Miscellaneous Critics on Waiting for Godot

Nothingness

“Accordingly, any interpretation that purports to know who Godot is (or is not), whether he exists whether he will ever come, whether he has ever come, or even whether he may have come without being recognized (or possibly in disguise) is, if not demonstrably wrong, at least not demonstrably right” (Hutchings 27).

“Although works of the theater of the absurd, particularly Beckett’s, are often comical, their underlying premises are wholly serious: the epistemological principle of uncertainty and the inability in the modern age to find a coherent system of meaning, order, or purpose by which to understand our existence and by which to live” (Hutchings 28).

Godot’s characters do not despair in the face of their situation, and this “perseverance remains constant throughout a body of work that, in the words of the citation awarding Beckett the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969 had ‘transmuted the destitution of modern man into his exaltation’ (qtd. in Bair 606)” (Hutchings 30).

“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 reader, like modern man, must not give into “the arrogant presumption of certitude or the debilitating despair of skepticism,” but instead must “live in uncertainty, poised, by the conditions of our humanity and of the world in which we live, between certitude and skepticism, between presumption and despair “(Collins 36).

Tragicomedy is life enhancing because it tries to “remind the audience of the real need to face existence ‘knowing the worst,’ which ultimately is liberation, with courage and humility of not taking oneself or one’s own pain too seriously, and to bear all life’s mysteries and uncertainties; and thus to make the most of what we have rather than to hanker after illusory certainties and rewards” (Esslin, Theater 47).

“Act II. The next day. But is it really the next day? Or after? Or before?” (Esslin, Presence 109).

Many details point out the absence of (meaninglessness of) traditional time, which is just one of many ways that the play resists interpretation and meaning:

“People misunderstand it on all sides, just as everyone does his own sorrow. Explanations flow in from all quarters, each more pointless than the last” (Esslin, Presence 110).

Some of the many attempts to impose meaning on the play include