waiting for godot PDF

Preview

Summary

waiting for godot...

Description

B.A. English (H) V Semester Assignment – British Literature: Early 20th Century TAUSIF ASGAHR 2278 Q.1)Discuss the extent to which Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” is a picture of the myth of Sisyphus as presented by Albert Camus in his essay “The Myth of Sisyphus”.In what ways does the futility of life portrayed in the story fit the Greek myth? Support your analysis with details from the play.

In Waiting for Godot, Beckett often focused on the idea of “the suffering of being. ” Most of the play deals with the fact that Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for something to relieve them from their boredom. Godot can be understood as one of the many things in life that people wait for. Can a individual condemned to continuously turn over a immense boulder up a mountain merely to hold it turn over back down. Whether it could be said a good life? The position to exemplify that Sisyphus’ life does non suit within the definition of a good life and that it is nonmeaningful. It will be argued that it is impossible for Sisyphus to take a good life because of his uninterrupted, ineffectual undertaking that shows nothingness in his life of value. A good human life must include meaningful chances to rationally take from every bit good as sound societal healthy relationships. In the beginning we are thrown into the absurd situation and the conversation in which Vladimir and Estragon are in. We as readers have no idea how long they have been there or waiting already before we start reading. In the middle of the play the conversations are repeated over and over and nothing really makes sense. The ending is not clear in the play, it technically does not end however, it leaves the reader to wonder is that because the writer stopped writing. They say they are going to leave but they never actually do. Readers are left to wonder how long they actually wait and if Godot finally makes his way to see Vladimir and Estragon to discuss whatever they had planned to discuss. The theme as well as the plot express its sense of the senselessness of the human condition and the inadequacy of the rational approach Vladimir and Estragon themselves are stuck in the circle of life. If God and objective morality in the myth of Sisyphus are taken out of people’s lives, we are left completely free, but in an alien environment. This freedom shows itself in the play of “waiting for Godot” as the two characters, Estragon and Vladimir are isolated from society. We see that this isolation was a conscious choice on their parts as this is a dialogue between the two saying “we lost our rights” and the other replies

“no, we got rid of them”. This freedom leaves the characters confused and without obvious purpose. This freedom allows for the characters to make any choice they please, for example, to hang themselves or to leave. This freedom ultimately scares them as they do not want to take responsibility for their choices. In a dialogue it is said “what shall we do” and the other replies “nothing, it’s safer” It is due to this scaring freedom that Lucky is considered lucky as he does not have to make any decisions himself but is rather dependent on Pozzo for making his choices. Although the slave like nature with which Lucky is treated looks undesirable to the reader, it is implied by Becket that we ourselves make constraints and rules in order to give us some purpose. Before world war people were covered under by religious morals, but with the post war trauma, people began to question the validity of religion and rules that were made by society. The existentialist philosophers realized that when all the rules and guidelines are removed from our lives, we are left in a meaningless world we are ultimately “born astride a grave” (Pozzo). The path of life cannot be accurately speculated and is completely unknown. Throughout the play we come across hundreds of questions that have no answers, consequently paralleling our lives because we never understand what, where and how life has brought us to the present moment. The author chose to leave the interpretation to the audience. Another important issue in the play is the characters’ names. A person’s name is an important signifier of his existence, but the audience’s perception of the hobos or the hikers is confused since they go by many names given to them by different people. The hobos go by names including Vladimir, Didi, Albert, Estragon, Gogo and Adam. There are no two people who call them the same name, as Estragon calls Vladimir, Didi, the boy calls him “Mr. Albert”, and Vladimir calls Estragon Gogo, but Estragon introduces himself to Pozzo as “Adam”. So who are they, and what are their identities? The audience is left in darkness about the identity of the protagonists whereupon the unknown becomes the most significant issue, as is typical in the genre of the absurd. Among the little information given about everything we are supposed to assume that the tramps are waiting for Godot to come as Vladimir says “In this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. “We are waiting for Godot to come” Nevertheless, the audience is in a complete fog when it comes to Godot’s identity. After such a long time waiting they still doubt the name of the person they have been expecting; Estragon asks “His name is Godot? , that too in dismay .

Q.2) Compare and contrast the relationships in Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” between Estragon and Vladimir on the one hand and Pozzo and Lucky on the other. What do these relationships say about alienation and mutual dependence? Do you think Beckett presents these character duos to exemplify his notion of ‘freedom’ and ‘slavery’ in the context of his understanding of the human condition? Support your arguments with specifics from the play.

Waiting for Godot, written by Samuel Beckett, is a tragicomedy about two men waiting for a person or thing named Godot. The play entitles two contrasting pairs of characters, Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky. These sets of characters differ greatly and they create effect of humanity. The main difference between the pair’s relationships would be their dependency on each other, their level of compatibility, and their development throughout the play. Furthermore, both pairs of characters have relationships that are different, but these differences are significant to the play. It is clearly established that Vladimir and Estragon have a significant diverse relationship as compared to that of Pozzo and Lucky. Correspondingly, Vladimir and Estragon, also known as Didi and Gogo, are introduced as being mutually dependent. For instance, Estragon is in need of assistance to remove his boots, and he relies on Vladimir to help him. It is also recognized that what qualities and strengths Estragon lacks, Vladimir compensates, and vice versa. This dependency is proved when Estragon repeatedly asks if they can leave, and Vladimir must remind him that they cannot as they are waiting for Godot. Similarly, during the play Vladimir always wakes Estragon from sleeping to keep him company. For Estragon’s lack of memory, Vladimir compensates, and for Vladimir’s loneliness Estragon compensates. In the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon, this inability of the two to control themselves is particularly obvious. Each frequently expresses a desire to leave the other. As Estragon says I’m going. (He does not move) (Beckett 1.6). Ironically, Estragon says one thing and does another. It is the contradiction between the spoken word and the stage directions that provides the humor. (He expresses the desire to leave but lacks the control over himself to actually do so.) There seems to be a disconnect here between mind and body which is further emphasized when they try to discern why they never leave each other.

ESTRAGON: You see, you feel worse when I’m with you. I feel better alone too. VLADIMIR: (vexed) Then why do you always come crawling back? ESTRAGON: I don’t know (Beckett 2.115). The tragedy of their relationship is that they would be better off without each other. They are happier alone, but continue their relationship without knowing why. Most of us can relate to this sentiment, and furthermore, to how painful it is to see the better option and to choose the worst. Vladimir and Estragon state that they do not know why they do not control themselves; however, it seems to be a matter of familiarity. As human beings, we typically flock towards things that we know because our instinct is to be afraid of unfamiliar things. This is why Vladimir and Estragon remain together and precisely why they are not able to exert control over themselves. Alternatively, Pozzo and Lucky have a very unbalanced relationship. Meaning that Pozzo is more dependent on Lucky then Lucky is dependent of Pozzo. It is clear that Pozzo is very dependent of Lucky, even though he says he is bringing Lucky to sell him at the fair. Pozzo is dependent of Lucky, because Lucky has been working for Pozzo for nearly sixty years. Lucky carries Pozzos bags and his stool, and he listens to every one of Pozzos ridiculous commands. Lucky however is not dependent on Pozzo because he seems to be capable of taking care of himself. For example, when Lucky is told to think, he gives a long lecture of thought. Another interpretation is that Pozzo is God like, and where Lucky seems mankind. Perhaps Pozzo is really Godot, as he was mistaken for Godot, or maybe Pozzo is just there as a deception. Lucky wants to satisfy Pozzo with lowly acts of obedience (according to Pozzo’s own explanation of Lucky’s actions), while Pozzo seems quite apathetic to Lucky’s deeds and plights. However, in the second act, Pozzo needs Lucky to exist, because Pozzo is blind. Perhaps this is similar to the theory that God would not exist if man did not believe in Him. Pozzo and Lucky are easily compared as the oppressed masses and the wealthy oppressors. If the author is trying to be a social critic, he could be saying that the oppressed are dumb and fool (Lucky is mute), or maybe he is merely showing humans at their most awful. Mutual dependence is a recurring theme in the play. Vladimir and Estragon depend upon each other (as companions), and Pozzo and Lucky are dependent upon each other. Didi and Gogo have been together for at least fifty years, and Gogo has left Didi and returned many times. Obviously, they need each other to survive. Pozzo depends on Lucky for labor and entertainment, and then for sight. Indeed, it is appropriate that Pozzo talks of listening to Lucky think for him (guide), and then he needs Lucky to guide him in a very literal sense. The other dependency is

subtler. Vladimir and Estragon represent body and soul. However, they must not be separately identified (one is the body, the other is the soul), for they are both two halves of a split being. They always want to deny Self (separating themselves). It is most clear that both are one at the few moments when they agree with one another, when they complete each other’s thoughts, or even when they say the same thing, two voice united as one. In explaining Lucky’s behavior, Pozzo says, “Why he doesn’t make himself comfortable? Does he have not the right to? Certainly he has. It follows that he doesn’t want to. He imagines that when he see how well Lucky carries he’ll be tempted to keep him on in that capacity. As though Pozzo were short of slaves. Despite his miserable condition, Lucky does not seem to desire change. Perhaps he is happy, or maybe not miserable enough. Perhaps, as the duo of Vladimir and Estragon, he cannot envision himself any differently. The relationship between Pozzo and Lucky does not, however, stagnate at this point. The very next day, when the two next appear, the rope between them is significantly shorter so that the now-blind Pozzo may find his way. In this new situation, it is less clear which character leads the other, or if either one is truly in control. As the stage directions read, “Pozzo is blind… Rope as before, but much shorter, so that Pozzo may follow more easily. ” For the first time in the text, Pozzo is dependent on Lucky for direction; Lucky is dependent on Pozzo for the same reason, though this relationship is one of emotional, rather than physical, dependence. The shortness of the rope, necessary because of Pozzo’s blindness, affects their relationship; their new-found closeness makes it difficult for Pozzo to dominate and for Lucky to be truly servile and completely pathetic. As the story evolves, after bumping into Estragon, Lucky falls, drops everything and brings down Pozzo with him. They lie helpless among the scattered baggage. The two men, one disabled with blindness and the other on the verge of death, are unable to rise off the ground, from which Pozzo hopes to ascend but cannot without assistance. He calls pathetically for help rising from the ground, which shows his despair....