Waiting for Godot is a play in which two characters are waiting for someone who never comes. We can say that Waiting for. Godot is a play that explores themes. UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. FREDERIC WOOD THEATRE. Presents. Samuel Beckett's. WAITING FOR GODOT. Directed by. Stanley Weese. II, Apr-Jun ISSN: WAITING FOR GODOT: A DISPARATE TEXT Javed Akhter M Phil Scholar Department of English Literature and Linguistics.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|ePub File Size:||30.58 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.33 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Waiting for Godot -- Act 1 portal7.info portal7.info[4/24/ PM]. Waiting for Godot tragicomedy in 2 acts. By. Vladimir (advancing with short, stiff strides, legs wide apart). I'm beginning to. Do you WAITING FOR GODOT_WAI Waiting And Dating. 42 Pages·· PDF | This study tends to delve into the different facets of the play Waiting for Godot on a postmodern bedrock, where the role of modernism cannot be.
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Waiting For Godot: A Disparate Text. Javed Akhter. The different occurrences of conflicting and contradictory meanings within the text of the play show existence of the late modernist bourgeois ideology. This paper aims to reflect on the significance of ideology to articulate Post-Structuralist Marxist theory of decentred or disparate text.
It reveals conflicting, disparate and contradictory meanings within the text and between the text and its ideological content. However, Samuel Beckett tries to create a logo in the symbol of Godot whom the tramps wait. However, Godot does not make his appearance in the play. Nevertheless, many critics are still hopeful of his coming.
Who or what Godot stands for? This question remains insoluble from beginning to the end in the play. The critics make different interpretations of the logo-centred Godot in a variety of ways. Some critics suggest the meaning of God as inaccessible Godot. On the contrary, some other critics interpret it death, some kind of future utopia and national liberation.
Catherine Belsey said that ideology is engraved in each and every utterance and use of language but there are some other signifying systems of the social formation also where its presence can be traced easily: The following dialogues between Vladimir and Estragon reflect the use of the sign of doubt, which is ideological construct. This reflects the presence of the late modernist bourgeois ideology in the text of the play: The Bible… He reflects.
I must have taken a look at it. Do you remember the Gospels? I remember the maps of the Holy Land. Coloured they were. Very pretty. The Dead Sea was pale blue. The very look of it made me thirsty. Ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story? Shall I tell it to you?
Two thieves, crucified at the same time as our saviour. Out what? Our saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other…. Saved from what? The late modernist bourgeois ideology shattered the religious beliefs of modern man. In the feudal era, religion was an ideological practice, which played its significant role to recruit the subjects in a specific power apparatus, and at the same time, it strengthened the other powerful ideological signifying practices.
In modern era of capitalism, religion was replaced by doubt, reason, and Godless ideology. Existential absurdity of human existence is one of the ideological basics of the text.
The vertical repression and layering or sedimentation is dominant structure of the text of the play. Existential myth about the meaning of life and absurdity of human existence is ideological context of the play. In this way, it shows many themes of existentialism of which absurdity and futility evidently found their source in Nietzschean nihilism, what kinds of things are possible if God is dead. As Fredric Jameson interprets the play: Samuel Beckett uses the symbol of Godot in the play, to portray human situation in modern capitalist social formation and this conflict comes to a head in the meaning of Godot, in which the text of the play is ambiguously torn between contradictory meanings.
It celebrates at the same time that industrial capitalism has victimized human beings, who have become exploited, suffered, inhuman, bewildered and threatened by powerful exploiting forces of the bourgeoisie.
Finally, the play tries to make us believe that any action to change the prevailing modern capitalist system is futile, absurd and impossible. In this regard, there is coexistence of two kinds of utterances in the text of the play, which is typical of the text and is the juncture that is distinct, and an ideology, which is confused, making the work literary piece of art. Samuel Beckett has shown in the play that one cannot isolate ideological utterances and consider them as independent realities, as enclave: One could say, to take up a vocabulary already familiar: The present paper concludes that the play presents an essential characteristic of human situation, which emphasizes suffering, absurdity, futility, angst and nothingness of human existence.
The play also shows class relations in depiction of Master-slaves relationship between Pozzo and Lucky, which is a bleak reference to the exploiting and exploited classes and nations in the modern capitalist world.
At the same time the play makes us believe that people wait something, which does not materialize in the modern capitalist social formulation, just as expected Godot does not appear in the play.
The present study may prove useful and helpful to suggest clues to the unexplored and untapped areas of the play for future research scholars. For Marx. Paris, France: The Penguin Press. Lenin and Literature and Other Essays. Ben Brewster. London, Great Britain: New Left Books. Arianrhod, Robyn. Imagining the World through Language of Mathematics. University of Queensland Press. Bair, Deirdre. Samuel Beckett: A Biography.
New York: Simon and Schuster. Becket, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Faber and Faber. Belsey, Catherine. Critical Practice. Bloom, Harold. Modern Critical Views. New York, USA: Chelsea House Publishers. Chatterjee, Abhinaba. Waiting for Godot In Lapis Lazuli: California, USA: Salem Press.
Diamond, Elin. University of Technology. Eagleton, Terry. Estragon asks if they are "tied" to Godot and Vladimir says that they are. The two are interrupted by a loud scream off-stage. Pozzo and Lucky enter. Pozzo drives Lucky forward with a whip like a pack animal, with a rope tied around his neck.
Lucky is forced to carry Pozzo's things. Estragon asks if this is Godot, but then Pozzo introduces himself. He jerks the rope that is around Lucky's neck and calls him "pig. Pozzo eats some chicken and Estragon begs him for the leftover bones. Pozzo gives him the bones. Vladimir is outraged at Pozzo's horrible treatment of Lucky and wants to leave. Pozzo tells him to stay, though, in case Godot should show up. Estragon asks why Lucky doesn't put down his bags. Pozzo says that Lucky has the right to put them down and be comfortable, so he must be carrying them because he wants to.
He says that Lucky is trying to impress Pozzo so he won't get rid of him, because Pozzo has plenty of slaves. Pozzo says he plans to sell Lucky at a fair.
Lucky begins to cry and Pozzo gives Estragon a handkerchief to bring to him. Estragon approaches Lucky and Lucky kicks him violently in the shin. Pozzo then begins to cry, saying that he "can't bear it. Pozzo collects himself and looks for his pipe, which he has misplaced.
He makes a speech about night and twilight, then asks if there's anything he can do for Estragon and Vladimir, since they have been nice to him.
He offers to make Lucky dance, recite, sing, or think for their entertainment. Lucky dances and his hat falls off. Pozzo says that Lucky needs his hat to think, so Vladimir places it back on Lucky's head and Lucky launches into a long, rambling monologue. Pozzo prepares to leave and says goodbye to Vladimir and Estragon, but doesn't move.
Pozzo and Lucky eventually leave, and Estragon wants to leave as well, but Vladimir tells him they need to stay and wait for Godot.
A boy comes onstage, bearing a message from Godot. He says Godot will not come today, but will come the next day. He tells Vladimir that he works for Godot, minding his goats, and says that Godot is a good master.
The boy leaves and Estragon and Vladimir are ready to leave for the night. They say they are going to leave, but stay still. The first act ends. The second act begins the next day, in the same location and at the same time. As such, since the first appearance of the duo, the true slave had always been Pozzo.
His rhetoric has been learned by rote. Pozzo's "party piece" on the sky is a clear example: as his memory crumbles, he finds himself unable to continue under his own steam.
Little is learned about Pozzo besides the fact that he is on his way to the fair to sell his slave, Lucky. He presents himself very much as the Ascendancy landlord, bullying and conceited. His pipe is made by Kapp and Peterson , Dublin's best-known tobacconists their slogan was "The thinking man's pipe" which he refers to as a " briar " but which Estragon calls a " dudeen " emphasising the differences in their social standing. He confesses to a poor memory but it is more a result of an abiding self-absorption.
That's why he overdoes things These were things Beckett said, psychological terms he used. Lucky is the absolutely subservient slave of Pozzo and he unquestioningly does his every bidding with "dog-like devotion".
Lucky speaks only once in the play and it is a result of Pozzo's order to "think" for Estragon and Vladimir. Pozzo and Lucky have been together for sixty years and, in that time, their relationship has deteriorated. Lucky has always been the intellectually superior but now, with age, he has become an object of contempt: his "think" is a caricature of intellectual thought and his "dance" is a sorry sight. Despite his horrid treatment at Pozzo's hand however, Lucky remains completely faithful to him.
Even in the second act when Pozzo has inexplicably gone blind, and needs to be led by Lucky rather than driving him as he had done before, Lucky remains faithful and has not tried to run away; they are clearly bound together by more than a piece of rope in the same way that Didi and Gogo are "[t]ied to Godot".
Beckett struggled to retain the French atmosphere as much as possible, so that he delegated all the English names and places to Lucky, whose own name, he thought, suggested such a correlation. The boy in Act I, a local lad, assures Vladimir that this is the first time he has seen him.
He says he was not there the previous day. He confirms he works for Mr.
Godot as a goatherd. His brother, whom Godot beats, is a shepherd. Godot feeds both of them and allows them to sleep in his hayloft. The boy in Act II also assures Vladimir that it was not he who called upon them the day before.
He insists that this too is his first visit. When Vladimir asks what Godot does the boy tells him, "He does nothing, sir. This boy also has a brother who it seems is sick but there is no clear evidence to suggest that his brother is the boy that came in Act I or the one who came the day before that. In the first Act, the boy, despite arriving while Pozzo and Lucky are still about, does not announce himself until after Pozzo and Lucky leave, saying to Vladimir and Estragon that he waited for the other two to leave out of fear of the two men and of Pozzo's whip; the boy does not arrive early enough in Act II to see either Lucky or Pozzo.
In both Acts, the boy seems hesitant to speak very much, saying mostly "Yes Sir" or "No Sir", and winds up exiting by running away. Godot[ edit ] The identity of Godot has been the subject of much debate. It is just implied in the text, but it's not true. The first is that because feet are a recurring theme in the play, Beckett has said the title was suggested to him by the slang French term for boot: " godillot , godasse ".
The second story, according to Bair, is that Beckett once encountered a group of spectators at the French Tour de France bicycle race, who told him "Nous attendons Godot" — they were waiting for a competitor whose name was Godot. This seemed to disappoint him greatly. But you must remember — I wrote the play in French, and if I did have that meaning in my mind, it was somewhere in my unconscious and I was not overtly aware of it.
However, "Beckett has often stressed the strong unconscious impulses that partly control his writing; he has even spoken of being 'in a trance ' when he writes. Unlike elsewhere in Beckett's work, no bicycle appears in this play, but Hugh Kenner in his essay "The Cartesian Centaur"  reports that Beckett once, when asked about the meaning of Godot, mentioned "a veteran racing cyclist, bald, a 'stayer', recurrent placeman in town-to-town and national championships, Christian name elusive, surname Godeau, pronounced, of course, no differently from Godot.
Beckett himself said the emphasis should be on the first syllable, and that the North American pronunciation is a mistake. Borchardt checked with Beckett's nephew, Edward, who told him his uncle pronounced it that way as well. Two men are waiting on a country road by a tree. The men are of unspecified origin, though it is clear that they are not English by nationality since they refer to currency as francs , and tell derisive jokes about the English — and in English-language productions the pair are traditionally played with Irish accents.
The script calls for Estragon to sit on a low mound but in practice—as in Beckett's own German production—this is usually a stone. In the first act the tree is bare.
In the second, a few leaves have appeared despite the script specifying that it is the next day. The minimal description calls to mind "the idea of the lieu vague, a location which should not be particularised". In Act I, Vladimir turns toward the auditorium and describes it as a bog.
In the Cackon country! Interpretations[ edit ] "Because the play is so stripped down, so elemental, it invites all kinds of social and political and religious interpretation", wrote Normand Berlin in a tribute to the play in Autumn , "with Beckett himself placed in different schools of thought, different movements and 'ism's.
The attempts to pin him down have not been successful, but the desire to do so is natural when we encounter a writer whose minimalist art reaches for bedrock reality. There are ritualistic aspects and elements taken directly from vaudeville  and there is a danger in making more of these than what they are: that is, merely structural conveniences, avatars into which the writer places his fictional characters.
The play "exploits several archetypal forms and situations, all of which lend themselves to both comedy and pathos. Of course you use it. As far back as , he remarked, "Why people have to complicate a thing so simple I can't make out. Although he had overseen many productions, this was the first time that he had taken complete control. Walter Asmus was his conscientious young assistant director.
The production was not naturalistic.
Beckett explained, It is a game, everything is a game. When all four of them are lying on the ground, that cannot be handled naturalistically.
That has got to be done artificially, balletically. Otherwise everything becomes an imitation, an imitation of reality [ It should become clear and transparent, not dry. It is a game in order to survive.
Beckett himself sanctioned "one of the most famous mixed-race productions of Godot, performed at the Baxter Theatre in the University of Cape Town , directed by Donald Howarth , with [ The Baxter production has often been portrayed as if it were an explicitly political production, when in fact it received very little emphasis.
What such a reaction showed, however, was that, although the play can in no way be taken as a political allegory , there are elements that are relevant to any local situation in which one man is being exploited or oppressed by another. Graham Hassell writes, "[T]he intrusion of Pozzo and Lucky [ This, some feel, is an inevitable consequence of Beckett's rhythms and phraseology, but it is not stipulated in the text.
At any rate, they are not of English stock: at one point early in the play, Estragon mocks the English pronunciation of "calm" and has fun with "the story of the Englishman in the brothel". Dukore defines the characters by what they lack: the rational Go-go embodies the incomplete ego, the missing pleasure principle : e go- e go. Di-di id-id — who is more instinctual and irrational — is seen as the backward id or subversion of the rational principle.
Godot fulfills the function of the superego or moral standards. Pozzo and Lucky are just re-iterations of the main protagonists. Dukore finally sees Beckett's play as a metaphor for the futility of man's existence when salvation is expected from an external entity, and the self is denied introspection.