett, 9). Beckett makes an important point with this example of how chance is woven into even the most sacred of texts that is supposed to hold ultimate truth for humanity. All four disciples of Chirst are supposed to have been present during his crucifixion and witnessed the two thieves, crucified with Jesus, being saved or damned depending on their treatment of him in these final hours.
In ‘Waiting for Godot’, we know little concerning the protagonists, indeed from their comments they appear to know little about themselves and seem bewildered and confused as to the extent of their existence. Their situation is obscure and Vladimir and Estragon spend the day (representative of their lives) waiting for the mysterious Godot, interacting with each other with quick and short speech.
Everyone faces a challenge in life that has the ability to change it. As we all ponder the ideas that everything happens for a reason. We can all attest that the ability to progress in life one must be challenged, its a great way of creating character. What are the reason for such prelude situations to happen to people that negate the facts of who they are. As I analyze the situations that part take during this play, I will demonstrate that everything happens for a reason.
Does Existentialism deny the existence of God? Can God possibly exist in a world full of madness and injustice? Albert Camus and Samuel Beckett address these questions in The Plague and Waiting for Godot. Though their thinking follows the ideals of existentialism, their conclusions are different.
Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot asks that same question. Is there more to life than simply knowing things? The two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, seem not to know anything at all, even the reason why they come to the same tree to wait everyday for someone named Godot. They constantly have to remind one another why they are there and waiting. Is there really any purpose to their lives? Beckett seems to think that the answer, not only for Vladimir and Estragon, is no. There is no meaning to the monotonous existence that we put ourselves through day after day after day. If indeed Beckett is symbolizing God as the man Godot who the naïve fools constantly wait for, he is also insinuating that they are wasting their lives because Godot, or God, is never going to come. Either He does not really exist or He does not care enough about these poor, gullible fools to come. Beckett is trying to show that civilization needs to rid itself of its "misconceptions" about the existence of God; that these people who have "got religion" are wasting their time waiting around for a being that either does not exist or does not care. Either way, Beckett thinks they are wasting their time.
Humans spend their lives searching and creating meaning to their lives, Beckett, however, takes a stand against this way of living in his novel ‘Waiting for Godot’. He questions this ideal of wasting our lives by searching for a reason for our existence when there is not one to find. In his play, he showcases this ideology through a simplistic and absence of setting and repetitious dialogue. Beckett’s ability to use these key features are imperative to his ability of conveying his message of human entrapment and existence.
From the moment that the curtain rises, Waiting for Godot assumes an unmistakably absurdist identity. On the surface, little about the plot of the play seems to suggest that the actions seen on stage could or would ever happen. At the very least, the process of waiting hardly seems like an ideal focus of an engaging and entertaining production. Yet it is precisely for this reason that Beckett’s tale of two men, whose only discernable goal in life is to wait for a man known simply as Godot, is able to connect with the audience’s emotions so effectivel...
‘I feel that I had been at the frontier of existence, close to the place where they lose their names, their definition, the place where time stops, almost outside History’ (E Ionesco).
Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot has been said by many people to be a long book about nothing. The two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, spend all their time sitting by a tree waiting for someone named Godot, whose identity is never revealed to the audience. It may sound pretty dull at first but by looking closely at the book, it becomes apparent that there is more than originally meets the eye. Waiting for Godot was written to be a critical allegory of religious faith, relaying that it is a natural necessity for people to have faith, but faiths such as Catholicism are misleading and corrupt.
Irish-born French author Samuel Beckett was well known for his use of literary devices such as black comedy in his various literary works. Written during late 1948 and early 1949 and premiered as a play in 1953 as En attendant Godot, Beckett coupled these devices with minimalism and absurdity in order to create the tragicomedy known to English speakers as Waiting for Godot. True to its title, Waiting for Godot is the tale of a pair of best friends known as Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo) who are waiting for the character the audience comes to know as Godot to appear. Throughout Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett alludes to the monotheistic religion of Christianity through symbols, dialogue, and characters to reveal the heavy invisible influence of God in the daily life of man.
In Samuel Beckett Tragicomedy Waiting for Godot he begs the question of life and death. Throughout the commotion of the play Becket addresses the age old debate of the afterlife and if people willingly pass this life to enter into Gods kingdom or if God calls them. Beckett introduces characters such as Estragon, Vladimir, and Lucky to illustrate the different types of perspectives that man has taken on this debate.
Closure is a very important aspect of a narrative. Closure or the lack of it accomplishes the goal of a creating a text which readers would want to continue reading to find out the ending, it helps to lead the reader on. The term “closure” according to Abbott is “best understood as something we look for in narrative, as desire that authors understand and often expend art to satisfy or frustrate” (Abbott, 57).In the play Waiting for Godot, the lack of closure is very evident throughout it. This play significantly follows the hermeneutic code, the level of questions or answers. This code has allowed for the author to grasp the attention of the readers, due to the reason people like to find and understand closures, but also allowing the author to not give a closure. Moreover, the type of play, which is an absurdist, is an important part of the reason behind this play lacking a closure. The definition of absurdist is: “A writer, performer, etc., whose work presents an audience or readership with absurdities, typically in portraying the futility of human struggle in a senseless and inexplicable world; esp. a writer or proponent of absurdist drama” (OED). The absurdist genre allows for the play to not directly answer the questions, but to leave it open so that the reader can interpret the actions to their liking, just as they would interpret situations in real life, where no events are written in stone. The dialogues and the whole picture of the play allows for easy examination as to how the above claims work out. Using the hermeneutic code, and the absurdist genre, along with a lack of closure, the author has written Waiting For Godot a play written to make the audience think.
“Many relate the play to existentialism…:God is dead, life is absurd, existence precedes essence, ennui is endemic to the human condition…In many ways, such a reading is an evasion of the play’s complexity, a way of putting to rest the uncertainty of one’s response to it” (Collins 33).
The setting is the next day at the same time. Estragon's boots and Lucky's hat are still on the stage. Vladimir enters and starts to sing until Estragon shows up barefoot. Estragon is upset that Vladimir was singing and happy even though he was not there. Both admit that they feel better when alone but convince themselves they are happy when together. They are still waiting for Godot.
...on. Vol. 34. Georgia State University, 2001. 39-53. H. W. Wilson Web. 22 Mar. 2004.
Although Samuel Beckett's tragicomedy, Waiting for Godot, has no definite meaning or interpretation, the play acts as a statement of hopelessness regarding human existence. Debate surrounds the play because, due to its simplicity, almost any interpretation is valid. The main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, are aging men who must wait for a person, being, or object named Godot, but this entity never appears to grace the men with this presence. Both characters essentially demonstrate how one must go through life when hope is nonexistent as they pointlessly attempt to entertain themselves with glum conversation in front of a solitary tree. The Theater of the Absurd, a prevalent movement associated with Waiting for Godot, serves as the basis for the message of hopelessness in his main characters. Samuel Beckett's iconic Waiting for Godot and his perception of the characteristics and influence of the Theater of the Absurd illustrate the pointlessness and hopelessness regarding existence. In the play, boredom is mistaken for hopelessness because the men have nothing to do, as they attempt to occupy themselves as, for some reason, they need to wait for Godot. No hope is present throughout the two-act play with little for Estragon and Vladimir to occupy their time while they, as the title indicates, wait for Godot.